Civil discussion behind the cloak of anonymity

After reading the mean-spirited, vituperative comments on the online blogs and responses to articles in the newspaper I've become a strong supporter of identifying yourself with your comments. It is something that newspapers require in letters to the editor and I think it is something that needs to be adhered to in online discussions.

I'm enough of a realist to know that what I'm advocating won't happent anytime soon. There are too many craven people out there who don't have the honor or spine to let themselves be identified with their spiteful opinions.

However, there are people who do sign their comments and when I read their statements I find that even if I don't agree with their opinion I find it easier to respect them and the argument that they advocate.

I don't advocate cracking down on the comments unless they become simply an ongoing spitting match between two individuals or the comments and discussion becomes one of such a distasteful, personal feud that has absolutely nothing in common with the debate. Even then it may be better to "give them enough rope, to hang themselves."

I guess you could have a referee, just as they have in boxing matches or athletic events, to oversee and officiate the discussion to keep it within the bounds of good taste. But then the question becomes who is the arbiter and why do you draw the line where you do?

It's not surprising, at least here in America, that some of the more obnoxious posts and comments can be found about sports teams, athletes and coaches. There's very few things that will rise the blood pressure and bring down a reign of terror at the local newspaper's website like an under performing coach or team. Perhaps this phenomenon in not limited to the States. I know by observation that there are many futbol fans through out the world and I'm sure they're apt to express their sentiments with little civil discussion.