I kind of find it ironic that Scott Rosenburg's "Some responses and reactions from Scott" posting on page 5 didn't make the cut (no red star).

Um, if his generously long, well-written response to the tsunami of replies that this article has engendered, then what hope do mere mortals have? Or more snarkily, did Mr. Rosenburg spit in the editor's coffee mug or what?

Heh. Kidding. I'm sure it's an oversight, but you might want to change it for people just reading the Editor's Choice posts. :D

I will "Editor's Choice" my own posts. Eminently reasonable, thanks for pointing it out, Traidep. Clarity should win out over modesty.

It is indeed a letters-to-the-editor tradition in journalism that letter writers are supposed to sign their own names, although traditions aren't necessarily good things.

It's easy to see that asking letter-writers to use their own names would seem to put the responsibility for their words on those who wrote them.

But for me, not using my own name is an opportunity to express myself on a spectrum of topics that I would never otherwise comment on. Because if my opinion on a controversial topic conflicted with what my employer (or prospective employer) should deem appropriate, I could lose my job or miss out on a job prospect as a result.

There is always the risk that users writing under a shield of anonymity might express themselves libelously or incite uncivil discourse. So it's a good thing that Salon reserves the right to delete any letters that seem too unseemly.

Perhaps it wouldn't hurt for Salon to create a code of letter-writing conduct. Fortunately, few of the letter-writers so far would need such a thing.

So Scott Rosenberg wants to improve the tone of the Letters feature. I notice he's given a red star to the most execratory, foul-mouthed, ranting letter on this thread, apparently because it expresses the editor's views and bears the writer's name.

Yes, Tim Behrend, we can read. We know we can continue to use handles. But since we are being urged to use our real names, and discouraged from using handles, some of us would like to explain that there are more reasons for anonymity than simply a desire to rant and cuss. I'd like to add something about controversial views. They do not comprise merely the obviously out-of-bounds. They include a sizable gray area surrounding the hot buttons, issues that glom onto other issues that include an obviously forbidden view. Everyone is sensitized these days to "code"; they've read the latest scorecard and "know" that A is code for B. Or that lots of people consider it code for B, and they just might be the people who Google your name. Furthermore, there's the sense that we're in a war of ideas, and that some ideas, tho not unsound in themselves, play into the hands of the enemy. And the rulebook continues to change. Recently I visited a blog with which I mostly agree, and found that lo, a conviction which I've long held and continue to hold is now considered by that blogger to be a reactionary view.

Rightly or wrongly, I believe that such ideas ought to be heard and considered. Thoughtful discussion is not so thoughtful when everybody has to toe a party line. But you never know when someone with power over your life will take offense at those ideas. That's why using a handle can be prudent, not cowardly.