Yours is the first response I have seen to any of the letters by the author in any of the articles in Salon.

As part of the moderation policy, as part of a conversation between reader and author, I hope you encourage your authors to discuss and take ownership of their posts in the letters.

It's one of the fatal flaws of the current Broadsheet.

Broadsheet refuses to discuss their posts or the comments made about them.

Since the new moderation policy, I can't think of a single time in which Broadsheet acknowledged some of the many interesting and relevant points brought up in the comments.

In the article about the judge and the pedophile there were some comments that would have been interesting to discuss made both here and at feministing.

The sentiment at feministing towards castration may have been explicit, but it was not a far off reading of the sentiments there. And so presumably it was not a far off reading of the sentiments of Broadsheet.

As a former Anthropology student and Trekkie, I actually agree with Mr. Dover -- we should be careful about judging other cultures. And so to me, the Fatwa on a hug for when some random Muslim cleric makes an ignorant violent statement is about as relevant as when some random commenter in a recently linked article makes an ignorant violent statement.

And I am not sure who you are calling troll? I find that when people call "troll" they are most often looking to suppress dialogue and argument.

Take a look specifically at "misogyny". You have published Amanda Marcotte in your pages. At her website she calls out "misogyny misogyny" many times each day. She calls anyone that thinks that fathers may be getting a raw deal as a small dicked FRA misogynist. And then she bans the commenter. And then she and her hordes make all sorts of abusive comments about the commenter, and white men.

And you publish her.

And you don't publish much of anything about the father's rights groups.

Are the father's rights groups as misogynistic as Marcotte claims all of the time? Are father's rights groups only out to reduce support for their kids as Marcotte and Feministe and Feministing and Broadsheet often claim?

Or is it the case that they are interested in a rebuttable presumption of joint shared custody as they claim?

How come Salon gives so much voice to women that freely ban dissent, even when it is made politely? How come Salon gives no voice to fathers?

Are fathers given a raw deal? Does "best interest of the child" have a real meaning or does it encourage capricious and arbitrary and unconstitutional orders from the judge as Professor Eugene Volokh has stated?

Is there a reason that liberals must cede fathers and their mothers/daughters and sisters to the NASCAR right?

Is feminism a third rail?

None of this speech makes it into your pages and there is a lot of vital discussion that society must have.

Amanda Marcotte would find this comment abusive. And because it mentions her banning policy, she would ban me.

When does your rigid definition of abuse start to bend and become fuzzy?

Okay, this one's fun.

Here at Pandagon, Pandagon expresses curiousity as to why more men don't support feminism.

http://pandagon.net/2007/04/02/womens-empowerment-is-not-a-zero-sum-game/#comments

Much as I wonder why working-class white folks sometimes vote against their interests, I wonder why men –even some progressive men– fight teh feminism

Here in the comments, "anon" politely but firmly responds why.

http://pandagon.net/2007/04/02/womens-empowerment-is-not-a-zero-sum-game/#comment-385750

And here in the comments, Amanda Marcotte bans "anon."

http://pandagon.net/2007/04/02/womens-empowerment-is-not-a-zero-sum-game/#comment-385754

That's nerdam's point.

Some of us don't think echo chambers are particularly good for the liberal hemisphere or any of society. Some of us wonder how a movement as important as feminism as managed to alienate so many people.

Some of us wonder what happens to society when "abusive" speech is impermissible.

that random muslim cleric says stupid hateful thing is about worthy of mention as random commenter at feministing says stupid hateful thing. Except that the feministing commenter said it in an article very recently mentioned by and approved of by Broadsheet, so maybe the stupid hateful commenter at feministing is more relevant to us here in the states than the stupid hateful random muslim cleric.

We know people all over are stupid and hateful. Does that make it worthy of a post? Is Broadsheet's post just a way to inflame anger between the various people of the planet, or is there some nugget of wisdom in there that we should all be considering?

If you ask me, it seems that the cleric's statement was terribly newsworthy unless Broadsheet wants to post some context that hasn't been posted so far. Seems like just a knee-jerk cry of "help! help! I am being repressed, come and see the misogyny inherent in the patriarchy!"

that should have been "not terribly newsworthy"

anon wasn't polite? the only curse word anon used was "shit" as in "start taking responsibility for your own shit". That was one occurence of "shit" on that page, including one from Amanda.

That's worthy of banning?

Mentioning banning is worthy of banning?

There's a stated banning policy that everyone needs to know and read? And if so, where is that stated banning policy?

It seems to the casual reader as though the stated banning policy exists only in Amanda's head. But again, this is nerdnam's (and mine) point. "Abusive" can be awfully malleable. Apparently pyrian you are okay with one use of the word "shit" to be labeled abusive even when the blog owner uses it too. And you are okay with having policies like "you can't mention our policies!".

Some of us are saying that "abusive" comes down to Lewis and Caroll, "The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday--but never jam today.'"

* White Queen, Chapter 5