I'm not sure if it's been noticed before, but, on occasion, the Internet is not the best place to go for measured debate. Arguments on message boards, across social networking sites and in comment threads often have an edge to them which you see less routinely in real life, almost as if people are emboldened by the anonymity provided.

To give a comparison, this post so far is the second most understated thing ever written on the Internet. The most understated thing ever written on the Internet was a email by Mr Arnold Timms of Rochdale, who, having been on the Internet for a day, observed that people seemed to waste a significant amount of their time watching and reading things that made them very angry. (The third most understated thing ever written on the Internet was: 'I will hide in your house and cut you with a blade whilst you sleep you faggot'. This was also Mr Timms, midway through day eight.)

Some people may appreciate the directness, of course. "It's pithy", they might say. And it is. It can be also be venemouth, inthidious and, if you know where to look, a bit rathist.

One of my favourite things to do on the Internet is read the Twitter feed of Joe Cienkowski. Joe describes himself as a Christian author who lives his life for Jesus, so it all checks out up to this point. However, from casual observation, this often takes the form of berating people who don't believe that creationism is the only truth supported by science and that the Bible is the exact history of humanity, for hours at a time. I just can't imagine that Jesus would be looking down, thinking to himself, "OK, FINALLY. All the hungry are fed and the homeless are sheltered and sick are being cared for. Now, has anyone thought to berate the unbelievers?".

Today, I was reading the comments left on a Facebook wall post by Nick Clegg, who, similarly, is the deputy prime minister. If you have ever done this, you'll notice that people get a bit abusive. People repeatedly say 'broken promises' to him, regardless of the topic. Maybe this is like someone shouts a band's biggest hit song title at a band whilst watching them play something else. I worried that eventually he'll get fed up of hearing it and not play it at all. I mean, I've got a recorded version, but it's better live, isn't it?

Anyway, one comment I read particularly stood out. It said: "Nick, you're talking out of your backside, you've got your head up your ass". (Obviously, it didn't use punctuation nearly as well, and it used the word 'arse'. I always wondered why people do this. Is there someone I can arsk?). Now, this has two interpretations. The first is that Nick Clegg does in fact talk using his backside, and that he has, rather foolishly, also got his head up their as well, essentially muffling himself. I can't imagine that anyone with even basic public speaking training would allow themselves to make such a fundamental error.

The second option, which seems more likely to me, is that Nick Clegg actually speaks with his mouth. His mouth is in his head, which is currently up his own ass, giving the impression that he is, in fact, talking out of his ass. But he's not! He's talking out of his mouth, from some point near his ass. An understandable mistake, but not a fair criticism. It would be like having a go at someone for being both blind and a reckless driver.

(And then at this point I probably say something smart like 'please leave a comment and tell me what you think'.)