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!

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.

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.

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.

Lonewolfy, I'm confused. What more would you like me to do besides say, as I did in the post, that I will do my best to stop pointing to racism as a reason people bash Bonds? And then to reply to people who bashed Bonds by saying they're entitled to their opinion about Bonds? I think I'm doing what you're asking; what am I missing?

And you can see the video of my Newt moment on our Video Dog blog. Soon I'll be able to upload video here, too.

biff, I wasn't being sarcastic. Thank you for your advice.

To the Bonds haters, I say: You are certainly entitled to your opinions. That's grace, one day at a time.

But after my long piece about the way letters/comments can get nasty, I have to say I really appreciate the kindness and courtesy of people reading my blog yesterday. I came home from our Opening Day debacle expecting nasty comments about my poor team from, I don't know, Dodgers fans or something. Or comments about Barry's base-running from Bonds haters. But none of that. Thank you! I appreciate your sympathy and restraint in my hour of loss. It's a long season!

Hi biff, thanks for your advice. I did in fact remind Joe that Rep. Frank Wolf and other Republicans had just gone to Syria, too. Nancy Pelosi has nothing to apologize for, so I don't really think that line of reasoning plays out well. Gingrich apologizes again and again, yet continues his hypocrisy. I usually prefer to keep my retorts above the belt, but there's very little of Newt Gingrich that's above the belt.

New Deal Democrat, I agree it was unprofessional, and I don't respond that way anymore. Besides, God bless you is turning out to be more effective.

Irving143, I'm honored that you agree with me! I actually do have Republican friends and family members, not just my pals on "Scarborough Country." Increasingly more Republicans are agreeing with me, and I appreciate their open minds about this president and this war.

Cordelia525, thank you!

Great idea, b.t., thanks. And yes, Little Brother, there's still too much cutting and running out there.

The idea of founding Catholics for Freedom from Bigotry is a nice tribute to Frances Kissling, who just retired from Catholics for a Free Choice. I dedicate my Bill Donohue blogging to Frances, who fought him so well for so long (and who will I'm sure keep doing so.)

Domini, thank you, I agree with you. I took pains not to state that Jesus was black, just probably more chocolate than the standard vanilla art we see. But my coverline about "the myth of a white Jesus" skewed the reaction. And it was my coverline; the brave new world of blogging means I can't blame those nasty headlines on anyone else.

I'm downright ashamed I'd never heard Tom Waits's "Chocolate Jesus." I'll download it tonight, thanks!

Anon, honestly, I didn't delete your letter. I've deleted exactly three letters in all these blog threads, and yours wasn't one of them. Are you sure you posted here? Or could it have been in Glenn Greenwald's 2 Politico threads? Or Tim Grieve's?

El Ranchero, just a quick reply...It's their newness to the Web that made me think twice, not a generic aversion to criticizing other media. (I had no trouble slamming Adam Nagorney's NYT piece on the "perils" of the Democrats' big gavel, or MSNBC's echoing that line.) Since its founding, Salon has regularly called out our "competitors" on their mistakes and bad judgment. We found an audience in the early years largely through reporting critically not only on impeachment and the Starr investigation, but also on the awful coverage of those issues by the media.