A couple of readers have suggested that Salon take a more active approach to displaying comments, such as assigning different icons (the editors' chance to comment on the comments). This next step of interactiveness could be helpful in civilizing the exchange: just as writers may occasionally benefit from other points of views, readers might as well. (Some of us already feel your pain, from direct reader-to-reader comments in blogs.) It would be helpful to a reality check, sometimes, as to whether that passionate-but-presumably-restrained comment, posted about a sensitive issue, was or wasn't over the line.

This same subject came up the other day on the Guardian Comment is Free page and this is what I wrote:As someone who reads posts and comments on several websites, I've noticed that they all have different "cultures". Comments on the New York Times select columnists' site are almost always thoughtful and polite; comments at Salon are almost always rude, and frequently use the article in question as a reason to lambaste Salon itself. Huffpost tends to be accepting but raucous, CIF tends to be contentious. As usual, each affinity group develops its own personality. But what is the goal? The goal of CIF seems to be that certain "permanent members" will show up and argue with one another over the same old bones. If that is not what CIF wants, then I agree with the idea that every comment should have no identifying tag whatsoever. CIF's apparent goal does bore me and makes me less and less inclined to come back, since I am not in the in crowd. At the same time, I appreciate the differing cultures of each website, and sometimes I am even in the mood to read the comments on Salon. The authors of the articles set out knowingly to become public persons. That has its benefits and difficulties. The commenters did not, but their ideas are valuable just the same, so why shut them up? Blogging is vibrant but it isn't nice. I like it that way.

I would add that its hard to figure out what the commenters on Salon are after, other than ranting and abuse. Certainly not any kind of productive discourse (except maybe when they give good advice in responses to Cary's column). Women writers come in for a lot of screaming. I like Deborah Dickerson, for example, because she is honest, but I always know to expect a very disheartening and rude set of responses to her stories. But this is the new world. High school all over again.

pg1 "speaking of fact-checking

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

-- just another disgruntled reader"

I believe it should be "add your own diacritic marks to indicate umlauts"

where did you learn to write Europe?

Think of this as La Scala. If you suck, or if the audience thinks you suck, they will boo. After eons of silent readers now we have a voice for our outrage and our measured comments. As in everything, the ones that are the most disturbed, take advantage and add a few tomatoes to the booing. But why should we not boo the venerable writer? Why is the writer a fragile being unlike the Opera singer? or other performer who wants to be in the public eye and exposes their soul?

By the way if this all puts a bit of damper on the public emotional dumping, so be it. Enough with personal melodrama. There is a place for melodrama and it's not always in the public forum. If you choose to divulge personal melodrama, then sit back and watch the mobs gather. Personal melodrama is the perfect fuel for a mob.

This obviously gives more power to Socrates and his advice of not listening to the mob. But, alas, a writer lives for the mob and the mob pays and perpetuates his being. Now he/she must look at the mob and wonder question his work and his master.

The Salon letters section holds my interest in a way that Table Talk never has. Perhaps it is akin to the attraction that people have for fan fic - a few more hours or days spent with captivating or beloved or compelling characters. There are other readers whose "bylines" I look for, and those I avoid. And there are always new people with something to add to the discussion.

For me, the letters section is a way to extend the experience of reading about a subject that interests me, sometimes for days after I've finished the original articles, as letter pile up and new takes on the topic roll in. I enjoy getting fresh perspectives and even the anecdotal offerings that humanize an issue. In many ways, Salon's letter are like my local bar -- I enjoy the chance to spar with other thinking people, and let the other, less substantive comments roll off my back. If you can't take the heat, get off the Internet.

I generally feel that I'm writing letters for other readers, not for the Salon's writers themselves. If I have something to say to a writer, whether its kudos or an argument, I generally e-mail them directly. I never publish anonymously, but that's a personal decision. I don't work in a sensitive industry that might not take kindly to my online musings the way the military or the financial sector might. That said, I found Gary's essay thoughtful, and hope the letters section is left as is.

Good. This is just what I've been thinking about. It seems like the last Salon letter thread I read was all shouting morons. Then I remembered a Gurdjieff group in the 1920s complaining to George about an obnoxious asshole in the group who kept interrupting the work. Gurdjieff said that the work would be impossible without the asshole; that we need him to learn what we need to learn.

But yesterday I read the New York Times article about bullying in Connecticut, and that it was possible to turn things around. No, bullying should not be tolerated. Please offer letters in three categories: 1) editors' choice, 2)all letters except for bullying ones (which would keep the letters of all the non-bullying assholes who are so valuable to us), and 3) all letters.

The drunk in the 12 Step meeting is escorted out, and escorted out, and escorted out, until finally someone just dials 911. You've just got to get the few rotten apples out or we're fucked.

To most people the negative weighs more than it weighs.

Intelligence doesn't necessarily make a person smart.

Best,

Monty

(More, free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston"