Apologies for sounding sanctimonious. I really tried not to sound that way in my comment, intending to express "injury," not just for myself, but for all women. Of course, if you read other posts of mine, you may have read some where I did not try as hard. Sometimes, outrage must also be voiced.

I also try (believe it or not) to be brief, but that doesn't always work. It depends on the topic. And getting stars really isn't that important, but I do use them myself sometimes when I don't have time to read hundreds of comments on a thread.

However, as J. Hoag wrote, I also have the lurkers in mind, when I'm laboring over a comment before posting it. As an example... Barack Obama cited an article by Mark Benjamin in Salon in a letter to Bush. http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/04/12/obama_letter/

I always wonder who else is reading, and wonder if anything I can say might make a difference. I got tired of writing letters to editors, because it was like writing to a brick wall. Even though I don't always like the tone or direction of Salon's comment threads, it is still a far better solution than what we had available in the past. And the discussions here are usually far better than on some other sites that I read for interesting posts, but try to avoid the comments.

Still, if high-level, important lurkers are reading our comments and arguments, of course I want us to look our best, just as we want people like Leahy to look their best during an interview. [Yes, that one was a little disappointing, but the good thing about Leahy is that his actions are dependable, unlike so many (Spector?) who will say what they think you want and then cave.]

What does it mean when the star in the circle is next to a commentor's name at the end of a comment post?

You are a premium Salon subscriber.

Fwiw, I think it's ridiculous to sign either pledge. Of course, the counter-pledge was meant to be so, even if the original wasn't. Better to hash things out, since there will alway be some cirumstance that is not covered in a pledge.

As for the rest, I dare say that the incivil bloggers who give the blogosphere the rep as being incivil and shrill and nasty and whatever do, in fact, provide substance in addition. Being naughty and being logical are not mutually exclusive characteristics of most bloggers and commenters.

I don't disagree that there is substance, only that it becomes less powerful (not more) when readers are frequently distracted by bad language. [A very judicious use means that others DO pay attention.] And, I'm not talking about "incivil" language if by that you mean your other examples, which are full of wit, but without a word requiring an asterisk. Dorothy Parker's quotes are a national treasure, and Churchill's remark to Lady Astor is a favorite.

After the 2002 election, Bill Moyers made a commentary on NOW (he was still on then) that would probably have been called treasonous, if it had been on network TV, rather than PBS. My partner and I both looked at each other in amazement. Did he really just say that on television? It seems pretty tame, now, I know, but at that time, no one else was veering off the party line, at least not via broadcast, and very few in print. And no one (besides W) was speaking so plainly. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1109-02.htm

It puzzles me that there is this need to conflate the freedom to talk "S**t" with the freedom to dissent. I don't see how they are the same. Sorry if I'm repeating myself here, but if Kurt Vonnegut, a true iconoclast, could express himself without epithets, why can't we? Isn't his example far superior to those excusing @#$%^@# ? At the Huffington Post, Wasserman quotes Vonnegut as asking us to be civil (as well as kind, etc.). I don't think he meant us to censor ourselves, but only to speak/write civilly. (You can read Vonnegut's transcendent comparison of Hitler and GWB here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/may-peace-be-with-you-ku_b_45834.html)

"Actually, the star is a designation of your letter as an editor's choice."

That (red) star signifying an editor's choice appears at the top of the comment. I thought Kitt was asking about the star-in-a-circle at the bottom, near the commenter's name. That one denotes Salon premium subscribers. Non subscribers' names appear without it.

Barnyard epithets often have a wonderfully unique clarity, one which I would hate to see banished in favor of the sterile etiquette of the Edwardian drawing room. It's not wrong to encourage the better angels of our nature, but the fact remains that it isn't our nature to be angels.

And it was only the entirely gratuitious use of "ho" (crappy-headed ho, to be more precise) that really set me off. Perhaps I should have ignored it, since it was, after all, about Norah O'Donnell, but her being editorially indefensible was part of the point. (Just like defending Imus is, for some of his apologists.)

I really hate coming off like some kind of language prude (when I'd rather be promoting banned books) but when we're already at one extreme, it's necessary to go further in the other direction, just to have some effect on re-locating the middle.

I still haven't figured out how to (effectively) communicate (to men) that calling women names that are so negatively sexualized falls into a different class than your "barnyard" variety of epithets (as do the n-word, the c-word, etc.) I'll just have to be more imaginative.

For the record, I always appreciate your thoughtful comments, including the above. Thanks for the chance to clarify a bit more.