One guy, Edward Wasserman, a professor of journalism ethics, thinks the rudeness of certain commenters detracts from the overall discussion:

The extreme license given individuals to vent, dissemble, excoriate and indulge their hates verbally, winds up destroying the expressive freedom that other people, less bold and less opinionated, need. ... The overall result is a less expansive, less robust sphere of expression &mdash and sound, worthwhile thoughts aren't shared.

If someone isn't bold enough to express his or her opinion anonymously in an online forum out of fear of meanie commenters, that person is a wimp. Sorry, it had to be said.

Wasserman goes on to say there should be rules. Even at Gawker, there are rules: the unfunny are executed. But what about major news organizations? How should they police the smarter than you, more insanely random than you, boring and bored? And frankly, are these people even worth policing/ Do most Times readers care about the vocal group of commenters?

And so, I open it up to you, the commenters. Why are you here? Why are you so nasty? What should be done with you?