I thought it was funny.

It's the subjects as much as it is the writers. Salon is engaging in a very cynical ploy. There are a handful of subjects that are certain to generate the dreaded "heated" response. For example, male circumcision, pubic hair, breastfeeding, religion vs science, the neurotic dramas of well educated and upscale parents, food fads and the latest strange laments to Cary Tennis. Salon milks those subjects for clicks over and over again and now complains about the general tenor of the letetrs section? Hmmm....

Also, moderation seems to be a bad "groupthink" idea and filtering would be spotty at best. TableTalk has filtering which seems to work fine in general but when it gets hot and heavy in one of the threads it's not much use. It all comes out in the wash beacuse the filtered usually get quoted by someone who hasn't filtered them and then someone else responds and away we go.... Allowing only one ID (anon or not) would be a good start because it's pretty clear that the same posters come back under different IDs and post several times.

>

Precisely. And not only that, it connected me from the convenience of my own desk, where I feel bored, lonely and like procrastinating on a daily basis.

A few other points:

* I've said it many times and I'll say it again here and no doubt many times more elsewhere. There's a real danger that the quality of writing on the net will take a nosedive, and that people like Cary Tennis will find other, more worthwhile and less stressful things to do than put himself up for critique everyday. Cary's just part of the big experiement that is 'the net in the noughties' as well, and readers who enjoy his work should take care of him. By this I mean: respond thoughtfully and with basic respect that anyone is entitled in any kind of civilised and interesting discussion.

* Responses to Heather Havrilesky's work have sickened me to the extent that I stopped reading her letters section, and then, interestingly, stopped reading her articles, because the letters section is part of what makes an article interesting to me over the course of a day. A case of trolls taking the whole project down with them.

* Ayelet Waldman is a piece of work! Her articles are SO self revealing, SO intimate, that I've found it's impossible for them NOT to be affecting. She seems to want a lot of attention, and will go to any lengths to get it. I'm not surprised a lot of that attention has been critical and/or negative. I stopped reading her. It was too upsetting for no point.

* Bullies - they're here on the net just like they're at school and in the workplace. It was ever thus. I know who some of them are though and I skip straight past their letters.

* Overall I am amazed that journalists are surprised by the level of feedback. I guess it's weird to claw your way into an elite only to find that someone has opened the back door and the hordes are pouring in after you. I love Salon and I love many of the Salon letter writers. They're a crucial part of Salon's appeal.

venues like Salon instantly connected those of us outside of the media world to the kind of people and conversations we knew existed somewhere but had no access to.

(Don't know what happened there.)

Interesting thoughts, carefully expressed. But I fear there's a misapprehension sneaking in, Mr. Kamiya: the belief in a vast gap between you (the Salon writer) and the letter-writing correspondents (the Salon reader).

Yes, it's a discussion -- What work of art exists without its audience? like that tree falling unheard in the forest, is fodder for another time -- and just as you would with any knuckle-dragging mouth-breather on the street, ignore the trolls. Laugh at them in passing, maybe.

Yet bear this in mind: Some readers are writers and editors too, or if not employed as such, are at least possessed of equivalent skills. With the immediacy and interaction of The Internets, we pros would do well not to assume that all responses come from ams.

A (probably former) reader of mine once asked what gave me the right to pronounce or announce in print. I told him three things: 1) I get paid to do it, which means I'm edited and overseen by other professionals, 2) I've been working at it to develop the skill, and 3) I put my name on the work.

The latter makes me a target, sometimes, but I consider that part of the game, part of the responsibility that comes with the power o' the press. And it's never backed me down, wilted me or caused me to rethink...much. Even when a letter-writer slammed me as an "intellectual hack." (Actually, I thought of having that put on my business cards). Guess I'm not one of those hothouse flower scribblers you seem worried about.

Perhaps Salon should consider only printing letters signed with real, verifiable names. (How you achieve this, I'm not sure. Not even sure it's technologically feasible). But that should give the trolls pause, spewing off where anyone can connect a name with the venom.

I've noticed, over the years, that the most rabid, foul-mouthed voicemails were from those who refused to leave their name. No name, no balls.

You might discover who we really are. Not everyone posting letters is some amatuer.

Perhaps Salon should consider only printing letters signed with real, verifiable names. (How you achieve this, I'm not sure. Not even sure it's technologically feasible)

Not that I agree with your suggestion by any means, but certainly this could be done by linking accounts to credit cards. The card need not necessarily be charged, but only used to verify name/age/whatever other variable is deemed important.

That said, this whole thing reeks of a tempest in a teapot, really. They're just words, guys. C'mon, you must remember this stuff from school. "I'm made of rubber, you're made of glue, blah blah blah"; "sticks 'n' stones....". Or, if you prefer, embrace a Nietzschean view: love those who oppose you and work against you, for only by overcoming powerful adversaries can we ourselves become strong. Peace, love and gummy bears, kids.