'There’s a cultural expectation that if you publish on inflammatory topics then you’d better be tough enough to cop the ensuing abuse.'

Unfortunately, your own nasty track record of ad hominem attacks on author Melinda Tankard Reist on another online forum - together with your equally nasty attacks on those who dared to agree with her - are a very good example of this 'cultural expectation'.

What a pity you don't practise what you preach.

Do they still allow blondes to get PhDs?

I'd never heard of ad hominem or strawman arguments until I started blogging here but I know what the writer means.

Yet I don't take any attacks personally and I have copped a few broadsides. Some deserved, some just rants. I've never thought that another person has 'won' an argument because I or another party has stopped blogging.

I was concerned last week when a young woman posted an article on methane which attracted some fairly heavy abuse. It was an opinion genuinely held - which I thought was ridiculous but she should have been spared the less salubrious remarks which in the end were deleted.

Some posters provide very good criticism such as Pericles, Curmodgeon, rpg, etc. Others use anonimity to vent their spleen. I suppose that's human nature.

I think that this is a useful article to provoke an important discussion about behaviour on blogsites.

I note, in passing, that the range of serial ad hominers that frequent the climate change articles haven't deigned to comment yet- c'mon! We're waiting for you!

I can't help but think that ad hominers are free-riders on our cultural tollway. By free-rider, I mean someone who believes that the system will flourish despite their cheating on whatever it costs to participate. Biologists call this behaviour parasitism. In this case, culture is a tollway, because it requires everyone to pay- ie make the effort to follow the norms of the culture. Robust and dynamic cultures can allow for variance from the norms, but not to the extent of subversion.

Ad hominers seem to believe that it is up to others to pay- in the case of blogging, they expect others to provide a basic framework of reasoned discourse- along which they can hoon and drive recklessly- shouting insults at people trying to follow the code of the road (ie civility).

To extend the metaphor- imagine if we had no roads- hoons would have to stay home and jeer at free-to-air reality shows.

Some States now have dob-in-a-hoon hotlines. We have a similar system on OLO and most blogsites have a similar facility- in OLO it's the little red cross at the bottom left of the posting. But like the dob-in-a-hoon hotlines, this facility is only as good as the extent to which it is both used and policed. In OLO's case, I think that it is not policed sufficiently.

How many free-riders/parasites cana system endure before it collapses?

Jedimaster,

Actually, I enjoy a good ad hominem - it's a sure sign that the 'ad hominer' has no argument left, so I feel that I've already won on points. Sometimes they are quite imaginative and original, if a bit psychotic. My favourites usually contain strong elements of paranoia and conspiracy theory, right off the discussion.

Keep them coming !

Joe

Whoa! Killarney!

You won't find any ad hominem arguments I've made against MTR. You'll find plenty of spirited and robust disagreement with her position.

But you will find a stack of ad hominem abuse by her followers directed at me, and all the others on that forum who disagreed with them. I won't repeat it here but it was pretty disgusting.

I have so many millions of arguments against MTR's positions that I don't need to attack her personally.

Neither do I want to - the arguments are so much more interesting.

"Argumentum ad hominem -Attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument."

The very first thing I thought when I read this article was that I admit to feeling guilty of this charge at times on this site :(

I am not sure if it applies so much to people who regularly contribute to a site such as this one, and therefore, sort of, get to know the writing styles and views of other contributers?

If one feels they 'know' the real meanings behind some comments by others who they have conversed with before, are the 'personal' attacks on the writer as bad as those who do so on blogs or about articles by writers they have no previous experience of?

I must admit I find it amusing on this site to read other remarks about some contributers or writers of articles that could appear to be personal 'attacks'.

Does that make me a bad person?

If a writer doesn't want to put themselves out there at the mercy of all sorts of people in cyber-land, then I would humbly suggest they don't write publicly.