I agree with cosmicmojo -- it has to be a made-up story. Anyone intelligent enough to write an article (even an inane one such as this), would have to be smart enough to know to examine a carpet remnant before buying it.

Is there anything more difficult, enobling, mysterious than letting go of our ego and inviting God to take its place? When the unforgivable is forgiven, we accept that God's love is truly enough, that all share it equally, and no one is keeping score. "Perfect love casts out fear" said Paul. Perfect love forgives when every instinct for survival says "retaliate." Congratulations, Ms. Lamott. I am so happy for you. And deeply indebted.

I have been reading Salon for years, and I'm a proud subscriber today. However, after reading Anne Lamott I plan to not renew my subscription. Her article is sexist (Why did she "have" to call a man to "help" her?) and promotes a most dangerous ideology of simply "taking it" when you are harmed.

Should rape victims "show grace" and take their abuse?

You can "show grace" but still stand up for yourself and DO THE RIGHT THING, which is not tell someone that he can continue to rip people off...

I am deeply troubled with the implications of this article in many ways-- not to mention it seemed to serve no purpose whatsoever.

I will be using other web sites from now on, and encourage others to do the same if Anne Lamott remains a writer for Salon.

Please, next time-- THINK of what you're doing when you decide to publish such drivel...

Both writers have had far too much space on Salon. Time to let them go and allow others a chance to display their talent. They served their purpose when Salon was a new site, but now, Salon has grown and they haven't. Lamott's column on the carpet is beyond the pale and not worthy of the space it was allowed. Havrilesky's time is way overdue. I am rather sick of her meandering and endless typing (surely, it is not considered writing?) with a few sentences thrown in concerning TV programs. Is she a TV critic or not? If not, then hire a real one.

Salon readers deserve better than these two writers. And if we can't find it here, we shall look elsewhere. A new feature site needs to fill the void.

Maybe I'm not Christian enough. Maybe I'm too old school' when it comes to being 'dissed'. But there is no way on heaven, earth, or a carpet shop that I would have written this thieving jackass a sorry note for intentionally writing a fraudulent check to me. By this stage, it had gone far beyond money: he has broken the law multiple times throughout this saga, and yet he gets to guilt-trip you at the end of it all. I am now in my dark place in sympathy for you in this situation. I live in New Zealand, Anne, but if you give me this jerk's phone number, I humbly offer to take up the battle for you! You don't have to get angry. Just be relentless: like the Terminator. I'm kidding.

Not being an expert in Christian theology, maybe I'm missing something here, but I fail to grasp how Christianity dictates this particular response. I can see deciding to give up one's anger and walk away from the fight. I can even see writing a note saying, "Your check wasn't covered at the bank; obviously your business is in pretty difficult financial straits, so I understand now your reluctance to part with the money. Obviously you need it more than I do." But to APOLOGIZE for what was at every step perfectly reasonable behavior? Please. She's perpetuating a passive, victim mindset that says it's just not "nice" to stick up for yourself.

Lamott seems to feel that the mere experience of anger, and its expression, are inherently evil, when in reality anger is a normal, natural part of the range of human experience. She might as well be saying, "I'm sorry my skull was so hard that you hurt your hand when you punched me in the head. My fault entirely! Let me pay your hospital bills."

Clearly the best thing about this article by Lamott was the hilarious companion piece written by kmm, supposedly written from the point of view of the guy working in the carpet shop. Reading that almost made up for reading Anne's self-congratulatory tripe. Almost.

This is exactly what Jesus was talking about when he said "Turn the other cheek" "Give them your coat as well." "Walk two miles". If we just treat people fairly, and expect the same, what is special about that? Christianity ought to be about being unreasonably loving, inappropriately kind. Every time I read a column by Anne Lamott, I am challenged by her faith. Thank you, Anne, as always, for your willingness to be so nakedly honest and vulnerable.

The day I read this piece I decided to let go of a particular situation that had been giving me some heartburn. I realized the energy I was expending trying to resolve the unresolvable was making me angrier than was really necessary. I get it. Thank you.

"We're invited more deeply into this mystery on a daily basis, to be here as one-of; a mess like everyone else, and not in charge. That's why we hate it. "

For those of you who were angered by this column, angered by the very idea of apologizing after being treated unfairly (or by being foolishly kind after a foolish purchase), read that sentence again.

I invite all of you to give it a try, just once during this holiday season. You are not in charge; you are no more likely to be right than the person who offends you. Practice being kind; apologize even if what the other did was worse than what you did. You can choose peace rather than this. If you feel worse afterwards, then don't ever do it again. But just try it once. I think that you will be suprised.

Good tidings of comfort and joy.