I don't get it. In grammar and high school I was small for my age and had skipped two grades. It goes without saying that I was very much resented and bullied. I was punched, kicked, had my head shoved in unflushed toilets (called "swirlies"), had my books thrown in a pond and suffered many other indignities. That is what *real* bullying is like.

Words on a screen aren't bullying, they're just words, if you don't like them all you have to do is not read them.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. It's trite but true.

Personally I like abusive responses, it proves the poster has no real argument. If I'm in the mood I'll dissect them and humiliate the poster without ever stooping to their level. I don't need to engage in personal insults, ad hominem attacks (not the same thing as an insult) or coarse language to make my points, such things only detract from my rhetoric and weaken it.

Don't call your opponent stupid or ignorant, prove it with facts, logic and rhetoric. It takes some practise but it can be learned. Only very rarely do I get someone come back for a second helping of humiliation.

You deserve a star Allie. What is one editor's food is another editor's poison. Point made. Congratulations Allie for posting a reasoned and thoughtful rebuttal to an otherwise self serving article by Kamiya. You get my star.

I agree pretty much 100% with WeikuBoy's suggestions (especially 1-5).

My own two cents regarding the article: I didn't get the impression that I guess a lot of other readers got. Many of the responses to "The Readers Strike Back" seem to basically say writers and Salon deserve critism and they should grow a backbone and not censor readers' posts. I don't think that Kamiya was saying that reader fact-checking and critique are bad. I think he was saying that *certain* posts, which tend to come from *a few* readers bring down the level of discussion with ad hominem attacks, mean spirited attacks and the like.

Certainly his point about how women writers receive more personal attacks can't be seriously denied. I mean, Havrilesky gets hate mail nearly every week stating that she is a bad mother because she watches television and writes articles (i.e., she works). Kaufman writes articles five days a week and undoubtedly spends as much time watching and reading about sports as Havrilesky does watching television and I have NEVER read a letter accusing him of being a bad father. Very unpleasant.

I hope they don't change it. I also recognize how shrewd it was to implement this section because now they are getting 10 page views per article from me instead of just one.

And I, for one, love both KStone and Locutus. KStone will always be my homey, though, for backing me up in the childfree/parent melees (hey, aren't we due for another one of those?).

I also always look forward to LeCastor's posts. I love her and I think that deep down, Parson Jim does too (p.s. LeC, we need to hang out when I move to New York next year!)

Salon Letters Section, have a great summer and stay awesome!

Salon, Scott Rosenberg, Oct. 5, 2000

"Actually, the vice president never claimed to have done so -- but he did help the Net along. Some people would rather forget that."

Ok, to all those people out there bashing Salon's Editor for cruising for clicks, check this.... [shitty stock quote]

Yes, I know Salon is hurting. Regardless, they need to separate the serious issues and good writers on the one hand, from the Fluff + Clicks Dept on the other.

It's good Salon has articles to generate clicks, so long as they're on appropriately fluffy/culture topics. Do the personal stories. Do sports. Do the film reviews and music. All that's great and everyone enjoys it. That's where you generate revenue.

But don't put writers like Debra Dickerson on serious journalism such as politics, gender, race, etc. How can Salon run Juan Cole's serious critique of the ME situation one day, and then Debra Dickerson's screed on Obama not being black enough the next? It's a contradiction in credibility.

Flowery insightful wordsmithery, this is what passes as journalism on Salon? I can't believe you bothered to publish such fevered ramblings!

Thank you Mr Kamiya for eloquently expressing the sense that I've had for quite some time. As a amatuer writer (i.e. I blog) of a couple of years I have begun to self-edit in anticipation of snarky comments. I suspect that since I began blogging regularly I have become a kinder and gentler commenter on sites like Salon, and in my criticism of my local paper. By no stretch do I consider myself a journalist but I do share the internet with many.

While sites like Salon, HuffPo, and the pre-web conventional news sources provide for feedback, it's important to remember all the individual people who do so, as well. Juan Cole, Being Amber Rhea, Blog for Democracy and thousands more have opened their online "homes" to all manner of guests. I'm regularly amazed by the "guest" who saunters on to our site, drops a turd in the punchbowl, and skedaddles away, to leave the cleanup to the host and regular guests.

So, I feel your pain. And to a lesser extent, share it.

Thank you for a great piece. I'll be linking to it from my online living room shortly.

On further reflection last evening, I came to the conclusion that it's only nice to have an unlimited howling section if you have unlimited time to read said howling.

I certainly don't have time, and that's why I still appreciate the sampling of well-written letters (and opinions) in the print magazines and newspapers. Salon would be wise to do same, i.e., present a sampling of the best responses from Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack and leave it at that.

Failing the actual imposition of an editorial hand, I will probably let my subscription lapse. I haven't time to pull the wheat from the chaff and, frankly, neither should anyone else if they work for a living and have a life outside of work.

"The people are to be taken in very small doses." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson