"I assume anonymous bloggers and commentators either have an axe to grind or are simply craven cowards. You should, too." - I was sure we were going to hear this from Susan who has received so much "cowardly criticism" over the past few months with regards to her made up stories of Martin Streak and constant negativity to anyone who disagrees with her. Maybe her story about how pride would be better without straight people drew her to this as she was tormented relentlessly for it. Susan, if you hate it, don't ask for it sweetheart.

"I'm constantly on the receiving end of some very nasty trash talk, courtesy of anonymous bloggers and commenters, and outraged by it. Why should online commentators get away with saying whatever they feel like without being made accountable, while those of us who use a byline to offer unpopular opinions have to take the heat?"

Because you get paid for it, dummy.

Why should those who get paid to offer opinions not be held accountable while those whose eyeballs provide advertising revenue (that pays your rent) be considered irrelevant? You just don't get it, the worst example being the untimely demise of Martin Streek and your desire to be "first." Retire.

You "assume anonymous bloggers and commentators either have an axe to grind or are simply craven cowards"?

What, without regard to WHAT they have to say? So if I post that I agree with you but I use a pseudonym I'm still just an axe-grinder or coward in your book?

Makes no sense. Maybe you're just out to insult 99% of the people who post comments anywhere on the net. I myself won't go out of my way to read your stuff again.

If you worked for an ad agency you'd no doubt be the one to come up with the slogan "drink Coke all you pathetic fat assoles"

These are veiled threats about freedom of speech issues to come. Susan Cole is definitely rabble rousing so she can get her more conservative friends who don't fuck hookers in the ass in the alleys of Toronto (you know, the ones who can find better ways to deconstruct this whore rag she edits) to leap to her side. Of course, it's not just about bloggers anymore but 'commenters' have been added to her cries for media mercy. I wonder if this is another ode to her friends - the traffic shaping eugenicists like Naomi Klein or her local poetry BFF's David Silverberg and Mike Smith.

Susan, get over yourself. You sell whores and drugs. Do I need to cite the examples before you sue? Go the fuck back to whatever rock you live under.

Just for clarification. It's called 'Letters to the Editor' mixed with freedom of speech. Just because you like to ban IPs when they don't agree with the sex trading that pays the rent of you and your Church Street fantasyland collection of street hacks and hipsters.

Remember something. You made money from your repeated botching of obituaries when CFNY's Martin Streek died. Hundreds of extra web clicks and traffic generated for advertisers. Do commenters have the right to share in that profit? Do they have copyright protection for the works here on the site?

Susan: NOW is the worst publication in Toronto. Taxpayer dollars are used to support and clean the areas around the newspaper boxes that dot every corner with this pissrag. Can you for one moment say that you are not a direct profiteer from the sex trade? What percentage of the millions of dollars from the full color ads you sell promoting the anonymous sucking of cock have gone to protection of sex assault victims? Don't forget your annual tribute to organized crime through the decriminalization/legalization issue. Are you chipping in on rehab?

Are you still banning IPs that don't fit your understanding of leftist propaganda? Where is the editorial statement explaining what comments you will allow and what you will not? Why is it okay to promote obscene anonymous sex bathhouse bawdy house reviews to your love circle of addicts and perverts but objections to that lifestyle are removed?

Folks, search "free proxy" and fix the geosurfing snooping Susan's web editors do on the comment section. I'm really not sure what these editors do with the personal data that comes up on their end when we submit. I wouldn't be surprised if Susan Cole was using it to sell more hookers.

Good points here for sure.... Susan...have you, or your employees, EVER used commenter IP data to target advertising eyeballs? Have you ever shared any of that data with third parties? Exactly what protections do you provide for those who freelance comment here on NOW? Are comment-makers entitled to revenue sharing?

Susan, is there any private information stored at NOW concerning comment data?

I think there is a problem here with talking out of both sides of your mouth. Your company is likely pocketing ad revenues from the geographic location data you are collecting on surfers and comment-makers, while you use your editorial leverage to headline a story about unfair treatment and comments that upset you.

I see a definite conflict of interest and loads of hypocrisy. As the previous poster commented, can we see a financial breakdown of the per click traffic rates and revenues from your two fictional and slanderous obituaries of CFNY's Martin Streek?

Remember how you used second hand information to tell us all that Streek's relapse into drug use inspired his demise? NOW THAT WAS WRITING!

Anyone mention me yet?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/aug/28/skanks-google-blogging-internet-gillmor

Whistle-blowers against people who can crush you like a bug (e.g. corporations, the President of the United States) have to have anonymity; two models that are contemporaries talking behind each other's backs should not. The rule is simple: if you might die for saying the truth, then say it anonymously. Not wanting to be perceived as a bitch while acting like a bitch isn't behavior that should be encouraged.

"What about all those people who tipped us on George Bush's rendition policies and newfangled torture techniques?"

There's a difference between fair comment, anonymous or not, and making defamatory or libellous statements that you wouldn't make to someone's face and hiding behind a blog.

There's a difference between fair comment, anonymous or not, and making defamatory or libelous statements that you wouldn't make to someone's face and hiding behind a blog.

Case in point: the nasty feminist screed Joss Wheedon-Rapist from three years ago, in which he was accused of being a rapist because of his female characters on his TV shows. What that lady said deserves her being sued by Whedon and his lawyer, except for the fact that she lives Down Under, so sadly, it won't happen.