Posted on May 29 at 8:05 a.m.

Mr. Campbell,

While laudable that your newspaper encourages civic discourse by allowing the unidentified postings of your readers, I'm not sure that the standard of good behavior - which is apparently the only threshold one must meet in order to join the conversation - is sufficient.

Allowing anonymous postings, especially in political discourse, provides absolutely no accountability. I'm not sure that the polity is well-served by allowing anonymity, as such a shield encourages much expression that while, technically civil, is not also technically discourse. Personal attacks, electioneering, and advocacy of positions of naked self-interest appear to result when posters can hide behind anonymity. If that is what your newspaper wishes to encourage, why not provide free blog pages for all subscribers? That way, each of these folks, afraid to stand up publically for what they believe, can bloviate to their heart's content.

On Pappas Ads Bunk

Posted on May 28 at 7:59 p.m.

Wow! What enlightened civic discourse.

Sadly, it would all be much more compelling if the responses to Mr. Duncan's original entry were not posted with unidentifiable usernames, in essence the equivalent of an sending anonymous letters. Most newspapers refuse to accept such forms of communication. I suppose the internet condones this type of cowardly self-expression, but I'm sad to see that the Independent buys into such a convention.

At the risk of sounding sexist...MAN UP Santa Barbara and Santa Ynez! At least have the courage of your convictions and identify yourself as you throw political pooh at each other. Doing less than that makes you little more more than monkeys at the zoo.

On Pappas Ads Bunk