Is your real name Glen Sacks?

I should note that I've never heard of Glen Sacks - not a regular enough Broadsheet reader I guess.

I was using "you" in the general sense - bad grammar. Meanwhile though, I do disagree with you on this issue. That said, I would, on consideration, label your comments here as bilious and hateful. You like quotes, so here are a few. Reading them, please imagine yourself sitting at a table with a few people and making these comments to various of them during a relatively brief conversation. If you did, you would likely come off to some as a jerk, and to others as psychotic. I'm not saying that you are a jerk or psychotic, because, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think that you, or most anonymous posters, would say these things in the flesh:

"I realize that smears and defamations are no big deal for Broadsheet"

"Because you are afraid to read links that may have "bad" information in it, Joe, that's why you don't understand these things, and why we know you best as DubiousJoe"

To Mireille:

"You will do well as a member of the Stasi in East German when the Revolution comes"

"Mireille for your attempts to suppress open discussion, I salute you with the Feminist Poison Sumac Cluster"

"Sorry PetBoy, in her scheme even good old new aged sensitive porn addict you would simply not be needed by your Japanese wife."

"Lynn, maybe you and Melissa should get together and burn some books."

"Enjoy your Holiday. Choke on your own stuffing."

When I read these comments, my main thought is "Yipes - we've got a possible beltway sniper in the making!" Is that how you mean to come off? Do you actually talk to people this way in your day-to-day life? I don't know. My point is that, if this were not an anonymous forum, you might have to think a bit more, insult a bit less.

On a brighter note, I say lets leave these arguments aside and give thanks for another year, a tumbler of glenmorangie on ice, family kids all cranky and cute, turkey induced laziness, tipsy aunts, and a fat juicy book waiting on the bedside table.

And I'm Canuck, so I had my Thanksgiving weeks ago. But still, enjoy!

Where have I attacked you, ad hominem or otherwise?

Anonymous,

You're are absolutely right about anonymity being important in some scenarios, such as when a person needs to report a serious or serious-seeming contravention of ethics or law, and may face reprisal for doing so.

Then there's the other use of anonymity, which does not enjoy the same legitimacy. That is when some 14 carat asshole uses the cover of anonymity to spew hateful bile, engage in ad hominem attacks, and other forms of communication that they would be ashamed to post under their own name. Censure is not the same as reprisal. For instance, even if you just hate women, you might have some inkling that misogynist posts will cause others to think you are a hater, and a boor. So you post anonymously. But any argument that you're anonymity is necessary and should be protected is vulnerable to a very simple question. "Why?".

This is not exactly a Karen Silkwood situation. You are not blowing a whistle, you are expressing an opinion without 'manning up' (or 'womaning up'!). This is wanting to be an asshole without being called out as such. This is wanting to post often, without allowing others to see the body of your posts and come to conclusions about your overall bent. This is freedom to post contradictory, even hypocritical posts, without being called on them. But, most depressingly, your anonymity allows you to cast off the restraining binds of civility.

Many have tried to define what lifts one country above another and provokes admiration. I think that it is civility. I do not mean manners either. I mean reasoned discourse, participation in politics at all levels, and societal structures which help those at the margins to participate.

Anonymity is not a right - and taking responsibility for the things you say shows that (a) you've thought about it, and (b) you stand by what you've said. When people do those two things, then discourse tends to be intellectually superior, passionate, and thought-through. There is great value in freedom of speech, but one of the values is not that anyone can say anything without identifying themselves. That is more of a regrettable side effect of free-for-all venues like the Internet. Not all forums should allow anonymity. Some should - a forum that is in place to allow whistle-blowing by vulnerable employees, for example. But let us not stretch the concept of whistle-blowing to the point where it no longer has meaning.

compare...

Nicole Kidman circa 1988 in the movie dead calm:

http://www.independentcritics.com/images/dead%20calm%20SPLASH.jpg

Nicold Kidman now:

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/events/NTR-000041.jpg

Most notably, her upper lip has been extended and plumped, likely through collagen injections. Her nose has been shaped and slimmed slightly at the tip, and her eyebrows and forehead have been pulled back, leading to that permanently arched, tight, doe-eyed look. Plus her naturally curly red afro has been replaced with straight blond tresses. I don't think it's taboo or tasteless to mention these things. Unnatural beauty is not the same as natural beauty, and it's good to know that not every Hollywood starlet was born with plump, pouty lips, a button nose, and straight blond hair.

I second that vote for Cary Tennis. He is compassionate, poetic, liberal - but still solid on family values. He actually seems to think and care about his readers and letter-writers. Plus he's cute.

Runners up: Farhad Manjoo, Glenn Greenwald, and Gary Kamiya!