Susan

I once took negative comments to my submissions to heart until I learned to dismiss them. Those who have a positive reaction to a submission do not feel impelled to rush to comment - but the eccentrics occupying their own moral high ground do. OLO does not screen comments as the Sydney Morning Herald does to its bloggers.

My disappointment with OLO is that the wealth of information that appears on it seems to just drift back into oblivion as new submissions arrive. I admit that cross-referencing the stuff would requre a lot of extra staff-time.

OLO is very mild compared with debate in Parliament. At least on OLO you hear from all sides unlike the BBC and ABC which follows its own dogmas.

The lack of a true democratic process in all countries except perhaps Switzerland is because of a lack of an input process by constituents.
Online opinion could perhaps provide this input by providing a poll or vote for contentious questions.
If this was engineered into the site and gained large enough support, it could influence the policies of governments and oppositions.
Politicians do listen to the voters at times and if they do not they will lose power eventually.
A massive swing for or against a policy should have some influence even if not as effective as a referendum could give more of a democratic force to the country.
At the moment, there is no definite benchmark of opinion and it needs to be addressed by a vote.

Susan Giblin doesn’t attract the ‘respect’ she craves. First, as a newcomer to Australia, she starts an amazing thread about non-citizens voting; now, she is back, complaining about how OLO works and the gall of some Australians who disagree with her. To me, people like Ms. Giblin are akin to the colonialists who moved into countries assuming that the natives were idiots.

By hoeing in with the absurd idea that Australia, or any other country, should even think about non-citizen voting – just because she felt out in the cold – Ms. Giblin offered us a mountain of disrespect.

Ms. Giblin has been well advised by Brian Holden, a regular contributor who has had some awful things said to him.

We posters often say awful things to each other. Ms. Giblin should stop seeing herself as a missionary to the Antipodes and toughen up.

OLO is a pretty broad church, Susan. I rarely take comments to heart and neither should you.

Your prior article was quite good and probably deserved more positive comments but remember that you're in the public domain and Australians (and our media) can at times 'go for the jugular'.

There are always cranks but they shouldn't be confused with those who hold passionate opinions. For example, we're in the midst of a national debate about the effects of global warming and carbon emissions on policy. That's a hot topic (no pun intended) so the responses can be rapier-like.

Vote with your keyboard and write another article for OLO.

Other forums where the feedback Sue seeks happens have a much smaller focus eg; motoring , fishing , cooking etc here you commonly have your
photo and Bio listed . It's all touchie feelie , nothing wrong with that I think ?

OLO is a Journalists Library and a Voters ballot box .

Next time you vote , hist hark , listen carefully if you hear 'Thanks' come out of the slot you will know I am wrong !
There is nothing personal at OLO .
Further I believe if you get no reply , you said it all and everyone agrees on the other hand ...................................etc.

If visitors were allowed to Vote they could distort the vote and harm the people in an electorate where say the Electorate has 20,ooo locals and 10ooo visitors eg Gold Coast holiday destinations .

On the other hand if you just want company , not necessarily a commitment then buy a scoota join a scoota club buy a sleeping bag a double one just in case and scoot off round the wineries , mountain, great ocean road etc.

PS never buy a scoota less than 250cc , breaking integrity and climbing ability are safty issues they start at 200cc capacity .

Susan, many thanks for your thoughful comments and insights on your experience as a contributor to OLO. They largely mirror mine. If you look at the comment directly above you will see the main negative (but inevitable) aspect of OLO. That is that OLO provides a mouthpiece and platform for people who see intellectual discourse as a competition rather than a valuable and meaningful sharing of ideas, values and emotions. The (anonymous) contribution from such people is rarely thoughtful or respectful, and typically reflects a cynicism and elitism that is disturbing. Anyone who cares deeply about human rights, refugees or even the nuances of complex issues is subject to derision and denigration (bile). Their reality must be sad and narrow if this reflects their general attitude to life.

Susan,
Having re read your original post given its subject matter and the personalities on OLO I'm not surprised at the response you received.
While you did indeed get some good/constructive posts you did stir up the more idiosyncratic members.

I see the issue as follows.

In any site I've ever been on there are as in society the are a wide range of commenters. Some are wise and measured and others are well borderline xenophobic and limited in their reasoning, literacy skills. Others see OLO conflict as a game or agenda grinders. Some in the absence of any insight tend to stir as a means of maintaining their perceived importance i.e. Easier to be a stirrer than have one's arguments proven deficient.
For that reason it is a matter of placing your blog with the most suitable site depending on the response you want.

The naysayers to your seminal point on OLO, at least the more vocal ones don't tend to be the best skilled at alternative arguing. Many as you have found, resort to tactics that are more common in bars after a few too many. No one listening to the other, getting louder and more trenchant in their individual stances ...etc.

Secondly in the public domain authors must develop a keener sense of judgement as to the merit of the commentor and therefore comment.

I personally hold article contributors to a higher standard of argument than comment posters. I have no real interest in those who follow biased political dogma as opposed to objective propositions etc. Balance is sterile objectivity rules. The first type tend to polarise ensuing comments and are largely thinly veiled political tub thumping than thought provoking or informative.

Finally the over all issue is one that all editors face finding the balance between freedom of speech as opposed to those who see the freedom to insult, bully, axe grind etc.
I would suggest stronger objectivity in both articles and discussion topics and gradually counsel the more extreme to modify their pointless/counter productive argy bargy etc.

I agree that debate should be generally respectful - without personal insult. And ideally participation will be such that well-thought-out positions will be put to affirm positions in articles, and to criticize them... But even though, debate should not sink to personal insult.

As for the main newspapers - and their online incarnations - I have tried many time to put my view forward on Fairfax and other such websites - and have rarely been published. (I remember being published just once many years ago in The Age... I also had a good run with The Canberra TImes - but that was a long time ago)) re: Fairfax - I'm not talking about Op-Ed material here- just trying to take part in public debate...

That said, I really appreciate the opportunity OLO provides for the kind of open debate that you just don't find elsewhere... The forum here is open and participatory - and we need more - not less -of that...

Interesting feedback, Susan.

I must confess that my first thought when I saw your original article was "my goodness, that lady is leading with her chin." A piece about dam' furriners, written by a dam' furriner. Asking for trouble, I thought.

As it turned out, my fears that it would be used as a hook from which to dangle a raft of racist sentiment were not realized. But it did come close at one point.

Sadly, the chances of a coherent debate on issues related to immigration are extremely slim.

I don't believe this position is confined to OLO, or even to Australia. Of all debatable issues, immigration is one that receives a predominantly visceral response.

Much like religion, in that respect.

Like religion, "where I live" is at base an emotional issue. Logic, or economic theory, or even government policy, have little effect on the way we feel about our nationality, and how we wear it.

Some find overt nationalism an embarrassment, while others rely upon it for a good part of their self-image.

So don't take the responses you received - or are now receiving - at all personally. You chose a subject that in my view, quite literally cannot be debated at an intellectual level in an open forum such as this.

Had you chosen a less personal topic, you would have been received more thoughtfully.

Susan - I regret that I did not see the original article but as journalist for 30 years experience and an occasional contributor of OLO, as Mark Lawson, I can make a few comments.

* Those with thin skins should not post online. There are plenty of readers who will not like what you say but, being unable to set out their own arguments, will stoop to abuse. These people should be ignored.

* There are those who will be abusive and may also have a valid point. Never respond to abuse with abuse. Respond to the point, if you wish to respond at all. You said something about meeting critics in person. Never do that. It will not be seen as strength but as weakness. The abuse worked!

* You may see some posts that are so far off the point and nonsensical, that you feel obliged to point this out. Don't. All you get is a response that is even more nonsensical.

* All that said you do sometimes get interesting responses. You just have to go through a lot of dross to get to the gems.

Susan thanks for an interesting piece. Much of what you have said mirrors my thinking on the issue. I'd rather see more people take responsibility for making the environment here better for all, others hold quite strong views to the contrary. I prefer active involvement in this process by contributers rather than the heavy hand of a moderator.

I think that there is value when authors engage in the discussion associated with their articles (and in other discussions). It provides opportunity to clarify points which might not have been well understood in the original, hopefully the opportunity for the author to rethink stuff whichg needs a rethink and refine parts of their premise (along with other posters).

R0bert

Good on you Susan. You are dead right but there are some crusty old curmudgeons post here so you better be prepared for some robust debate. As a young fella of Irish and Scottish stock it was said by my teachers that I would argue with the Devil on judgment day. They thought I would be a lawyer and guided me to an academic stream. We had a superb English teacher, good science and maths, but my Latin teacher was a disappointment and drove me almost to drink, something I had to catch up on when I got a bit older.

If you don’t yet have an Australian Constitution go out and buy one. Have a look at it as an Act of Union between the United Kingdom as it was in 1900, and the colonies of Australia as they were in 1900, with a very large population of Irish Australians and just as the Scottish lately got home rule, so that was what that document did for us.

If that is right you should still be entitled to vote in Australia because no referendum has ever changed the status of Irish citizens vis a vis Australia. You kicked the Poms out, and got home rule in 1922, and then decided on a republic, but I am reliably informed the Irish republic still includes a reference to the Trinity in it.

We owe a great debt of gratitude in Australia to Celtic women like yourself. They were prepared to question male dominance of everything; fought for and got female suffrage and have proved themselves to be the intellectual equals of their menfolk in every way. The legend of the diminutive Irish redhead wife who was able to strike the fear of God into her big strong husband is ubiquitous. Our family was successful because of the enormous contributions of the wives and mothers to their husbands success. When it got a bit much, we could always go to the pub, and celebrate or commiserate. Nowadays you girls can too. Have one for me next time you go

As a political scientist who tries to keep his opinions enough middle Road to call for comments critising both sides, such as sharing the blame, does not seem to fit in with our present OLO procedure, as would fit in with university studies.

As proven through historical studies, for both warring sides not to admit their mistakes to each each other is a sure way to start a future war over it.

Here's Hoping, BB, WA.

Susan

Your reflections are common to all who bravely present their opinions only to find that your deeply felt views provide target practice for the disaffected.

Your desire for a democratic, inclusive forum are the ideal for which the majority aspire. That there will be stirrers, who cleverly include a valid point within their abuse, can be difficult to resist either by a knee-jerk reaction of one's own or hurt that one's sincerely felt beliefs are treated with a complete lack of consideration or respect.

Having posted on this forum a while now, I choose to whom I will reply. If someone is clearly just spoiling for a brawl I choose to ignore them as I would an obnoxious drunk in a bar.

Overall, I have come to know and highly respect a diversity of posters with whom I may not agree, but who clearly present the reason for their opinions and have obviously researched and worked hard just for a simple post of 350 words. And I know that these people are in the majority here and on similar forum sites elsewhere.

There are also the quiet majority who rarely post but do follow these discussions; often in preparing a discussion thread or a post I will consider that audience as well.

Susan welcome, keep up with the articles. BTW on the topic of non-citizen voting consideration should be given to people working here and paying taxes, perhaps for a period of 12 months or more. Just a thought.

Regards

I don't agree with the sympathetic comments for Susan, although I too took a few articles to become hardened to criticism.

Yes, we would like all replies to be civil, but winning over people who are critical (even rude) is just as important as anyone else.

After all, everyone is a voter and a possible advocate of the ideas promoted by authors. One needs only to remember the rise and fall of One Nation as debate exposed the flaws of Hanon's ideas.

its on line..OPINION..[so naturally your going to get the full spectrum of OPINION here,..as others have explained..that aspect..[and as i possably was under suspention at the time of your origonal posting[i will respond to your origonal'topic'..[in my usual illiterate way]

you have a complete missunderstanding of what voting is..[its in truth a defacto giving up of power of self attourney]..see that we are not a democratic state,..but a mere confused mix of colony and country

we have no sovereigns..[yet the invader/queen holds some defacto-power[but its not legally-constituted/power,..its a power held under maritime/juristiction and the law of contract..[businnes law]

see..our constitution is a british act..[it was made quasi legal by a referendum of some 10's of thousands..not by informed concent..[but it is a'document'that controls govt..[not the people]..so lawyers needed to deliver to'govt'..a means to control the people..[this they do by having us'register to vote']

understand that registering is what you do to slaves..[to make it more clear..KNOW register means legally beg..[we beg to vote[and under law it is presumed the beggor knows for what he begs

[in this case we..by begging[to vote]..the vote creates a defacto power of atourney..[a slave master relationship]..voter means imbisile..[a legal term..meaning..a ward of the state]

see the sailing orders of captain phylip..where the king orders phylip to seize the estates of the imbisiles and lunatics..[thats what a voter is]..its quite complicated to comprehend..[so i will simply prattle on]..and you confirm or deney as you chose

see the hrh is like a queen on the seas..[under maritime juristiction]read the east india charter act,..some info may be found here
http://www.pacificguardian.info/

we are born enslaved..[our parents register our berth[birth],as we emerged from the water we are legally landed cargo,..when our mother ship berthed..[thus registered like any other landed chattle]

it is important to know for what we beg..[and equally as important to know not to take oath..[yet to register..we must swear the info is true and correct..[yet jesus warned us not to swear to ANYTHING..[james5;12, mathew 5;33-37,mathew 23;16-25]

more info can be found here[and at prev link]
http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/forum/index.php?sid=903cab1758b64e4578ae04dfcf59578b

"I did get some responses to my article. Most of them were negative and some were quite rude and disrespectful. At the end of the process..."

Susan there are always going to be rude and disrespectful people. I hope by negative you do not mean disagreement. One can disagree in a respectful way but I would not label that as negative per se.

While we might understand your feelings about disempowerement, there are always other sides to a debate and other people's views will not always mirror your own. That is democracy.

Keep writing on different topics and ignore the rude comments.

OLO attracts a wide cross section of writers and participants which makes it an interesting site.

Suzie, the only way to avoid being critised fairly or unfairly is to say nothing, do nothing.

History shows that the people who bring about change are the ones who do say something, and do something. Mind you they can cop a fair amount of flak.

But mostly it is a storm in a teacup.

Nobody bothers to remember until they think that they can use it against you.

The Forum Rules are given as:

* Keep responses on topic.
* Do not flame.
* Do not "shout" (use capital letters excessively).
* Do not post the same message across multiple threads.
* Do not attempt to circumvent suspensions.
* Observe copyright and defamation laws.

(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp)

If the first two were upheld, most of the worries expressed by the author would be redundant. I appreciate that it requires a fair bit of work to delete posts that contain personal insults, however the payoff would be more productive discussions. The nature of anonymous forums means that some people will be openly obnoxious and post thoroughly irrelevant material if they're allowed to do so by the forum administrators.

Deleting or hindering obnoxious posters for sure won't detract from the open discussion sought after. If a few recalcitrant eggs drop out, so what. They can p1ss right off IMO.

Susan, a timely piece, given the recent events in some other threads. Sadly, opinion is often only valued here if it conforms to the dominant group paradigm. there is a small group of regular posters who go out of their way to shut down any conversation they don't like, often feigning offence to do so. It is common for one of these people to issue an edict to the others that "this one shouldn't be responded to", which is a signal to flood the thread with complaints of offence taken, rather than responding to points raised.

Fractelle's comment :"That there will be stirrers, who cleverly include a valid point within their abuse," is a clear example of this sort of thinking. Instead of responding to and engaging with the valid point (which is often at odds with the preferred view of the "group" and may hence make her uncomfortable), she chooses to respond with great offence to the "abuse", which may be no more than an expostulation such as "rubbish!", thus giving herself a warm inner glow of self-righteousness and maintaining a firmly closed mind. I've even been told by one member of "the group" that to ask questions is bullying!

However, notwithstanding the efforts of "the group", conversation proceeds. Imperfectly and inconclusively, perhaps, but often in interesting directions. Don't be discouraged by the efforts of the would-be Thought Police.

WOW interesting post..[let it all hang out]
cant wait for your second post...lol...

so please [our new ..mr policman]
define flaming?

define responding to topic?

pray tell which of the above responses are obnoxious?

i would reply to your flame

[but will wait till you post a few more times..
to get the flow of your next opinions]..

anyhow welcome to the forum

<<Deleting or hindering..>>interesting turn of phrase<<..obnoxious posters for sure won't detract from the open discussion sought after...>>i figure the thing to do is point them out where and when they ocure

<<If a few recalcitrant eggs drop out,so what...They can p1ss right off IMO...>>..ah but who judges..after you been here a bit longer you will see they soon get sorted out by the other posters..grayham fortuinatly asks both sides to explain.. a rarety in forums you would agree

[still its pretty strong opinion straight out of the gate]what we hate in others we tend to hate in ourselves

[i hate to see anyone 'p1zz off'...]
those i disagree most with ...often have the most to teach me
and allow me to respond..to correct where..[in my opinion]..they err

its only words [only opinion ...after all]
by our words are we revealed or reviled

anyhow cheers eh

how was your first writing experience
of responding to your first olo topic

I'm intrigued in how many of the responses seem to be along the lines of "the net's a tough place, toughen up or stop writing".

The reality part is that the net does have some very rude people posting on it, the aspirational part is that change has to start somewhere and a lot of other realities have been changed by people saying abusive cultures are not OK and we want change.

The article has suggestions about how we could make OLO better. I for one don't just want to hear from authors (and posters) who are tough enough to choose to take part in what is often an abusive environment. I think we miss out on hearing from a lot of good people because some so love dishing out abuse. Sometimes they have some wothwhile things to say but the nastier the post the less often ther is topical value in it.

I don't want the site to be dominated by relentless monitoring and policing by Graham, Susan (and the possy they would need to engage to do so). Rather that we develop a culture amongst the regulars where abusive behaviour is not part of what we do.

I've wondered how much of what we pick up here goes back into our day to day lives, if we are used to responding to faceless people rudely do we begin to get that bit ruder with those around us? If we are constantly ready for the insult do we stay more on edge than we need to be?

On the other hand I have also wondered if I've learned to manage conflict better elsewhere because of the nature of the conflict here - I don't think so but that's a possibility.

R0bert

one under god: "so please [our new ..mr policman] define flaming?"

Why not ask the forum administrator that question, since he wrote the rules? If there were no rules at all on this forum, I wouldn't bother commenting on the matter.

It's obvious when someone is personally attacking someone else, rather than the other person's argument or comment.

I do note however that there's a "recommend this comment for deletion" button below each post.

one under god: "i would reply to your flame"

Why do you consider my post to be a flame? It clearly contained no insults nor any intention of causing offence.

one under god: "what we hate in others we tend to hate in ourselves"

Maybe. But what's that got to do with me? I only wish to see abusive people go away or have their abusive comments thrown out.

one under god: "pray tell which of the above responses are obnoxious?"

Well none of them, of course. Nobody in this thread has personally attacked anyone else or displayed any intention of being insulting. It's a 'clean thread'.

One of the main problems for both contributors and posters is that many of us (i.e. the entire human race)believe that we are right, and others are wrong. Some people deem it an insult if you merely disagree with them; others will call you names, such as: ignorant, undeducated, racist etc. if you hold views other than their own. Still others will think that you are not worth listening to.

There's nothing anyone can do about this, short of censorship, which nullfies the entire reason for OLO's existence.

Susan Giblin should not stop contributing because she didn't like what some dweadful posters said about her article. She should make use of the opportunity to express her views in the knowledge that she will never have a safer medium to do so. People of opposing views can have their say without tempers leading to something far worse than a verbal shellacking.

Leigh

Very well said. Debate, debate, debate is the key to a healthier demcocracy, society and world.

Humanity, with its divisions and different needs, is far too complex for one to assume they know best, although we can all aspire to be better writers and more astute in regard to the complex issues we face

Susan,
I recall reading your first article but cannot recall if I responded or not. I may have considered the article too silly to bother responding, so am not inclined to look back to see. If I did respond I most probably said the concept of non-citizens voting was stupid and tthat I do not know of any nation that allows it.

The idea of non-citizens having any influence on a countries electionis, to me, just plain ridiculous.

I do not see how you can think yourself voiceless and disenfranchised just because you cannot vote in the country you happen to be in at the time of their election. Surely you have the right to vote in the country in which you are a citizen. You would merely have to contact your home countries embassy.

I notice you are an academic and your ideas on this do not reflect favourably on academics generally.

I would use your article as an example that the world is getting sillier.

My post is off topic , however I would like to respond to the latter posts vilifying the 'quality' of some posts .

OLO is a political forum , people in politics can be passionate .
Surely we can put up with people who on viewing little Asian children locked up behind barbed wire future unknown become passionate .
I know I did , and I voted for Howard , I have 5 kids will that help ?
Or am I now a registered sinner ?

I like OLO the way it is , OLO tells it like it is , limited sanitation get where people are going with the full Monty .
While some of the posts regarding Keelty are ugly , we are not left wondering about the depth of some peoples hatred for this man , in my view that matters . In my view his responsibilities were untenable .
Haneef should have had his day in Court , his association close up and personal with Terrorists is untenable . Thats just my opinion isn't it and I can post it on OLO . Anyone reading this knows my vote matters .

Afraid our OLO ia becoming too much like a local U3A I was asked to take groups in?

The particular U3A was begun fifteen years ago mostly by ex-journos and bush activists like myself who joined three years later after graduating from Curtin.

However, in taking groups I felt I still needed to work through a university, finding that Murdoch made me the most welcome, which went on for 13 years till the death of my wife and partner.

Sad to say, though still well-packed, the insistence right now according to headings on U3A newsletters seems mostly on friendliness rather than learning.

Certainly friendliness prevents much of the backbiting, but so does respectable tuition as in universities, yet what a few of us mature age students do believe in are ways to prevent wars which means looking for good in both sides, which most always will be found when either side will give admiitance to a blame, as is recommended for feuding families.

It is thus so interesting that when first learning politics one is told to think about genuine kindness and understanding in successful families.

Examinator wrote, "The naysayers to your seminal point on OLO, at least the more vocal ones don't tend to be the best skilled at alternative arguing. ..."

This can be somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

I would object that I do take care to acknowledge and respond to all arguments from those with whom I disagree as far as is possible within my own time constraints on top of the (excessive and inflexible) constraints of OLO .

Could I suggest that Susan herself respond to the arguments put by myself and others against her proposal?

I would also invite Susan to participate in other OLO discussions, as examples:

"How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" of 9 Feb 09 at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8485&page=0

"Planet Earth - babies need not apply" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8838&page=0

"9/11 Truth" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=83

"Tactics in a cosmic war" ar http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8857&page=2#140777

... or, indeed, even this discussion.

---

Susan wrote, "I also thought that if we could meet each other then there probably wouldn't be so much rudeness and the discussion about the issues might be more constructive. ..."

Probably the last sentence or two of my first post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8778&page=1#139183) to the abovementioned forum could have been left off, but I stand by what I wrote and I think Susan should at least try to show where I was wrong.

Susan, sorry, but I am so full of myself with trying to find peace for this crazy world, I did not comment on your conception of our OLO, but agree with you that we are allowed to verbally slam each other far more than allowed in public schools or universities.

Further, though I am only Westralian born and bred, now going on 88 have otherwise mixed well with British migrants, particularly in a large country wheatbelt district.

A district where we received not only British migrants, but many colourful other European characters, some having jumped cargo vessels and proved so colourful and popular in our district, we were glad they were never caught and tried, especially as their descendants are still farming in our area.

Susan, I myself, originally as a Davis, have not only Welsh in my line, but my own mother happened to have an Irish born mater married to an Aussie Sussmil born from German migrants.

The worry about not allowed a say in a new country before you have a vote, Susan was certainly well voiced in our district when I was a nipper, as you can imagine.

Your very interest in our voting system, shows you are going be very interested in not only your own welfare, but also our own.

So welcome, Susan, from one whose early forebears were also non-Australian

1)

It's been interesting watching this thread develop. It presented an opportunity for some to show that those whose views they oppose, were posting in the wrong manner! Inevitable I suppose.

I'm ambivalent about your opinion here, Ms Giblin.

I admire the fact that you posted this. It shows some courage in talking about response to your original piece. I don't think that's been done before..

And yet?; you show such a vulnerability to those responses. And that IS what your piece here is about;-responses.

Certainly up to yesterday: you had 16 responses to your original article. 16!

My point? Last year I recall a fella called Keysar Trad submitting a very emotive piece. He took a fair belting from many (not all) posters, for page, after page, after page! He involved himself in the thread and held his own against all comers. It must have been an exhausting process, but he did it.

In my view he did it because he wrote an article; and he was prepared to stand by his views, and accept the slings and arrows of those views.

Continued.

2)

With the greatest of respect;-you fell at the first fence!
If you choose to submit an opinion on a forum, where response is wanted; you cannot then choose HOW that response should be. It IS classic 'heat in kitchen' stuff.

You must surely have taken a squizz around the old homestead before you submitted your article...surely?

This is OLO. The good, the bad;.....and 'vile Ginx'..'the dike(!) with hairy armpits'!!

You did not like the WAY people responded. Surely as an author you should be more concerned with what their opinion was, and not the way they expressed it. Opinion. That is what is required. Don't be upset by the way it was expressed. Because if you do; there is no point in submitting an article.

You WILL need to toughen up if you submit another piece, because not only will posters respond,-some will disagree-and do it in their inimitable style!

(For the record: I read your original piece and admit that I was surprised that one poster in particular could be so cutting towards YOU, in his condemnation of your VIEW. BUT: please do not submit articles if this gets to you. Sixteen responses do not a lynching make).

Good luck to you.

Well said, Leigh, for both of your posts. You’ve summed up Susan’s article soundly and succinctly.

Some may agree or disagree. Some may think you were informative, objective, interesting, insightful, while others may feel you were too colourful, heavy handed, abusive, or off the topic. Who’s to say? It’s all part of the beauty of sharing opinions.

The best part about OLO is that it’s made up of the opinions of real people, uncensored. The emphasis is on constructing an argument and putting it out there. People do that in different ways, but it’s more interesting and informative than the narrow opinion of newspaper editors.

If you value the opinions of others, you’ll be willing to sift through the shenanigans to find that which is worth keeping. The well reasoned and well articulated thought will rise to the top.

I feel a bit for new migrants such as Susan. It takes a while for new comers to get a feel for any new place. After a while she’ll get a sense for how we communicate and what we think is important.

If anyone wants to look at 'A NON FARMER''S various intrusions on this piece of netspace - they may have noticed my absence of some months.

That is because a certain electricity utility in our good northern state has managed to fry the Non Farmer's e-communications setup.

He is back temporarily with a vengeance - until they fry my show again - when they try commissioning what they've recently been attempting installing here in our district.

I only mention this since that circumstance could just possibly be construed as one way of stopping a socially conscious bloke from writing the truth about his particular hate of the incumbant before the recent state election.
Yep. I'm Doolally; more below.

Now since the, then, incumbant happened to be re-elected but remains in opposition, I find it difficult to understand why I'd been accused of expressing 'conspiracy theories' to one of this erstwhile member's staffers yesterday.
She suggested that I'd been representing that my business PC blew up in result of a state conspiracy - in order to rob me of the opportunity to write letters to my editor about the inadequacy of our state representative.
The slightest reflection might lead a person to consider that the winner of the poll - the predicted winner of the poll might gain advantage from me lambasting the non-performance of our incumbant in the press.
In this regard and in so many other ways I may have become somewhat frazzled by their collective stupidity.

So what does this have to do with the thread?
Firstly - I've become out of practice.
Then next -= I have quite a lot to say in a society that increasingly seems to be closing down on -
the truth as expressed by individuals -
expressing that in a forthright way - then -
finding the means to get that across without ridiculous censorship -
making known such issues as are important to the citizenry -
managing that in a timely fashion -
and avoiding being accused of being ordained a nutter in that process.
Any comment?

Hi there. Susan Giblin here.

Thanks so much to everybody who has contributed to this thread. I have found it really interesting to read the opinions.

I agree with posters such as Tristan Ewins and RObert who wrote positively about the lack of censorship on OLO. I’m instinctively against censorship and like the light touch of the moderators.

Secondly, my deflation wasn’t so much related to people disagreeing with me. I’m very happy for people to disagree with me. Rude comments and hostility don’t affect my self esteem either. Rather than being hardened or toughened to such things (I don’t want to toughen up or become hardened) it’s more like water off a duck’s back perhaps.

Anyway, my deflation was more like what Brian Holden has said. I just wondered if that was it. I didn’t feel moved to join the thread because I couldn’t work out how to do it in a respectful way given the tone. I will read Keysar Trad’s article and thread as suggested by Ginx. It’ll be very interesting I reckon.

Ginx also wrote: ‘surely as an author you should be more concerned with what their opinion was, and not the way they expressed it’.

I think both are very important. I think that if we take care about how we communicate, as well as what we communicate, then what we say is more likely to be heard.

I also think that just because journalists and politicians sometimes speak in aggressive ways doesn’t mean this is the most useful way to carry out discussion and come to the best outcome

Continued by Susan Giblin

To the topic of non-citizen voting-Banjo writes ‘If I did respond [to your article] I most probably said the concept of non-citizens voting was stupid and tthat I do not know of any nation that allows it.’

A number of countries do allow non-citizen voting and I mentioned them briefly in the article. I won’t go into them here.

As for me voting - I don’t have a vote in Ireland because I’m overseas. Like the non-citizen voting rights, every country has different rules. So, Ireland, unlike Australia, doesn’t allow citizens to vote in elections when they are out of the country.

Finally, to Daggett. I found it very interesting to read the article you pointed me towards.

In response to my article you wrote ‘I think its unjust that so many foreign born people have been allowed to "live and work in the community" whilst existing citizens with experience and qualifications are unemployed or working in low-paid dead-end jobs thanks to the state and federal governments' criminal policy of opening the immigration floodgates based on the lie of the "skills shortage".’
Firstly, I don’t think my point about allowing non-citizens to vote is directly related to the immigration policy. It’s about allowing those people who live here for an extended period of time (not tourists) to vote. I don’t see it as necessarily related to how many people the government permits to live and work here or how they go about organising that system.

The issue of immigration policy is such a big, complex and fascinating issue. I would need to do some research on it before I could respond usefully. Perhaps I will do just that.

Also, I am not here on a skilled migrant visa and again would have to do some research into the topic to feel eligible to comment usefully. I am here because my husband is an Australian citizen. Unless we ban Australians from falling in love with non-nationals, I don’t see how we can avoid people like me arriving on these shores!

Thanks again for the comments

Susan,
I did read your original article again and yes, you did mention some 3 countries that do allow for limited voting for non-citizens. these being New Zealand, Ireland and Great Britian. I most likely missed that while busy swearing at the stupidity of the concept.

I see now that you are voiceless, but your problem does not lie with Australia not allowing non-citizens to vote, but with Ireland not allowing its citizens to vote while off shore. That is hardly democratic and it should be addressed to Irish politicians. I note that even Iraqi citizens have been able to vote in Iraqi elections while being in Aus.

Where the Governments do allow for non-citizens to vote, it simply lowers my opinion of those governments further. Not that I think our government sets a very high standard.

Visitors and perminant residents receive a lot of assistance from us and it appears the only advantage citizens now have is being able to vote and able to stand for election.

We even allow for people to have dual citizenship which means they can go and live overseas, in the 'old' country, and receive welfare such as age pension. We are very generous are we not?

I still think your concept is the height of stupidity and will continue to use the article to illustrate silliness.

Tom T,

Firstly, I recently posted the following to the other forum earlier today and had been meaning to post it here:

"Upon further reflection, I have decided that it wasn't appropriate for me to raise my concerns about immigration in the way I did in my first post.

"I should have made it sufficiently clear that Susan Giblin was not unlikely to personally responsible for the way that immigration has been abused by our elites to screw ordinary Australians.

"My own personal experience clouded my better judgement, so I apologise to Susan."

---

Clearly there is a place for immigration and for skilled migrants, but the immigration program has been completely abused in recent years and has harmed many ordinary Australians, including myself.

I might add that the English and Irish are just as much victims of high immigration in their own countries as we are here.

This was shown inadvertently in the pro-immigration Murdoch-owned Courier Mail when they commented on how the British people are fleeing from the UK which has become overcrowded thanks to the same unbelievably stupid high immigration policies that the Murdoch media pushes in this country (See "English expats make Moreton the only Bay in the village" at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24897167-5007190,00.html and "Murdoch media contradicts itself on immigration" at http://candobetter.org/node/1074 for my comments on that article.)

---

TomT wrote, "I don’t think my point about allowing non-citizens to vote is directly related to the immigration policy. ..."

In my opinion, non-citizens' voting rights does raise the issue of immigration.

How could it not further erode the rights of existing residents if large numbers of people from outside the country, many of whom are likely to feel under obligation towards political leaders who have pushed immigration against the clear opposition of the current residents? (Note how former Prime Minister Bob Hawke once boasted that he had imposed "elite as opposed to popular views on immigration" ("Overloading Australia"(2008) pp104-105, O'Connor and Lines, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8838&page=18#140844))

In fact, even many relatively recent immigrants would not altogether disagree. If things don't change, then even they will be screwed in the end.

Susan,

It is extremely frustrating when the only comments you get are negative. One change that would make comments more sensible would be for the true identity of the person making the comments to be made known to the author and for the author to be able to name a person making comments unless there is a good privacy reason for the name to be withheld (e.g. a whistle blower). This only seems fair. The problem with most of the people who make inappropriate and unhelpful comments is that they are bullies and cowards and they hide behind anonymity. If we write articles and we say who we are surely those who make comments - particularly unhelpful ones - should also say who they are. I think this one change would improve the level of comments - perhaps at the expense of a reduction in number of comments.

I think you should look on the bright side Susan?......Tom?

Because if you ARE Tom and not Susan, some vociferous but gentlemanly respondents to your original piece would have metaphorically ripped out your jugular vein!

Every cloud has a silver lining...

For some strange reason this whole thread reminds me of the RAAF stewardess who got upset when Kevin Rudd was mean to her.

Sure Kevin had a lapse and he shouldn't have done it, but servicewomen everywhere winced at their likely loss of credibility too through the trivial nature of the complaint. It they couldn't stand a little heat in a plush aircraft cabin serving tea to an unappreciative PM especially after being specially trained for it, how could they command in war? Would a similar complaint from a steward have been reported? Most likely not and therein lies the problem.

As Ginx implies, a Tom T would not have been treated with kid gloves and critics would surely have been more direct. Being girlie allows one to act miffed and lash out with emotional blackmail - which can be quite a weapon - but it is always at an eventual cost to one's credibility.

There is a message in there somewhere, but it isn't that there should be more censorship.

Fickle Pickle, the topic of anonimity vs real names has been covered numerous times on various threads. I'm not convinced that those who publish their real names in this space behave with a higher level of responsibility than others. Enforced use of real names would stop many from commenting on issues which are important, in some cases there may be professional consequences for expressing views which a current or prospective employer may not agree with regardless of the relationship of those views to the employment.

For those commenting on family law issues the mix of legal issues which are raised if the parties involved are identified is difficult as well as the risk of retribution from a former partner.

Others may welcome the opportunity to discuss frankly issues which in their social setting may cause them real grief. Not all our circumstances are the same.

R0bert

"As Ginx implies, a Tom T would not have been treated with kid gloves and critics would surely have been more direct. Being girlie allows one to act miffed and lash out with emotional blackmail - which can be quite a weapon - but it is always at an eventual cost to one's credibility." (Quote:Cornflower)
________________________

Pants on fire!!

I said nothing of the kind. Your neat little twist makes it a 'female' problem. Naughty, naughty!

I SAID: if the writer was acknowledged as a male,-his detractors would not have gone so easy on HIM. A MALE thing.

Gawd!

...1 server error.

Hi Ginx,

Goodness, you would be pulling a very long bow to find discrimination against women in the subject threads if that is what you are saying.

Surely you don't believe that male respondents go 'easier' on male authors because they are male, because I have yet to see any evidence of that on OLO or elsewhere.

If anything I would have thought that males are probably more inclined to demand facts, evidence and logic from other males, while possibly some of the older men are inclined to allow a leeway for women, especially young women. Elderly men can be a little old-fashioned in the respect and courtesy they display towards women (not that everyone complains about that). However that is fast diminishing as the WW2 generation exits this world. Sigh.

Women want to be treated equally and taken seriously. That means not being patronised by men or by other women. For an author, especially one seeking something as important as change to a country's rules for voting, criticism is a gift. The author and the readers should take what they want from the table and be thankful that respondents have taken the time to comment.

Anyhow, big girls can handle a bit of criticism even if it is somewhat florid or terse at times. Heck, that is far better than being greeted by a stony silence.

To Susan's credit she has responded with some more information and she is probably kicking herself (as would any other author) for not including it before. It is a learning experience, keep them coming Susan!

Cornflower, I might be wrong but I got the impression that Ginx was suggesting that some male posters would have gone in a lot harder if they thought that the author was a Tom rather than a Susan. If that's what Ginx is saying I tend to agree.

R0bert

This is an interesting twist to the thread.

Would you have treated me differently if I'd been a man not a woman?

If anyone is interested in continuing this, I'd be interested in:

why you would treat me differently,
and how?

many thanks for the input.

Susan

Robert,

I did not say you HAVE to publish your name. What I tried to say was that the author should know who is posting comments unless there is a good reason not to know. It is important for the author to know whether to take the critique seriously or not. Although less important another point is that if you are defamed you have the possibility of some recourse by naming the offending party. This hopefully makes for a more civilised debate. The problem with anonymity is the abrogation of responsibility and accountability in some cases.

In debates such as this I don't mind your critique of what I have said and find it helpful. However, if you called me a crank or that I had other personal characteristics demeaning of me then I believe I need a way of redressing the injury you have caused.

It is impractical for onlineopinion to do this but on line opinion can encourage people to behave in a way to foster debate not stop it.

I am not talking about family law cases and you may have noticed I said if there was a good reason - such as whistle blowing - for the person to remain anonymous then that can still happen. What I am saying is that if I am bullied or insulted then I have a right to know who is doing it. Until we get this into online opinion I suggest we will continue to get a large number of infantile responses instead of civilised debate such as the one we are having:)

Going through the above threads, they are all about personalisms, possibly making Susan feel how little we contribute to mending present global problems.

Reminds one about an old bush comment, there's more to learn in a country bar, especially with a charming chatty barmaid.

Cheers, BB, WA

tomT wrote quote>>This is an interesting twist to the thread.

Would you have treated me differently if I'd been a man not a woman?>>
i would like to think not if it is woman posting as man[but the reality is after finding out the alias i reacted to is female in relity i tend to soften my thinking on the matter]

so yes, but i think you might have your next topic

<<why you would treat me differently,
and how?>>...i figure as a man i am equal to any other man..[i dont asume humility to woman ,nor claim any supiriority]but somehow a woman cant be hit[even verbally]

they may be as wrong as any man but wont be called to account..[because its only a woman being foolish]

that sounds more harsh..[ok ignorant]than even i expected...of course other men will attack knowing the poster is a woman..[so we all will react differently dependant on our life experience]

but we are different..phyciclly, metally and physiclly[we dont have the regular reminder of our humanity wrote in blood,..we dont carry life and fixate on it as being the golden child..dont accept penitration to obtain intimicy,..to presume we are even the same species is at time suspect

anyhow the simple answer is yes..[but to explain why might get complicated..[if revealing],,but you no doudt have the word skills to write it into a new topic[and who knows by then i might have different replies],but tom is unlikely to get the topic through..[but susan clearly could]

just to make it more clear..[read my response again..thinking to know im a wo-man]..a man can make the same complaint[or point]..but the sex of who says what,..will solicite a diveregent response..[again depending on the personality/and sex of the respondant..as well as the same re the questioner]

i hesitate to say those who attacked susan..[wouldnt dare attack tom]

Cornflower, it is as R0bert said. I've no wish to start a gender war....., well not here anyway ;)!

Appreciate the comments in your post though.

I'm getting a bit Arthur/Martha flummoxed here.

(Tom/Susan....which are you? Fess up).

Anyway,-yes. I absolutely DO believe that Tom might have had a harder time than Susan. Do I believe emphatically that this IS the case? Decidedly NO! Because I believe that this is not really a conscious thing; it is a conditioned thing, and I stress that that belief is NOT meant to patronise in any way.

I am simply stating my view.

Susan,

What is really interesting about your post is the number of responses. What is even more interesting is that many responders read things into articles and comments that are not in the articles or comments.

What happens is that people do not read and understand every thing you say but assume that their model of the world is the same as yours and respond accordingly. This is particularly frustrating when you are trying to introduce a different way of looking at things but you have to use words that already have loaded meaning.

Perhaps this is why Shakespeare was so successful He is said to have invented 1,700 words and people had to work out what he meant by reading and understanding the context of the new word. Perhaps next time you write an article you introduce a new word to describe what it is you are explaining. Perhaps for the right of non citizen to vote it could be votalle (all inclusive voting). Perhaps for removal of unhelpfull comments online it could be commsieve (separating out the non civil remarks). I am sure you can come up with better words - but it might be worth a try - and think of the advantage you will have in scrabble.

hi RObert

Thank you, well seen.

Hi Ginx

Whoops, many apologies. I was a little too quick.

Susan,
My comments would have been exactly the same.

A stupid concept is a stupid concept, irrespective of the gender of the author.

Fickle Pickle,
If you’re on the end of demeaning or infantile comments, rather than seeking redress for injury (the legalist approach), why couldn’t you just ignore the comment, like water of a duck's back?

Demeaning comments (and I’ve been on the end of a view if you want to look at my history) really only reflect on the person who made them, as it shows that their argument is lacking in substance. The demeaning comment even serves to highlight this. Everyone else can see it, as we can all recognise the sound of an empty can rattling.

You could take it as a compliment that the person has no rational come back to what you are saying.

Or you could highlight this yourself, and ask them why they need to resort to such name calling or the like.

On the other hand, I’ve seen colourful banter used quite effectively in this forum. The Australian parliament is known for it. As Prime Minister, Paul Keating was once asked about the childish behaviour in parliament, and he responded something to the effect that at least in Australia we fight with words and not knives, sticks, or guns.

Cornflower; that's very kind. Thanks!

one under god

"They (women) may be as wrong as any man but wont be called to account..[because its only a woman being foolish]

that sounds more harsh..[ok ignorant]than even i expected..."

I mostly can't fathom your posts terribly well, but occasionally a little gem jumps out at me, as it has now, and I must say I applaud you for your honesty.

I would suggest that it's a much more commonly-held view than is freely admitted to. In my experience many men expect women to be 'foolish' and they judge most females accordingly. I've occasionally wondered whether any of my posts would have generated a different reaction had I written under a masculin pseudonym. Not that I could possibly sound like a male, even if I wanted to, well certainly not on any sustained basis.

Sorry if this question has already been asked as I haven't followed this thread all that closely, but I assume that's why you chose the Tom T pseudonym. I'd be interested to know if you'd observed a corresponding difference in the way you're responded to as you switch between the two personas. I realise it would be hard to judge because the content of what you say varies, but if you've done it often enough I'd assume a pattern could be emerging.

Bronwyn

It comes down to the games people play to get strokes. If you role play the needy woman (or child in Transactional Analysis T/A terms), you will certainly evoke the reciprocal parent response from some some men and women. This could be a rebuke but is usually support, albeit patronising (which is worse?).

Another interesting model to describe what you are encountering could be that of victim and rescuer. However you have to understand that the rescuer is usually taking cues from the would-be victim and vie-versa. Then there is the complexity of victims and persecutors swapping roles as is seen fairly often in the gender wars. Phew, what a waste of living time!

Why not make everything simple for yourself and others by being yourself and trying to be as straight and open as possible? Most people respond favourably to that.