Broadsheet writers disappointed with a new journal? What a shame...

I don't think you'll get much sympathy from readers here.

If you dislike the Broadsheet so much, you can just stop reading it, rather than peppering it with snide, unhelpful comments.

I'm sorry; I must've missed the sign that says paying subscribers don't get to comment on the community they help build. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

If you want nothing but accolades from your audience, you should try Fox news or Rush Limbaugh's show.

I thought we were all so much smarter than this...I guess that's my biggest disappointment with this whole Broadsheet mess: it has made it clearly obvious that liberals aren't any more progressive than conservatives...People with progressive ideals should learn to at least tolerate (but ideally engage in) a deliberative community.

The facts that you're able to comment at all and, further, that you can criticize the "Broadsheet" blog without being banned, sets "Broadsheet" apart from most conservative blogs.

So. There.

If that's the only difference you can come up with between progressives and conservatives...well, as Jon Stewart says, "We're in bad shape fellas."

jlburke writes: People with progressive ideals should learn to at least tolerate (but ideally engage in) a deliberative community.

Doesn't it seem so much simpler to just ignore what you don't like, and let those of us who are enjoying it get on with doing so?

You've posted seven comments, all complaining about this new feature. So why do you read it? Why do something that bothers you so much?

And why make us suffer along with you?

I won't equate myself with those progressive figures who have been outspoken and enacted social change, but I will compare your pathetic level of engaging in a deliberative community.

Really, you should read your Aristotle...And the fact that the phrase isn't familiar to you speaks volumes about your ability to tolerate let alone create an even basic level of engaging in debate.

The very position of suggesting that you get to decide the basis of discussion at Salon is troubling indeed and not very far removed from the imperialism of the U.S. in general. We have to be better than this.

Please show me how you came to the conclusion that Ransom suggests that Ransom "get[s] to decide the basis of discussion at Salon." Please show how Pyrian says that you "don't get to comment."

I don't think they have the power you say they have, nor have they asserted such a power in their writings.

And no, it's not the only difference between progressives and conservatives. I used the conservative-blog example to refute your argument equating progressive-ideals liberals and conservatives.

At least I hope you believe that I have no power to stifle you, nor would I want such power.

There is a significant distinction between deliberative dialogue and snarky, useless commentary. The comment I criticized is very much in the latter category; a useless bit of non-dialogue that served solely to insult and had no redeeming or constructive merit. The attempt to defend it as "dialog" is therefore missing the point; my criticism wasn't that I think we shouldn't engage in dialog, but rather that we should and that you aren't.

Interesting - yesterday, Traister carped that women's writing, books and publications just don't get the respect they deserve - in fact, I believe she said that pissing on womens' writing (when "laying bare" style or fashion or "diet tips") "is a form of self-flagellation." Well here we go again. Funny enough, the same Traister article wonders why women's mags are given short shrift when compared to men's magazines...

Maybe she should read her own Broadsheet...

Seemed like a good venue to put this....rumination.

I have decided I am in love with Lisa Randall** (astounding string-theory guru) and Patrick Fitzgerald (excellent prosecutor currently working over WH corruption).

I want them likewise to fall in love, get married in some fashion or another and have kids..as many* as they happily decide between them...and then (or during) I have a job for both of them.

Patrick will promptly be ensconced in Sandra Day O'Connor's chair in the Court.

Lisa will immediately be put in charge of our Nation's brand new 'Manhattan Project' devoted to energy...how to make it, how to use it and how never to burn any more fossil fuels...ever.

That thought gives me me a warm feeling I carry all day.

Oh...hell. One can dream...?

*My own preference for those two would be - 'have LOTS!'.

** And I have no idea where either of them stand on women's issues...but being in love, as I am...I stand pheromonally assured everything will be ok.

regards....jt

I mean, she's got glasses on. That's sexy, right? And no shoes. That can be sexy. I guess.

But wow, telling a group of women how they're supposed to think, and if they don't, they're not really a woman but a sellout or a Stepford or anti-feminist? Jeez, where have we been Broad(sheet)sided with that attitude before?