.

Graham’s response (by e-mail) :

.

« Hi Rodney,

I can’t see anything here I need to do anything about. Saying he doesn’t write for people who comment on the threads doesn’t look to me to be a matter for discipline. You can see how much most authors care for them – they generally don’t even comment, unlike Peter who does.

Graham »
.

Thanks, Graham. I have noted and understand your position.

My indignation was based on the indication on the website of the National Forum (which has since changed its name to The Australian Institute for Progress) that the OLO forum is “an area for deliberative democracy” :

http://portal.nationalforum.com.au/about.asp

You will recall that Peter wrote :

« My articles are never addressed to the people who inhabit the comments section, that would be Quixotic. I have a great list of people who read my stuff and rarely comment but give me feedback by email. »

He obviously reserves his writing for a selective audience. That is not deliberative democracy. It is elite deliberation.

Wikipedia has this to say about deliberative democracy :

« One of the main challenges currently is to discover more about the actual conditions under which the ideals of deliberative democracy are more or less likely to be realized. » :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

I agree that it is not “a matter for discipline”, Graham, but perhaps an appeal to a dash of tolerance might do the trick.

.

Banjo,
What are you looking for from Peter? Are you accusing him of being intolerant?

What a fascinating digression.

I like Peter's pieces, they seem to represent a sincere attempt to express his efforts to understand the world as he sees it and they most assuredly provoke thought.

If he sometimes slips into what are somewhat impenetrable theological ratiocinations, I can forgive him. It is noticeable that over time his pieces have become more accessible in the main, which may reflect his own greater understanding.

More power to his keyboard.

.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

« Banjo,
What are you looking for from Peter? Are you accusing him of being intolerant? »
.

I always presumed Peter posted his monthly contributions for them to be read by anybody on OLO.

That is what I have been doing now for a number of years though I never succeeded in engaging any conversation with him, my latest attempt being on this thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17351#306358

Graham’s explanation that “most authors don’t even comment, unlike Peter who does” is only partly true, but I put his lack of response down to the fact that he could not reply to everyone and that maybe he did not find my comments very interesting.

Then came his open avowal to George which raised my indignation :

« My articles are never addressed to the people who inhabit the comments section, that would be Quixotic. I have a great list of people who read my stuff and rarely comment but give me feedback by email. »

Perhaps I am wrong, Dan, but, in my view, that is an attitude of disdain - not for all “the people who inhabit the comments section” - but for “some”, if not for “most”.

Though Peter states that he writes for a selective audience, I have no idea what his criteria of selection are, except for those who “rarely comment but give me feedback by email”.

It seems that you, Dan, as an avowed “religious believer”, Craig, George, Yuyutsu and a few others are also among the “happy few” on Peter’s list.

That’s no problem if those are the rules of the game. So I thought I’d check. I thought there might be a charter on the forum but it appears not. All I could find was the forum “Rules” which redirect to the “Full Legal Notice” but neither of these documents shed any light on the question in hand.

The only indication of any relevance is to be found under the “About us” section of the forum which directs to Australia’s National Forum website where it is indicated

.

(continued)

.

(continued)

.

that the OLO forum is “an area for deliberative democracy” :

http://portal.nationalforum.com.au/about.asp

The expression “deliberative democracy” (or discursive democracy) was coined to describe a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making.

The basic idea is that everyone should have access to all relevant information on a particular topic in order to form an opinion and confront their views, for or against, on a forum. It is a form of direct democracy. While it is recognized that a general consensus is impossible to achieve, pluralism is not only admitted but willingly accepted. Contestation is considered a necessary and enriching factor to be sought and encouraged rather than excluded. At the end of the process the majority view prevails.

Not allowing everyone free access to relevant information, addressing oneself to a selective audience, ignoring pluralism of opinion or refusing contestation, as James Fishkin of Stanford University points out: « then there is no democratic element; this deliberative process is called “elite deliberation”. »

As regards the question you raise on the subject of “tolerance”, Zsuzsanna Chappell, a Fellow in Political Theory at the London School of Economics, has this to say in her book on Deliberative Democracy :

« There may be groups for whom participating in deliberation would seem to be simply wrong. For example a group of Trotskyites may believe that change has to come through revolution rather than through changing the system from the inside and that participating in political institutions rooted in a capitalist system is morally wrong. For them, participating in the deliberative process and especially, its values of mutual respect and tolerance towards other points of view, not to mention other-regarding behaviour towards capitalists, would count as a betrayal of their value system » :

http://books.google.fr/books?id=7yMdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=deliberative+democracy+and+tolerance&source=bl&ots=32GLXeEv5m&sig=7poE-PUxKggBr8j1H-CpXmyQwNk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=saBlVb3TIIX2UvaVgPgK&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=deliberative%20democracy%20and%20tolerance&f=false

I do not “accuse him (Peter) of being intolerant”. I suggested it as the most obvious explanation of his disdain for “the people who inhabit the comments section”.

Peter continues to remain silent but if you have a more plausible explanation to offer I would be delighted to read it.

.

Mope, never contacted Peter by email, although I do occasionally comment on Peter's articles. I would do so more often, but due to the nature of the topic, the discussions are often derailed by those pushing one POV or another. I suspect that this is the reason for Peter's comment vis a vis commentary.