The analysis was fascinating to read. I post sometimes and enjoy the debate. I wish people were occasionally less overtly rude, but uncouth is just plain Australian. I am female and prefer the application of anonymity in debate so we can play the ball and not the man.

Bronwyn

You wrote; “I would actually prefer people use their real names. I feel it would add to the openness and accountability of the discussions. In my view if you feel strongly enough to write an opinion you should be able to put your name to it”.

I absolutely agree in the strongest manner, and it is with the greatest of dislike that I HAVE to use a pseudonym. Even though all of my views are in line with my employer, and I have put a whole set postings on this forum supporting my employer, I can’t speak out on my own behalf because of the paranoid fear that I may express a view that is not held by clients, thus possibly offending them and compromising our service to them. Freedom of speech is not alive and well in Australia.

Some use pseudonyms because they have to, some because it just seems to be the thing to do and the occasional one because they just want to be rude and stupid, with impunity. And a few actually use their own names, to their credit.

Boy, you touched a raw nerve over this issue! Stresses me out just thinkin’ about it.

Now I neeed a bit of stress relief. Sneeky, leeed mee to thee parteeeee.

Very interesting analysis Graham. I’m not surprised by any of the stats – all makes perfect sense as does your suggested rationale behind them all. Also love the way it has brought out real positivity in all but a couple of the respondents, many of whom have shared a bit more info about themselves.

Well then, I’m somewhere between 20 and 50. Right into sustainability issues. A botanical, geological, geomorphological, ecological, botanical obsessive twitcher (of the birdological variety) botanical nutcase from way back. Former state candidate for the Qld Greens but no longer associated with the Greens in any way, since the Tampa incident.

I have been on this forum for four weeks and look forward to years of wonderful friendly tactful debate with ye all.

Sneekeepete

Enjoyed your vision of an OLO get together - though I think the happy family idea might be a bit ambitious knowing the strength and diversity of opinion within the group!

Not sure about the chardonnay either. The elitists and upper crusts might consider it a bit passe'.

Regarding the coffee latte' - I know sipping is important (while chattering), but politically-correct do-gooders are particular about their caffeine. It would have to be organically-grown fair trade coffee. Perhaps green tea would be better. The hard-core greens might appreciate it.

There could be a problem with the seating arrangements too. I doubt Redneck would want whites, Hispanics and Africans in the same room.

Hopefully you get some more suggestions. And that they are of course polite ones!

Ludwig

Appreciate your explanation for choosing to use a pseudonym. Who needs sedition laws - we're being cowered into silence without them. Won't say anymore, don't want to drive you to drink!

"Former state candidate for the Qld Greens but no longer associated with the Greens in any way, since the Tampa incident."

Very interesting. I'm assuming your conservation passion has come before your compassion on this one. I know this issue presents a difficult tight-rope. I'm a conservationist too but might have weighed this one up differently to you by the sound of it.

I do use my own name, am a married, jewish male of 30 years. I would have to be subsidised as I am a student AGAIN.

However, do we have to use all of the various seats, allocated dependent upon classification? I would need many seats.

Perhaps Father Dave could break up the fights? (perhaps Father Dave could end up in one depending on whether any far right israelis attend)

I do like this forum, as it provides an accessible onlie discussion, most contributors to which are willing to argue for their point of view. I do appreciate an argument, however I would prefer they remained free of defamatory comment, only where such may bring about a response from the authorities. In the main defamation on such a forum is comparatively harmless, and an acceptable part of robust argument.

I'm male and 35. On economic issues I regard myself as right wing. However my views on civil liberties (ie freedom to stuff your life up with your drug of choice, freedom to own a firearm etc) makes me refer to myself as a libertarian. Ironically even though I support John Howard on lots of things, he annoys me with his opposition to drug decriminalisation and civilian gun ownership.

I have always enjoyed reading. Thanks to OLO and other web forums I now also enjoy writing. In fact in the last 5-6 years my writing ability has improved significantly.

I do find the tone of this place left wing. I suspect that a sample of the article authors would show a similar result. Most of the articles seem to be statist in their outlook.

Typically I enjoy the discussions generated by a given article far more than the articles themselves.

You can hear more of me at: www.libertarian.org.au