One of the main problems for both contributors and posters is that many of us (i.e. the entire human race)believe that we are right, and others are wrong. Some people deem it an insult if you merely disagree with them; others will call you names, such as: ignorant, undeducated, racist etc. if you hold views other than their own. Still others will think that you are not worth listening to.

There's nothing anyone can do about this, short of censorship, which nullfies the entire reason for OLO's existence.

Susan Giblin should not stop contributing because she didn't like what some dweadful posters said about her article. She should make use of the opportunity to express her views in the knowledge that she will never have a safer medium to do so. People of opposing views can have their say without tempers leading to something far worse than a verbal shellacking.

Leigh

Very well said. Debate, debate, debate is the key to a healthier demcocracy, society and world.

Humanity, with its divisions and different needs, is far too complex for one to assume they know best, although we can all aspire to be better writers and more astute in regard to the complex issues we face

Susan,
I recall reading your first article but cannot recall if I responded or not. I may have considered the article too silly to bother responding, so am not inclined to look back to see. If I did respond I most probably said the concept of non-citizens voting was stupid and tthat I do not know of any nation that allows it.

The idea of non-citizens having any influence on a countries electionis, to me, just plain ridiculous.

I do not see how you can think yourself voiceless and disenfranchised just because you cannot vote in the country you happen to be in at the time of their election. Surely you have the right to vote in the country in which you are a citizen. You would merely have to contact your home countries embassy.

I notice you are an academic and your ideas on this do not reflect favourably on academics generally.

I would use your article as an example that the world is getting sillier.

My post is off topic , however I would like to respond to the latter posts vilifying the 'quality' of some posts .

OLO is a political forum , people in politics can be passionate .
Surely we can put up with people who on viewing little Asian children locked up behind barbed wire future unknown become passionate .
I know I did , and I voted for Howard , I have 5 kids will that help ?
Or am I now a registered sinner ?

I like OLO the way it is , OLO tells it like it is , limited sanitation get where people are going with the full Monty .
While some of the posts regarding Keelty are ugly , we are not left wondering about the depth of some peoples hatred for this man , in my view that matters . In my view his responsibilities were untenable .
Haneef should have had his day in Court , his association close up and personal with Terrorists is untenable . Thats just my opinion isn't it and I can post it on OLO . Anyone reading this knows my vote matters .

Afraid our OLO ia becoming too much like a local U3A I was asked to take groups in?

The particular U3A was begun fifteen years ago mostly by ex-journos and bush activists like myself who joined three years later after graduating from Curtin.

However, in taking groups I felt I still needed to work through a university, finding that Murdoch made me the most welcome, which went on for 13 years till the death of my wife and partner.

Sad to say, though still well-packed, the insistence right now according to headings on U3A newsletters seems mostly on friendliness rather than learning.

Certainly friendliness prevents much of the backbiting, but so does respectable tuition as in universities, yet what a few of us mature age students do believe in are ways to prevent wars which means looking for good in both sides, which most always will be found when either side will give admiitance to a blame, as is recommended for feuding families.

It is thus so interesting that when first learning politics one is told to think about genuine kindness and understanding in successful families.

Examinator wrote, "The naysayers to your seminal point on OLO, at least the more vocal ones don't tend to be the best skilled at alternative arguing. ..."

This can be somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

I would object that I do take care to acknowledge and respond to all arguments from those with whom I disagree as far as is possible within my own time constraints on top of the (excessive and inflexible) constraints of OLO .

Could I suggest that Susan herself respond to the arguments put by myself and others against her proposal?

I would also invite Susan to participate in other OLO discussions, as examples:

"How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" of 9 Feb 09 at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8485&page=0

"Planet Earth - babies need not apply" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8838&page=0

"9/11 Truth" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=83

"Tactics in a cosmic war" ar http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8857&page=2#140777

... or, indeed, even this discussion.

---

Susan wrote, "I also thought that if we could meet each other then there probably wouldn't be so much rudeness and the discussion about the issues might be more constructive. ..."

Probably the last sentence or two of my first post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8778&page=1#139183) to the abovementioned forum could have been left off, but I stand by what I wrote and I think Susan should at least try to show where I was wrong.