Ludwig,

Could it be that one aspect of OLO's significance is that of its being a sounding board of the demographic that reads/uses it?

Could it even be that OLO could be functioning as a 'mood indicator', or even as a 'mood setter', for the community at large? Don't ask me exactly what I mean by 'mood', because I am not sure. I note, however, that Graham Young refers to 'mood' in his recent topic "Are Public Opinion Polls Accurate Anymore?" as something such polls may be measuring in lieu of voting intention.

Good points regarding the availability of bold, coloured, and italic script, and emoticons and such like!

Tammyjo and RObert,

There may be a technical reason why, if it is true (as from literary style it is believable) that BOAZ_David is now posting under the name Polycarp, that he has changed his forum identity.

Back in May I encountered a problem posting on OLO. I was not subject to any ban, nor had I exceeded the limit of posts I could make within any given time. My email address had not changed, nor had my OLO password. I had not attempted to post under any other name. I simply could not post.

I was seemingly able to use the feedback button to inform OLO of this problem, but the problem did not immediately resolve itself. Curiously, I was able to submit a new topic for discussion whilst otherwise unable to post, and did so as a way of communicating with OLO regarding this posting problem. Graham and I exchanged emails on the matter. Shortly after the problem resolved itself without any changes having been made at my end.

I still don't know what prevented me posting, but I did contemplate setting up a new user under my Linux OS and registering a new userID on OLO just to get around the problem, not to circumvent OLO rules re multiple IDs.

Perhaps B_D ran into a similar problem, and actually adopted a like strategy. B_D has not posted since Polycarp's arrival.

I don't see the problem with people changing their moniker. I did it for a couple of reasons.

I felt my original name was too revealing and restricted how open I could be. Some personal attacks against me referencing my family and twisting previous information I may have given alerted me to this problem.

Once changing I saw it as an interesting experiment to see if I was responded to differently, without the pejudice of people knowing my politics or life philospohies or background. Also to see if people could easily pick me out from my style or opinions, and the absence of my other moniker, which took longer than I thought actually.

Probably BOAZ is polycarp, but I don't see the problem with that. Why is it important? Why must he confirm or deny this? I chose to confirm people's suspicions, but I think it's funny if polycarp never admits to being BOAZ. I'm a bit sus about Gibo and BOAZ and under one god being all the same person. Why does it matter?

Usual Suspect it is fun to be able to put the odd link to some of Boazy's more telling comments in when responding to pious dribble on his part. He's very fond of running down others who don't share his beliefs but has left a few skeletons around in his time.

R0bert

Robert,

Fair enough. I think I approach this site differently to a lot of people. I'd never be bothered researching someone's past posts.

Actually it amazes me the effort some people put in to arguing with posters who, by looking at the lack of logic in their original posting, obviously aren't going to respond logically to a strenuously detailed analysis of the arguments they've made.

I fly off the handle and use the wrong half of my brain in arguments too often, but usually people start to ignore me when that happens.

A lot of OLO reminds me of that Monty Python sketch about paying for an argument...

M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

I agree with Usual Suspect. What's important is the message, not who says it. That is what should be debated and ultimately judged.

I think the OLO forum is much better for having the option to write under an alias as it protects the author from attacks outside the bounds of the forum.

RobP, I completely agree about the alaiases and the message part but do think when someone has already demonstrated an inconsistancy with what they are currently claiming it's relevant. Not necessary but sometimes fun and sometimes a useful way of pointing out deceit.

Usual Suspect, I take the time with some some posters mostly because they sometimes give opportunity to expound on important ideas and they are not the only readers. A case in point being the recent discussion about abstenance only vs comprehensive sex education. The abstenance only view is held by more than just a tiny fringe group and has serious ramifications but I suspect that many who hold it have never checked into how effective it is either at creating abstenance or in preventing unwanted pregnancies or STD's. Worth spending time on even though it was clear that HRS was very unlikely to be swayed by my arguments.

R0bert