Everyone must have been watching those programs and had their brains stolen by the mentalists. Well, except Owen, who had enough surviving wits about him to point out the BIG CHEESE of incredibly cheesy programs, the incredibly cheesy I-can't-believe-what-I'm-seeing program, Tila Tequila. It'll take some doing to out-cheez-tastic that one (and I don't want to watch the program that - inevitably comes along and - does...some things go beyond fun and into the-universe-culminates-in-THIS?)

100% agree. Not just because I have slow internet, and any film clip is painful, but, right, I want to READ on my own time... And the irritating "cute" accompanying music, no, no, no. More and more I feel I'm losing out when bits of my Salon and Slate go to video...

EXCEPTION - some video'd letters to the editor might be (briefly) fun...

But there are degrees. Everyone who reads Salon and posts letters (it occupies a significant piece of each day - and probably Salon is not the only internet reading and writing we-all do...what about Slate, the W.P., the NYT, various special-interest e-lists...) is indulging addiction to some extent. But when it occupies every spare moment (and moments that shouldn't be spare) and there is a perceived need to hide it, then that's *too much*. Solution? Ah, well that's for greater minds than mine... Getting A Life, perhaps, the LW already has one...perhaps too much of one, which is a problem. We all do need time for ourselves and our own indulgence, but it has to be balanced with (sigh) realism...

If we're gonna talk about biology of bees - they don't have a momma-and-poppa traditional two-parent monogamous family thing either. And, actually, tho it's only about "frickin' bees", a lot of kids will get imprinted with this movie as to how bee societies work. Maybe it's a mite silly to worry about how it relates to human patriarchy (or maybe not), but it seems to me more important that it relate a little better to actual bees.

Ben Sen said of the Mormons, the "church is straight as the proverbial arrow (now that the polygamy problem is under control)..." I recommend he go the full Monty and say "now that the polygamy problem is almost under control".

A boost for a day when I was feeling really down on the human species...

Trouble with the internet is, someone who is banned can simply get a new account and re-register. And most people who post are using a cover name anyway. I can't imagine anyone figuring out who I am from my Salon name of "Wychwood". BUT...I am thinking that I'm going to re-register myself and use my legal name...on the other hand, there are horror stories out there of people being cyber-stalked by nuts who take offence at posted opinions... The obvious answer is some one (or a whole crew of someones) vetting each letter before it's allowed through, and I don't suppose you have staff and budget enough for that...

For non-technical stuff, that is to say, for opinions, the peer review in the form of these letters is a great educumacational tool. I often nod along with a Salon article only to have the very different POVs from the letter-writers broaden my own view of things. The internet as a whole, with its spectrum of opinions, theoretically provides a vast informal peer review of practically everything. Whether the chaff will drown out the wheat is a bit of a worry... But twas ever thus...