Letters to the Editor
-
Just testing
Eh, trolls, like authoritarian republicans, are everywhere. Just like on a blog's comments section, you scroll past and ignore them. The fact that people "feed" them is another discussion entirely...if you don't like them, don't feed them, (easier said then done at times, but I digress).
Ending screen-name hijacking, ("borrowing" as Walsh says) is, however, highly laudable--at the least, it enables one to promote a 'stable" personna on-line, which is what most letter writers appear to desire, (possibly, I may be speaking for myself, but observation of hijacked letter writers/blog commentators and their particular supporters suggests that this is likely true). On the other hand, as long as that particular problem is solved, I don't see how anonymity can endanger the overall conversation--the editors have a means to contact them and weild the ultimate power of deletion. Plus, anonymity is a time honored, and often necessary, tradition--think the Federalist papers. Hence, anonymous posts are a mere inconvenience upon the reader, in the sense that they must discern whether to take the letter writer seriously. It allows the argument made to be judged by its merit alone, rather than being judged by the reader's preconceived notions of the writer's personality, perspective, or bias. That is to say, maybe "Jane" has some good ideas every now and again, but when she posts them we may filter them out merely because 'Jane' said them.
Frankly, while I despise trolls, most people have been on topic and much of the vitriol isn't just from anonymous posters, but from premium subscribers. Food for thought.
Also, I'm against editing out language such that it only becomes pablum for children. We are not children. While I may not use foul language or find it particularly apt, I figure that if Cheney can tell Leahy to "go fuck yourself" on the Senate floor, then so can we.