It's ironic that in some ways we've lost degrees of sophistication in what we expect from content management tools.

Of course I know what you mean... this "Letters to the Editor" section, though, is not even pretending to be a "content management tool." It's a minimal post-commenting function, that as far as I know has gotten exactly two upgrades (bold/ital/blockquote and no anonymity) since I started commenting here in '06.

I am fairly certain that the number of programmer-hours that will be devoted to upgrading Salon Letters in this time of falling revenues is zero.

So we're left with your original workaround, then: scroll past what you don't want to read, and try not to suck. Doable, IMO.

It isn't easy to refrain from criticizing intentionally disruptive writing, however.

I understand. But to what end?

I am reminded of the immortal words of WOPR, who, discussing Global Thermonuclear War, called it "[a] strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

How about a nice game of chess?

There's nobody here to make or enforce "rules..." but I'd support it as a guideline.

Please, folks. Maybe we could just, you know, try it. For a day.

I'd like it if this drift could stop.

No offense intended. As a general statement, I think some people understand me better than others - whether that is true or not - and some tend to shoot down what I have to say just because it comes from me. I tend to generalize from my own experience.

My point was more just some meditations on the potential of using "self-policing" as a passive-aggressive way of carrying on flame war by other means... and ways I myself might avoid that.

...perhaps drop a friendly reminder if someone you generally agree with starts to get personal? For example, heru-ur wouldn't listen to me, but he might listen to Sinnard. I might not take it from WinSmith but a stern word from Jebbie would shut me up.

Just a thought.

I read your linked comment. I read Glenn's linked comment. If you had't said "special," but used some other word, I can't imagine how it could be different. I don't see how the full contaxt chnges the point at all.

Glenn noted you're particularly emotional about this issue. From your last spittle-flecked comment (c'mon, WinSmith, say it with me: "you're a liar! A LIAR!!"), it sure seems so.

You may not like the implication, but where's the "lie?"

"Mathematics" is one of my favorite songs, any artist, any genre... and one of my favorite political texts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVZQdgVcqD8 at sig

If the laws are to be blindly obeyed in ALL cases, why is there a provision that allows the President to suspend the Constitution at all?

Stronger means are likely to produce even better results.

100% correct. We need stronger law-enforcement action to obtain better results. Your example is no more an argument for torture than it is an argument for using napalm to clean my toilet.

Thanks. Your work here is done for the day.

The plan was uncovered by monitoring a web site used by islamic extremists.

So in order to make your point that we need to use illegal surveillance and torture to prevent terrorism, you point to a totally legal, above-board FBI investigation.

Why, you almost make this sound like... a law-enforcement issue!

WAI DO U HATE TEH AMERICAZ????

You always leave out the point that some planned terrorist acts have been prevented.

You always leave out the point that it's only vague, unsupported assertions to that effect, made by the very agencies who claim to have prevented them.

If I told you, without providing any proof, that I'd saved you from paying a million dollar fine, would you pay me a 10% fee?

...about Binyam Mohamed and the rule of law, quaintly, still being upheld in the UK:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/27/britain

Be interesting if there'll be time for an actual conversation in the comments before yet another libertarians-vs-statists throwdown...

Dude. I am begging you. Think about it.

Think about what? Enlisting Glenn as the leader-in-waiting of an undefined, inchoate insurgency? Even if I thought that was a good idea, I really don't think that leadership is Glenn's strength... he's a polemicist, and fine at that.

If you were to ask me what should be done, I'd say trying to find a common agenda for the true "natural citizen leaders" - e.g: labor and church leaders, social activists, community group leaders etc. - to rally around. Then the leaders will be found... but not the other way around.

I'm not interested in supporting a leader in search of a movement. That ends only one way: in Obamaism.

Isn't refusing to pay our taxes en masse the only way to prevent them from printing the money and handing it to their cronies?

Only if you think they're handing out this year's tax receipts. System don't work that way.

Talk to Glenn for me will you please?

It's not his pidgin. Really, it's not... but if the ball gets rolling, he'll write one of the best histories.

Meanwhile, do your best to push the ball in the direction you'd like to see it go. I have a feeling that once the fucker starts to move it'll go way off into the weeds, but we'll see.