I just love it -- how "anonymous" and "no name given" take so many of us letter-writers to task for giving our opinion of Lamott's silly, self-indulgent little article. At least she had enough spine to put her real name on her piece.

The purpose of this "send a letter" feature is to enable Salon readers to express their opinions, no? So, if my opinion is that the article was twaddle, I have a right to express it. And, no, it would not have made any difference if Lamott was an avowed atheist, or a moslem, or even (gasp!) a republican as one of those no-namers implied. A stupid article is still a stupid article. And an author who writes about a stupid episode as if she is trying to impart a great life lesson for others deserves criticism.

To the person who called others hypocrites for their posts: Why are they hypocrites?

You wrote, "If Annie was Muslim, y'all would have written some sweet, multicultural BS because her religion was 'foreign' to you and therefore exotic and deserving of respect."

Oh, really? I doubt it. If you read carefully, people weren't putting down Anne's Christianity. They were putting down the fact that she let a guy get away with deceiving and stealing from her, and that she did so in the name of her religion, and because she couldn't handle the stress of taking action while angry.

You wrote, "People are allowed to be religious in this world..."

Nobody has said otherwise. Not one post said people aren't allowed to be religious. And nobody has suggested Anne's free speech should be taken away, or that Anne should not be allowed to freely practice her religion.

You wrote, "Just because you're afraid this really is a 'Christian nation' does not give you the right to attack Anne."

Why are you projecting fears onto other people? Nobody said anything about whether this nation is "a Christian nation" (whatever that means) or whether they are afraid of such a notion. The status of "Christian nation" or "not a Christian nation" seems to me a boring statistical question, and an irrelevant one, as if any nation should be labeled according to its majority religion.

You wrote, "Anne's point...is that one should...try not to...Fight the Enemy, but instead try to really rise above the shit."

That's Anne's point? Then she made it poorly. What's wrong with rising above the shit BY effectively fighting the enemy? Or eliminating as much shit as possible so it's easier to rise above whatever shit is left over?

You wrote, "You should be ashamed."

Why are you so eager to mete out the shame of others?

I guess Anne was absent from church on the day when they discussed Matthew 21:12-14: "And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, "it is written, 'my house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you make it a den of robbers." I've looked through the rest of Matthew, but I can't find the part where Jesus feels bad and goes back with a bunch of daisies to apologize.

Ms Lamott,

Your story is utterly worthless and non-inspiring! You were taken for gullible dimwit you probably are. Had you deposited the check instead of trying to cash it, you would have received your money, and he would have inferred a 'bad check' charge, which would have cost him more money. On the other hand, they make carpet stain removers!

All I know is, I've never read the bible--any bible. Not one word of it. Haven't read the Koran, the Talmud, "Dianetics" or "Men are from Mars, Women are From Venus".

And I've never had any trouble buying carpeting.

As dog is my witness I haven't got the slightest idea what Lamott is talking about. I've read it twice and can't make heads or tails of it.

Why would she become enraged because a dishonest guy tried to cheat her? Angry, sure, but enraged? I mean, what part of "he's lying" would cause rage? It's not that hard to get your head around and it's not that uncommon.

Why would she naval gaze about her "rage" and not just recognize that it was a bad reaction and try to do better next time?

What is up with the flowers?

Why would she take a check refund for a cash purchase?

I honestly don't get it At All. This might as well have been written in Chinese as far as I understood it.

All that was missing from this "businessman's" business was a gun and a mask. He clearly is one of the many thieves who are in "business" solely to separate the motivated shopper from their money with no recourse. This is the core of their business plan. They do it because they can. Essentially, these "proprietors" are bold-assed sidewalk psychologists who know there is a broad market of emotion-driven, motivated buyers who will come by the door looking for a bargain. These predators have most of us pegged before we arrive at the door. They know there is a population that believes entering a store or asking a question amounts to a commitment that must be kept. So they buy stuff without a full investigation and its always something they cannot return.

If there was a lesson to be learned it was to observe the worlds you step into and not be in a hurry. You see something you need or like, train yourself to slow down, enter, stand still, sweep your eyes around at the surroundings, the space and the people and, in this case, turn around and leave.

I bet if Anne had done that she would have noticed the carpets piled up like logs, the mold on the rug before she bought it and the dim aura of the atmosphere and the people in it.

Motivated buyers always get suckered and women are the biggest suckers whether we are buying big ticket items like cars or homes or a foam green carpet with mold.