I come from the same part of the country as Lyons. I'm white, male, and over sixty. In general I agree with Lyons politically, but in this case I feel he made several serious errors.

To address one attitude that is being bruited about: If Gates did condescend to the cop--and I say IF--it wasn't smart, and we all know that. You don't give the cops grief, because, as NP NP says, they will fuck you up. We all know this.

However. That does NOT make it legal or right. You should not, in the United States of America, be able to arrest someone for not acting in a smart way. If that were possible, the streets would be empty and the prisons ten times as crowded.

But Lyons's most egregious error is in his contention that a cop cannot let anybody see a citizen put him down. He glossed over this as if it were well-known legal precedent. Why NOT, Lyons? That's exactly what a good cop should be able to do, distinguish between the bluster of a harmless old man and a genuine threat. Anything less is abuse of power.

And I believe Lyons referred to the necessity for a cop not to let a "crowd" see him get put down. What effing crowd? Nobody was there but Gates and the other cops.

Wasn't through but the fershlugginer letters system suddenly whacked out on me. Just this one more thing to say: I am will to believe Crowley is a good cop who had a bad moment. I wish he would admit it, though. I am willing to believe Lyons is a good writer who wrote a stupid column. Wish he would admit it, though.

You uttered the funniest and most wickedly accurate statement about Elephantman I have ever seen. Thank you, and congratulations!

And congratulations also to Lyons, who has attracted the approbation of said trunkface, tinfoil the first, and other loonies. Mighty fine company you're traveling in, sir.

I was waiting for somebody else to say something, since I have already said my piece on this thread, but as a liberal AND a lover of accurate language, I must point this out:

The correct verb is "cow," not "cowered." "Cower" is an intransitive verb and as such cannot be put into the passive voice. You may "cower" at intimidation from another, but you cannot "cower" another person, another creature, or a crowd. You may "cow" them.

I was ready to forgive Lyons for gross fatuity, on the theory that he was a good writer generally and screwed up just this once. This usage, however (accepted and repeated many times on this thread), makes the theory harder to defend. The man is not even master of his own language.

Of course your essay was opinion, Mr. Lyons. I think most people perceived it that way.

There is, however, a difference between stupid opinion and intelligent opinion.

Your opinion received received backing primarily from those who have not been notable for either truth or insight in the past, and those with whom you have most probably disagreed strongly.

As I said before, interesting company you're traveling in.

What do you mean, "us," paleface?

Aptly named, though I think "black hole" would be even more accurate. No light emerges.

I am reminded of the furor when a few archaelogists suggested that bones from Chaco Canyon and other sites showed marks that were evidence of cannibalism.

Why can we not learn that all humans behave in pretty much the same way? Do we require that a people be impossibly noble in order to refrain from plundering and butchering them? Is it not feasible to say, Yes, all human groups have done despicable things, but there is no virtue in arguing who was less despicable. What is far more important is treating each other decently now and in the future.

I propose a basic theorem: Any sufficiently large group of humans will display all the characteristics of the population as a whole.

I do not believe any exceptions to this theorem can be found, no matter what categories are chosen: men, women, dentists, Catholic priests, potsmokers, republicans, democrats, distance runners, indigenous tribes (and what does "indigenous" mean? Didn't we all begin in Africa?"), bankers, whatever. All will have roughly the same proportions of honest people, liars, greedheads, the generous, the kind, the cruel.

The import of course is that we are essentially the same, so let's lose both the self-righteousness and the guilt, and try to behave henceforward with reason and respect.

If I read a letter that seems to address what strikes me about a post, then I try to refrain from adding to the moil. But it seems to me that goeswithness deserves a great big AMEN for the statement that somebody so screwed up didn't just start being creepy yesterday.

The kind of massively screwed up psyche that can imagine killing someone else because of its own frustrations is already radiating BEWARE on all wavelengths. In short, Sodini killed three women because women could tell he was the kind of creep that could kill three women.

Actually, there are plenty of men who notice this sort of chilling freakiness too.

No observation about the predictable results of the "loneliness" of males is pertinent to the hideous nature of this behavior. Many many people are lonely for many many reasons. VERY few of them resort to murder.

YOUR FRUSTRATION DOES NOT WARRANT THE KILLING OF ANYONE. PERIOD. NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE. If you think it does, you are an unspeakable subhuman.

I say we should keep an eye on that sick "pickup artist" (what an insult that phrase is to artists) who wondered why it hadn't happened before.