Numerous factors determine whether or not a weblog should have a commenting feature, the most obvious of which is the whim of the overseeing administrator, others of which are matters of principle. In the most general sense, these have to do with what could be termed the maturity of a publication - particularly one comprised of multiple contributors, each fully capable of responding between and amongst themselves. A publication that adheres to the oft-abused conventions of the proper use of journalistic English should demand the same calibre of linguistic competence from its respondents. A publication that discusses topical matters with focus and depth should demand the same quality of thought from its readers. With an open commenting system, there is no method by which we can enforce either. Thus, we disallow open comments just as print magazines only publish and respond to a limited selection of letters to the editor. The seeming infinity of bits and bytes as opposed to expensive column inches is no excuse for relaxing this restriction where it need not be relaxed.

Mandos refers to threaded conversations on bulletin boards as an ideal to which weblogs should aspire. This is a curious observation given that much of the success of weblogs has rested on it being a reactionary medium with tighter regulations. Even the publications in weblog format that features comment threads spanning several hundred posts claim the advantage of the discourse being restricted, in that only those who post on the website proper can begin topics and determine what is to be discussed. The result is more focus and less clutter. It is not too difficult to see that the next logical step in maintaining a controlled degree of professionalism, especially on a high-traffic site built around politics (a personally sensitive subject to surprisingly many), is to treat the privilege of being published as exactly that: a privilege.

As Mustafa correctly points out, many, if not all of the contributors to this site will gladly post and/or reply to items that arrive in our inboxes if they have something substantial to say. This permits us to edit them in non-substantative ways for structural and grammatical correctness, as the last thing the Internet needs is the continued sodomy of language. It also opens the door to something that cannot be done with comments: directing the readership's attention towards the best and most insightful of the lot. It is for more than mere convenience that all of our e-mail addresses are listed by our names in the "Honourable Members" column to the right.

As far as pretension is concerned, there is nothing the Internet needs more.