“Sad is the day that a Muslim is elected only because the press and others do not want to be called “racist” but he lived in Indonesia and attended muslim school, black americans back up always another black no matter who or what he did. It is o.k. to denigrate a woman like Mrs. Clinton but to dare to spell Obama middle name is racist! HOSSEINI. I will vote for the Republican party, Obama is a risk for our security.” - Carmen, Dallas, BBC Have Your Say

“Obama is very eloquent and can make his audience think they’ve found Jesus and are redeemed. But while Obama is very long on inspiring words he’s very short on actual substance. If Obama gains the Whitehouse, he will shepherd legislation that will at least double the national debt and he’ll make the Middle East war a regional war that might well become global.” - James R. Jensen, Oak Creek, WI, USA, ibid.

I once had lunch with one of the editors of BBC Have Your Say (Talking Points, as-was) and accused him of encouraging lunatics. He responded by rattling off a list of comments that hadn’t made the Have Your Say grade, and pointed out that the BBC’s commitment to balance meant they were obliged to let through the odd extreme view, lest they be accused of bias.

I nearly spat soup through my nose at some of the examples that had been deemed too offensive. A terrifying window you couldn’t have wished for into just how ignorant, racist and just plain wrong so many people in Britain and abroad really are. And a more convincing counter-argument to the principle of online freedom of speech you couldn’t present.

The problem of course is that the vast majority of people who comment on blogs or on news sites do so because it’s the only place they can get read. No one’s going to publish their tell-all book on the New Labour conspiracy (title: ‘Nu LIEbour!!!1!’) or the ‘British Muslim Threat’ (title: ‘Eight Raisin’s!!!1!’) or Capital Punishment (’The Anser Is SIMPLE!!!1! ), even The London Paper won’t publish their text messages (’Does anyone else think that reading Harry Potter on the tube is JUST RANDOM? Its for children stupid!! LOL’) and the only reader of their blog is the Google spider.

These people are lunatics, pure and simple – and humourless ones too, judging by the fact that they consider the mis-spelt nickname to be the highest form of wit. The Grauniad? Oh by achnig sdies. And so they have to set their sights astonishingly low do to get their voice heard – to keep their hobby horse rocking: they comment on high traffic blogs, wedging their own personal obsessions into whatever story happens to be in the news. Madonna adopts a child? Let’s talk about the real problem here: Romanians and national service. And let’s do it anonymously.

But there is another type of Internet commenter – one that has something interesting to say, and is (wo)man enough to do so under their own name. They’re fewer in number, but greater in impact and it’s these people who restore your faith in Internet commenting and who provide the balance needed to keep the online debate ecosystem ticking over. Intelligent, articulate ladybirds to the aphids of ignorance, if you like.

And so it is that I feel slightly awful about something I did yesterday. I was trying to filter out a bunch of spam trackbacks that arrived after I stupidly listed some of the celebrity members of the Universal Life Church. No sooner had I clicked publish than link-baiting celebrity spam blogs began to link back, hoping to drive traffic to their Google ad links. Fortunately Wordpress has some pretty good spam blocking tools so I highlighted the spam and blocked it, deleting the offending trackbacks in the process.

Except that’s not what I did. What I did was highlighted the offending trackbacks and about a dozen other comments that were perfectly legitimate and had already been published. And now there’s no way to get them back. Shit.

I’m most irritated about deleting a comment from the Guardian’s Neil McIntosh – someone who is very smart, and articulate and actually can, and does, get his words published elsewhere – and yet who took the time to take me to task for saying that bloggers should seek to imitate Hunter S. Thompson. His argument – in a nut – was that, rather than looking back at Gonzo as something to copy, we should embrace blogging as something new. I responded along the lines that he might well be right – and that I was going to write a post this weekend debating it further.

But now instead I’m writing a post about how I accidentally deleted his comment, like a total idiot. So – I’m sorry Neil, and I’m sorry to the other 11 people who took the time to respond to posts – in their real names, in contrast to the dull cowards who so rile Estelle Morris and who one sees lurking around so many other online communities, – and whose comments have now been irretrievably lost. I promise I’ll be a lot more careful in future. And, Neil, feel free to resubmit your comment, if you have the time.