Dear David,

First, it is refreshing to see you write on a different topic - even when I disagree, this is better than your repeated incitement to ruin the good people of Jordan and Israel by dumping those cursed 1967 territories on them (far worse than the nuclear dump which South Australia is about to get).

Now I do oppose defamation and I agree that some of Armchair Critic's comments were distasteful.

However, your introduction of Australian laws into the discussion exemplifies the danger of the denial of anonymity.

Here is OLO: this domain belongs to our sovereign: Graham Young, none other!

It is not essential to be here. People do not need OLO to get food, water or shelter. People do not need OLO to protect themselves, their families and their property from robbers and other crime. People who come here do so with absolutely full consent and may freely leave at any time they wish.

Here the sole lawmaker, governor and judge is our sovereign. Should you have complaints about the behaviour of others, then his is the address to complain. Sadly you haven't done so. We want no dictates from Canberra... or would it rather be the security council, which is not even elected?

So long as there are people like you here who seem to be willing to betray the security of this place and spy on us for the Australian authorities, so long as we have Shtinkers (the Yiddish meaning of the word: stool pigeons who inform the Goyim) among us, we are justified in taking the necessary precautions, anonymity included.

David,
I'm always honest in my opinions on this forum.
Sometimes people agree with me, often they don't.
Likewise I may sometimes agree with others, but also I often don't.
Sometimes people agree with me on some topis but not on others...

I understand you may feel frustrated by my comments given that they frequently nullify and play down your arguments.
I also understand I've held opinions that you personally find objectionable and offensive.
But that in itself doesn't mean I've broken the rules.

Regarding the comments you objected to:

Firstly, you defamed yourself with the foolish comment you made asking if people would post anonymously if they were forced to give their full name, verifiable address and phone number.
The question contradicts itself and doesn't make sense, I merely pointed out the foolishness of what you presented.

Regarding the other comments, I personally believe that 'the truth' rates higher on a scale than 'political correctness'.
If we allow political correctness to be more important than the truth then its the end of any reasonable and rational discussion.
In this way, as long as there is a measure of truth in my statements and it represents my true opinion, then they are to be considered reasonable and fair comment.

The question as to whether others are offended by said statements and the way in which they're put forward is a secondary (but still valid) issue.

Regarding your request for me to apologise and withdraw the above remarks.
I want you to know that I'm not going to take something back simply because I'm forced to, but I will apologise if I feel that I've acted unreasonably.

So, in the spirit of giving you a fair go, I'm sorry for the comment regarding your profession.
It was below the belt for me to attack your bread and butter, but not entirely out of line considering I feel you use your profession as a sword that seeks to impose a bias foreign point of view onto the Australian public, rather than being a shield to protect them.

David,
Another commenter recently shared her forum ideology.

1. Know your facts.
2. Be ready to see the other person's perspective.
3. If you can't be open-minded, at least seem that way.
4. Keep your emotions under control.
5. Do not insult or degrade your opponent.
6. It is important to show you meant nothing personal.

Simply put, If I've broken rules 4, 5 and 6, its because I'm reacting to you breaking rules 2, 3 and 4.

- You're not open minded and do not see or respect anyone else's perspective.
- You only argue a point if you can win it, but you stay silent if someone else puts forward a valid comment that doesn't suit your narrative.
- Then if other push the issue of your bias one-sidedness you attack and seek to defame others by calling them anti-Semite or Hitlerite because they do not hold the same opinion as you.

What you need to understand is that what you 'get back' from commenters is directly related to what you 'put out'.

If you were posting articles that were less bias and more thought-provoking you'd get more respect and consideration.

The question for me (Israel) has very much been one of character.
The way the pro Israel side make their argument and how well it actually stands up, under criticism.

For my mind the arguments frequently don't stand up and the pro Israel side resort to attacking and intimidating the opposing view.
This further enforces my belief that the arguments don't stand up and that your side acts irrational.

If you were able to put your arguments across in a less bias and more open manner you might find people more open and willing to consider your point of view.
We may also be more respectful, if you were to firstly show the people of this country the same respect.
You can't expect to get it if you don't give it, respect is earned.

#Armchair critic

Why would you not have just said what you have said before:

"I like to use my so called free speech but occasionally I do go a little to far."
Saturday, 7 May 2016 8:54:48 AM

Would have been far more meaningful than your two lengthy posts.

I intend to keep submitting my articles to OLO for publication.

You should direct your comments to pointing out any matters in my articles with which you disagree and giving reasons to substantiate your claims.

This will ensure we have a constructive dialogue which does not involve personal denigration and vilification.

Shooting the messenger and ignoring the message is a waste of everyone's time.

#Yuyutsu

In one breath you agree some of Armchair Critic's were distasteful.

In the next breath you have the hide to make this unsubstantiated comment:
"So long as there are people like you here who seem to be willing to betray the security of this place and spy on us for the Australian authorities, so long as we have Shtinkers (the Yiddish meaning of the word: stool pigeons who inform the Goyim) among us, we are justified in taking the necessary precautions, anonymity included."

I would ask you to acknowledge this remark was extremely distasteful, offensive and defamatory and to withdraw it and unreservedly apologise.

Comments such as this only serve to prove that they should be accompanied by a name, address and phone number before they are published.

Bet you would then think a second time before descending to this disgraceful level of personal vilification.

Dear David,

My comment was not personal: I wrote "so long as there are people like you here who SEEM to be willing to betray...": this does not mean that you actually ARE willing to betray us, the citizens of OLO, but there could be others that are, so that danger exists and we cannot be too careful.

Wouldn't you agree with me that you SEEM to be on the regime's side?
You may personally be completely innocent, but after presenting an article like this, calling us to strip ourselves of one the few protections still left for us, you cannot accuse us of suspecting that you might be working for the Canberra regime, if not even for the United-Nations which tries to control and oppress this whole planet and which you often ascribe authority to in both this and your other articles.

It is common knowledge that lawyers tend to respect the regime and its laws - after all they make a living out of it and one who does not agree with the regime would find it very distressing to spend years going through law-school to learn about their rubbish. There could of course be exceptions, there are lawyers who fight for human rights and even risk their life or personal freedom to defend others against the regime - but they are few and far between. My apologies if you are one of them.

//Surely the first step in any move by the Security Council to combat this "Internet Intifada" is to insist that all member States impose laws in their jurisdictions compelling all Internet providers to insist on the names , addresses and contact phone numbers being provided by all registered users of their websites - including those seeking to post comments.//

What an appallingly stupid suggestion. I suggest you stick to the law, Dave, because your understanding of IT is obviously even more woeful than mine.

It's clear that you haven't thought about all the consequences of your ridiculous idea. Data security is a big enough problem without forcing people to divulge extremely sensitive personal information all over the interweb. Yes, might make it easier for that invasive pest species, the Thin-Skinned Litigious Toad, to sue for defamation (I'm not really sure this can be regarded as a pro). But it is too easy and too tempting a target for hackers and identity thieves, which is sufficient con to outweigh any benefits for the litigious toads.

//Ending anonymity on the Internet is not a threat to free speech. It does not prevent anyone saying whatever they want to say within the bounds of what is legally acceptable.//

I agree. But it is an unacceptably significant threat to data security and privacy, and they are more important than putting legal bounds on what people can say on the internet.