[GarthB]

I'm sure Peter's article will prove to be interesting and thought provoking as is most of his previous work. I'm also sure that he will do less assuming in his piece.

I know a number of people who are sensitive to attacks on their integrity whether they are in a quasi-anonymous setting or not. Our own dear U.S. president has reportedly gone into an absolute rage over attacks on his. And this where no one but secret service agents can see him. Hard to be in a more anonymous setting than that. Yet in public, he handles the same barbs with great aplomb.

I wouldn't use having difficulty with personal attacks on the internet as criteria for how one performs in the real world. Very often, just the opposite is true. I know of some umpires on the internet who handle attacks with something just short of grace, yet in the real world when they are seen coming on the field eyes roll and snickers are heard. Once the chirping starts, they just go to hell.

While we cannot deny who we are and it is we take all our baggage with us where ever we go, some of us are better actors than others. Two days ago I ejected a multi-ethnic catcher and was subjected to catcalls of "bigot" and "racist." There is nothing more dear to a former 60's liberal than his sense of racial fairness, and I was never more pissed at or shaken by fans in my life. But I decided that I never heard them. My zone didn't waver. My judgment on close plays at home remained consistent and both coaches congratulated me for staying in the game and giving them my best, even the coach of the ejected player and the obscene fans.

Have fans ever gotten to me? Sure. But it had nothing to do with any outward reaction you or any one else has ever witnessed or any trait I have exhibited in anonymous environments.

Again, there is no doubt in my mind that Peter's artcle will entertain and even enlighten, but I doubt it will be based on mere conjecture. I have known of Peter for several years. We have been on opposite sides and we have been on adjacent sides. Peter says what he thinks. I have no problem with that. And, over time, he has improved in how he puts his thoughts on paper. While he can still be provocative, and intentionally so, at times, I have learned to have a better understanding for the message behind the medium.

I do have new found respect, however, for his marketing skills; not the cheap plug for his article, but how he has used a seemingly needless needling of an adversary as a hook to his new series. At first, I thought, "Why dredge this up again, Peter?". But it became quickly obvious: For the same reason the National Inquirer will never let Elvis die or Bill Clinton go impotent.

The devise works so well, rather than be offended, Warren will probaly do it homage by using it to his own advantage on a piece down the road.