Do not imagine what we think and do as private things [our business] will not influence who we are and how we behave in public relationships.

Let the name-calling continue

Note to OLO Editors and Forum Moderators. OLO describes itself as follows”

On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit e-journal that aims to provide a forum for public social and political debate about current Australian issues. We publish articles to stimulate a public discourse on a range of topics. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=about

But in reality, OLO is very narrow and highly discriminatory, and has been that way ever since it first started.

There are about 3000 articles that have been posted on OLO, and the majority would have a male as the main topic, or have the male gender as the main topic. Only a very few of these 3,000 articles have portrayed males in a positive way, and this can only be regarded as being highly discriminatory. This article by Melinda is typical of 1,000’s on OLO.

OLO would not exist without males. Even the web-site and the computers would not exist. So OLO could have a special section titled “Articles that portray a male or the male gender positively”. Out of the 3,000 articles currently in the OLO archives, OLO may be able to find 2-3 that could go into this section. Indeed it could a major challenge for OLO, to actually find those articles.

The public forum is also quite typical of the main articles, and the most common feature in the forum would now be name-calling. This name-calling can be almost anything, and recent feature now includes calling other people terms such as “old” in a derogatory fashion, with no objection shown by the moderators, even though there is discrimination legislation concerning that.

So in essence, OLO is a very sexist organisation, that has minimal regard for discrimination or standards.

But the name-calling from others now will be returned.

Kenny,
You write “Bla, bla, Bla”. You are a “a backlash from conservatives”. You are a “ a backlash from mullet set.” You are in “ vogue.” on OLO.

Laurie,
You show “ bigotry”. You are “Pure and simple.”

Spendocrat
You are “Pat Robertson with bad grammar”

Lisamaree
You are not “being politically correct?”

TBC

As to the ‘Blokesworld’ issue, if you are so inclined pay your cash and get your jollies, if that is your thing… (and one wonders why it would be anyone’s ‘thing’)

As for the OLO forum, if it does not appear to be to your liking, go somewhere else where they agree with what appears to be your biased, distorted view. Otherwise, put up with the fact that many will not agree with you.

It sounds pretty sad to me. A bunch of attractive women showing some boob to desperate guys for a load of money. It astounds me anyone would want to choose that over the lady at home, who they have an intimate and satisfying relationship with.

I think a lot of it comes down to the lack of culturally accepted environments for singles to mingle. The only options seem to be sleazy atmosphere (e.g. clubs). What a way to form deep intimate relationships, taking a woman home and sleeping with her, and then getting to know her as you go. If you don't like her, repeat as above. Unless she gets pregnant, then you're stuck with her.

Traditionally churches used to fulfill this need, and to some extent already do. I do admire how relationships are formed in that arena; where the couple are encouraged to form a emotional bond, and they value their sexuality. But as a non-religious guy, I'd like to see our culture progress so I have these same tools available to me outside of a church environment.

I know I've rambled a bit, but I do think alot of the reason Blokesworld is so popular is people aren't happy at home with someone they've commited their lives to. We need to give people more options so they can form 'old-school' relationships and hopefully find someone that fulfills their needs in this area.

Timkins, if you dislike OLO so much, consider it so deeply biased, why do you spend so much time and effort here?

Topic: I think blokesword is pretty sad really- very lowest common denominator stuff. But I would not have closed it down- as various posters have noted, that has just given it more publicity than it deserved

Duece
You should check with your “ lawyer”.
You are “ outing *other* people.”

Enaj,
You are a “neanderthal orc”

Sneekeepete
You have “ intimate knowledge of the going on at hens nights”.
Images burnt into your brain are “ pan images of pelvic thrusting, penis squeezing, ejaculate giving orgasms”
You mix in “ some pretty wild circles” .
You wish “the worlds biggest blow job to beset Sydney by way of a hurricane?”
You are” simply stupid”
You talk “ nonsense”
You are a “ duffer.”
Muslims think you are “a bit stupid”.

Reason,
OLO is not "to your liking"

Laurie,
You are “too maligning and judgemental”.
You do not have “well adjusted and fully actualised children”
You consider OLO “deeply biased”

You have rarely answered my questions in the past, just made whatever statements you have wanted about me and other posters. But I will answer your question. I’m here because I am not breaking any forum rules, and probably the only time the moderators would take any interest, is if I made a negative remark about a female, but negative remarks about males would be the overriding principle of OLO, based on past articles and posts.