Doc, that last post of yours is much more in keeping with the impression I'd got of you from previous posts.

And in no way, shape or form am I Dutch :)

It doesn't surprise me that you are actually doing something about Human Rights either, you seemed that kind of guy.

I have my own Human Rights issues, I'm of a genuinely oppressed minority (actually two of them), and both of them are some of the few that no UN convention offers protection to.

For example, it is unnecessary or undesirable to give people like me an Australian Passport, despite my Australian Citizenship. They can't legally make a decision to refuse, they just don't issue one (see Australian Passports Determination 2005 Explanatory Notes). Section 12 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights doesn't apply to people like me, at least in Australia.

Thanks to both yourself and Helen for your kind words to me, I hope that this thread will proceed in then same spirit of respect, with pardonable misconceptions and even egregious errors gently corrected.

Fred, possibly off topic but you've mentioned the issue of pen names a couple of times in this thread
eg -
"And I still cannot understand why so many of you shelter behind idiotic pen names. Who do you think you are? :) "

I can't answer for every other poster but for some of us the use of an alias/pen name provides some protection against real world consequences to expressing views that might otherwise cause us trouble. In my case I'm particularly interested in issues surrounding family law.

My ability to comment (with examples) on issues in that sphere would be significantly impacted on if doing identified myself, my son or my ex. I do believe that personal examples are important in helping people understand how some issues are played out in the real world but that doing so does not require the use of real names.

I've no desire to end up on some private hit list maintained by a zealot at CSA because they were able to link my name to comments critical of CSA.

Others comment on fields in which they are employed but where they may not wish to expose employers or clients to harm by being identified with views that may not be popular.

R0bert

A few days into this BBP06 and we can see already how wonderful this initiative is. And a good time to have it, where we can take the time to enjoy it.

Given it will run for a month, surely there must be cause to allow the author of a post to come into comments and answer questions byeond the three comment rule?

I note with gratitude Helen has been granted leave of this rule, above; perhaps site editors may be able to inform us as to whether we can more fully engage an author during the month, should the author wish to?

In the hope authorial leave is granted, I have a question relating to the author/reader dynamic for Helen.

I'm picking a slice from a comment above where Helen was otherwise engaged, and with that I'm acknowledging the quick-response nature of blog commenting as often misleading. I'll be interested in Helen's responses (if allowed here) all considered..

Here is Helen's remark: "Thanks very much Hamlet - you've taken my piece in the right spirit".

Helen, as the author, what do you mean by "you've taken my piece in the right spirit"?

Robert, the two post rule binds everyone - including editors, so don't expect me to come back and use my second shot on this thread too quickly! Helen only got two bites earlier because I gave her one of my turns and posted for her.

The number of posts is governed by the program, and it's not possible the way it is currently set-up to exempt anyone. The model we used in determining limitations was that of the "Town Hall" meeting. Think of the article, or the original post, as the motion. Then everyone after that, including the mover of the motion, gets an equal right to engage in debate.

The article forum is more restrictive than the general forum. This is intentional - we're trying to make the general forum more conversational.

We originally allowed any number of people any number of comments. That led to flame wars and what was essentially bullying by a few posters. The restrictions seem to me to have lifted the tone considerably, and I think when you compare our threads to those on most blogs the contributions are far more considered and complete.

This part of the thread is essentially off-topic. The general forum was set-up to allow discussion of issues that weren't related to articles. Why doesn't Helen or someone else set-up a thread there http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/index-general.asp to quizz Helen about her literary forays?

Well I waited all night and Jesus didn't come down my chimney again this year.

He doesn't come if you are awake, Rainier.

I thought everybody knew that.