Phew.

It's nice to see all the regulars showing up and claiming their own names. And I'm glad to see so many people welcome this step. We kept the anonymous option because of all the issues posted here; some people prefer it for important reasons. And we also felt the registration hurdle would cut down on the anonymous drive-by insults that add nothing.

As I said, we'll continue to look for improvements, and we appreciate your feedback. We'll investigate the preview issue some of you are seeing and try to perfect that. On the font issue, I'm agnostic, but we'll keep listening. On the font size: Once I realized I needed to wear my glasses all the time when on the Web, I stopped being sensitive to that issue. We'll look at that too.

Thanks everyone.

LeCastor, I'll ask about page titles, I hadn't noticed that before.

Ken Erfourth, I'm glad you made sure to grab your own name quickly because I wouldn't want some random Joan Walsh back-patter to have gotten there first! I'll ask Heather if she wants to take on the task of communicating Salon changes like this to readers; I'd enjoy that too. Puts a whole new spin on "I Like to Watch."

Thanks, everyone.

david sugarman, I do like people's passion for Salon letters. Everyone's, including yours.

It's not quite correct to say I don't know what I want. I do: I want letters threads where people passionately debate all the ideas we passionately raise in what we passionately publish. Without personal attacks that are insulting just for the fun of insulting -- whether that means sexist/sexual attacks or the many other kinds of regrettable insults (the ones that in fact diminish the person who wrote them more than the person on the receiving end.) But it is true that we don't quite know how to get there. And this thread is very helpful. Thanks.

Hingly, I hope you'll hang in. I truly believe the registration process we added today will cut down on some of what irks you. And let us know if it doesn't!

Welcome Garry Owen! It really is nice to see so many people showing up.

david sugarman, thank you for the nice words. You know I don't want to ban you. But I would like it if you posted somewhat less. You tend to dominate threads and people tune you out after a while. I believe you are trying to communicate, so that's an outcome I don't think you want. Just my two cents.

Matty D., I'm curious why you don't think this is a good place to announce changes like this. Curious, not insulted -- just wondering why. Obviously Table Talk isn't the right place, since it's members only. I have written Letters from the Editor before, and my voice seemed to be coming from on high. I kind of liked this, because I think people's growing familiarity with my level of tolerance for dissent makes this a good place to discuss issues where we disagree. But maybe I just feel that way because the feedback has mostly been positive. Are you saying...no, I'll just leave it as a question. One that I might not answer until I get back after the weekend, but...I try to answer!

Anonymous, if you've read our letters and comments over the last year, or week, and you think we're censoring people who raise issues that might divide Democrats (or embarrass Salon)...well, you haven't been reading very closely.

I've fallen behind in replying and I'm not sure where to start, but: Garry Owen, I was watching Dan Abrams last night, too. I have no insight on the Fox/MSNBC feud, but it seems to be real. I was ambivalent: It's been great to have a mainstream media outlet calling Fox what it is, but the Imus segment seemed a little ginned up. And yes, it was six men discussing Imus (thank God for John Ridley, they weren't all white) and none of them thought he should be fired.

I'm also ambivalent about saying Imus should be fired. In most cases I agree with readers who say, if you don't like him, don't watch him. (I say that about columnists people don't like on Salon.) But the fact that this is part of his schtick isn't a defense, it's part of the problem. And there was something so aggressively clueless in his self-defense -- as in, I don't have to care about these questions of race, but I do care about saving my skin -- that it pushed me over the line. Then there's a part of me that's not ambivalent in the least: He said "nappy-headed hos." Nappy-headed hos? Yes, "hos" is awful, but nappy-headed hos is in its own special category. Can you really say "nappy-headed hos" on CBS and MSNBC without consequence? I sure hope not.

And to people comparing him to rappers -- I hate the misogyny of some rap music, too. I lecture my daughter about it all the time and frequently turn off the radio. But when 50 Cent has a drive time radio show and the morning slot at MSNBC, let's debate this. Imus is a mainstream media figure who gets his ring kissed by other men of the MSM and countless politicians. There's really no comparison.