So let's say you work for, I dunno, a large blogging concern with multiple sites and a lousy, unreadable commenting system. And then let's say you decide to take a break from work at Huffington Post and check out something on Gawker Media.

You see this story—a somewhat unsettling one about Johnny Weir and allegations of domestic abuse that ends with his husband dropping all charges (with Weir present in court), that the author ends with something about the story having a happy ending. A commenter takes issue with that description, and says so in the comments. So, of course, the criticism would be ignored. Or mocked. Or the person would be banished, with a note about how if he doesn't like it, he can go somewhere else, right?

Well, that's weird...it's almost like Samer owned up to a mistake. And I might be crazy, but it also looks like he changed the story rather than doubling down on it (or, as has happened on Gawker, adding a comment at the end about how some people complained, but not changing anything in the text itself).

So...discourse, elevated?