Yes, I fully agree. I chose the name DialectiBlue, which is also my Blog site, for a reason. Robust and challenging debate is healthy for any society.

However that debate must address the issue, not the person.

I fully agree too. Before so many people had access to the internet people used to write in to newspapers. This ensured a screening process and letters which were just a tirade of abuse were simply not published.

It also played a valuable role in making opinions more easily understood: often on the net one has to painstakingly plough through spelling errors which render thoughts ambiguous, grammar and syntax that thoroughly confuses, and misused or unused punctuation that leaves one completely at sea as to what the person is actually saying.

Whereas reading print forums actually could serve a semi-educational purpose in these respects, the net simply perpetuates and solidifies the inadequacies of lack of knowledge in these areas. When other posters try to help or advise they, in turn, are often trolled for doing so as if clarity of expression were an elitist concept.

I am at a loss really to know what is understood by trolling or flaming as so much of the content of on-line forums seems to belong in these categories yet is allowed to stand, regardless of the damage it can cause to people's psyches. I have been thoroughly shocked by comments on OLO such as "You are a retard" which, overlooking the inanity and childishness of such comment, is unacceptable on more than one level.

I was thinking of Foxy while reading this article.

Foxy manages to show the rest of us how to write well reasoned, polite and erudite posts. And for simply doing so, she has been flamed by a certain collection of posters who fit exactly Daphne's description of the troll or defamer.

We can all learn to use our words more wisely and the resultant increase in communication and understanding would be immeasurable. Oh who am I kidding? only myself...

Well yes and no. One's persons robust debate has another screaming 'defamation'.

There have been some posts on OLO that have made me blanch but they tend to come from a small unrelated 'collective' of whackos who trott out the same old lines and who push vendettas.

They hide behind their posts and go for the man or woman rather than the central theme of an article.

Even so, I have not read a statement here (OLO) that was truly defamatory. You'd have to name the person or others reading the post would have to know the person by innuenedo. There would also have to be a 'sting' to that person's reputation - imputed in some form in the minds of right thinking people. A tough one.

There should be honest, vibrant and hard hitting debates but if a minority of individuals are motivated by malice against a specific person, it's best not to turn on the computer.

Cheryl,

That's because they get deleted. You can see, oh now you cant, Fractelle, CJ Morgan and my own posts on another thread. Not sure whos handy work it is, but I'm glad there isn't any more posts about my mother on OLO.

BTW: I think for transparency the system should display a note in place of the deleted posts (and who requested them to be deleted) after they are removed.

I was on my way out of OLO for good anyway, but with this further risk of me/my arguments being misrepresented or misconstrued by the missing content I am even happier with my decision. I wanted to advise others of this problem though.

1)

Some interesting responses here...

Daphne Haneman, I would love to know a little more about you and what you have had printed in what journal/magazine/newspaper?

I'm interested in what motivated your comments here, and would REALLY like to know who your 'legal expert' was?

I'm inclined to agree with Cheryl's comment. It really DOES depend on one's own political and personal allegiance's as to what constitutes 'flaming' and 'trolling'. Jargonese that I have never quite come to terms with for the same reasons;-it is in the eye of the beholder.

If the basis of 'Freedom of Speech' is the inalienable right to say whatever one feels, then I am against FoS. I'm against it because it simply cannot exist. Posts HAVE been removed on OLO;- NONE of us has the right to say to another I'm going to kill you; and then exercise a 'freedom of expression'!! It doesn't happen (excluding the criminal element),-because it cannot be allowed to happen! Thus the so-called FoS concept is false; we have, by sheer civilized human behaviour perimeters to our FoS and associated behaviour.

My point is this. Within reason (see above!), we ARE monitored. That is what laws are for!
I have seen nothing on this topic that convinces me that what is offensive to some is based on a personal rather than a general opinion.

It is in my view, petty and sniping to refer to "certain other posters". That in itself breeds a negative attitude in that it leaves posters wondering if they were the individuals referred to!

Tbc.,