The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The blame game has gone too far when governments become guardians > Comments

The blame game has gone too far when governments become guardians : Comments

By Caspar Conde, published 16/2/2005

Caspar Conde argues that we are living in a risk-averse 'Nanny State'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All
ozaware,

Re: the 350 word limit being idiotic, I'd like you to consider the following.

According to the OLO contributors' guide, articles are to be generally between 800 and 1000 words long (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=guide). Why is it you think that comments on the articles should be longer than 350 words? I consider 350 to be quite generous.

I draw your attention to one of your posts at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2959#1398, coming in at 3520 words. It seems a little obscene to me that the length of one of your article comment needs to be 466% the length of the original article.

I personally think that the changes are excellent. The word limit keeps posts readable (I don't have time to read anything that looks like an essay), and the daily post limits prevent certain verbose idiots hi-jacking every discussion they come across.

"Frivolous frivolity"? Please. How about "concise, to-the-point, and on topic."
Posted by Joe, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 12:43:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe ,I agree.350 words is plenty.We will learn the art of word economy.It will just mean a bit more thinking and creativity.The same old long winded bloggers is a turn off for pensive newcomers who fear ridicule.Anyway,if you want to write more,approach Graham Young for your own official article.Judging by the standard of some articles,there are many who would qualify.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:54:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,

>>>>>>>>>> Why is it you think that comments on the articles should be longer than 350 words?

Because sometimes they have to be. Read http://www.oz-aware.com/jungleman.htm That’s---present company obviously included---why!

>>>>>>>>>> The word limit keeps posts readable (I don't have time to read anything that looks like an essay)

Do I infer that you read merely for the sake of reading or to pass time? If you “don’t have time” how come you spent so much time researching for your carefully-prepared attempt to wipe the floor with me?

Hmmm….what was that you said about “on topic”?

I would hope that there are people out there who, like myself, still read for the sake of educating themselves. As I say in the essay referred to below (kooky):

“Unfortunately—thanks primarily to television and also high-speed communication—‘modern’ society has largely lost its ability to concentrate on ‘serious’ reading material for any appreciable length of time. Forget twelve pages, the average educated younger person today has difficulty in quickly and easily comprehending the contents of just one sentence that contains more than about twelve words, which means even just this simple sentence might be a real problem for them!
It's the real reason why many label my essays as ‘too long'….
How superficial have we become! One hundred and fifty years ago an audience sat—concentrating—through seven hours of one debate between Abraham Lincoln and an opponent. Today people are yawning after a half hour! “ (end excerpt)

Et tu Brute?

>>>>>>> certain verbose idiots

Thanks (Yawn). In return, there’s a non-ad-hominen answer for you, prepared many months ago, at: http://www.oz-aware.com/kooky.htm

Now it’s my turn, Joe.

Perhaps you could demonstrate both your superior intelligence and the validity of your viewpoint by condensing my previous two posts into less than 350 words, but still retaining the information, rationale and perspective. Go ahead, please do make a fool of me.

Why have I replied in this way and included the hyperlinks? Because I live in hope that you’ll learn something meaningful, Joe….

Hope this reply was short enough for you….(350 words)
Posted by ozaware, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 12:11:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone interested in the subject of tort reform, and what is ahead of us if we are stupid enough to go down the path advocated by the Centre for Independent Studies and others should have a look at the following:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=19976&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

And anyone who lives in Melbourne and wants a "nice night's entertainment" should go and see Max Gillies in "The Big Con".
Posted by grace pettigrew, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 9:30:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ozaware,

Your "challenge" - simply put - was to demonstrate my superior intelligence and the validity of my viewpoint by condensing your previous posts into less than 350 words. So here we go...

"My name is ozaware, and I'm not particularly interested in reasonable, rational debate. Instead, I am primarily interested in posting hyperlinks to my own poorly designed website(s), and threatening anyone who holds an opinion contrary to my own with legal action."

There. And it only took 41 words.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Posted by Joe, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 11:56:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozaware,the trick of keeping the balance is as complex as our own eco-systems.Firstly everyone must to some degree be subjected to the rules of survival of the fittest.This should include share holders,fat rich bastards,public servants,[ie.The public privledged]
private slaves,dole bludgers,single mothers/fathers,the pretend disabled,real disabled,criminals and the genetically deficient.
In our society ,there are just too many riding on the backs of the hard working and really productive.I don't for example include litigation lawyers amongst the productive.They, in the main, are parisites.
Yes I agree that we need the morals of ouer religions that have evolved over the centuries,however we need also more credible factual framework than The Bible or Koran to connect us to the real universe of science and mathematics.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 7:07:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy