The ferocity of attacks on Ann Bauer surprises me. She's a writer who took a job to pay the bills, got burnt out on it, and is telling us about the experience in a funny, nicely paced article that provides an outsider's perspective on what is, in many respects, a silly little world. That's all that's going on here, yet some letter writers are responding as though she has betrayed the craft.

Remember the publication she was writing for. Every major city has one or two. They indeed feature food on every other cover: Best Cheap Eats! Top Ten! Best New Restaurants! Fast-Rising Chefs! What's inside aren't even articles. Instead, it's all photos, lists, bullets, and sidebars ("Where Local Anchors Like to Eat!"). Half the time the content is heavily influenced by the writers' and editors' personal connections to various restaurateurs and other advertisers. Ever wonder why your favorite restaurant doesn't make your city magazine's Top 50 list? Probably because it doesn't advertise in the publication.

All you have to do is leaf through this kind of magazine to know that they provide a less than hospitable environment even for dedicated, passionate, professional food writers. Food porn is exactly what these publications are peddling. Bauer couldn't sustain her jones for it. Does that turn her into a ranting bitch?

By the way, it would be nice if her detractors at least acknowledged the article's readability. Whether or not they like Bauer, they certainly seem to have devoured her writing.

I wrote a long comment, then stupidly tried to edit my name/url and lost the whole damn thing. (Salon: You have to correct that feature; it's punitive), so instead I'll just say that the article has really stuck with me since I came across it last night. It's a headscratcher why someone would get a tattoo with someone she barely knows, much less discuss it beforehand with her kids. But the more I think about it, the more I think I understand what drove her to do it, and the less I can argue with Bauer's being so open about it. Why the hell not bring the children into the mix? Hers certainly don't seem to have been traumatized by it. The only thing I'd have added is an admonition to the kids never to get a tattoo above the collar line. THAT would be irresponsible.

In a world of chain restaurants and a state with more than its fair share of them, Hell's Kitchen is heaven sent, and Bauer captures the vibe in there perfectly. It's eccentric, unpredictable and, just as she describes, always delicious (I get the porridge, too). Knowing the story behind Hell's Kitchen just confirms that Mitch Omer is a hell of an asset to Minneapolis. That so much of the press he has received owes to Bauer suggests that maybe she was a more accomplished critic than she lets on.

Patrick Smith is a gigantic asset for Salon and for all its readers. He's a master explainer and an all-around superb writer.

I thought it was very well-written and clever. It's obvious to me that you have brought up a happy, well-adjusted son who doesn't have a homophobic bone in his body. It's obvious to me that this was satire. It's obvious to me that the article was making fun not of gay people, but of narcissistic mothers. And it's obvious to me that most of the letter writers are PC scolds who wouldn't be much fun to have as a mom, friend or coworker.

Try not to take the harsher comments to heart. They're written by people whose intentions aren't to question, correct, expand upon or explain. They're written by people who, for whatever reason, were looking for a reason to get angry, lash out and get the last word against someone they don't even know. Pathetic.

Good work on the article!

I just read your response to my letter. Of course, part of what makes Salon.com fun are the responses the articles generate. But just because one is provided a venue in which it's possible to act like a dick doesn't mean Salon is inviting you to be one.

And of course it's not your "job" to question, correct, expand upon or explain. They're just things that thinking people tend to do.

What's happening, though, is that many of the letter writers are indeed seizing this opportunity to abandon civility and lash out under cover of anonymity. It's easy and it can be fun and even cathartic to spew invectives at people you don't know (just like it's satisfying to flip off other drivers), but remember that the authors of these articles are people with feelings and inherent dignity.

Remember, too, that none of us exists in a vacuum. Giving the finger to a clueless motorist, shitting on Sarah Bird, or for that matter calling me a nitwit and a pansy demean yourself and corrode the society in which all of us live. So go ahead, attack Sarah's ideas, but at least act like a grownup, acknowledge her humanity, and maybe think about restraining some of your baser impulses.

Hell yes. And he's an invaluable educator for non-pilots like myself. His critics in the letters section are probably irritated that he's got the guts to take a stand, the brains to back it up and the talent to shut his critics down.