Examinator has started another thread, partly based on our behavior here, asking questions about changes to OLO.
Well we do wander a bit.
If we stuck to the subject would we truly talk of an Aboriginal separate state?
I think not, KJ do you truly see a future in an Australia separated forever? can you show me the people ready to rule?
is separatism the way?
Col will not change, he is full of both self assurance and believes his verbal opponent is wrong always.
My question was honest why the great differences in AS posts?
How can it be wrong to question him on his views?
Most Aussie share one thing with Col Rouge, we truly do not care what country people come from but how they act matters.

Belly,
You do yourself or I a disservice I see no problem with your posts or views. (Others could do worse than model their attitude to this site on you), sure we don't always agree but you treat all with respect.
The new thread was intended as a call to all of us to lift our game, and how to facilitate it.
I admit that the subject wasn’t totally esoteric but I absolutely deny that it is/was an attempt to victimize specific individuals rather, unacceptable behaviour generally. Like you I can and do call a spade a bloody shovel. Had I wanted to target someone I have the bottle to name them.

Col Rouge,
You claim superior debating skills (your shot at me in a previous post) yet your response was (predictably) petulant and retributive. You have proven several of my conclusions.
1/ You have an egotistical glass jaw you give it but collapse into vitriol if you're challenged particularly in like fashion. A truly confident person would not in this environment feel such a need.
2/ I used your aggressive/combative debating techniques in that I questioned your credibility as you have done unnecessarily to many on this site. This is a social site therefore good manners are required. Not PC or stuffy cocked pinkie just plain every day politeness and respect.
3/ The majority of my post was directed at legitimately (obviously successfully) countering your source argument.
4/ I’m sure many will note that you chose to attack me personally rather than the issue proving that your argument style is both brittle and vulnerable on matters of logic and analysis.
From a robust debating perspective your style relies on bullying and bluster. A second rate debating style as I’m sure any serious debater would agree.
In conclusion You do have a valuable contribution to make so please do it with less unnecessary aggression and vitriol.
Let’s move on.
As far as I’m concerned Amen and good night.

I just wish every parasite Attaché for the Aboriginal Question be expelled from Australia for a start, then let the Aboriginal people becomes Australians- as they are and were before Whitlam.

Advocating the absolute ridicules notion as is of Multiculturalism , creating their own little apartheid states within a state ; If I can remember all the little lobotomized circus clowns bouncing around in their rubber rooms with pathological violent vitriol about South African Apartheid ; they the same brainless parasites , then create their own multi apartheid states and call it Secular.
Namely all they do is recreate Balkanised and a dysfunctional sectarian State.

To be quite frank, it is time the Aboriginal parasite industry was abandoned, the Looting of the state to fund a hand full of Horse Agistment for brains opulence and depravity at the great expense of a Nation and its people – Aboriginals are Australians- and any idiot who states otherwise, Bugger off.

Examimator “You claim superior debating skills (your shot at me in a previous post) yet your response was (predictably) petulant and retributive. You have proven several of my conclusions.”

Oh – maybe you should quote specifically where I have claimed such “skills”.

“You have an egotistical glass jaw”

So you tell me

“This is a social site therefore good manners are required.”

I know, when things are too heated, our gallant host can delete and post and ban anyone he chooses…

but as we see from your new thread "For the sake of OLO ...rule changes?", the expectations of the host are not in accordandce with yours, so here you are having another dummy–spit.

Personally, I accept the ruling of the host, consistently without question because, unlike you, I do accept the rules and expectations of others and do not consider myself the sole arbiter of posting ettiquette.

“The majority of my post was directed at legitimately (obviously successfully) countering your source argument.”

Sorry, if my I response is out of alignment with your undeclared expectations…but I accept no responsibility for either your comfort or convenience.

“I’m sure many will note that you chose to attack me personally”

if you cannot take it, do not give it out…

considering, your entire last post was an undiguised attack on me.

“In conclusion You do have a valuable contribution to make so please do it with less unnecessary aggression and vitriol”

I know I have “a valuable contribution to make”,

It is just, I do not go around telling people “I have a valuable contribution to make”. . ..

Belly, I appreciate your expressions of agreement

All -
whilst I might not share your vocabulary, I do understand and accept your underlying sense of frustration and possibly anger with the professional apologist industry, who just love telling us what we must do and how we must think.

"All -
whilst I might not share your vocabulary, I do understand and accept your underlying sense of frustration and possibly anger with the professional apologist industry, who just love telling us what we must do and how we must think."

All
He really believes this?

Apologies, I should make it clearer.

Col said (in reply to 'All'):

"whilst I might not share your vocabulary, I do understand and accept your underlying sense of frustration and possibly anger with the professional apologist industry, who just love telling us what we must do and how we must think."

My response to everybody (not 'All'):

He (Col) really believes this?