My last column [“Ron Paul Is Insane,” Nov. 14] attracted an astounding amount of online comments: more than 1,000.

After reading through most of the comments, — some of them vicious, many of them vitriolic — the 100-plus e-mails and the dozens of IMs, I realized that my last column was a mistake. Ron Paul is still nuts. But that’s not the real problem. It’s his supporters — or at least, the fanatical ones — who are truly insane. The kind of invective, accusations and abuse directed at me, which have been similarly directed at others who have challenged Paul’s supremacy on the Internet, only strengthens Paul’s image as a fringe candidate propped up by a small group of fanatical supporters typing away at blogs containing the words “Liberty” and “Constitution.” The Internet has united Paul’s supporters all over the country in a way that would have been impossible 15 years ago and provided an ironclad echo chamber that reinforces the belief that no one in their right mind could disagree with Paul’s views.

I predicted in my last column that the Paultards would comment-bomb me like mad, a prediction that was more accurate than even I imagined. The amount of comments surprised — and scared me.

It is impossible to categorize all the comments; there are just too many to sort through. But some key points emerged. They attacked me from various angles: some accused me of being a neoconservative, and some accused me of being a socialist. I am neither. I do believe in globalization, though some accused me as if it was a bad thing. It’s not. An astounding number said something like, “RON PAUL IS NOT INSANE; YOU’RE INSANE!” Some tried to impersonate me, with varying degrees of success, and some made puns on my name, such as the profound “Is Stu short for Stupid?” And many were only semi-coherent. Am I really “marinat[ing] in shame?”

At least 99 percent of the comments were from non-Stanford students. And while the response was overwhelmingly against my column, the student response was more mixed. One student agreed with me, remarking: “The man is several tacos short of a fiesta platter for sure. Several samosas short of an Indian wedding. You get the idea. Stuart, great article.”

Some others did not, respectfully and reasonably. A couple students seemed concerned about the revolutionary rhetoric of some of the more extreme Paultards: “I’m afraid of fanatics who swarm with your zeal gaining power and demanding [that] the people who don’t agree with you lose their voice, as you suggest. Say what you want, but you are making Ron Paul look dangerous.” I also made some of my fellow Daily columnists jealous. They can barely muster 10 comments, but I — I can get 1,000 and challenge the great Azia Kim piece of yesteryear! (It’s still beating me with more than 1,700 comments).

There were also a great number of thoughtful posts lost in the morass of tirades. Many readers were understandably upset that I made what they termed an “ad hominem attack” on their candidate. I was using the term “insane” liberally, not at all in a clinical sense, and I maintain that Paul’s views lie on the fringe of American society and politics. Even on the comments section, there was occasionally a debate between the hardline supporters aggressively attacking me, and more reasonable types who contended that the invective was not accomplishing anything. But the hardliners were louder and won — at least in sheer number of comments.

The Paultards’ main argument seems to again and again make blustery references to the Constitution — “Long Live the Constitution!” This tactic is misleading. The “Constitutional fundamentalism” of the Paultards references an era that may not have actually existed and advocates a minimalist state that the American people don’t want.

The U.S. has involved itself in “entangling alliances” since the Revolutionary War and has never ceased to do so. American history has been a constant struggle to reconcile the lofty ideals of the Constitution, a document open to differing interpretations, with the realities of governing and the wishes of the people. Viewing the Constitution as an unchanging, static and minimalist document is simply one interpretation of the Constitution; there have been others since the beginning.

Paul’s supporters have already been expelled from major conservative political Web sites such as Redstate and GOPUSA. Wonkette — the Gawker of Washington, D.C. — has declared “War on the Paultards.” The FBI recently raided the headquarters of a group that was illegally producing its own currency, the “liberty dollar,” with Paul’s face on it. A University of Alabama study has shown that Paul’s supporters exaggerate their presence online through the use of botnets, or automated software programs that spam Web sites.

Only now has a backlash against his supporters’ strong-arm and intimidating tactics begun. It’s a little disconcerting to receive over 100 emails and IMs, considering that neither my email address nor instant-message username are posted on the Daily Web site (for this express reason, actually). It’s also improper.

The Paultards have impressive Internet organizing capacities. Supporting a unique candidate, however, does not mean that they are not bound by the informal conventions of civic discourse. A thousand comments were certainly excessive, especially the ones that accused me of making ad hominem attacks and then doing the same to me. Perhaps Paul would be taken more seriously if his supporters behaved in a way that was acceptable not only to themselves, but to general society as well.

Stuart Baimel remains in an undisclosed location. Do you agree with Stu’s view? ronpaulisinsane@gmail.com. Don’t? stuartbaimelisinsane@gmail.com.