oh ha ha, I'm not living in fear.

ONe of many reasons I'm not living in fear is that I take precautions. Like locking my doors all the time. Like not giving my credit card number to people who call over the phone. Like not giving my real name to internet scammers trawling for rubes. Prevention is the best way to live happily. Locking the barn door before the horse is stolen. And I have no fear of terrorists because there's nothing I can do about them. I only concern myself with things I can impact. I live sensibly, carefully, and safely.

Friends wonder that I've lived in the city my whole life and never suffered any crime (not even my car broken into) and I tell them it's because it isn't up to chance. I'm sensible, take precautions and act with awareness of my surroundings.

But I savor life: I am NOT afraid.

To "Joe McCarthy's Ghost":

You can sort any letters page either way (oldest first or newest first). Just click on the buttons on the top of each letters page. Once you choose an order (oldest first or newest first) that preference "persists" from page to page as you read Letters on Salon (unless you decide to change it again, or switch computers or browsers).

Same goes for the Editor's Choice/all letters option.

You can post provoking comments that are just asking for it, like I did a few minutes ago. Sorry about that.

This is really disappointing, especially from Salon. I agree wholeheartedly that people should take care with what they write and post as it's a public forum intended for mature conversation and exploration. However...c'mon. In an age where the government admits to spying, how can Salon possibly suggest this and not expect people to recoil? To some that may seem like an over-reaction--hey, it's not like we're hatching terrorist acts or anything. But does everyone realize we're back to a culture now where having a dissenting opinion garners you a "file"? Salon should be a safe haven for intelligent discussions without fear of repercussions...at least that used to be my perception of it.

What if we all started signing off as "anonyous"?

As Shakespeare wrote, "What's in a name?" The question of whether or not to use one's actual name, a pseudonym, or even to publish anonymously should have no bearing on whether or not Salon chooses to highlight a letter. The largest reason is that some people need all the encouragement that can be provided to them to voice their opinions. The security of a nom de plume may be all that stands between us and some hidden gem of literary, political or philosophical insight that could seriously alter the discource on Salon. Granted, you are not preventing people from publishing anonymously, but the presumption that those who sign their autonyms are more likely to write reasoned and eloquent letters is suspect. Secondly, there is a long tradition in this country of choosing to publish via a pseudonym. O. Henry, Mark Twain, Gore Vidal and Tom Wolfe are all pseudonyms, as is Publius, the name chosen by the various authors of the Federalist papers. Also, a nom de plume can provide insight into the mind of the author that cannot be derived from their real name. Handles are more distinctive. There may be twenty different subscribers to Salon with my name, but your system guarantees that there is only one Sisyphus. Let us not forget, Shakespeare, a name sysnonymous with literary greatness, is often suspected of being a pseudonym.

I read that three times before posting and each time missed at least one typo that I just caught now. Synonymous is not spelled "sysnonymous". Oh well, what is life without a little egg on one's face?

because there isn't anything to respond to other than what it actually there.

...you might as well go all the way and do away completely with Editor's Choice. Allow Premium subscribers to rate every comment with 1-5 stars, and have the option to display those comments rated highest by the readers.

You don't have to anything! Comment democracy at its best.

What I don't like about the new proposal is that only a select view of the readers will use their full names, and they will be given preference by the staff when deciding who gets the red stars. The majority will use handles or post anon. In the end, we'll have a handful of dedicated commenters who we will see over and over again in the EC section.

Here's the thing about names.. I tend to write in on topics that touch a nerve with me, as I'm sure most other people do -- frequently letters to Cary Tennis, etc. Problem is that often the subjects are highly personal and no matter how un-vendetta-like my letter is, I don't want anyone Googling me on a professional or any other basis and having my not-very-happy background spread out in front of them.

In fact, while I understand Salon's position vis a vis names on the one hand, on the other I think it's a little unfair. Often the liveliest write-in fests ARE for the highly charged topics, for example a recent letter from a woman who didn't like her stepchildren. The people who are going to write in with the most relevant opinions are the ones with experience in those areas. They might even say something that makes other people change their minds. But by no means should they -- or would they -- want a prospective employer to know about their troubled backgrounds.

Frankly, those of us with bad childhoods have enough to deal with. We risk being judged for every speck of truth we let out. And if James Frey has taught us nothing else (which is about right) he has taught us that people who come out wanting to get famous for their traumatic backgrounds are no more likely to tell the truth -- sometimes MUCH less likely -- than people like me who occasionally trust the anonymous forum to tell a little bit of the truth.