God, what a stupid article ;)

I really liked it, but I don't have anything particularly brilliant to say at the moment.

It will be interesting to see what kind of comments the article gets.

Some e-zines and blogs do not have a feedback forum. Salon could eliminate this instant letters page and make us hoi polloi drag our sorry mouses over to our email accounts or, if we're really motivated, send you an actual letter. Either way, it should cut down on the feedback which concerns you.

Secondly -- and I think more importantly -- Salon could stop its slide into tabloid journalism and lowbrow controversy. Salon's headlines seem designed more and more to outrage people, and the content of too many of its articles is descending into the sophomoric level of high school underground newspapers or even worse, the crappy "alternative" newspaper here in D.C. called "Washington City Paper."

Then again, you and your fellow Salon writers could simply resist the temptation to peek at the letters written by slouching complainers like myself, but I bet that will be as difficult as it is for us to resist writing to you in the first place.

Cheer up! Global warming and bird flu and terrorism are going to kill us all sooner rather than later anyway, so what's a few letters?

This is an age of massive feedback, but it's hard to deny that the collective American mind, now that its amp is turned up to 11, sounds a lot like Mötley Crëe.

Crüe. Not Crëe. And you say that like it's a bad thing! The Crue's first couple of albums were great! Give'em a listen, and you'll see ("Too Fast for Love" and "Shout at the Devil").

Personally, I like that everyday people are allowed to comment, a "Wisdom of Crowds" kind of thing. For too long, the whole sender/receiver mode of media communication has run one way, at the expense of diversity of opinion. I think the professional media class are long overdue for some feedback. American democracy expects us to just be spectators, not participants.

I wonder how long until people realize that the same connectivity that lets us slag and frag writers we don't like can be applied to leaders, legislation, etc. We're taking the first baby steps toward that, and I think it's kinda cool.

Is this another reaction to Debragate?

Consarn it all, man! Never in all my years have I had the misfortune to glance upon a piece of writing so bereft of all sanity, morality, and common decency! Mr. Kamiya, you make me want to go to the bathroom on your doorstep! Your words inspire me to let the air out of your automobile tires! Your mind-numbingly insipid rubbish of a so-called essay leaves me little choice but to wish that unpleasant events will happen to you in the future! I'm so unbelievably angry about what you say that I fear I must end this letter here, for I cannot go on. Gary—what a STUPID name—please go away and be sad. I hope you forget your mittens when you leave the house tomorrow, exposing your hands to the icy wind! And may your lips become chapped by it also! That'll show you, you dastardly, deceiftul, heartless man! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!

(This has been one of the first in what is sure to be a long line of parody responses to this article. Please enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you.)

Amen, Mr. Kamiya.

and I love it! Now if you want comedy, go to the Fox Fans Speakout section on the Fox News website. ;)

You forgot to expound on several abnormal-psych diagnoses of Mr. Kamiya based solely on a line or two from his this piece.

Do you get paid by the word?

The predessor of the Internet was usenet, which allowed anyone to post a message or a story, and also allowed formation of specialized groups. When it started, I found it to be a valuabel source of debate on topical issues. However, as it grew, it became dominated by rants and raves which were vulgar, incorrect, and sometimes abusive. Finally, it became so hard to fnd subgroups of interest, or rational discussion, that it effectived died. The wild use raised the need for moderators, which never was initiated. I fear that the internet is going the same way. At some point, moderators are desperately needed. This involves sifting the posts, as you are doing. How do we get all postings to go through this intermediate step and not destroy the posting of opposing opinions, in the name of democracy?

I'm glad you wrote this article. Since Salon writers rarely leap into the comment fray themselves, I've often wondered how our comments affect the site's content. When it comes right down to it, flames are more about creating an online spectacle and amusing other readers than actually contributing constructive thought. And I say that as someone who gladly flames Salon writers when things get too pompous around here.

When reading articles on the New York Times, I sometimes instinctively look for a "read comments" link...particularly when the article seemed phony or hot-button somehow. It's always a disappointment to find I can't view other readers' reactions instantaneously like I can on blogs or Salon, and whatever the newspaper says will stand as the documented "truth" regardless of other opinions (aside from a few carefully chosen letters to the editor, of course). But such is the one-way media.

It means false praise for the purpose of fawning or flattery

It's a bad thing. Check your dictionary.

Much appreciate the opportunity to provide this feedback.

Usually I just shout at the TV.

Cheers

Shane

Yes, it's Motley Crue, not Motley Cree. (Add your own umlauts - I can't be arsed, frankly.)

many Salon readers make on the authors. While I do hit hard at authors myself sometimes, it is always about the content or topic and never a personal attack on the author him or herself.

On the other hand, considering the withering personal attacks I often receive myself, I have no problem hitting back at reader critics with personal attacks myself.

But really, while Traister does sometimes go into 'woe is me' feminist diatribes, I do often find her articles interesting if only to get some understanding of the prevailing young feminist thinking. She really does seem to get a disproportionate share of personal attacks. I wish people would stick to criticizing the content of her work and not her- as they should with all authors on Salon and elsewhere.