Ludwig, Graham published the results of some research a while ago regarding OLO usage. One thing that stuck out was that the readership was a lot larger than the number of those who post on the site.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3901

That may answer some of your questions.

Col, thanks for your post, you summed it up for me particularly regarding the impact on my own views.

R0bert

Dear Ludwig,

Of course OLO is addictive.

Look at me - prime example.

It's such a big part of my life.

Yes, I do have a life outside of OLO,
although some wouldn't believe it.

To me, OLO is where I go for different points
of view. OLO makes me think - re-evaluate my
opinions, learn, grow, laugh, get mad (when
the right buttons are pushed),discuss,
and in general
have fun.

And it is fun. I love the inter-action.
And the vast variety of opinions.
What makes it special - are the people.
I've not encountered anyone really
mean-spirited or nasty.

Sure there have been some emotive moments -
but they pass - and we all move on.
It's actually the emotive moments that
are the biggest challenges - and the ones
that cause the most soul-searching.

I often lie in bed at night - going over
different aspects of a discussion in my
mind.

And that can't be said about too many Forums.
OLO to me at least is very significant and
relevant.

It has wisedom and a heart -
Thanks to the people that are so
much a vital part of it.

OLO makes us think,improves our verbosity and sentence structure.Aside form this,we get to read ideas/opinions that aren't even entertained in the mainstream media.OLO in China for example, would spend it's time in a gulag being re-educated.

It is the freedom of thought which made the West so great in the past,let's hope that the Chinese/Indians and Russians are not slow learners.

Deceitful people like Melinda Tankard Reist use the articles section to spread their extreme messages under a pretense of moderation, by concealing their allegiances (for example, MTR conceals her membership of Right-to-life organisations and extreme Catholic sympathies, while pretending to be only a feminist). The most active there seem to be matched in in real life - those who seek the greatest government power over us and want to increase and expand it's control of us.

I've spent a deal of time recently on the forum, but I don't see my presence continuing with this intensity, as in some ways it's true that it is pointless. People who regard freedom and liberty highly have better things to do quite frankly. Those who hate the most, who desire the most power, will never rest (these are the religious-both islam and christians are united here, the sexist feminists who pretend to be reasonable while in fact being extremely authoritarian, and those who want to socially engineer us) who both incidentally receive a lot of funding and government grants for all this activism and propaganda. Normal people can't compete with such machines and don't care to. It shouldn't be expected of them either.

Foxy, I've always enjoyed reading your comments because your warmth, honesty and friendly disposition really shine here.

I come to OLO for a variety of reasons. One of my main motivators was to work on critical reasoning and spotting fallacies.

It's easy to see those who aren't actually interested in engaging, and are only here to push their own agendas.
Granted, we all do that to an extent, but it's those who are simply broken records that bother me. I don't mind people with opposing views, it's those who make the same statements over and over, and when pressed, just revert back to the same lines while refusing to deal with complexities or challenging material.

I guess I'm of the view that the most harmful beliefs are those that are extreme, or fundamentalist.
I'm also of the view that these can only be maintained by refusing to cede the slightest bit of ground to other points of view, as sensible people do invariably accept that there are other ways of viewing the issue and these other ways may have merit.

Which in turn lead me to be interested in how people maintain these hostile attitudes in the face of other opinions.
It's rare when you can actually pinpoint a precise point where someone with an extreme point of view actually has to reset their logic and simply ignore the contrary evidence, but it happens. HRS was a fine case in point, when he was simultaneously stating that a) anyone who considers themselves a feminist is a feminist, b) people who just believe in equal rights for both genders could call themselves feminists, or people who argue against violence against women c) all feminists are evil and d) this isn't misogyny.

It was a rare occasion, as most of the time this 'reset' point of logic can only be reached in debates about religion. Nevertheless, it was something he couldn't counter, as he has extreme views of feminism (I'm not saying aspects can't be criticised, but surely the other posters can see these assertions can't be held simultaneously).

Cont'd.