I have posted as 'anonymous' a few times.

I don't use it as a cover for some asinine personal attack, I have used it to conceal from the other readers (we are all known to the interests that run Salon.com) my involvement in some areas of the topic under consideration.

I have only posted a few times (Salon.com would know how many) and don't try to abuse the privilege by using it as a cover to harass other people posting here.

Anonymity can be a powerful tool and a powerful weapon.

Since Salon.com knows who is posting as 'anonymous' and who is sniping from behind that cover, I'd be all in favor of Salon either identifying that/those persons or of Salon.com barring that/those person/people that abuse the privilege that 'anonymous' provides.

We are allowed to post here at the pleasure of the owners and those that don't respect the rules and insist on using features meant for one purpose to exact their own petty vendettas on others should be dealt with without removing a feature that does come in handy from time to time for other users.

Barring repeat anonymous snipers the ability to shoot from the safety of 'dense cover' is acceptable to me. Removing the perceived benefits of that cover for realistic reasons isn't.

In regards to the two Opus panels, I have only to shake my head. Cowardice takes many forms.

If addressing the anonymous issue has to be a 'one size fits all' solution, then I must sadly say that removing the feature will be acceptable. Wading through post after post of childish sniping to pick the meat off the bones is tiring, tedious and often extremely frustrating.

I still feel it is a high price to pay for childish actions of some, but have been on other sites that dealt with the snipers by eliminating the 'anonymous' option and the sites survived, although it did dampen some discussions...

The Senate democrats are throwing us a bone, not unlike the republicans.

I feel so cheap...

I'm tempted to cheer this news, but after the screw job we've gotten in the FISA act redo and many other areas, I resent them playing this issue. But it does work for the republicans...

I feel used, played... This is like a pat on the head...

Just what I didn't know that I didn't want.

With Sony's hatred for Apple and Macintosh, I'm sure that they have found a way to make it incompatible with the ipod.

I saw adds for this in London. Couldn't figure out what it was. Figured out that I didn't need, or want, it.

Am I in bed with MoveOn?

If you were, you'd be getting that 'old fashioned' man on woman sex type thing. The type that the fundies cover their ears and gouge their eyes out over.

Hey, not that 'Hey, I want to divorce you and marry this tramp I've been shagging in an apartment paid by the City of NY.' or some joker furiously tapping their foot in the mens room at the local, apparently, mens room...

We democrats, and liberals, know good sex... Jesus just nods and God smiles and the freaked out fundies and the uptight (and closeted gay job) republicans shake in their boots...

Sex is dirty... If you do it right... :-)

But seriously... The right wing hypocrisy is just overflowing... They have to love Craig. There's probably hundreds of them in their closets just a shaking and quaking lest they be outed and potentially replaced by a Democrat governor...

And just in the nick of time, MSN has a puff piece about Crocs's on their main page!

A connection? If I was a cynical man I'd say YES!

So, is there a connection? HELL YES!!! Cover the bad news with a puff piece on MSN's home page. Sounds like a plan.

You decide: http://tinyurl.com/3dstba (If it still works)

But hey. This is George W. Bush's America! Don't worry, be happy and 'go shopping'. "Now, watch this drive..."

So much of being sexy is in your own mind.

It's hard not to believe that eating better and avoiding the pharma-food that eating animal tissues has become is better for you.

So much about sexy is self confidence. I find that commercial sexy because she wants me, the viewer, to find her sexy. Will it make me convert to a vegan lifestyle? I'm already most of the way there...

Is the ad disgusting or dirty? No. To describe that ad in those terms is what is disgusting and dirty.

To say that it's disgusting insults the female form. To do that denies your humanity. But, hey you tut-tuters, you 'holier than thou'ers: Let's take up chisels and hammers and carve the 'naughty bits' off the statues again. It accomplished so much the last time...

The Democrats DON'T CONTROL CONGRESS!!! People!!!

If that doesn't end as a point in the media and among our much revered pundits then the election is going to go decidedly against the democrats in 2008!

WHEN the democrats have over 60 votes in the senate, THEN you can crow about 'controlling Congress'. UNTIL that happens, don't say it!

It WILL come up in the next election on how the Democrats 'controlled' Congress and got absolutely NOTHING DONE!