we've had several conversations at jewcy HQ about snark, about commentary, about anonymity, and about the difference between attacking and disagreeing.  conclusion: the former is lame and pointless, the latter can be important and healthy. every jewcy writer has his/her own method of dealing with both inappropriate attacks and vital disagreements.  i myself, after learning the hard way that the internet is a stupid place to fight, choose not to engage with ugliness (and ya'll certainly know what internet ugliness looks like).  but disagreement is another story.  

we've also debated whether the author of a post should, as a rule, abstain from dialogue about his/her post.  conclusion: why?  jewcy's a "conversation".  

michael nehora has a valid point.  i don't agree with it, but he's entitled to his opinion.  saying "i feel you, nehora" is part of an empathetic disagreement.  we're not in, like, an internet fight now, are we nehora?   i should hope not.  but if we are, fuck you.  no, i'm kidding.  seriously: kidding.