Continued

Ginx, also in reference to my opening statement, says:

"This is a very unfortunate remark.
It unilaterally concludes that one is
unable to grasp the tenet of a post/article.

A finding quite astonishing coming from a
poster with a track record of attention to detail!"

Ginx, it is indeed unfortunate, if you thought that I was suggesting others are unable to grasp the tenet of the article. I wasn't trying to patronise. My writing style does tend to be opaque, I admit. I do however know that we all have a tendency to see what we want to see in things like OLO Articles, especially if we think we see them. The term 'illegals' does indeed appear in both article and discussion, and for those already sensitized to the injustices surrounding the circumstances of those to whom such terms are applied, its 'shoot on sight'.

It happens. Trained soldiers, let alone 'outcomists', have been known to do it.

What I am trying to suggest, particularly in your case Ginx, in view of your relatively unique proposed 'bridging' between OLO and (at least) Senator Xenophon in relation to the income quarantining issue, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10607#176703 , is that your energies may be better spent elsewhere than in not only 'shooting the messenger', but accusing him of attacking and vilifying posters. When he posts here, he does so under the same constraints as apply to all. None of your posts have been removed.

I say this not so much to defend GrahamY (who can defend himself) in this thread, as to indirectly try to focus attention upon much more serious issues of possible attempted censorship of, or interference with, OLO from outside the Forum.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3784&page=0

The way I see it, GrahamY is having to put a lot of effort into resisting such pressures or interference. By way of illustration, I'm DAMN SURE I posted this, http://twitpic.com/21zm31 , on OLO, some time between 11:32:27 AM and 5:35:17 PM on Saturday, 3 July 2010. Did anybody see it? I was giving a purely theoretical explanation here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10607#175703

Ponder.

Alas it seems we must continue our chat Forrest-and I know from both our posting styles we are in for the long haul.

I did not see your latest post on Income Quarantining, (I check back on these topics, and then move on as we all do). It is flattering therefore to read your comments, and I thank-you. I shall be attending that little soirée in two weeks.

However not withstanding such compliments I must take issue with this:

"......is that your energies may be better spent elsewhere than in not only 'shooting the messenger', but accusing him of attacking and vilifying posters. When he posts here, he does so under the same constraints as apply to all. None of your posts have been removed."

Can I suggest to you diplomatically Forrest, that I, not you, will decide my priorities on issues?
Another glaring point is that you are doing what you accuse me of!!

YOU are defining my actions on one matter as laudable,-and another as 'shooting the messenger/accusing him...'.

My point? That is your-'opinion'. I accept that we all make value judgments on what we observe/read. Yo do so; I do so; we all do so.

Why then do you disparage (and that IS what you are doing!), my view on this matter?

If Mr Young posts here under 'the same constraints that apply to all'-then there would be no reason for him to remove posts! (I have never expected that he would-IF he is 'the same as us').

And equally there SHOULD be no reason to be bogged down in the type of discussion we are having now!

I am frankly appalled that YOU-you in particular, would see things as you have.

BUT: that is your opinion.

Cont'd..

2)

I am entitled to mine. This is a discussion forum. NO-ONE should have to justify why they have disagreed with a whole or part of an article-if it is written by a website owner!

If that is the case,-and it appears that it is!,- then clearly that website owner MUST be given different treatment to others...posters/members-and article authors.

That is patently absurd, particularly when a site is defined by its owner as 'open and tolerant' !
_________________________________

This has at least opened up an interesting point, which perhaps needs debate on an - open and tolerant forum.

I've just come across an interesting website:

http://www.australiansagainstracism.org/code/resources09.html
"Debunking the myths about asylum seekers."

It's worth a read.

Ginx,

What prevents you from resolving this with moderator/s by email rather than killing the thread?

There needs to be a new rule:

'Members demean, ignore or question the integrity of moderators on the forum should expect to see their posting privileges withdrawn.'

That is how it is on every other site and it works to free up, rather than limit, discussion.

Maybe if there was a small annual fee for membership of the forum?

I had been observing this topic in an endeavour to respond to Forrest reasonably promptly if he chose to make a response to my last post.

We are at least having a civil discussion, which is pleasant.

However: I have logged on to respond to you Cornflower,-it's a pleasure to do so.

Our views/opinions differ. Very much so. You know it. I know it. So you seize an opportunity to come into this current discussion to criticise me. Such a transparent act, and of course it makes a mockery of this:-

"What prevents you from resolving this with moderator/s by email rather than killing the thread?"

'Killing the thread'? Really?

And....,why should you assume that I have had no private contact with the webmaster? What contact I may or may not have had, is private.

It is none of your business.
__________________

TBC- if I can.