There are many questions in Ludwig's opening post.

So I'll try to answer one from GrahamY's second post, the eighth in the thread.

I have recently changed my mind on a relatively major issue, not so much because of the arguments put up by other posters, but because of the character of the debate here on OLO. Long before I had any involvement with OLO I had become familiar with the technique of 'argument by abuse' during the course of attempting to raise public awareness in relation to another issue.

I learned from that experience that when one encounters fairly consistent argument by abuse, there likely is substance in one's concerns, and some vested interests see themselves threatened by the very discussion of the subject. When that abuse comes from, or is applauded by, people in high places, you can be reasonably sure the line of your own argument somehow threatens to reveal impropriety.

The issue upon which I have changed my mind is that as to the possibility of there having been some form of collusion on the part of elements within the executive government of the US in the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack upon the World Trade Centre. I had previously closed my mind to such a possibility. Too complex. Too far-fetched.

Then I saw argument by abuse on the '9/11 Truth' thread.

Spurred by that recognition, I read the e-book 'The New Pearl Harbor', and perused Thompson's 9/11 Timeline. These major references point up seemingly serious discrepancies and curious coincidences that strain credibility. They are a worry. They lead me to suspect the event was not so much a successful terrorist attack as a failed coup attempt against duly constituted authority in the US.

Having written a little here on OLO on the old Pearl Harbour, and being in the process of outlining the basis for a fully constitutional coup here in Australia on the 'Power without pride' thread, I feel obliged to post on the '9/11 Truth' thread.

New pennies have dropped re 9/11.

Moron

He also bans gutless twits that post in two names , Dick.

I take it that is why you created a second comment on the Selective Animal Cruelty thread.

In case nobody told you ( which would indicate a ALP follower:) the world faces the hardest financial times ever.

Australia will be harder hit than in your wildest dreams.

We are free to express an opinion or ask a question. Many people gain pleasure from sharing their views on OLO.

Some: even learn

Also it would be incredibly selfish of us all imo, if we didn`t consider the business owner`s that made that possible.

Now let me whip out my crystal ball .....and see if there are any messages in return for the Moronslayer..
*arbitrarily*

Ar, alas spirits looking for the Moron.

Spirits message as follows ....

ALP- MLA ...

also saying late: home: alone: big house:, lots of trees.... ... blood: sorrow : to any involved with letters above.

I had to ask if I wanted to re enter a thread that had been full of interest.
Well yes I must Graham owns OLO, he has stopped some, two in fact of my threads from breathing.
One in my view was ok one clearly not.
It is his right.
If he was some dictator a great many posts would never appear.
If he did not offer some control the forum would have died years ago.
Now Ludwig, I thought I would check my post history, one day less than yours!
Please forgive the first few hundred intent is the same spelling not good.
And in the last week my opinion has changed because of OLO.
Will not re visit PFs thread but I no longer think as I wrote while I would not eat it suckling pig has been on mans menu for century's.

GrahamY
Re your points 1.40 6/11/08

I think you may be a bit ambitious to expect change of opinions over a chat site.
I would suggest a more realistic question might be.
“Has anyone modified or further researched an opinion their own or someone else’s as a result ofsomething on this site?”

I would readily admit to all three, Ok not those who clearly go in with a closed agenda but certainly others including Ludwig.
My objectives on this site are to exchange ideas, gain topics for thought and challenge others to do the same not gather converts.

I would also argue that NOT to discuss issues makes you less of a citizen. It is only by communicating that we can hope to understand our fellow citizens. There are those who don't see others as people but as threats and as a consequence can't move on from their state of fear.

From an analytical perspective remember that the Prado effect (20/80% rule) applies. Therefore if 20% of readers or posters answer to at least one of the above question that’s a lot of people. Then if we add to that 7 points of contact to anyone in the world Kevin Rudd is getting all the advice he needs. Ergo don’t sell the impact of your site short.

Besides which according to one poster I have found my calling a wannabe Emeritus Professor and I thought I was just a wannabe smart Alec :-)