That's especially true at formal events. Let the speakers speak. Then take your turn and we'll listen.

... as if they were living inside a virtual chat room where they're able to respond WITHOUT having to read the entire message. They're the type that base their "retorts" only on the content of the subject line. I blame the internet, Twitter, the Morton Downey, Jr. Show ... and the Jerry Springer Show.

I have no problem with people protesting, even inside the hall, but they should not be doing it while a speaker is talking. If they had yelled "no more wars" as Panetta was leaving the stage I would have had no problem with it.

But, Leon Panetta has things to say that are worth listening to, as well. Why not hear him speak and shout when he is finished. Most people at that convention also want "no more wars," and would be very interested in how to make that happen. I know I would. I'd like to hear the ideas of those protesters on how to prevent more wars. They must have some ideas about how to do that, although I didn't hear any of them last night.

Yelling at an old man who is no longer in any position to do anything about wars probably isn't how you prevent more wars, I'd think.

Yelling at civil rights pioneer leaders, too, is misguided and nonproductive.

They should have waited until after he was finished. The way they did it was rude and counter-productive.

And I especially agree about yelling at civil rights leaders.

This is their last hurrah in front of cameras.

I expect disruption during Hillary Clinton's acceptance speech from inside the venue. What form it will take remains to be seen, but I believe it will occur.

That will be unfortunate.

I think she'll do fine at a minimum, and something in me is expecting her to bring a brand-new sort of thunder.

If it were me, I'd stop talking, look directly at the loudest protesters and simply wait them out. That would lead the rest of the audience to do the same, looking at and knowing who is making the unwanted noise. However long it took, I would simply wait silently and look straight at the offenders. I wouldn't say a word.

If it continued, the audience would take over and shout the protesters down after a short time.

Rude children are empowered by anger. Silence and staring works better. The "I really can't believe you are doing that" look can be very effective.

and support peaceful protest, but I really hate rudeness. I also want to be able to listen. The rudeness often undermines the protesters message.

After all, those who chanted "YES WE CAN," "HI-LA-RY," "U S A," etc. interfered with our ability to hear the speakers just as much, or more, as those who chanted "NO MORE WAR." In fact, the greatest interference with our right to hear probably came from applause and cheering rather than chanting.

I watched it all. Applause and shouts of support are a different thing. The speaker pauses for a short time and then continues. Anyone who is a public speaker knows how to quiet that praise down and continue. Speeches are designed to generate applause after key statements.

So, you are incorrect in your assumption. Sorry.

Thanks!

speakers at the Democratic Convention this year.

You can easily start a thread about the Iraq war if you wish to.