I have noticed that out of large numbers of registered users only a small number comment on discussion topics yet the names that appear on article comments tend to be different ...see the responders to Peter Sellicks’ piece on atheism. One could/should wonder why. One of the reasons may be found in the nature/direction of some of the discussions.

e.g. In a recent topic, the original question was supposably about “An Aboriginal Nation State”. Yet it appeared as the topic has been hijacked to an all too common theme of a divisive race argument. Usually these arguments are aggravated by half truths, miss use (probable deliberate misunderstanding) of stats/facts for emotional axe grinding purposes and confrontational even ad hominem stances by some.
In reality 3-4 of the site rules were breached in this topic.
Posts are also wasted by defences or trying to reign in unacceptable excesses of some. Consequentially the list of actual commenters to these topics tends to be somewhat more limited.
Having a passionate opinion is one thing but addressing the topic/a fellow commenter as though as though our opinion is either holy writ/crusade or we have a right to be deliberately abrasive (insulting/rude) is more than PC it adversely affects all of us and the site.
The rules clearly tell us
• Keep responses on topic. In the above thread this rule is clearly ignored. I too wandered off on non-confrontational aside (inappropriate). Start a new question; give others a chance to contribute. Perhaps a new hijack rule or addition.
• Do not flame. Disagree by all means, but personal attacks deter others from contributing. Perhaps this rule should be tightened.
• Do not “shout” (use capital letters excessively). Perhaps “*” before and after might be appropriate to emphasize.
• Do not post the same message across multiple threads. Add “…message *or theme unless directly applicable*…”
• Do not attempt to circumvent suspensions.
• Observe copyright and defamation laws. Iwould add vilification...continual posting of the same theme to multiple threads.

We all need to police these rules as they affect all of us.
Comments?

What is needed is a policy which seeks to recognise attempts to disrupt discussions and action against that disruption.

Perhaps the problem is too difficult to solve given the finances and business model that OLO is forced to operate under, however ...

As an example, read the following on the "9/11 Truth" forum I started back in September 2008:

"That the topic is shite just means that I'm not disrupting any kind of serious discussion." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=10#46389)

In spite of his own acknowledgement that he was disrupting the discussion and intended to continue doing so, this was not prevented in spite of several complaints I made myself to the moderator in which I also cited complaints from other contributors.

As I and others have pointed out, the prevalence of such anti-social conduct causes the value of a good many OLO forums to be ruined. People who what to understand the issue are forced to wade through post after post of personal attacks and responses to find useful material.

It seems as if I have learnt how to handle such attempted disruption, so the problem doesn't bother me as much as it used to, but it is a skill that doesn't come naturally for many people.

I know for a fact that as a consequence, many people simply don't bother to contribute to OLO.

From time to time I think about giving up on this site altogether because of these problems. There are, after all, plenty of alternatives where people manage to have civilised discussions over even the most emotive issues. Why can't that happen here?

This was the first discussion site I ever participated in, so I stay around more for sentimental reasons than anything else, but even that's getting a bit thin.

If people aren't observing the current rules, why would they observe new ones? If there's no penalty for breaking rules there's no point inventing more.

I'm curious to know whether others are thinking the same way, whether the problems are getting worse or is it just me, whether people use the Recommend This Comment For Deletion button, what happens if you do?

It's not only the fault of people bending the rules or failure to enforce them, it's also people taking troll bait that derails threads and reduces them to bickering matches. If nothing else, could we at least come to some agreement among ourselves about how to handle this? Or is the only solution to give up and go elsewhere?

examinator

I agree broadly with the points you've outlined. You're right I think about the articles discussions and the general discussions attracting two different types of posters.

I think a lot of professional people or those with a specialist interest cherrypick the articles in their field and stick with them, and possibly look down their nose or don't have the time or inclination for the more generalized discussions.

Then there are those like myself, who don't have any one particular area of expertise, but are broadly interested in a range of issues, and who enjoy the cut and thrust of posting in a group where you've got to know the views of other regular posters.

As for keeping on topic, I wouldn't like to see this become too hard and fast. Some of the best threads do a bit of meandering, which I think can be very worthwhile at times, even though it may have departed somewhat from the original topic. The current Sea Kittens thread is I think a good example of this.

Personal attack is another area where the right balance needs to be struck. I agree, blatant flaming and continuous carping detracts from the quality of debate. But a certain element of the personal dig can add colour and life to the thread. I think if you did away with it completely, there's a risk the discussion could end up somewhat sterile and flat.

I think the majority of posters here have got the balance right and reserve their odd sarcastic shot for those whose views are very different to their own, or as is more likely the case whose attitude they find unacceptably arrogant and dismissive of others. There are some posters here though who haven't achieved or even tried for the right balance, and as much as they infuriate me at times, I still wouldn't like to see them go or see their particular style of posting changed completely.

It's not an easy balance for the moderators to achieve.

Dear examinator,

Thank You for this thread.

It puts things in perspective and I fully agree with
the rule changes that you recommend for OLO.

I know what it feels like to be personally accused
of something that is totally abhorrent to me, (and not
in my nature).

Instead of sticking to the topic of
the thread I had posted, this person chose to go
on a hate-filled rampage, which continued for the
entire thread. No matter what I said, and explained
the purpose of the thread - several unsavoury accusations
were made, including my having a hidden agenda.
(Obviously they had one of their own). It was a devastating
experience that frankly I would prefer not to go through again.

So, yes, we do need rules enforced so that people
stick to the topic of the thread (they can meander as Bronwyn
suggested - within reason), but personal labeling and
attacks should not be allowed.

The bar needs to be raised, and things need to be kept
civilized. If posters are not capable of adhering to these
rules, they should not be posting in the first place. Because
obviously they are deeply disturbed.

Dear Chainsmoker,

Your suggestion to fix things amongst ourselves is not
a bad one. We can all join forces and simply ignore
"troll" threads by not responding to them.

The same goes for posters that regularly post their
hate-filled same subject (sometimes under different
guises - but we all know who they are) on different
threads of OLO.

As CJ has pointed out in the past "don't feed the trolls."
They thrive in responding to whatever reasoned arguments
are presented. We give them a "platform."

It's time we joined forces and stopped.
Without an 'audience' they will either pull up their
socks, or leave.

At least it wouldn't hurt to try.

Daggett,
A few points come to mind on your comment.

The quality of a topic is hardly the justification being a disruptive pest.
It isn’t mandatory to respond to every topic. Therefore there is an argument for some action at the time by the editor. Consider of course he/she is not obliged to tell you of it or are they obliged to do anything if they feel it isn’t warranted.

The other issue is the multiple user IDs game as was noted. This too is against the spirit of the site. Perhaps GrahamY can add an IP exclusion algorithm to eliminate multiple user IDs to the same user or multiple user IDs posting to the same topic.

Bronwyn, Chainsmoker
I have suggested that GrahamY consider the indented system used by http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/ would help commenters follow threads and sub threads. This can then isolate the pest, allow for asides without affecting the flow of the thread. I have seen similar structures in overseas sites.

I’ve also suggested they simplify the way that OLO presents their topics i.e. One click brings up all pages of an article and all its comments rather than the current multiple clicks.
Good natured banter between posters during discussion is one thing but I absolutely disagree with sarcastic shots at someone with whom you disagree. These are often inflammatory and usually spiteful.

One big US site has a user demerit system If a user posts a “not quite bad enough post”, trolling, hijacking etc and gets multiple complaints the editor may issue demerits with explanation privately at log on. Each successive group of complaints incurs demerits to a predetermined limit within a set time frame, until suspension or cancellation of account is automatically imposed. This allows for different levels of unacceptable behaviours and those who deliberately skate on the edge. (like drivers licences.
I think the implementation of these suggestions if policed would clean up your (our) issues and the site without being too overbearingly controlled. Good manners are never impediments to expressing ideas.

Oh come on! There are two types of people...? Ha! Sure.

To me, this is a 'we're the good kids now let's sit in a circle and make special rules to try and exclude the naughty ones.' Well, if you want to do that, build your own Island. Some of the disruptive posters are frankly infinitely more entertaining than you Tsk Tsk, isn't that all terribly uncivilised mob.

Sure, ignore people you don't want to respond to. But I am sure that certain posters would be absolutely lost without having these naughty posters as a platform to lord their pseudo-intellectualism and make condescending remarks. I think they'd have no other reason to get up in the morning if it wasn't for this.

Houellebecq

"Oh come on! There are two types of people...? Ha! Sure. To me, this is a 'we're the good kids now let's sit in a circle and make special rules to try and exclude the naughty ones.'"

I hope you're not referring to my comment about there being two different groups, because you're completely off the mark if you are. The distinction you've outlined here is totally different to the one I made, and that made by examinator too for that matter. I think an apology might be in order, or at least a closer reading of the thread in future and a more careful choice of wording.

"I think they'd have no other reason to get up in the morning if it wasn't for this."

This is the second time I've observed you making this condescending type of remark, and yet I notice you seem to be here as much as any of the rest of us!

Oh don't get your knickers in a twist Bronwyn. I apologise profusely. For the first line of my post anyway. Don't link the two comments as you have in your response. I change the subject when I change paragraphs.

I stand by my second paragraph, and it was not directed specifically at you.

Then, third paragraph, 'no other reason to get up in the morning', I am talking about what I like to term the PolyBoaz chasers. CJ comes to mind. As I said. I think he's in love he's so obsessed. I don't remember you being as infatuated.

hi to all out their , i came to this site by accident a year or so ago , and i have put comments down proberly not relating to the thread not in an attempt to highjack the thread but to put my opinion across

i was once booted of here for a couple of weeks by graem young ,thats right i can not spell, sometime last year

that reason being that my post were being to honest for him to let a post article be made ,

this is a good site to get things off your chest and in hope that some politicians will give real answers to what has been writing

as you can not tell me that the goverment of parliment are not aware of this site and the forum contents

ive agreed on a lot of things and dissagreed on a lot

but my most passion is that of getting justice for us victims whome were raped and abused and neglected in the states run institutions of new south wales of which this state goverment N.S.W still cover up till this day also that of the prime ministers department they know of this abuse we victims suffered is real and true but are yet to stand up and addmitt the truth of what we suffered while under the states control from the 30's till the time we are in now

the goverment is corupt we all know this they have been covering up cases like mine for over 30 years

lets see some justice for once

regards huffnpuff im real and don't hide behind other names as a lot are aware of

hope you all had a good new year

Dear Examinator (and Foxy)

the problem is in the perception and..in the position.

"posters that regularly post their
hate-filled same subject"

Does it occur to you that 'other' posters place information on line here which could have a devastating personal impact on real people in this community and/or support those who wish real world harm on people? (Jews especially)
and...further..that those challenging such postures are doing so do avoid such 'hate filled' behavior against Australian citizens.

Does it also occur to the usual suspects that one persons 'hate filled' message is another mans 'voice of truth'.... and there is always a simple solution to determine which it is.. reasoned, lengthy and exhaustive debate to the bitter end.

You see if a person posits that 'religion x teaches such and such' and it just so happens to involve violence, child abuse and spousal abuse.. it is not only irrational to say 'ur hate filled' it is also insulting.

To adopt such attitudes in place of reasoned rational fact based debates..and to stone wall others when the facts get in the way of one's own sentimentally held (but philosophically questionable)position.... is well.. not exactly healthy.

Examminator.. what you really want here is "information and thought control" you thinly disguise it in the form of a 'progressive/reformist' agenda..but it is still Orwellian.

As for me..I have no "hidden" agenda..it's right out there for all to see.
-No to Multi Culturalism/YES to "Australian" citizen development.
-No to the intrusion of Islam into our legal/cultural fabric.
-Yes to the freedom to expose skunks as skunks.(and to be called one)
-No to 'Human Rights' as they are *interpreted* by those usually promoting them.. which is always in a leftist 'progressive' (debauched) values based direction.
-No to anyone promoting or celebrating any person who engaged in genocide, sexual abuse of women and children, and who calls for world dominion.

If anyone has a problem with that *agenda* them I'm sorry..it's not negotiable for me at least.

I suggest that the issue of the use of multiple accounts be separated from the issue of the intentional disruption of OLO forums of which I complained above.

If we decide that someone is at fault for having used a second account, it doesn't follow that another is therefore entitled to disrupt a discussion against the wishes of other forum participants and vice versa.

If you are a pedant, you will, of course, condemn out of hand anyone whom you believe to have used more than account (although at least one OLO pedant who comes to mind has shown himself to be somewhat selective in his pedantry).

However, others may recognise that there are reasons, other than an intention to deceive, for which some may choose to make use of a second account. The obvious one is to get around the OLO limits which often get in the way of making timely and useful contributions to a discussion.

Another that should be understood is that many do have genuine reasons to fear retribution if they openly express a controversial opinion. An obvious example of many possible examples, is when someone may have a useful comment which may derive from his/her own personal work experience.

Obviously if the administrators are resolved to strictly enforce that rule, then those who are in breach of the rule that each OLO user can only use one account, then anyone who transgresses that rule won't have a leg to stand on.

However, in the real world some rules tend to be flexibly applied and I would suggest that, unless there is blatant abuse that demonstrably harms OLO, that some flexibility may be in order.

No prizes for guessing who Foxy is accusing of being a troll.

However, it is a common tactic of trolls and their supporters to falsely accuse their detractors of trolling.

I would suggest that a difference between a genuine complaint of trolling and a spurious complaint is the willingness in the case of the former to quote directly from the person against who they are making the accusation.

I have shown that I have been able to do that, but I won't hold my breath waiting for Foxy to produce an equivalent example of myself behaving as a troll.

---

examinator wrote, "The quality of a topic is hardly the justification being a disruptive pest."

Of course I agree, but I trust that you are not meaning to endorse Christopher's view on the subject of 9/11 Truth?

A lot of people have given this thought very careful thought throughout the previous 7 years and have come to the same conclusions that I have very recently, and very belatedly, about this very seminal 21st century issue. A good many 9/11 Truth activists, were, themselves, strident deniers of the claims of that movement, for example Patrick Welsh, who lost his wife on UA Flight 93 on 11 September 2001 (see http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-qvVE3nzudg).

I hope you will also decide some time to give this issue serious consideration as Patrick Welsh eventually decided to do.

Houellebecq

ROFLMAO

Ah you have hit it on the head… spot on

“'we're the good kids now let's sit in a circle and make special rules to try and exclude the naughty ones.”

Congratulations.

Could not agree more… Love it.

With insight like that, we are in desparate need of more of your posts here..

“But I am sure that certain posters would be absolutely lost without having these naughty posters as a platform to lord their pseudo-intellectualism and make condescending remarks.”

Oh yes – we could get around to naming names too….

And Foxy suggesting “As CJ has pointed out in the past "don't feed the trolls."”

CJ is the biggest troll of all, he parades around this site, taking 3 line bites at the ankles of others, largely because he lacks the where-with-all to walk on two legs.

Thanks examinator, I thought this was sounding like one of your “a short course in pomposity” raves but Houellebecq has shown me its funny side.

What I love about opinion forums is… differences of opinions… yet as Houellebecq has observed

“the good kids now let's sit in a circle” – what on earth would you all have to talk about…

how to iron the creases in your pants ?

or

what sort of hair spray to use when attending a bush fire ?

It just cracks me up, in a very, very funny way.

So kiddies, if you cannot accept someone with a different opinion or different style of delivery, I suggest you look seriously at yourself and question your “right to write the rules” and

how much personal discretion you are prepared to sell for the quite life?

Freedom of Speech and opinion forums carry some consequences of hearing things we disagree with but

whilst some like to regulate and control the right of expression of others

I also recall that

That is exactly how the world ended up with some particularly nasty despots.

Dear daggett,

I suggest you read my thread on the war crimes issue in Gaza -
read all of my posts (if you've got the time) then I'm sure
you can work out who it is that I'm referring to.

Until that person apologizes to me, for having so aggressively
insulted me. I will not recognise their existence.

Houellebecq could perhaps have taken more care with wording, but the main point is valid. Threads about whatever you care to name are regularly hijacked by the same old disputes and it takes more than one person to carry them on.

Foxy, this is the problem with just ignoring the trolls. There's always someone who either can't resist or seems to have made it one of life's missions to refute every minute point, when it's so obviously a waste of time.

I do it myself sometimes and it can be fun on a dull day, but we currently have a situation where a couple of enemies picking at old scabs can take up entire threads. Everything else gets ignored, so the rest of us might as well not be here.

It's pretty clear we all know who the main offender is, and also clear that the offender knows it too. But to take Houellebecq's point on board and be fair about it, his respondents are half of the total problem.

That's a much harder problem to solve than just a few of us observing a self-imposed Don't Feed The Trolls rule. Although it is the best I can think of.

Houellebecq is right, who will be the judge?

How about me and Col Rouge? Or maybe Examinator and Foxy.... What about CJ and Rainer? Maybe Boaz and Pericles?

Like no way.

I guess the things that worry me out is abusive bullying and the genuinely crazy people who will not stop really pestering.

Not feeding the trolls is probably the best advice but that can be really hard at times when they blatantly insult and harass people

Houellebecq

Apology accepted! I could see you were making a different distinction to the one made by examinator and myself. But as it was me who'd actually mentioned the 'two groups', I wanted it made very clear that I was not associated with the 'two groups' you were talking about, which were entirely different and not a comparison I would ever make.

I wasn't getting my knickers in a twist as you put it. Your choice of wording was unfortunate and it put me the position of very possibly being misinterpreted. I had every right to jump in strongly, and will do so again if you're similarly careless!

Col Rouge

"Oh yes – we could get around to naming names too…."

Okay, so who are you naming as Houellebecq's 'good kids who sit in the circle' that you find so hilariously funny? Personally, I think it's a rather divisive and unhelpful diversion, but now that it's out there and you've had your little laugh, you'd better substantiate your accusations fairly, not just leave your foul smelling insinuations hanging in the air as you have done.

Another interesting topic, examinator. I for one would be delighted if the standard of debate and common courtesy at OLO were to improve. Mind you, there's been some pretty funny responses thus far:

daggett: << I suggest that the issue of the use of multiple accounts be separated from the issue of the intentional disruption of OLO forums of which I complained above. >>

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Given that the ridiculous thread was only "disrupted" by his endless denial of using sock puppet accounts that he now finally acknowledges, methinks he doth protest too much. Mind you, since all that nonsense we haven't seen cacofonix, olduvai and James' other sock puppets. He still stalks me around other discussions trolling for a fight, though.

Speaking of sock puppets,

BOAZ_David/Polycarp: << Does it occur to you that 'other' posters place information on line here which could have a devastating personal impact on real people in this community and/or support those who wish real world harm on people? (Jews especially) >>

I suppose Muslims aren't "real people" who live in the "real world"? I can deal with Porkyboaz's hypocrisy, but I object to his being allowed to apparently knowingly deploy a sockpuppet account to flout his suspension - only to continue to spout the same kind of hateful nonsense for which he thinks he was suspended.

Col Rouge: << CJ is the biggest troll of all >>

I should be flattered, I suppose, at being the object of projection for perhaps the most consistently obnoxious troll on OLO. It must be a matter of perspective, I guess.

Houellebecq: << ...the PolyBoaz chasers. CJ comes to mind. As I said. I think he's in love he's so obsessed >>

I think that Porky's about the third person here that s/he's claimed I'm in love with. I suspect s/he's actually in love with me - I am indeed blessed. No need to be jealous - I am indeed in love, but not with anybody who posts at OLO.

Examinator, sure it would be really nice if all contributors could just respond to the arguments posed without getting personal. But the truth is of course that there are quite a number of posters who find it difficult to come up with a decent enough argument, so need to resort to scoring 'points' with how much they can personally upset somebody.

This of course high-lights two aspects. There are adults who enjoy the feeling of power of daring to say just about anything to somebody else, though anonymously, however crass. The other aspect is that there are adults who are allowing themselves to be personally affected by some faceless entity.

But,I have to admit that I've changed to using an alias for posting on this forum from my personal name. Simply, because I find it easier to distance myself from some of the more obnoxious, non argument contributing comments.

Basically, any kind of censorship from outside gives me the creeps. So, I'd prefer to leave things as they are. It is quite personally growthfull to ignore trolls. Or posters who just repeat themselves ad nauseum. I skip those. So, please, no banning of capital letters, makes it easier for me to skip whole slabs straight away instead of having to scroll down to the bottom to see the name of the poster.

CJ, it's not so much about the issues or the people, more about the dynamics here. By getting narky with dagget, polly whoever and Col you're supporting the stuff other people are complaining about.

Think of it as sinking to their level if it helps.

Your comment did 3 things:

Multiple accounts - fair enough, on topic, but why pick on 1 person?
Muslims/Christians/Jews - off topic and typical of what people are complaining about here. Can we now look forward to another derailed thread?
Col and Houellebecq - CJ wasn't the first troll feeder to come to my mind, but they have a point.

It seems to me that OLO can be either a place for discussion of whatever, or a place where particular people can fight their personal battles over and over without fear of blood, bruises or broken bones.

Col is right when he says public debate means hearing points of view you don't agree with, and I don't see anyone here arguing with that. It's also reasonable to expect people to be one topic wonders.

The main point for mine is that the same people play the same game bending the same rules over the same topic whether the original issue was bigotry or baked beans.

Examinator started this saying 'For the sake of OLO'. I'd ask which OLO? The one where we all count, or the one set up for the benefit of a small handful of people with personal grievances? If it's for the latter, then there's no point the rest of us being here

People, people Please.
I didn’t start this thread so that we could bring out our dead, nor did I intend to victimize anyone. I intended to focus on ways to eradicate inappropriate behaviours so that we can all enjoy OLO and attract new contributors.

As I said elsewhere if I wanted to attack someone I could and would. I detest the BS of Parliamentary Question time If I wanted that I'd listen to parliament This site is supposed to be entertainment and exchange of views.

From some of the posts so far Chainsmoker is right this is exactly the attitudes I am suggesting needs correction. Not because I say so but because it creates unnecessary tension and this is a social setting not battle for supremacy or life in death every post.
Remember that and stick to the topic... above all lighten up. Please?

Bronwyn “Personally, I think it's a rather divisive and unhelpful diversion, but now that it's out there and you've had your little laugh, you'd better substantiate your accusations fairly, not just leave your foul smelling insinuations hanging in the air as you have done”

Are your personal feelings my principle concern?

Na na

As to relieving the foul stench (so much more up-market than the more common “smell”) and the naming names…

If you think you should be named
or
if you think naming should not apply to you

you are probably right.

Their I hope that helps.

So did I deserve to be admonished by Bronwyn?

Was Bronwyn justified in singling me out for her admoinishment"

Please consider, in my previous and only post on this thread, with the exception of a side-swipe at CJMoron (and I consider him fair game, based on his posting history, which is littered with 1,2 and 3 line snipes at anyone who he disagrees with) -

Did I actually make a personal attack on anyone?

Therefore is Bronwyn justified in her attempt to admonish me ?

Would we accept that such admonishments could be perceived as an "attack" by the target of such comments?

Come on, you are the ones who want to be elected to run the Committee of New Rules and Public Safety,

are you prepared to rebuke Bronwyn for assuming a God given right of admonishment?

Do please, let the rest of us hear your proclamation, so we may all benefit from your insight and judgment



Gosh, this is such a fun thread… I am loving it

This is it, there are little teams and sides and so forth... I don't think we can moderate each other at all, lol

I'd always be on Col Rouges side!

but the heavy bullying and slander... not just the usual little spits we all have, that can be pretty nasty...

Agree with your sentiments Examinator!

As is clearly seen from some of the responses, it ain't going to happen :-(

Foxy,

My apologies for wrongly assuming that you were accusing em of being a troll. However, I think if you wish to put Christopher on a pedestal as some kind of righteous guardian against trolling on OLO, you need to have a closer look at his conduct on other forums.

(FWIW, I have, very belatedly, come to the firm conclusion that Israel, and not Hamas, was at fault for the recent bloodshed in Gaza. (more possibly elsewhere))

---

Christopher, do you or don't you concede that the use of a second account on OLO could ever be justified, or do you believe that it is your sacred duty to, without exception, denounce and pillory each and every transgressor you come across?

---

Christopher wrote, "the ridiculous thread was only 'disrupted' by his endless denial of using sock puppet accounts ..."

That's demonstrably untrue.

In any case, Christopher, as I have shown above, you stated yourself your intention to disrupt that forum and you proceeded to do so in defiance not only of my wishes, but of the wishes of a number of other forum participants.

---

Christopher wrote, "(Daggett) still stalks me around other discussions trolling for a fight, though."

Not true.

I couldn't stalk you even if I wanted to.

Once, out of curiosity, I did look at a succession of your posts, but found the content so stupefyingly boring that I have never since dared do so again.

What does occur, however, if if I do see a post from you on forum on which I have an interest and notice what I consider hypocrisy or double standards, I will draw that to the attention of others.

In fact, it is obvious to me that it is you who has been stalking me for years and are continuing to do so and not vice versa.

Clearly your pride has been wounded on a number of recent occasions, so when another poster called me "a wack job" this morning (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2465#55440), you thought you saw your chance to go in and snipe at me from beneath his skirt (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2465#55446).

I in my early posts as well as the spelling and other problems, fell for the baits and behaved as badly as the trolls.
We need to remember some of the worst offenders are in no way rational, are unaware they are doing it.
the thread is much needed, but have we the Right to ask for changes, it is after all privately owned.
First if we contribute the funds we may get ways to improve the forum.
We have rules that are not obeyed now, caps, its a rude thing to post so many not excepted in any forum.
I think however we should self discipline , not reply to trolls.
leave threads that are miss used, and avoid those who trouble us.
if we did bring too many new laws just maybe we would be stopping freedom to speak.
Sea Kittens thread has become an advertisement, not for animal welfare sadly, but a warning not all who are in that camp can comment rationally on? animal welfare!

Meredith sincerely appreciate by your support… :- )

But a word of warning, some around here (no names (for Bronwyn’s sake), no pack-drill) will later denounce you as a heretic, so I hope you like BBQ… they will try to make one of you… but I figure you have sufficient character to stand the heat :- )

Q&A - ah you must be applying to be on the list of names seeking elevation to the Committee of New Rules and Public Safety

Belly “but have we the Right to ask for changes, it is after all privately owned.”

Echoing my previous comment in reference to the “host”


So I guess, regarding those who “privately own OLO”,


Examinator would suggest -

"The king must die so that the country can live."

– Maximilian Robespierre –

But don’t hold your breath Examinator –

parodying Shakepseares Julius Caesar “beware the 10th of Thermidor” (28th July)

Oh I do so love to bring some histrionics and culture to OLO…


But can also address the expectations of the new Committee for new rules and public safety…

How about 3 Billy-goats gruff… it comes complete with a troll

http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/bill_goats_gruff.htm

but if you want to to exercise the gravitas we normally associate with the lord high Examinator,

try this gem of a site

http://www.sau35.org/curriculum/Science_curriculum/Kindergarten/ThreeBillyGoats.htm

and don’t forget about the “Timeline for Thematic Unit to be woven within the daily schedule and specials:”

maybe the committee could consider that as this humble "citizens" suggestion for includion among the new “Rules” and fit it in just before afternoon sleep..

happy camping playmates

Oh to correct my errors...

Belly - I did not refer to the "host" (Private Owner of OLO) on this thread but on the "parallel universe" thread "An Aboriginal Nation state", upon whose authority we have both refered and defer to.



This 'umble "citizen" throws himself prostrate, at the feet of "the Committee for New Rules and Public Safety" and trusts they are merciful in their judgment of him for such a terrible error and personal failing. . . .

(and with further thought to my previous sentence, more culture...

Buddy Holly song "That'll be the day" instantly springs to mind -

although not with the same sentiment which Buddy implied)

Apologies to examinator and chainsmoker - fair call. I'll try to avoid feeding them in future. As is evident in this thread it only encourages them.

Poor Graham Young

You understand that each time anybody starts one of these types of threads he has to read all the comments dont you.

TBO I think we dont think enough about that. I think we are at times selfish selfish.

I was wondering while we are talking about rules ideas others may have as to how we can make a small change in that regard.

With the economical times ahead I would hate everybody not to have their OLO to post. As the big companies crash they will cut their advertsing .

What about at least fifty cents each time someone hits the delate button and a $from One top two ten etc dollar fine if that persons found to be breaking OLO rules- After leading to suspension.

I did raise this once before and did not get a reply.

Come on guys any thoughts pls.

I think that particular thread- Aboriginal State is very enlighting personally.

Rules:: We have long lobbied for posters to post in their real Ids

Now that would solve 90% of any problems IMO.

OLO was considering a long time ago to start a ID only section . I think it was the best idea of all TBO.

That way sensible people could debate without trolls diverting it.

Food for thought I still feel.
The others who wish to behave like idiots could all be happy together and GY could end up rich:)
Just kidding.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming

I admire you for using your own name. It’s very brave of you.

examinator (et al)

Actually, I rather like all the dysfunctionality of OLO. Once you realise that resistance is futile, you just go with the flow.

I especially love the gender threads – where some posters have taken topic hijacking to the level of an art form. It’s absolutely awesome to watch how – in as little as maybe two-and-a-half commentary posts – an essay on, say, a lack of female voting rights in Kyrzykstan will morph into a discussion about how it sucks to be an Australian man with an ex-wife from hell.

Oh ... and an Honourable Mention goes to the ME threads – the ones that spend about 50 or so posts a piece arguing about whether Al Nakbar is code for ‘kill every Jew’.

My OLO humbug rule is: Distort me once, shame on you. Distort me twice, and I’m outta this dysfunctional excuse for a discussion. There’s always another one around the corner.

BTW

As its been pointed out OLO is privately owned I don’t think its right to wait for the owner to comment or make suggestions.
How about just for once OLO members rally around and work together and ask GY to add some sort of a voluntary fine system that we all register to.
Anyway I am sure others will come up with some better ideas than I.

PALE would like to also pay tribute to Belly my old sparing partner for his genion attempts to do something to sort out the Animal Welfare threads.

Perhaps Graham could sort of nominate him as the Animal welfare keeper observer. I understand Belly’s thoughts on the Live Animal Export trade are in conflict with ours. However we feel he has shown he’s capable of some real leadership and fairness. We could even perhaps change his mind- who knows.

Mind you I am sure its time for ALL of the Animal Welfare Groups including RSPCA to speak firmly to The Prime Minister.

I will leave you all with a smile I hope by raising another thread started by STG about Why he was limiting his time on OLO( I have only just noticed it)

He complained of OLO being riddled with religion.
He went into some depth to express his frustration.

The very first post was from someone saying- God will always be on OLO STG:)

It ticked my fancy.

These are just some of the reasons I ask just for ‘once’ to rally together to invent some type of fine system and consider the owner also.

How about it ‘everybody’ What are your thoughts ideas pls.

Col Rouge

"Did I actually make a personal attack on anyone? Therefore is Bronwyn justified in her attempt to admonish me ?"

Yes, Col, you did make a personal attack, and because you refused to name who you were referring to, it ended up being an attack on quite a few of us. There are any number of us who know, that in your eyes, they are quite likely to be one of the 'certain posters' who you and Houellebecq claim 'lord their pseudo-intellectualism and make condescending remarks'.

I doubt many of us actually care what you think of us, Col, but we do care about the standard of debate here on OLO. Your statement - "Oh yes – we could get around to naming names too…" was both provocative and gutless. The point I was making was that, if you’re going to go that far in the first place, you need to actually name the names, instead of just casting a slur on a whole lot of us and leaving it at that.

Your whole’ them’ and ‘us’ approach in your last few posts is divisive, not to mention childish, and if you want to send me up for daring to ‘admonish’ you so be it, I really don’t care. I will continue to pick you up on obvious excesses and inaccuracies at times, but for the most part I will leave your arrogance, sarcasm, and Thatcherite worship well alone as I've always done.

Amongst my first comments on page one of this thread, I actually defended your right to post as you do. You were one of the posters I had in mind when I made the following comment.

‘There are some posters here though who haven't achieved or even tried for the right balance, and as much as they infuriate me at times, I still wouldn't like to see them go or see their particular style of posting changed completely.'

So apart from suggesting some slight adjustment, I’m basically arguing for your right to continue to sneer at and vilify those with whom you disagree.

If I might suggest one small change to Graham.

I note the 24 hour window in being able to post to the same thread twice can be a bummer when posting a comment over 350 words.

Would it be possible to revise it to a daily limit (ie. 24 hrs defined as 12midnight to 12noon) rather than a 24 hour limit from the first post if you get my drift.

I was responding to a comment made by George in the Sell's article which went over two posts so the 'Continued...' bit will have to wait another 4 hours which makes the whole post look disjointed and the meaning out of context without the other half.

What do others think?

good point pelican, or maybe an indicator to let us know how many posts are left for this time slot....... I kinda like we have limits, keeps it a bit disciplined and stops long winded posts or someone just over posting relentlessly.

Also, with the multi handles per person, also I'd suggest getting rid of a nick name that can claim it has a few people posting from it such as org nicknames... it's easier to be HarryformBlaBlaOrg...

As an alternative to pelican's suggestion, could I suggest:

The window of time for which the limits apply were to be reduced from 24 hours to, say, 23 or 22 hours.

It would surely be an extremely simple administrative change, most likely requiring that only one value be changed in one, or possibly two, configuration files.

That way it would be easier to post at the same time each day.

What happens now is that the time of posting must often necessarily move forward from one day to the next, that is, unless people can manage to post at exactly the same time from one day to the next.

---

Christopher wrote, "I'll try to avoid feeding them in future. As is evident in this thread it only encourages them."

How convenient, Christopher!

Funny how Christopher will always find a way to avoid answering any direct question I put to him and will never acknowledge the content of my posts.

Anyway, as I wrote earlier, "it is a common tactic of trolls and their supporters to falsely accuse their detractors of trolling."

And, speaking to Christopher as one OLO 'troll', I could well do without any more such 'feeding' by the likes of you, thank you very much, and I am sure the same goes for a good many other OLO 'trolls'.

Let's hope that, for the sake of OLO users, you mean what you say.

Maybe also some smileys... ok I know this sounds dumb, but text, especially when things can be so inflamed, can be so easy to misinterpret. I have many times been joking only to be misread... so a smile frown or tears icon etc lets people see the emotion and gather more of the intention of the post.

Could help stop a lot of hurt feelings.

I just realised my error - of course I meant 12midnight - 12midnight or 2400hrs-2400hrs for the military minded. :)

I don't think there are many trolls frequenting OLO. At least none that meet the Wikipaedia criterion of having "the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

What we DO have is a number of posters who begin threads with absolutely no intention of engaging in a debate or acknowledging other points of view. Instead, they simply mock or howl down anyone who doesn't agree with their original statements.

daggett: << ...do you or don't you concede that the use of a second account on OLO could ever be justified >>

Not while it's against the forum rules, James.

I note that Christopher now seems to have changed his mind about 'not feeding the trolls'.

Nevertheless, he has failed to answer my question in full. Instead, he has answered only a shortened version.

However, as Christopher is well aware, the first time he attacked me for breaking OLO rules, another OLO user was openly doing precisely what he accused me of doing on the same forum, that is, using a second account, so Christopher implicitly understands that it is not a black and white issue, contrary to what he wrote above.

In other words, Christopher has shown himself to be a hypocrite and will turn a blind eye to the breaking of rules when it suits him.

Well...nothing like a 'mini me' George Orwell (aka_Examinator) to get our juices going :)

EXAMINATOR says: "I didn't intend to victimize anyone" (with a McGee (NCIS)pout)

ho_ho_ho_ha_ha_ha_he_he_he.. roll_roll_roll around the floor coughing and choking and having a fit of incredulous laughter!

He began:

" Do not...
• Do not...
• Observe copyright and defamation laws. I would add vilification...

GOOOOOD GRIEF.. Examinator is a Modern Moses.. COME DOWN from that mountain mate.

COMMENT It seems to me examinator that you are trying to control information! (still) then run for cover as you are busted by most of us for your 'sly-grog' approach to it.

DAGGET/CJ WAR I find this conflict quite entertaining..though I must say Daggy.. though I agree your wild theories are really in the twilight zone.. I support your right to state them.. and tend towards your freedom rather than CJ's attempt to humiliate you. (something he seems to be continually refining)

Foxy says this: "but personal labeling and attacks should not be allowed."

Which 'works' for Foxy's current mental state.. in defense of herself.. but it won't work for the likes of Pericles and CJ Morgan...Bugsy, and a few others who delight in attributing the words "rabble rousing/fear and loathing/hate mongering" towards those like myself and some others who happen to have a very divergent opinion about certain issues than them.

Sorry Foxy.. you would be consigning Morgan and Perilous and the newcomer/Vilifier "Stokesonline" to a gulag if that rule was enforced in a non discriminatory manner :)

COL... “'we're the good kids now let's sit in a circle and make special rules to try and exclude the naughty ones.”

definitely MY shout next time hahaha :) well said!

CJ says:"I suppose Muslims aren't "real people" who live in the "real world"?

Haven't you told me so many times there are MANY expressions of Islam?
I only attack those who believe the Quran...literally :)

"Kill them (polytheists) wherever you find them" 9:5

But if (while ur killing them) they beg to hear about Islam.. well.. (frown) aah.. that's ok.. you can tell them! 9:6 (Paraphrase)

get it?

What a total waste of time, energy, and emotion this has been.

Nothing is going to change ...

So Dear examinator, Bronwyn, Daggett, CJ, Pelican and others, perhaps
the best attitude would be as SJF suggested :

"Distort me once, shame on you.
Distort me twice, and I'm outa this dysfunctional excuse for
a discussion. There's always another one around the corner."

I am guilty of using the hate/loathing accusation on another thread and I apologise.

Sometimes when one feels that their integrity is attacked or that another poster appears to be filled with hate/loathing by constant degradation of other groups different to themselves, it is hard not to respond. Unfortunately hate and loathing exist, the world would be a better place if it didn't.

We all see things from our own singular viewpoint but there are better ways of debating without resorting to accusatory statements.

meus humilis apologies

Pelican,

I really appreciate that, I dislike Islam and fight against it.. I am not a thug I am just a conservative... but have so often felt how I think a gay back in 1950 may have felt...

Thanks very much. :)

Foxy,

I think you may have spoken too soon.

What an amazing display of guts and humanity from Pelican.

He/She might be a good example for all of us to follow.

Well it doesnt look like Gy going to make a quid from my suggestion but I feel richer for having read the last post anyway.

:Whatever enlarges hope will also exalt courage:
Samuel Johnston

Meredith

Thank you for that. :)

We are lucky that we live in a country where our views, no matter how different can be aired without fear of being visited in the night by military police.

(In reference to my post above I should have clarified I was speaking specifically of my comments in relation to the Peter Sellick article on atheism.)

Dear Pelican,

You've just displayed understanding, wisdom, and
decency.

A fine example for us all.

Thank You.

Col, polycap/Boaz_david
Gentlemen,
Seeing that I can't achieve the goals iI set for this Topic and both you feel this is an attempt to get at you personally...which it wasn't.
(Perhaps this will be the last time we communicate I'm sure neither of you will obstensively care but so that I, Graham and all other posters will be clearly able to understand your motivation for your tactics.) please answer the following with out your customary abuse/insults and condecention or obfuscation.
Col, what specifically would degrade, change the facts of your opinion if it was presented in the same reasonable manner as your reponse to Graham in his latest article post?
David, What do you think you achieve by your approach to religion and anti Islam?

Ok I admit it I believe that you both might actually answer an unloaded direct question each that has crossed my curiosity especially given your respective stated social attitudes.

"Distort me once, shame on you.
Distort me twice, and I'm outa this dysfunctional excuse for
a discussion. There's always another one around the corner."

That struck me as the most intelligent response here as well.

It can be hard not to take things personally. I imagine even more so if you're maintaining an ongoing feud or if someone is being deliberately provocative. But at the point where it becomes clear that it's not so much discussion as bickering, what kind of person continues?

A sucker? A child? An obsessive?

What kind of adult can't recognise provocation for what it is and walk away?

Some basic principles:

A set of rules, with the parameters as clearly outlined as possible, with a whole set of examples of inappropriate comments if need be. Not just broad concepts, such as ‘do not shout’.

An even level of policing, with the regulatory responsibilities being distributed amongst us all. Everybody on the forum should exercise their responsibility to know the rules and report inappropriate stuff to the moderator.

No responding to inappropriate comments in the same sort of manner. If people could just see their way clear to either ignore the silly stuff, or to address it in a sensible neutral manner or to simply post a response saying that a complaint has been submitted, then we’d all be much better off. Silly drongos can’t promulgate nastiness if others don’t take them up on it. Anyone who responds in a similar inappropriate manner should be deemed just guilty and open to penalty.

Real penalties via post deletion, suspension or expulsion, with perhaps a demerit point system, should be upheld.

This strict standard should be part of the promotion of this forum.

OK, so Graham will probably say that even with forum members assisting in the policing procedure, it would be too onerous for him, Susan and staff to manage. Well, it might be quite a chore at first. But I think that it would quickly become quite easy to deal with. Once posters realised that strict regulations are being strictly policed, there will be whole less policing needed.

Good tightly defined rules and a good even-handed regulatory regime go hand in hand with professionalism. This will help attract both good quality articles and good respondents…and will keep the riff-raff at bay.

Dear Pelican,

I went back and read the article on atheism by Peter Sellick,
for which you apologised.

My apologies to examinator for going off topic here but I came
across a quote by George Carlin that I thought may bring a
smile to your face Pelly (it did to mine):

"Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man?
living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute
of every day. And, the invisible man has a list of 10 specific
things He doesn't want you to do. And, if you do any of these
things, He will send you to a special place, of burning and
fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever,
and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But He
loves you. He loves you and He needs money."

"Everybody on the forum should exercise their responsibility to know the rules and report inappropriate stuff to the moderator."

Guilty.

I assumed the rules here were like rules elsewhere, but it turns out they're less specific and not so much rules as vague guidelines. There's no clear, let alone implemented, penalty system. After years here, I read them for the first time this week.

The second point:

Of miles of stuff that I find inappropriate, including people making personal threats that would be taken seriously in a court, I've never used the Recommend-This-Comment-For-Deletion button. Always assumed someone else would. My bad. Maybe. Maybe the button is a lark. Who would know?

Having said that,

This isn't the first thread of its kind, so it seems safe to assume management is happy with things the way they are. After all, we keep coming back and exposing ourselves to ads regardless.

We've been given this opportunity for free, so why would sensible management go to the trouble of incurring costs because we can't manage to appreciate what we have? The term 'tragedy of the commons' exists because people routinely abuse privileges.

Why should it be up to management to sort these things out? Are we adults capable of sorting out our own problems or children requiring constant supervision?

"This will help attract both good quality articles and good respondents…and will keep the riff-raff at bay."

We live in a democracy, where the riff-raff is otherwise known as the general public. Or the electorate every few years. Those of 'good quality' already have plenty of space to air their views (see Quadrant and the Monthly). One of the better things about this internet thingy is that the riff-raff get speaking space.

In real life I'd count as one of the 'good quality' mob. Frankly, they're no more restrained or civil than the worst offenders here. Few things would please me more than to see the 'riff-raff' manage civility better than those of 'good quality' without management intervention.

I’d like to say something here re Examinators last post.

Boaz is a long time member of OLO… I used to post here ages ago and remember him… I thought he was great, I didn’t worry about the religious stuff and just read his posts, for conservative posts, they were pretty good… Then I left for ages. When I came back recently I noticed a big difference, Boaz was/is hounded and ridiculed almost with out fail every post…it was/is really off. I suggest that would mess up anyone regularly here.

He seemed kind of coping with it.. Until recently (sorry Boaz mate) seems to have lost his stamina or patience, but yes his posts aren’t what they were. Online bulling is serious and nasty I think some people seriously owe Boaz an apology.

Much more importantly WE ALL owe him some support now. He isn’t naturally like this, this is an isolated patch of stressful posting which I think has come from long term bullying.

As for Islam, he doesn’t like it, many don’t including me, it‘s a normal social POV for many decent people… We’re no more or less rabid than the anti Christian, anti whale, anti this or that… It’s just a dislike of a belief. It just so happens on this forum we’re a minority. Boaz, (correct me if I am wrong) actually went out and had a physical meet up with OLO poster, Fellow_Human, who is Muslim. Naturally they didn’t meet to kill each other.. It’s an obviously serious attempt at goodness in some form.

Boaz has been here longer than anyone I see today, but for R0bert , Banjo, Yabby, Col Rouge and Bronwyn.

NONE of us are perfect… Examinator, you’re a bit *put_a_word_of your_choice_here* …. I’m *stubborn*… We’re just human…

Reminds me of Lord of the bloody Flies. Rules can’t fix this only decency can.

Boaz, tell me to bugger off if you want, I may be well off the track too…

Ludwig,
Responsibility and Concise strict rules, love the strict :D But there’s no way I’d be moderated here by the other posters…

“We live in a democracy, where the riff-raff is otherwise known as the general public.”

Chainsmoker, I obviously need to clarify what I mean by riff-raff. I mean those who make a deliberate nuisance of themselves. Certainly not the general public.

This forum needs to be seen to be user-friendly to the average person. In fact, it needs to be made strongly attractive to the general public and not just to the educated ‘elite’.

This is one of the reasons why tight rules are so important….so that people can come onto this forum and ask really basic questions or express 'uninformed' points of view without being abused, and so that the average person can mix and match with ‘high-faluters’.

“In real life I'd count as one of the 'good quality' mob.”

Most definitely my friend, despite your wicked chainsmoking habit! ( :>)

.
“But there’s no way I’d be moderated here by the other posters…”

Meredith, it is up to other posters to let the moderator know of alleged infringements, and then it is up to the moderator to decide on a course of action. So, we would not actually be moderated by other posters.

Meredith,
I think the issue here is NOT the POV it is the manner in which it is presented.

There is a difference between stating an opinion and forcing it into every topic. In variably under this circumstance the poster and their antics become the focus not the point they were trying to make.

We are indeed all human and I as much as any. Therefore we all make mistakes, overstatements and unintentionally upset others. The difference is what we do about it that determines others lasting perceptions of us.

When dealing with a problem with a customer, apologise and fix the problem they are the purpose of our effort not the other way round. That business ethic is equally applicable if we substitute “Customer” with “Contributor.”

Commonsense tells us that without concern for others’ feeling we are indeed callous, self-centred and are unlikely to maintain any relationship let alone succeed in making any point especially in a social situation like this site.

PS I left an apology about rewording your sentence.

PALEIF

"PALE would like to also pay tribute to Belly my old sparing partner for his genion attempts to do something to sort out the Animal Welfare threads."

You must be joking!

Belly began the current Sea Kittens thread with the sole intention of ridiculing and belittling PETA's campaign against recreational fishing. He refused throughout to refer to PETA's mission statement and supporting material. Nearly every time he posted it was to take another ill-informed swipe. It was one of the most one sided and poorly conducted discussion threads I've seen for a long while.

I certainly didn't observe any genuine attempt by Belly to 'sort out' the situation as you claim. All he did was stoke the fire in my opinion.

meredith

"Online bullying is serious and nasty I think some people seriously owe Boaz an apology."

Another person who must be joking, surely.

Come on, meredith, BD gets what he deserves. It's not just the sarcasm and vilification that he's always been quick to dish out, it's the constant bible thumping and muslim bashing. It drives us all spare. I think we've been remarkably tolerant myself.

Being a fellow conservative is clouding your judgement here I think meredith. :)

I have been Watching you all for quite some time and In house fighting has become very boring.

You call yourselves mmmmmmmmmmm... what ever! Rule changes? Interesting, but not quite the answer.

Your all panicking! Remember the ten rats in a box... and whats happening here!

Simple! You do the maths.

The world has dug its self a very deep hole indeed and nature's laws you have all thrown away and now its back to bite us all in the ass.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop and think.
Religion is finished and some would ask, what's next? For one! How about a mind without corruption and this means, believe in yourselves, what more do you need! Has the human race become that weak?
When the year 2000 clicked over, this should spelt a new beginning, but arnt humans slow learners.

You will all drive yourselves mad because there is only one answer.

My cryptic words are here for you too take, if you want to listen.

3 Billion! The Target, and how? Abortion, birth control, and youthanasia, and AIDS is doing a fine job in getting rid of all the stupid and reckless people that this planet is full of. The great people tell me we have the time to do this, do you think you have the hunt for greed still in your blood! Keep going and blood you will get!

Mark my words.

EVO

Oh! before I forget, Anyone thinking of having a child in the future! Have your act together, because you will need to apply for licence to have one.

Have a nice day.

EVO

Examinator “Seeing that I can't achieve the goals iI set for this Topic and both you feel this is an attempt to get at you personally...which it wasn't.”

I never thought that, I think this thread is a hoot… as I have said a few times before… I love this thread… absolutely love it….

So stop imputing my response based on projection of your own insecurities…

It is the chronically insecure and emotionally crippled who crave regulations and rules…

whole people go along with “libertarian” values . .

“with out your customary abuse/insults and condecention or obfuscation.”

Oh how we all love being pre-judged by a self appointed inquisitor

It just craves a good slapping in response

“Col, what specifically would degrade, change the facts of your opinion if it was presented in the same reasonable manner as your reponse to Graham in his latest article post?”

I give back as I receive… and in the GY thread, it was my first post and I did appreciate the posts and agreed with many of them but

When someone attempts a unilateral judgment or admonishment of me for (say) supposedly making a personal attack on someone who was not named… it pisses me off and I will respond in kind.

So too, when someone, decides to steal for themselves that which is owned by the OLO host and attempts to talk down to me from a perspective of a extreme pomposity …

They just set themselves up to fall…

and I happen to be of a temperament to help them …

fall that is.

“Ok I admit it I believe that you both might actually answer an unloaded direct question each that has crossed my curiosity especially given your respective stated social attitudes”

I assume that is a rhetorical comment or am I allowed to pass my own judgment, based on my own “social attitudes” upon it?

Chainsmoker… im with the riff-raff… it is really no different to the “'good quality' mob”

(except we leave the light on when having sex (or love or whatever you “'good quality' mob” call it).

Foxy “What a total waste of time, energy, and emotion this has been.”

That depends on your POV or “opinion” and this is, after all, an “opinion forum”

Speaking personally I think it is an absolute ripper of a thread….

I am enjoying every post from both sides of the “divide”

Meredith… “Boaz… I thought he was great”

DB and I catch up (in real life) from time to time…. Although DB and I disagree on several things I feel able to confirm, You are right in your assessment of him.

Examinator “We are indeed all human and I as much as any.”

Oh cannot let that one pass
…
you more often claim to be perfect, yet now you claim to have feet of clay…..

You must have experienced a “Damascun” moment recently.

Bronwyn “Being a fellow conservative is clouding your judgement here I think meredith. :)”

I still have to come back to you on your claim of me supposedly ‘attacking’ … the unnamed and unidentified

But you do set yourself up when you write lines like that

EVO “My cryptic words are here for you too take, if you want to listen.

3 Billion! The Target, and how?”

Actually, both myself and Ludwig and possibly others on this thread have made similar comments on threads specific to that issue and even AGW threads (being a consequence of the same problem

I am sure your input would be much more appreciated there or when such a thread is running.

Bronwyn “I will continue to pick you up on obvious excesses and inaccuracies at times, but for the most part I will leave your arrogance, sarcasm, and Thatcherite worship well alone as I've always done.”

Make your mind up.

that you choose this thread to espouse your objections to Margaret Thatcher seems silly, when it has nothing to do with the topic.
So why bring her into the debate…?

MT’s contribution to UK national economy is still benefiting the incumbent socialist government of today (re her EU negotiations) as well as fixing the previous Callaghan, socialist Mess.

Bronwyn,
In contrast, Hats off to Belly for raising the Sea Kittens thread. He beat me to it. It was such a stupid concept that it was open for ridicule and clearly aimed to give distorted concepts to kids. You should have seen the ridicule it got on other blogs.

It rates nearly as ridiculous as PETA's 'Human breast milk for ice cream' concept. I for one will continue to ridicule PETA and show the stupidity of its supporters.

I disagree with Belly on a number of things, but he is genuine and has a lot of common sense. If only more political party members were like him.

*waves at meri* :) no drama mate.. I'm not sure how recent my posts have been off color.. I think since I resumed my old nick maybe?

I've tolerated an absolute land fill of accusation and misrepresentation as you say.. but I don't feel weakened by that :) (*shows off mucles*...grin...kidding)

I've tended to be more blunt in the past couple of weeks.. mainly because of the Gaza situation and such delights as the Muslim child carrying the sign calling for more "swastika* treatment of Jews at a pro Gaza rally.

EXAMINATOR "What do I feel I achieve" with my religious and anti Islamic posts?

In one word 'DISCUSSION' ...ok 2 words "Discussion and THINKING"

I've seen evidence of both in some reponses. As Meri said.. I've met up with both Col and FH in person..and in neither case did we rip each other to bits.

On the issue of Islam... well.. there is such a tragic lack of understanding about this faith, that it is dangerous for national security. Yes.. thats exactly what I said.

Failure to understand the 2 most seditious forces in our community today will bring us undone over time unless we sort ourselves out.

Here they are.

Seditious
-"Literal_Quranic Islam"
-"Socialist Agitators"

The only other thing needed to bring these 2 seditious groups together are the things we have seen in the past months.

1/ Economic turmoil.
2/ Wars

In both cases they play perfectly into the socialist paragigm of "Out of chaos the new socialist order can arise"

In both cases, (specially because most wars at the moment involve Muslims) the Socialists/Communists and Muslims derive mutual benefit.
The Muslims make a noise about Gaza..and the Socialist/Communists join them to mock and tear down the Capitalist system.
The same goal...but a different end game. For one Socialist Utopia/the other-a Muslim controlled Society.

STRATEGIES.
-MultiCulturalism/Unfettered_Migration: Both Communists and Radical_Muslims benefit from promoting Multi Culturalism, as it dilutes a sense_of_Identity in Australians.

-Legal: By stifling debate with 'vilification' laws.. they also benefit.

-Public Protest: By provoking police (socialists mostly) and then claiming victimhood they both also benefit.

This is great. A thread started due to someone's concerns about flaming and off topic contributions ends up with off topic flaming.

Sometimes I love this place.

For "off topic flaming" read "boaz's compulsion to shoehorn some divisive race-baiting into every thread".

Too many posters make too many assumptions or make fallacious statements about issues/other posters and present them as immutable absolutes but when challenged they resort to personal attacks etc.

Following are examples and no more. (Col is insisting on names. More on that in a minute)

DB ridiculed me for starting each rule with “do not” in my opening post....That was a cut/paste from "rules" section.
My suggested additions/comments were after the rule.
He went on to compare to a ‘mini George Orwell’ (I wish)
His ultimate intention was assert his ‘right’ (?) to say whatever he wants and as often as he wants regardless of others and context. In reality FOS has to be a conditional ‘right’ lest it denies other peoples’ ‘rights’ creating social anarchy.
Note that word “Context” it plays an enormous part in evaluating an assertion.

Assumptions/unqualified assertions can and do lead to miscommunication etc. On OLO we really only have the words of the individual (no visual or voice cues) to judge a comment by.

Personal differences in this environment make it appropriate to at least start with tolerance/sensitivity. Only Col specifically trumpets his distain for these. Others only practice it when addressing challenges/disagreements.
Claims of PC, elitism are most often defensive and contextually erroneous.

Direct questions are ignored in preference to personal attacks. e.g. See the question I posed to Col wasn't answered directly. He did seem to imply he only acts politely to those posts he agrees with.
One is entitled to ask what is their “pay off”.

It is sad to note that both DB and Col automatically assumed that this topic was directed at them and offered themselves up as sacrificial targets. I can’t speak for others ….Sorry but my focus was far beyond my specific issues with either of these two hence the title wording. There are other posters whose antics also contributed to this Topic. I didn’t name them because I didn’t want it to turn personal or an ego game. To paraphrase Clinton It’s the issue stupid…not the individual.

I'll now withdraw the attacks will continue

Examinator

“It is sad to note that both DB and Col automatically assumed that this topic was directed at them and offered themselves up as sacrificial targets.”

I suppose using our names were clues to what was directed at us.

I suppose me not marching to the beat of your drum and having not been told, first, the response expected from the “Lord High Examinator”, it was inevitable.

Doubtless, in daring to respond to his criticism, I am making more points for the “Lord High Examinator” to claim faux-wounding from…

SO BE IT

Unlike some, I do not seek to restrict the words and style of other posters by making convoluted rules defining the exact syntax of engagement in debate, Rules, so constructed to suit a personal bias and expectation.

So all I can say is

Tough Tish

This thread has and continues to be an absolute hoot

It demonstrates the despotic lengths, the likes of Examinator will go, to impose his expectations on us all.

At the end of the day

GY, our host, decides what has gone too far.

Unlike Examinator, I am BIG ENOUGH to submit to the will of the host and accept his / their decision.

I find it shameful for the likes of the Lord High Examinator & Co to parade their pompous hubris around and expect everyone else to Kowtow to their commands and that does include Bronwyn whose arrogance extends to suggesting someone else’s “judgment” is clouded, when we see, time and time again how Bronwyn is such a one-eyed socialist , that she inspires me to religious references

Matthew 7:5 (King James Version)

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

And to be "balanced", I will end this post by refering to an Islamic prayer…..

Oh Allah,
No one knows what is in my heart,
No one knows what is in my mind,
But all can see what is sticking up behind..

Consider yourselves MOONED….....

Troll Rouge: << Consider yourselves MOONED…..... >>

Sigh. So much for civil, adult debate.

Thanks for trying, examinator.

Lord High Exam-inquisitor and various others...

Inquistors....searching out the heretics of social discourse and placing them on the rack....

COL says it in one....

"It demonstrates the despotic lengths, the likes of Examinator will go, to impose his expectations on us all."

Exammy...in your opening post you did not give a 'cut and paste' of the rules.. you gave a mish mash of your own opinions mixed in with the rules.

I don't know what your life experience has been, but let me list a few of mine which tend to underly a lot of my passion:

-Experienced violent ambush, explosives being hurled at us, gun butts used against our heads.
-Encountered Malaysian Military police with sub machine guns in our faces on a bus while checking ID documents, not knowing at the time whether they were singling out 'white people'.. (the reality was they were looking for Islamist extremists in white robes who had just carved up the local police
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=NOtXcEmHdjoC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=batu+pahat+police+station+attacked+by+Islamists&source=web&ots=ScWs9l9FuF&sig=B2CdhCjXivzZicwlbKbc-RWd4yU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

I've flown into Vietnam during the war (not a pilot).. entered Butterworth (malaysia) as race riots were unfolding.. saw daily a Muslim head man who was tasked to murder men, women and children at our mission...

Had the water cutoff by the Muslims in the village behind us during a water shortage.
Been stopped at borders by angry M16 toting Malay Soldiers...(after an election loss by the Muslim candidate)
-Banned from MuslimVillageForum for asking 'difficult' questions about Mohammad.

So... taken all together.. to me your whining about manners and rules tends to evoke a similiar reaction as Col gave you.

You see.. when the dust settles, it will be wayyyyy 2 late to find you and blame you for your 'tolerance'.

If you want to live under conversational Sharia law..goto Muslim village forums...they have it. And if you raise a question about 'The Prophet' you will be banned. "This" is a reaction to that.

If you spent just 10% of your whining time.. on serious historical study of Islam, and abandoned postmoderenism, you would see 'the light' :)

Dear Col,

It certainly does depend on your point of view...
I was merely expressing mine.

And, I'm happy for you that you're having such a good time,
I don't begrudge you enjoying yourself.
However as you pointed out this is an opinion Forum, and as such there
is an etiquette for communicating online. The same as there is
in dealing as a professional with clients at work, or your fellow
colleagues, or your family members, or simply people in general.
Good manners, politeness rules.

There are an informal "set" of rules for behaviour in computer bsed
conversations. If we comply to codes of conduct (which is all examinator has been suggesting) then it would make the "play"
easier and more enjoyable for everyone not just you.

Remember individuals are reading your posts and it is people at the
other end of the technology to whom you're speaking, not the PC
screen.

CJ (and_SPIKEY...if ur_listening)

Here is a classic example of the problems of trying to call "Public Interest Information" rabble rousing..hate speech...Islamophobia etc.

Examine this chain of events..

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29483

1/ Christian evangelical criticizes Islam and Muslims."they're a comin to git us".

2/ His activity (handing out a pamphlet to the above effect) is reported to authorities and he is had up for 'hate speech'.

3/ He is convicted. (In this case I tend to agree with his conviction in part)

4/ His punishment includes 340hrs community service under the control of a Muslim! Mohammad Ashraf, general secretary of the Islamic Society of North America in Mississauga, Ont.

5/ Ashraf, according to Harding, said that instead of licking stamps and stuffing envelopes, "it would be better if you learned about Islam."

The cleric made it clear, Harding recalled in an interview with WorldNetDaily, that during the sessions nothing negative could be said about Islam or its prophet, Muhammad.

"He said he was my supervisor, and if I didn't follow what he said, he would send me back to jail," recounted Harding, who had been prevented from speaking publicly about his case under a gag order.

6/ During his 1998 session with Ashraf, Harding was told to read a book called Towards Understanding Islam, by Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi.

WHO? err..WHO? Maududi? gee..I've referred to him many times....have I not?

HE is the man who in his work on understanding the QURAN justifes CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE of prepubescent children in THIS paragraph from Tafheem Al Quran (referring to Surah 65:4)

<<*13 Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly PROVES that it is not only PERMISSIBLE to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is ALSO pemssible for the husband to CONSUMMATE marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.>>

So... when I say " 'Islam' teaches/permits old men to have intercourse with prepubescent children" I am 100% correct,right,and true.

That's different from saying "All_Muslims_today, everywhere_teach" that same thing.

Dear Meredith,

You said..."As for Islam ... it's a normal social POV for
many decent people... it's just a dislike of a belief..."

No. It's much more than that in the case you speak of.

Imagine if an Arab/Muslim went around communicating online that
kind of thing against Christians - they would get arrested.

Imagine then how a young Arab Australian feels reading all that
on the internet... Also, there are other people who would
read that sort of thing and be greatly influenced by it.
It does a great deal of damage. This kind of thing produces an increase in harassment, vilification and violence towards Australians of Arab appearance. It produces increasing hostility of the broader
community and reinforces this inter-community racism, rather than
challenging it.

I have Muslim friends who used to feel that they
were Australians, but now cannot identify themselves in all the
negative space being created for them in our community by people
such as the poster that you defend.

When people express strongly held opinions online, without any regard
as to whom it may offend, or what damage their remarks may cause to innocents reading this material.

When they continue with an entire series
of escalating messages filled with emotion-filled opinions, words
and upper-case letters, that constitutes much more than just a
"dislike of a belief."

It actually constitutes "flaming."
And "flaming" and "Flame Wars" are not appropriate for discussion
forums and should be banned.

Using upper case letters will definitely gain attention, but
usually of the negative kind. It comes across as shouting.

As Eva Sallis points out in her article, "Australians All,"
"If contemporary Australians are to live at ease with ourselves,
we need more education, less fear mongering, and, not least,
greater honesty about the culture of racism that is so damaging us."

Heya Foxy,

It's just as you say for Christians and Jews too. People ridicule Christians...freely express hate for the Jews on here, the current atheist string for example and no one bats an eyelid at the Christian ridicule, the strings asking Should the Jews leave Israel...Like that's just a bloody joke it's so horrible.. it is unbalanced and a double standard for only Muslims to claim to be hurt here.

Every belief and it's supporters will cop criticism... I can't help that Islam can't take critical comment...

I made the point I thought Boaz copped an over abundance of bullying compared to others. I don't mean to be rude here but I don't think you I or any of the others could handle it as well as he did for so long... He was reasonable before, very religious but very reasonable and polite.

Anyway, this is sad, no one gives a stuff or can even acknowledge that the bulling is bad even cuz it happened to Boaz... Somehow it is right cuz it happened to him. Not fair at all... Imagine Some other peoples hernias if they even felt a tad misinterpreted or bullied. already there's been a huge melodrama or 2 aside from this... just in this very string...

Total double standards... Total moral cowardice too. Hellobeques little circle, a grade 7 cat fight.

Col, I'm with you ruffians too..

Dear_Foxy

you_said:

"Imagine if an Arab/Muslim went around communicating online that
kind of thing against Christians - they would get arrested."

They do!_no arrests.

Perhaps you are oblivious to:

-Muslims in crowds at demonstrations overseas yelling for more Jews to be sent back to the ovens.

-Melbourne.. child (under_parental_guidance)holding up a sign calling for another bigger dose of "HITLER" (symbolized by the Swastika)

No such thing at the Pro Israel rally.. I was there..I observed!

Yet here.. you are saying that if a person persistently underlines the 'fact' (not the speculation, nor the misinterpretation) that Jews and Christians are vilified with hate speech of an extrordinary nature in the Quran and Hadith.... that they are somehow making the supporters of such views feel uncomfortable? I say 'supporters' on the assumption that Arab/Muslims believe in the Quran as it stands.

Hate speech... in published form includes the incitement to violence against an identifiable group/race/religion in Society.

If you can excuse "Allahs curse be on them (Jews_and_Christians)" and "fight those who do not believe in Allah etc (even if they are Jews and Christians)" as NOT being 'incitement' or hate speech..then I suggest you revisit schooling and particularly the Humanities dept about "English comprehension".

The *only* defense against this would be 'you are not interpreting these documents correctly' well that is quite arguable and I believe on the balance of probabilities (with total confidence) that my position would win that argument.

The Quran and Hadith *are* "hate speech" as defined by the Law. They DO advocate violence against Christians and Jews for reason of their beliefs.

The only thing stopping their banning would be politics...not the law.

Here is a test ..Ask your "Muslim friends"

-Do you accept that the Quran is the unchanging Word of Allah, applicable to today?
-Do you believe what it says in surah 9:29&30?

See..just see if they deny it to your face. (the truth is..many just don't have a clue about it.. so the need to KNOW what it says and RENOUNCE it!)

"Exposing incitement to violence" is not..."Incitement to violence" it is a social responsibility!

Too right Meridaf.

Now. Anyone interested in some Mohammed cartoons.

Dear Foxy,

“There are an informal "set" of rules for behaviour in computer bsed
conversations”. . .all examinator has been suggesting”

When I have stepped beyond the rules of the house, the host as sin-binned me.

I recall the most recent was for how I deployed the word “swill”.

So we are deleted for not following the “rules”.

Albeit, they are not “Rules” which Examinator is content with.

So, I suppose, it is just a matter of “Personal Growth” which Examinator has to go through to understand -

It is not all about him,

And remember, OLO is not a “democracy”, in the sense we elect the owners, although we are all free to “vote with our feet”

Personally,I might feel unjustly done by almost every time GY has bounced me but I remain happy to accept his judgment in a way I would never accept (say) Examinator and Bronwyns. arrogant and pompous pretense to judge and admonish me.
“Remember individuals are reading your posts and it is people ….””

I would hope so. Whilst my posts might not suit your expectations, what I write does suite mine but I think you should make it a general comment and suggest it to just about everyone else who posts here because

I respond to the way people post and comment on my posts

My post "reception" is one of my first considerations.

I recall the Sarah Palin thread, whilst I dealt with the issues, I caught a torrent of abuse for my efforts.

I keep chasing dickie for fraudulently claiming I told lies

When Q&A puts finger to key, he vilifies anyone who dares express an counter opinion on AGW to that he has decreed.

And CJMoron is beneath contempt

On this thread, Bronwyn took pains to include an attack on my respect for one of the most significant women of the 20th Century.

I courteously suggest

don’t try to advise me on my posts until

you have first advised everyone else to consider the reception of their posts too.


Meredith: Go Rabble



Houellebecq “Mohammed cartoons”

bring ‘em on

'And CJMoron is beneath contempt'

Watch out Col. There's often a forbidden unrequited passion bubbling up beneath contempt.

I want to start collecting quotes from OLO...

'It is the chronically insecure and emotionally crippled who crave regulations and rules'

Might make it on the list. Top of the heap is Foxy's

'I agree with you that screaming, knife-wielding
adolescents are disquieting, to say the least.'

Followed by Gibo's

'Many see visions, many speak prophecies in the Holy Spirit, some raise the dead, others are used by God to heal, many many speak in tongues.
Yes...we are a different people.
Far happier than those trapped in the world.
Why not join us CJ?'

Folks, can I solicit some responses to my ‘basic principles’, as expressed in my first post of 31 Jan http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2479#55678.

Do you think that what I’m saying is just so blitheringly obvious that it doesn’t need comment, or so far off the mark that it is not worth commenting on?

This really is the essence of the subject of this thread – good clear rules and effective regulation.

As Chainsmoker points out;

“I assumed the rules here were like rules elsewhere, but it turns out they're less specific and not so much rules as vague guidelines. There's no clear, let alone implemented, penalty system.”

So with this being the case, how can we possibly expect everyone to behave themselves and keep all responses civil, tactful and respectful?

Ludwig, I take issue with this:

"Silly drongos can't promulgate nastiness if others don't take them up on it. Anyone who responds in a similar inappropriate manner should be deemed just guilty and open to penalty."

You are effectively equating the victim with the perpetrator.

What a troll aims to do, and often succeeds in doing, is to provoke his victim to lash back and thereby end up looking, to the casual observer, to be as bad, or even worse than the troll.

Of course, intended victims of trolls should learn to restrain themselves. However, victims of trolls are human and I believe they are entitled to respond.

Of course it is better that, if this happens, the intended victim does so in a calm and measured way, but if the intended victim is unable to do this, then we should not rush to condemn him/her.

---

Trolls are the online equivalent of people in the physical outside world who have few talents which are of benefit to humankind, but who have learnt how to manipulate others. Because they have this ability, they are often able to rise well above many far more worthwhile human beings.

The two 'men of steel' John Winston and Josef are two who come to mind.

---

Also, I am against any attempt to try to formally define what does and what does not constitute trolling.

Most of us can recognise it when we see it. I think a moderator should act when the action of the troll is disrupting the discussion to the point where others are complaining. Earlier on I gave an example where precisely that was happening and, even the troll himself, acknowledged that that was what he was doing, so, in my view, an ongoing ban against that person was clearly warranted.

Col Rouge

We know you're having fun, but you might need to calm down a bit. We all know it suits your love of a verbal scrap to portray yourself as the poor innocent who's been boxed into a corner by the overbearing rules and regulations mob, but you're starting to become quite irrational.

"... and that does include Bronwyn whose arrogance extends to suggesting someone else’s “judgment” is clouded, when we see, time and time again how Bronwyn is such a one-eyed socialist , that she inspires me to religious references ..."

When I suggested to Meredith her judgement might be clouded, it was said in a light-hearted fashion, not an arrogant one as you wrongly interpret. I'm sure she saw the smile you obviously missed. We’re all inclined to overlook fault in people with whom we agree. It's a natural human tendency, nothing arrogant about pointing that out.

You then, absolutely amazingly, go on to quote the beam and plank scripture to me in relation to MY arrogance. Fair enough, I'll be the first to admit I get a bit carried away at times and probably can on occasions come across as arrogant. But I don't make it an art form like you do, Col. The arrogance fairly drips off the page with you at times. Your total self-belief and dismissal of opposing views is incredibly arrogant. I’m sure if other posters were to describe your posting style in one word I'd suggest in a majority of cases that would be the one.

As for the 'socialist' tag, quite apart from clearly demonstrating your own desperation, it's totally untrue and needs either to be retracted with an apology or backed up with hard evidence. For all its faults, I firmly believe the market economy is our best and only option and have never argued otherwise. I just have a very different view to the laisse faire free-for-all that you advocate as to how it should be managed, that's all. (tbc)

Hello examinator


I wasn’t going to post but...-


*The current Sea Kittens thread is I think a good example of this.*

Posted by Bronwyn

Yes it certainly is Bronwyn,

OLO has now reached a new all time low, with Nicky showing callous disregard of a deceased person on a web site with Dickey supporting her.

That person is no longer here to defend himself. I know first hand his steps to speak out about animal cruelty because I had the ‘privilege’ to meet him.

That person was the late father of the founder of pale. .

It`s an utter disgrace to Animal Welfare. Three years of flaming and trolling PALE because they work in conjunction with RSPCA QLD.

Our founder hasn’t spoken one word. Judging by the past Id
say to the offender ( No, I wont).

Lyn White of Animals Australia who doesn`t deserve this damage to her work being done by Nicky, Dickey and Meredith & others has been contacted.

Nicky some things must be sorted off OLO and they will be.



David didn`t PALE offer you to meet with Muslim Leaders, to view what types of people, sit at the top here in 'Australia'- "& learn" what they are trying to achieve.?
You were not interested!


All your posts refer to overseas.

I’m German born. We are all Aussies and we love this place as much as you.

I am the first to agree when it comes to people like our friend Antonio-!

You and Meredith are I suspect what the Gold Coast Mayor has branded as bigots.

I feel you are both making this country less safe, less friendly, and less fair with your Anti Muslim posts.

Meredith is the LAST person who can talk. She has bullied and defamed and broken rules making ‘personal’ attacks (which are against forum rules) with her extreme libber PETA veggie mates and their anti PALE anti RSPCA QLD posts.

Why bother asking GY for more rules. Nobody follows these ones.

Nobody even commented on the suggestion of a fine system just expecting people to work for nothing!

Antje Struthmann

Col (cont.)

My position is best described as Progressive. I'll proudly admit to being a Leftist but I'm no Socialist. I strongly resent having to waste words putting that on the record as a result of your uncalled for slur.

"... that you choose this thread to espouse your objections to Margaret Thatcher seems silly, when it has nothing to do with the topic. So why bring her into the debate…?"

Exactly, Col, that's what we ask ourselves every time you do it. And you do it so often that it's hardly exceptional that I might refer to your 'Thatcherite worship'. It’s not like it’s some religious blasphemy of the highest order. Or maybe it is for you. It's really little more than the usual banter of which you're a grand master.

"On this thread, Bronwyn took pains to include an attack on my respect for one of the most significant women of the 20th Century."

I wouldn’t keep harping on about it, Col, or the ‘Thatcherite worship’ tag might stick!

Daggett

“Of course, intended victims of trolls should learn to restrain themselves. However, victims of trolls are human and I believe they are entitled to respond.”

I agree. I don’t think anyone should have to ignore abuse. ‘Turning the other cheek’ isn’t an effective rebuttal of defamatory or nasty remarks that have been put out there on the record. A calm, measured, cutting and witty response is the best one I think, if it can be achieved and it’s not easy. CJ does it consistently well in my opinion, and there are others also who manage to do it successfully, often enough, for it to be an effective form of self-managing the general tone of debate. Personally, I think that’s our answer, rather than introducing more penalties and regulation. Oh my god I’m sounding like Col! :)

Bronwyn,

Glad to know that we both reject the idiotic dogma of 'turn the other cheek' which, in my experience, is more often used as an excuse to further persecute people attempting to stand up to bullying.

However, could you tell me what you see as "calm, measured, cutting and witty" in Christopher's following responses to me in the forum disccussion "Scrutinising our counter-terrorism laws" of 6 November 2008 at http://forum.olineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8120&page=0

"Get help, James. You seem to be seriously unhinged."

"... I infer from your comment that you're in communication with other mentally ill people. Did you meet in a support group or something? ..."

"James, your condition seems to be deteriorating. Indeed, you're raving."

"Get help."

"Get help, James."

"... on the basis of what you've been posting on OLO lately there's little doubt that you need professional help.

"Get some."

?

Perhaps I am mentally unbalanced, but, if so, the above would seem to constitute the deliberate taunting of a mentally ill person. As I pointed out in that thread Christopher did do on one occasion when he called someone with a bi-polar condition 'mentally ill'.

However, if I am not (and this would seem to be born out by the fact that Christopher has long since desisted in exhorting me to 'get help'), then, it would seem to me that the above was no more than yet another ploy on Christopher's part to avoid discussing the evidence.

Whatever the explanation, it hardly seems to me to be "calm, measured, cutting and witty", so if Christopher ever is calm, measured, cutting and witty" it would seem that he is not consistently so.

Get help, James. Please.

Daggett, you wrote;

“Of course, intended victims of trolls should learn to restrain themselves.”

and

“Of course it is better that, if this happens, the intended victim does so in a calm and measured way…”

Yes. There is no excuse for anyone responding in the same hateful fashion as someone who is deliberately trying to insult you. You DO become just as bad if they do that. You become totally hypocritical.

There is no reason at all as to why, on a professional forum like this, all posters shouldn’t be required to keep it civil at all times.

Yes it is human nature to lash back at those who offend you. So in the interests of peace and professionalism and of keeping discussions on-topic, we need a regulatory system that prevents or minimises this sort of stuff. Either ignore the insults or respond in a calm and inoffensive fashion.

I’m being heckled by an apparent troll at the moment on the ‘population pressures’ thread. But insults from this silly person – fungochumley - are like water off a duck’s back, and I just them slide on by. It’s too easy. It doesn’t take a truckload of self-discipline or restraint!

“Most of us can recognise it [trolling] when we see it”

Yes. So if we recognise a poster as being a troll, then why would we bother with them?

Aaar poo! That should have read; ‘You DO become just as bad if you do that’.

Yeah, sure, Christopher.

I somehow don't think someone who finds it necessary to insult his own late mother and his own late mother-in-law in order to be able insult me is in a position to tell me to "get help".

It seems that you have (again) avoided confronting the substance of my previous posts about you.

When do you intend to do so?

Idealistically we apparently shouldn't react... but in reality it gets to us all.... so maybe looking at different approaches:

like how much we reasonably allow etc or zero tolerance, like timed posting bans...

Separate strings or some such thing to take it personal, like stepping outside the pub for fisty-cuffs rather than inside at the dinner party.

Do we allow censorship and if any... who decides what is censored.

I dunno, there are many other ways/modes etc than just the one or 2 in discussion...

'Perhaps I am mentally unbalanced, but, if so, the above would seem to constitute the deliberate taunting of a mentally ill person. As I pointed out in that thread Christopher did do on one occasion when he called someone with a bi-polar condition 'mentally ill'.'

I'm lost. I think bi-polar is generally considered mental illness. Anyway you use that description yourself in the first sentence, then say it's deliberate taunting of bi-polar people in the second?

Bronwyn,

As humour is subjective, it cant be used as a defence for personal remarks about a poster. Maggie T was a sensual goddess of a woman, and mocking Cols love for her is naturally offensive, especially to one as sensitive as poor Col.

Daggett

"... could you tell me what you see as "calm, measured, cutting and witty" in Christopher's following responses to me in the forum disccussion ..."

I've only become aware through this thread of the ongoing niggling between you and CJ. Can't say I've noticed it before, so I don't think I'm in a position to make comment on it. Your link didn't work so can't comment more specifically there either. From what you've described though, I agree it didn't look a particularly acceptable response, but I would need to see the full context to judge properly.

In my experience, CJ only ever dishes it out to those who set themselves up for it with their own arrogance or stupidity. Then again, I'll be the first to admit my defence of CJ is probably not dissimilar to Meredith's defence of BD, in that I agree with CJ on nearly every issue. It very possibly 'clouds my judgement', you could say! :)

"Whatever the explanation, it hardly seems to me to be "calm, measured, cutting and witty", so if Christopher ever is calm, measured, cutting and witty" it would seem that he is not consistently so."

CJ strikes me as always being pretty quick off the mark and I think when you're like that you can be inclined to get it wrong at times. I have seen him sail close to the wind, but on balance, yes, I do think he gets it right fairly consistently. I wouldn't have said so otherwise.

CJ

Sorry about discussing you in the third person like this. No doubt, if I've got it wrong, I'll soon hear about it!

meredith

"Separate strings or some such thing to take it personal, like stepping outside the pub for fisty-cuffs rather than inside at the dinner party."

This thread for the moment is actually serving as a bit of a 'step outside', if without the 'fisty-cuffs', to sort out a few issues and is I think proving quite beneficial. It could be said it's a discussion we had to have. Thanks as always, examinator!

Bronwyn: << Sorry about discussing you in the third person like this. No doubt, if I've got it wrong, I'll soon hear about it! >>

No problem - and thanks for your support :) Also, you're quite correct: bipolar disorder is indeed a recognised mental illness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder

Obviously, I'm not responding to daggett because that would be feeding a troll. For the context of the quotations that he's posted to try and bait me, the correct URL is

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8120&page=0

Bronwyn,

I think some people have tried to air stuff before and been shot down in flames as trolls...

I notice you have decided your correct on my reasons to defend Boaz with out any answer from me, why even ask me, hey :)... But ok you like CJ, cool.

My point has been everyone was screaming for Col and Boazes head and where was the call for CJ's head?

It wasn't nearly as loud, this is the unbalance I am on about... Examinator only called select people to the monkeys court, they happened to be right wing type people... I don't care so long as the bias is admitted... CJ's out burts are more in align with the majority thinking here than Cols and Boazes.

No problem guys just admit it though..

Houellebecq, I don't have a bi-polar condition. However, I have been told by someone whose word I trust that Christopher once called a person he knew to have a bi-polar condition "mentally ill". If Christopher did not mean to insult that person, why would he have said it?

Perhaps, he also expects us also to believe that repeatedly telling someone to 'get help' is not intended as an insult either.

Anyhow, I am glad to learn that Christopher has again remembered that he is not meant to be 'feeding the trolls'.

---

Bronwyn,

Sorry, the link should have been http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8120&page=0

I certainly invite you to examine the evidence and form your own judgement.

Please take careful note of which of the two of us tried to present helpful information to that forum and which of the two of us first launched a spiteful personal attack.

I might add that, since the London Tube bombings and the Madrid train bombings have been held up as a pretext for the anti-democratic "anti-terrorist" legislation and the ongoing so-called "War on terror" that a supposed 'progressive', Christopher claims to be would at least make the effort to consider evidence that conflicts with the official story, but that proved not to be.

---

Ludwig,

Not everyone has the ability to calmly deal with malevolent trolls in the way that you seem able to.

If they are put in a situation that they did not choose to be in and, as a consequence, lash out in a fashion that is a long way short of ideal, then why condemn them?

I think Bronwyn's suggested approach of self-regulation is the best, bat action needs to be taken when that approach fails. Otherwise the following will happen on all too many more forums:

"Congratulations Mad Dog. You've manipulated yet another thread into a vaudeville show with reams of stupefying swill - totally irrelevant to the topic - bravo Morgan!" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=22#47512)

Meredith,

To the best of my knowledge CJ has never told anyone
to 'bugger off back to whatever pesthole it is you
originated from.'

Or carried on with a series of escalating messages filled with
emotion-filled opinions, words and upper-case letters over
several threads about the same group of people.

lol, my point exactly.

What so we're now all dobbing to the teacher, who presumably is Bronwyn? I don't really picture her as the scary old head mistress you're looking for. Hmmm Mistress Bronwyn...

Though I can see CJ as a Dicky Knee type character with an apple for the teacher.

Anyway, He said, she said. Give me a break man. Y'all should listen to meridaf when she talks about the monkeys court. She's talking sense.

So daggett = James and CJ = Christopher huh?

Bronwyn “not an arrogant one as you wrongly interpret.”

Maybe, along with your words you could include some form of emotive subtitle, so we can all appreciate your “implied intent”.

Then I would understand

when you expressing something in a “light-hearted fashion”

versus

when you are “attacking” me for my support of Margaret Thatcher.

Btw – I saw the smile and thought you were being sarcastic

“The arrogance fairly drips off the page with you at times. Your total self-belief and dismissal of opposing views is incredibly arrogant”

I do have very high self belief, I would not survive doing what I do if it were lacking in any way.

As for dimissal of challenges, read my posts, you will find I qualify/explain/articulate my dismissals, excepting for CJMoron, who deserves nothing more.

“As for the socialist tag…..For all its faults, I firmly believe the market economy is our best and only option and have never argued otherwise”

Strangely, you have criticized my expressions of market economics when I have extolled them.


You must believe only some people are allowed to espouse the “libertarian values” of a market based economy.

I think I will research your posts and come back on that one….because I do not believe you.

“My position is best described as Progressive. I'll proudly admit to being a Leftist but I'm no Socialist. I strongly resent having to waste words putting that on the record as a result of your uncalled for slur.”

Help

I need to throw this open

Can anyone else define for Bronwyn the difference between “a socialist” and “a leftist”?

It is like trying to describe two different shades of Despair.

“A calm, measured, cutting and witty response is the best one I think,”

I suggest you start by practicing what you are now preaching

“CJ does it consistently well in my opinion,”

Opinions like that put you into a most exclusive club.

I see Daggett has expressed an alternate ‘opinion’ already…

thanks Daggett.

Foxy “CJ has never told anyone…”

because CJMorons vocabulary did not extend to the word “pesthole”

….word limit Rule

How to get along with:

Col

Agree with every thing he says and never ever tease him about anything. Very sensitive, poor chap.

Boaz aka Poly

Difficult, because not only do you have to become a Christian, but you have to subscribe to the exact same type of Christianity, whatever that is. Oh, and possess undying hatred of that other Abrahamic religion: Islam.

PS Houellebecq, you are aware that the Maggie T, Col salivates over is Margaret Thatcher not Maggie Taberer?

meredith,

"My point has been everyone was screaming for Col and Boazes head and where was the call for CJ's head?... CJ's out burts are more in align with the majority thinking here than Cols and Boazes.

So the measure of fairness on OLO is that the posters must praise and condemn equally Col Rouge and BOAZ on the one side and CJ on the other side whether you think their argument has any merit? Factual evidence, clear thought and logical expression don't count?

A strange concept. I would have though praise and criticism were a function of the quality of their posts. If that were the starting point, I would have thought that the balance is in the proper direction. On this measure, the majority seems to be clearly right and Rouge and BOAZ left far behind - although in the ideological sense your heroes are consistently on the right, but they are hardly ever right in terms of their argument.

No, my point is that CJ is a troll... Just last night actually I reported one of his typically abusive posts, to of all people Boaz, and it was deleted by admin... he re wrote it politely... which is all good and fine...

But I can't help laughing as I write this...

I am saying you guys are very biased... why call some people trolls and ignore others?

It's pathetic... anyway, you guys enjoy your minds :>)... I was hoping for some good convo's but might just take Col Rouges advice and enjoy the comedy...

Spikey “but they are hardly ever right in terms of their argument.”

Please illustrate where I have posted anything which is factually wrong

Bearing in mind most argument here is of a subjective nature the notion of “right and wrong” illustrates your paucity of understanding.

Subjective debate can never produce a right or a wrong,
It can only ever produce a “different” perspective.

So, I guess that illustrates the crippling limit of your comprehension and lack of understanding

Ultimately, .
you are free to express your opinion and you are free to get it wrong and

I am free to express mine and get it different.

Similarly dickie is free to express her opinion but

“herewith return your self-portrait:”

Whilst I am not over-sensitive, dickie’ s free choice to post a picture of a pig and claim it is a portrait of me is contemptible.

I have never ever complained to our host for anyones scurrilous posting practices, it is not of my nature but,

recalling the extent which rainier went to in posting depraved and inflammatory images, I am not prepared to accept a picture of a hog as “fair game”

I am calling dickie on it, just as I called her on her lies which she admitted in her last post.
However, whilst tempted otherwise, my support of free speech means I will not call our host to intervene or demand, like some, the rules be rewritten.

But I am sure the owners of OLO can and will observe, for themselves the disgraceful lack of decorum which dickie presents and interpret dickies post in the context of what they are prepared to tolerate as acceptable for presentation on their website.
Whilst Examinator and Bronwyn and Foxy and Spikey and Fractelle complain about me, they seem to be content to remain silent regarding the likes of dickie and rainier – go figure,

I am, not sure whether it should be called
a monocular perspective or
seeing in quadraphonic…

aka two faced?

Meredith “why call some people trolls and ignore others?”
And I’m still smiling here

Goodonya :- )

Col. Thank you for high-lighting that line.
EVO

"Fungochumley “Proving that all things are connected in the web of life, when dickie posts a comment there, my stomach convulses with laughter here!”

"I know what you mean

"Dickie is so involved in “the web of life”, she probably braids her pubic hair.

"Hi Dickie, still running away from your fraudulent accusations which I have called you on, to identify the 'lies' you previously claimed I have posted… I am patient and prepared to stalk you for as long as it takes." (Col Rouge)

Oink oink!

Thanks examinator you tried, you truly did.
So did I, oh yes I see the trolls are out informing me the sea kittens thread was something other than highlighting stupidity.
There lays the problem, if you walk away from them and not comment, is it ok to let such minority views win the debate?
Well you will never get the last word in with them, and just read that thread, take the time to read ANY animal welfare thread here.
I must ask, have to ask, why is it so hard to get such threads not to be a magnet for the worst insults, one sided uninformed debate, and open warfare you can find in OLO?
PETA remains a group that is stupid and unloved by most, there you go girls, got me to answer .
In truth we will never stop our verbal sparring but thats just real life.

Bronwyn:"In my experience, CJ only ever dishes it out to those who set themselves up for it with their own arrogance or stupidity. "

As the group's foremost exponent of arrogance and stupidity, he's probably best-placed to recognise it in others. Sadly, he seems to catch sight of his own stray reflection at times and gets confused. I've seen the same from my neighbour's antique pomeranian, who's also just as prone to confuse his ambition with his ability.

On a more important subject than the resident yapper , the current OLO rules seem to be working nicely from where I stand. Everyone gets their say and the post limit serves well to prevent a flamer hijacking a thread for too long. Whenever people get together to express opinions there will be conflict and isn't it wonderful that we can have the conflict without the danger of it getting out of hand because some nitwit thinks his/her favoured position has been insulted or some other nitwit is incapable of keeping up intellectually and wants to settle it with his/her fists/claws?

I love a creative insult, personally. That doesn't include the crass "get help" or "take your meds" favoured by the intellectually bereft, of course, but those that are both apposite and witty. ISTM that those complaining about such things are largely basing their complaint on their own lack of the capacity to produce such wit.

Interesting to note who it is that argue against examinator's valiant effort to get us to lift the tone and standard of the debate, and that they are united in their hatred of little old me. Clearly, I've upset our most consistently obnoxious members, so although I'm avoiding in engaging them in the flame wars that sustain them, I'm not going to lose any sleep over apparently upsetting their fragile sensibilities.

I have, however, taken on examinator's suggestions - indeed, I've noticed that the offensive and/or disingenuous bleating coming from the troll contingent in response to them is a pretty poor look. Henceforth I'm going to try and avoid descending to their rhetorical antics.

Speaking of which, I had suspected that it was our troll sycophant who complained about me for calling the erstwhile Boaz a sockpuppet. As a direct result of that I suspect we won't be hearing from him for a while, unless of course he resurrects himself with a new sockpuppet account - in which case he'd undoubtedly be easily recognisable.

Thanks Meredith :)

Doncha just love threads like this one?

It's a bit like the fag-end of an Australia Day family party, where everyone has had just a little too much sun, and a smidgin too much grog.

Uncle Joe, who considers himself a respected thinker, starts in on his brother-in-law Jim - who was dragged away from the cricket to be there - about the fact that he voted for Kevin. A few comments go back and forth "Kev's a fake, and you're a dill", "Howard was Bush's lapdog", and it's on for young and old.

Everyone starts to tell everyone else what they really, really think of them. To listen in on their barney, you'd think that they don't belong on the same planet, let alone be kinfolk.

But hey, it's a party. Very few - maybe only one or two - will take umbrage, and sulk in a corner. But before you know it the rest are out playing cricket in the yard.

Then brother-in-law Jim hits the ball into the neighbour's swimming pool...

I should also apologise to Houellebecq, who rather than Bronwyn made the correct observation that bipolar disorder is a recognised mental illness.

And yes Pericles - it is indeed a bit of a hoot.

Aw.....meanie! Graham took Porkabelle's portrait. Tsk tsk!

Could the saintly person who wrote these words:

"Henceforth I'm going to try and avoid descending to their rhetorical antics."

... possibly be the same person who has repeatedly called me mentally unbalanced, 'moonbat', 'fruit loop', 'conspiracy nut', etc. etc.?

I can only surmise that a second person must be making use of the account "CJ Morgan".

--

Kind stranger, would you care to join me in the forum discussion "Bush's legacy" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8484#134015 ?

I am sure that, unlike Christopher, you will prove yourself able to comprehend my case as to why there should be a new and proper investigation into the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.

One wonders how many times I've said this discussion that there were others whose actions needed correction too but what's a lie or two if one feels threatened?

I didn’t mention any names until the 4th/5th post and after naming was demanded. And after both had gone in self defensive style defending against vague references that included others. Saying that the contrary is yet another lie.
This is of course from the person who doesn’t care about anyone else’s feelings (his words) why bother. Baiting is such a pointless/childish thing.
Since when is it wrong to strive for manners and respect for others, to ask an errant individual to observe those common values in public or come to someone’s aid who is being unnecessarily/unfairly being attacked?
Or pointing out that the flaws in both facts and logic in a discussion, defending my self or supporting others against lies and plagiarized unimaginative insults?
If this is what is meant by being high and mighty, condescending?
Then we agree I am guilty and proud of it. I don't see shame in apologising when I err quite the contrary.
If you believe either we are doomed if not from Socialism then Islam.
Both see the donut hole not the donut.
Why do I comment now? The demonstrable Truth ( for others) albeit a little obvious.

Col
This is my rough take on your nebulous question.
A socialist is some one who conforms to the dogmatic doctrine of socialism. A socialist’s focus is the maintenance of the system.
Leftist doesn’t conform to a (dogmatic) doctrine and is someone who has progressive views who is somewhere between a conservative and a socialist.
Someone who accepts a combination of both but capitalism and state as a dichotomy. Their primary focus is people.
e.g.
A socialist state controls medicine totally. Medicare only.
A Leftist allows for Medicare and HBA etc
A conservative wants only private industry only HBA.
NB. As Leftist is a vague concept in exists in degrees either way.

Belly
Thanks.
I don't know either is the answer.I guess its back to my high place.

'Since when is it wrong to strive for manners and respect for others, to ask an errant individual to observe those common values in public or come to someone’s aid who is being unnecessarily/unfairly being attacked?'

All fine examinator but not when used selectively.

Examinator

Yours are indeed words of wisdom. Nevertheless, I must insist that the only troll on the Sea Kitten thread, to which Belly refers, is Belly.

Alas, trolls, with vested interests, who raise threads to inflame and defame, lack acuity hence any ability to address pertinent and relevant facts on the topic. They continue to bleat their sermons (with insidious references to their “opponents”) without acknowledging the issues in the very topic they have raised.

One can either walk away from these trolls who persecute the defenceless, or participate in a bun fight. No freebies either for guessing who dons the boxing gloves but hopefully, only on provocation!

“Or pointing out that the flaws in both facts and logic in a discussion, defending my self or supporting others against lies and plagiarized unimaginative insults?

"If this is what is meant by being high and mighty, condescending? Then we agree I am guilty and proud of it. I don't see shame in apologising when I err quite the contrary.”

Well Examinator, I for one am proud to be acquainted - and I commend you for your ability to conduct an unambiguous and logical pattern of debate.

Hang about man – you have much to contribute to this forum!

Dear examinator,

Welcome back. As dickie said, we need your input
on this Forum. You have been missed.

And as for you Houellebecq, I blow you a great
big raspberry (politely of course).

Cheers,

Dickie, chin up, I can not agree with much you post,but its your right to have your say.
And why would I be upset by your views of me?
Never! see my only defense against your words meant to hurt, are read your post history, all of it, I rest my case.
Now if you knew how very many Roos Wallaby's Kolas and two Wombats all baby's I bottle fed.
If you only knew of the dumped dogs and kittens [not fish]I bought home after finding them dumped on the road.
My slaves, two dogs one dumped one bought Sky and Blue, little half Foxys girls sleep in my bed.
Yet you who can not know me slander me?
I love animals, my gut still turns as I remember slaughter yards, cattle waiting in line knowing they are to die.
Its life Dickie we eat meat we always will, we are the result of evolution not the madness of non existent Gods.
We even in that fairy tale Bible are told we have rule over animals.
IF activists did not resort to the stuff you use, maybe you would find more support.
Out of nothing but respect for OLO I must make every effort to stay away from animal rights threads, it is warlike and nothing is ever gained, yep got it right I did go back to sea kittens, still think its madness.

meredith

"I notice you have decided your correct on my reasons to defend Boaz with out any answer from me, why even ask me, hey :)..."

Sorry if I've misread you. I hadn't read enough of your posts to know offhand whether you were a Conservative or not, though I had a feeling you were.

It was the following sentence of yours that I was going on, which I thought at the time indicated you were a fellow Conservative of BD's, but looking at it again now I'm not so sure.

"I thought he was great, I didn’t worry about the religious stuff and just read his posts, for conservative posts, they were pretty good…"

So, sorry if I've got it wrong.

Daggett

"I certainly invite you to examine the evidence and form your own judgement."

I looked at the thread but I still don't really know enough to make an informed comment I’m sorry.

I don’t know the full extent of the exchanges you’ve had with CJ in the past and how they would have contributed to his assessment of you. I agree, in this thread at least, your style didn’t appear provocative, so I can only assume that it was the content of your post that CJ was lampooning.

Again, I haven’t followed the 9/11 conspiracy debate, so don’t know whether it’s the rubbish CJ clearly believes it to be, or whether there is something more to it. In my experience, I’ve always found him to be a pretty good judge of any situation, but I'm not sure on this one. I did notice that Forrest and RObert were much less dismissive and I always consider them to be good judges too!

So, I’m sitting on the fence on this one I'm afraid.

Brwonwyn,

What does my being conservative have to do with it?

meredith

"What does my being conservative have to do with it?"

When I first expressed disbelief that you could defend BD the way you were, I made the comment - "Being a fellow conservative is clouding your judgement here I think meredith. :)"

You then criticized me for jumping to conclusions about the reasons why you defended BD, so I assumed you were upset with the 'conservative' tag. What else was there in that brief sentence to object to?

I see from this quote of yours from earlier on in the thread that I was right all along and that by your own admission you are a conservative.

".. I am not a thug I am just a conservative..."

You're allowed to be, no big deal, I couldn't give a continental whether you're a conservative or not.

But I sure wish you could follow the debate and stop sending me round in endless circles over trivialities.

Bronwyn,

Your running round in your own circles old girl, nothing to do with me...

Me being a conservative isn't why I stuck up for Boaz, I dislike bullying, even more so gang bullying... that is what bought that up...

What you still didn't answer... What does my being a conservative have to do with trying defending of Boaz?

It sounds like an assumption that I can't see beyond my own kind

Bronwyn,

Thank you for taking the effort to the effort to look at the forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8120&page=0) and consider the evidence.

Thanks for noting that that the style of my post "didn't appear to be provocative". If it wasn't provocative, then what justification do you see for Christopher subsequently calling me "seriously unhinged" and then more or less repeating that five times?

You say that you can't make an informed comment, but at least you should be able to see why not everyone shares your evaluation of Christopher's posts as "calm, measured, cutting and witty".

Bronwyn wrote, "I don't know the full extent of the exchanges you've had with CJ in the past ..."

It was not my initial intention to spell out the entire history of this. Could I suggest that you take all the evidence at face value? Please try not to presume that if Christopher behaved like a creep on that forum that I must have done something before to deserve it.

Bronwyn wrote, "... I haven't followed the 9/11 conspiracy debate, ..."

I think every mature thinking adult owes it to themselves, their fellow citizens, their children and future generations to seriously look at the evidence and decide for themselves one way or the other whether they can truly accept the official US Government explanation of 9/11. (Of course I know what conclusion I think anyone who studies the evidence objectively will come to, but please don't take my word for it.)

If I am right about 9/11, then the world is largely run by homocidal maniacs far more dangerous than even I had imagined less than two years ago.

That's also the view of Patrick Welsh, who lost his first wife on Flight 93 on 11 September 2001. For many years, he refused to even consider the evidence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Eventually, in late 2006 or early 2007, he resolved to look at the evidence in order to prove the 9/11 Truth movement wrong. However, six months later he realised he was in complete agreement with the 9/11 Truth Movement and has become a very staunch and outspoken activist. You can learn about Patrick Welsh in the YouTube broadcast (10 minutes or less) at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-qvVE3nzudg

I suggest that if you have a spare hour, listen to the debate between a supporter of the official US Government explanation of 9/11, namely 'skeptical' scientist Michael Shermer and a supporter of the 9/11 Truth Movement, namely Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org).

As I had been receiving Michael Shermers' 'Skeptic' newsletter and therefore had some respect for him, I was not sure which way the debate would turn out when I listened to it last September.

However it became clear to me that Shermer resorted to crude debating ploys, whilst Gage tried to discuss the evidence. The debate can be found on http://noliesradio.org (Search for "Were the World Trade Towers brought down by controlled demolition?")

I suggest that listening to debates is the best way to begin. Until you become familiar with the issue it is inevitable that you will find resources on either sides of the controversy which will seem very persuasive as I did.

Bronwyn continued, "... so don?t know whether it?s the rubbish CJ clearly believes it to be, or whether there is something more to it."

Christopher adamantly refused even once to acknowledge any of the evidence I presented and never, through the entire debate demonstrated, any comprehension whatsoever of either side of the debate.

Bronwyn wrote, "... I did notice that Forrest and RObert were much less dismissive and I always consider them to be good judges too! "

Yes, Forrest considered the evidence. He also took the trouble to read David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbour" at http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres5/GRIFFIN-Newpearlharbor.pdf and thoroughly recommended it. As it is not much more than 100 pages it should not take too long to read.

Evo “Col. Thank you for high-lighting that line.”
You are welcome..

Antiseptic “those complaining about such things are largely basing their complaint on their own lack of the capacity to produce such wit.”

I suspect that is true in many cases.

I have heard it said

“Debate” is a battle of wits and too many come on the field of battle completely disarmed….

Pericles … Yupp… as I have said repeatedly… just love this thread…. Thinking of coming back next year too…

Dickie “Aw.....meanie! Graham took Porkabelle's portrait. Tsk tsk!”

I see our hosts did decide to “interpret dickies post in the context of what they are prepared to tolerate as acceptable for presentation on their website”

I guess you will have to find another way of “hamming” it up dickie

Examinator “This is my rough take on your nebulous question.”

Thankyou for your nebulous response, which speculates: a lefty is more nebulous than a socialist …

I do not necessarily agree with you

But whilst my original question was drafted in the context of the thread topic, deeper exploration of it now would not be so.
So , I will decline to pursue it further

Meredith “Bronwyn, You’re running round in your own circles old girl, nothing to do with me...”

Maybe to create a vortex, up which to disappear ?

meredith:

"Me being a conservative isn't why I stuck up for Boaz, I dislike bullying, even more so gang bullying... that is what bought that up..."

You're serious? You're worried about Boaz being bullied? Is this the same Boaz who rants, shouts, proclaims, denounces, maligns, stigmatises, vilifies and otherwise bad-mouths anyone who disagrees with his narrow view of the world?

As for conservatism, one of the teachers I most admired (he's dead now unfortunately) was a conservative in almost everything; but he was clear, logical and insisted on proper evidence for any argument his students put forward. At the end of the day, we disagreed on many things but had respect for scholarship and clear thinking.

If only some of the conservatives on OLO were more like that. I know there are lapses among the progressives too, but it's notably the conservatives who rely on evidence-free assertions and, who when challenged, resort to abuse.

“If only some of the conservatives on OLO were more like that. I know there are lapses among the progressives too,”

Bearing in mind, Oliver Cromwell was propelled to the position of “Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland” by the “levelers”, who pushed the same barrow to those on this site who would most likely describe themselves as the “opponents of conservatives”,

I feel the term “regressive” is a far better description of what is actually being anticipated by those who oppose conservative values.

The “regressive” relabeling of values, pursued back in the days of Cromwell, is the favoured pursuit of those who lack the ability and imagination to propel themselves forward through their own efforts.

As Margaret Thatcher said “"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

meredith

"What you still didn't answer... What does my being a conservative have to do with trying defending of Boaz?":

Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! Take a deep breath, Bronwyn.

Now, meredith dear, it was not me who FIRST brought up this conservative link. YOU did.

"I thought he was great, I didn’t worry about the religious stuff and just read his posts, for conservative posts, they were pretty good…"

I only picked up on it. I've already apologised in case I'd got it wrong which I've since realised and pointed out I hadn't at all. You're the one making a deal out of being conservative. I'm not. I couldn't care less. You're the one who's linked BD, yourself and conservatism in the one sentence. I only picked up on it as a minor aside. I didn't expect to have to waste post after post to make my position clear - not for you I might add, I wouldn't go to that trouble, but for the public record.

"It sounds like an assumption that I can't see beyond my own kind."

It's nothing of the sort. Both myself and others here have acknowledged though that it is a natural human tendency to see fault in the style of those whose arguments you disagree with more readily than in those with whom you're in agreeance. I freely admit to it myself. It's a truism to me. Big deal! What's your point?

No, on second thoughts I don't want to know.

My god meredith I'd hate to debate something complex with you. It'd take weeks!

Clearly, there is a lot that Col Rouge writes that I emphatically disagree with.

Probably in most threads I would be on the side of his detractors, but I heartily concur with his expressed views of the utter hollowness of another OLO contributor, who is by now, unfortunately all too familiar to most of us:

"CJ is the biggest troll of all, he parades around this site, taking 3 line bites at the ankles of others, largely because he lacks the where-with-all to walk on two legs."

"... CJMoron's vocabulary did not extend to the word 'pesthole'"

---

As Col Rouge has raised the subject of Oliver Cromwell and the Levellers, I would like to draw the attention of people to songs about another group from the English War period.

They were the Diggers and regarded as to the left of the radical democratic Levellers.

They attempted to form agricultural collectives on abandoned land so that they could grow food and feed themselves and not have to bow down before landlords.

However the land-owning classes of the time saw this as threat and on their behalf Cromwell set in his Army to brutally suppress the Diggers.

As a consequence of this and as a consequence of Cromwell's suppression of the Levellers and his brutality in Ireland, I am not absolutely certain that I found him preferable to King Charles I.

Two versions of "The song of the Diggers" are by Guy Manley of Tasmania at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3-uw1dAjY0 and bu Billy Bragg at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKLbj6oMiaI

Bwonwyn,

Your in error here not me, I never said that I was concerned you called me a conservative... I said you had decided my motives...

You answered Col honestly about it, when he asked:

"When I suggested to Meredith her judgement might be clouded, it was said in a light-hearted fashion, not an arrogant one"

Anyway, it's obviously not light heated for you, lol. :)

I am not going to bother with this anymore... go on Bronwyn love have the last say, it'll make you feel better.

As Margaret Thatcher said “"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

That's great Col!.

Spikey, yeh, just go read the post about half way through this string.. it's about bullying... you will see the reasons of how and why I think it explained there...

Col,

I think we would all like to hear more about Margaret Thatcher.

"If only some of the conservatives on OLO were more like that. I know there are lapses among the progressives too, but it's notably the conservatives who rely on evidence-free assertions and, who when challenged, resort to abuse." Spikey.

I forgot to say that it's notably the conservatives on OLO who resort to bizarre historical figures and events - Oliver Cromwell and the Levellers, Margaret Thatcher for example - as a distraction from contemporary debates.

And it's notably the conservatives who assert that by nature they are right, and anyone who opposes them is by nature wrong. Watch for it. It's as subtle as a sledgehammer.

Houellebecq,

I'm not sure you can speak on behalf of all - or even many - OLO posters when you tell Col Rouge "I think we would all like to hear more about Margaret Thatcher". And certainly it's the case for me that if we must have the words of the Iron Maiden littering this site let them please come from an informed, dispassionate and reputable historian - not Col Rouge.

Classic Spikey! I never thought of replying to my own posts. Good work.

I would never call Margaret Thatcher 'bizarre', or a historical figure (yet). In fact, as well as being alive, she seems to be quite active in helping her daughter defend those golliwog quotes.

The subject of this thread exemplifies the arguments
of those who insist that there is no such thing as
objectivity in online discussions.

The moment anyone begins to look critically at the
posting methods used online it becomes unacceptable for
one or another camp of posters.

The suggestions no matter how well intentioned are seen as
condemnation, and explanations are not acceptable.
People are reluctant to modify their judgements and the
result becomes a complete breakdown in communication.
Which is unfortunate. Because something constructive
could have resulted if people were prepared to listen.
But, I guess that's human nature. We see things subjectively.

As for Maggie Thatcher... she certainly was protective of her
daughter:

"I can't understand the fuss about student grants.
Carol managed to save out of hers. Of course, we
paid for her skiing holidays."

My favourite of Thatcher's quotes is:

"Tact is the ability to tell a man he has an open mind
when he has a hole in his head."

Houellebecq, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 11:46:08 AM

"I think we would all like to hear more about Margaret Thatcher."

Houellebecq, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:36:10:

"I would never call Margaret Thatcher 'bizarre', or a historical figure (yet). In fact, as well as being alive, she seems to be quite active in helping her daughter defend those golliwog quotes."

Seems like you learned a great deal about the Iron Maiden in 50 minutes.

Nothing like answering your own posts, eh? Are you sure you're not Col Rouge in drag?

daggett: << ...would you care to join me in the forum discussion "Bush's legacy" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8484#134015 ? >>

James, I have no more intention of dignifying your crackpot conspiracy theories now than I have in the past. Clearly, you're enfuriated because I refuse to feed what I regard as a delusional obsession, and also because I identified your use of sockpuppet accounts with which to subject this forum to more than your share of space in order to rant on about it. The kindest thing I can say that these are your problems, not mine.

As for Col's "dearest Margaret", I've never thought of her as bizarre - more like horrible, dangerous, and nowadays increasingly irrelevant. Sort of like Bronwyn Bishop with a brain. Mind you, I did briefly share quarters in the PNG highlands a couple of decades ago with a crazy Dutchman who reckoned she had nice legs.

Bronwyn - full marks for trying, but I really don't think that poor Meredith is capable of understanding your points. I'd prefer to put it down to a lack of education, rather than intelligence. If she sticks around and tries hard she might eventually understand what you're trying to say.

Sorry examinator, but the thread seems to have already strayed irrevocably from the topic. I have endeavoured to be as polite as possible :)

Dear examinator,

Thank you for starting this thread. I for one
have learned something from it, especially
after having re-read some of our posts and our
various reactions.

I would bet that from now
on, whether we'll admit it or not, we're going
to be a lot more aware of how we post.

And, I think even getting us to discuss the subject
was an achievement in itself. A lot of issues were
aired that needed airing, and you gave us the
opportunity to do that. So, once again - Thanks.

Houellebecq “Col,

I think we would all like to hear more about Margaret Thatcher.”

Houellebecq , I have left a note for you on the
“Terrorism and how it affects everyday life and how to stop the flow of terror” thread

which I see you found….

And yes, she was an extraordinary woman.

As to “socialist/left”, her view was resolute in understanding the dangers

"When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty."

she had an extraordinarily well developed sense of what matters and their priority in the scheme of things re

“Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul.”

In which she basically subordinates the materialistic to below the spiritual.

Foxy claims to a Thatcher Quote

“Tact: Ability to tell a man he's open-minded when he has a hole in his head.”

Nope – F G Kernan

(I thought it was too “brutish” for dearest Margaret…)

Like you misascribed another quote

"Ego, is God's gift to little men.”

not Margaret Thatcher, Harry Truman.

But regarding the socialists / left obsession with pointless collective ownership and meddling in the private lives of the electorate she said

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Baroness Thatcher is astute.

Of woman and men, she saw them as equal contributors to the greater whole of “the individual family”

For instance regarding where women could not compete with men, in the military front line

"Women have plenty of roles in which they can serve with distinction: some of us even run countries. But generally we are better at wielding the handbag than the bayonet."

Houellebecq, I hope this enhances your appreciation of a woman who the likes of Spikey is not fit to stand in the shadow of.

Christopher wrote, "James, I have no more intention of dignifying your crackpot conspiracy theories now than I have in the past."

Christopher, I think you need to read my post again.

The invitation was not for you, rather it was for that other person, who recently made use of the account "CJ Morgan", who yearned for "civil, adult debate" on OLO.

As I judged that person incapable of harbouring the malice and venom that you have harboured and have so freely vented upon hapless OLO users, including myself, these past years, I invited him (or possibly her), and not you, to join me in that discussion.

Christopher continued, "Clearly, you're enfuriated(sic) ..."

No, Christopher, it is clear from your posts that you are the person who has become infuriated, because, on a number of occasions in these past months, I have shown you up for the shallow, small-minded, vindictive hypocrite that you are.

Christopher continued, "... because I refuse to feed what I regard as a delusional obsession, ..."

Where have I ever sought your participation in any of the forums I have ever taken part in? I thought I had made it abundantly clear on almost countless occasions that I would have preferred that you go away.

Christopher continued, "... and also because I identified your use of sockpuppet accounts with which to subject this forum to more than your share of space in order to rant on about it."

As I pointed out above, you have shown yourself to be a complete hypocrite in regard to that issue.

Now, to go back to the topic at hand, does anyone thing that it would be a good or bad idea to reduce the limits to which OLO limits applyfrom 24 hours to 23 or 22 hours, as I suggested above?

In a way it would actually feel more like a 24 hour window, than would the current 24 hour window, as, in practice, it would make it possible for anyone who feels the need, to post exactly 2 (or 4) posts each 24 hour period, which is virtually impossible to do at the moment.

Another suggestion would be to allow 4 (or 8) posts over every 48 hours (or to be consistent with the above suggestion 46 or 47 hours).

A variation on that could be to allow 3 (or 6) posts over every 36 hours (or, say, 34 or 35 hours to be consistent with the above suggestion).

These changes would add more flexibility without greatly altering the underlying limits (should they be retained).

daggett

"Christopher continued, '... and also because I identified your use of sockpuppet accounts with which to subject this forum to more than your share of space in order to rant on about it.' As I pointed out above, you have shown yourself to be a complete hypocrite in regard to that issue."

Are you suggesting CJ uses sock puppet accounts? Having read his open condemnation of them several times, I absolutely can't imagine him resorting to the practice myself. So what exactly are you suggesting by calling him a 'hypocrite' in regards to this issue?

I know this is between you and him, but seeing as you had invited my opinion earlier and I couldn't give you one, I thought I should probably be taking more of an interest in the ongoing dynamics between you, hence my question to you.

Sorry, CJ, I know you don't need my help! :)

Col Rouge quotes Margaret Thatcher:

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.” (No source attributed)

Margaret Thatcher quotes Margaret Thatcher:

They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

(Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987)

A constituent's view of Margaret Thatcher:

"Margaret Thatcher's premiership haunts the UK today: mass unemployment, corporate greed, asset stripping, recycled debt and New Labour." (The Yorkshire Post 22 December 2008)

Bronwyn, you asked, "So what exactly are you suggesting by calling (Christopher) a 'hypocrite' in regards to this issue?"

Once again:

I challenged Christopher, "do you or don't you concede that the use of a second account on OLO could ever be justified?"

He responded, "Not while it's against the forum rules, James."

I pointed out at the same time that he first attacked me for allegedly using a second account, another person was openly using a second account, yet he seemed to find that perfectly acceptable.

Why isn't that hypocrisy?

Bronwyn wrote, "... seeing as you had invited my opinion earlier ..."

In the context of Christopher attacking me, your statement that Christopher's responses were "(consistently) calm, measured, cutting and witty" appeared to me to be taking sides.

So I asked you to justify that statement by asking you to explain to me how you saw statements by Christopher accusing me of being mentally unbalanced as being "calm, measured, cutting and witty" (see http://forum.olineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8120&page=0).

Bronwyn wrote, "... and I couldn't give you one ..."

Why you fail to see Christopher's conduct as totally reprehensible is beyond me.

On the "9/11 Truth" forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166) he stated his intention to disruput that forum and proceded to do so and he did so well beyond the point where any possible pretext could have been provided by the alleged use of a second account and he did so in the face of protests of other forum users who wanted to learn about the issue.

And on many other forums he has also attacked me personally as I have shown.

Never once has he, in any way, acknowledged the content of my posts and never once has he demonstrated any comprehension whatsoever of the 9/11 controversy.

I appreciate that, for a while, your mind appeared to be open. However, I have now gained the impression that it is closing again.

Of course I am powerless to prevent that, but if you do choose to take a stance, then I believe you should justify it.

Just to add to Spikey's efforts, here are some more constituents' views on Thatcher -

"The Thatcher era can, for me anyway, be remembered as a time of rioting, extreme unemployment, high interest rates, negative equity, war, and a general feeling of selfishness. She sold off the nations' assets and left a crumbling public infrastructure and no manufacturing base. What a great lady she was!"

"Mrs Thatcher created a very selective division in society. She wanted prosperity but only for the chosen few, the rest could have unemployment and social decay."

"During her time Britain became more strident, more brash, more selfish, less tolerant, and more divided."

"I listened as she once refused to accept (on the Frost programme) that she might ever have done anything wrong while in office. Anyone who believes in his/her infallibility is inherently dangerous - almost by definition."

"... she went too far, becoming completely besotted with her own rhetoric ..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3680427.stm

Is it any wonder Col loves the lady when they have so much in common?

daggett

Thanks for explaining the 'hypocrite' tag. Sorry, I'd forgotten that little interchange though I do remember reading it now.

"... but if you do choose to take a stance, then I believe you should justify it."

I agree and I would give reasons if I ever took a stance, but at this stage as I've already explained I don't know enough to make an informed judgement and won't be attempting to do so.

The fact that I asked about your use of the term 'hypocrite' should however demonstrate to you that I do indeed have an 'open mind' on the issue.

Spikey
Col Rouge quotes Margaret Thatcher:

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Yes sound understanding of human organization whats your point?
does your imagination run out beyond the cut and paste?

Re “They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

Yes that is something I live by and you should learn, if you want to amount to something.

Re “A constituent's view of Margaret Thatcher:

"Margaret Thatcher's premiership haunts the UK today: mass unemployment, corporate greed, asset stripping, recycled debt and New Labour." (The Yorkshire Post 22 December 2008)”

Well since that piece of drivel is attributed to “Yorkshire Post” 2008, it is quite likely it is from a disgruntled old commie, still upset that 25 years ago Margaret Thatcher made him work for his wages, instead of bludging off the taxes of real people…

Btw 2008, Baroness Thatcher no longer sat in parliament, she has no constituency and thus, no constituents.

So your assertion to “A constituents View”, is about as sound and stable as most of the other garbage you post.

Mind you Dearest Margaret would have had the perfect response to the bludging old pinko scumbag, who wrote that piece of irrelevant dross, in the first place.

“And what a prize we have to fight for: no less than the chance to banish from our land the dark divisive clouds of Marxist socialism.”

She showed Gormley and Scargill and their cesspool of corrupt mates in the Trades Union Council, who was elected by the people to run the country and who was not…

and she showed them who had class versus who had just a comb-over (Scargill).

Have a nice day

Foxy/Bronwyn

"Tact is the ability to tell a man he has an open mind
when he has a hole in his head."

Who cares who the author was. Margaret dearest probably plagiarised it.

Hopefully no-one, but no-one will ask her the same question since apart from the hole in the head, poor old Margaret dearest has a few holes in her brain with a long-term dementia.

Now she confuses the Falkland war with the Baltics and insists that Dennis darling is still on the upside of planet earth.

See it can happen when you delegate others to do your dirty work, thus, the brain remains on an indefinite semester break!

daggett: << I pointed out at the same time that he first attacked me for allegedly using a second account, another person was openly using a second account, yet he seemed to find that perfectly acceptable.

Why isn't that hypocrisy? >>

It wasn't the first time I'd challenged James on the use of his multiple sockpuppet accounts. As I recall, the person to whom he refers used a sockpuppet briefly and openly, and never did so again. James (et al), on the other hand, chose to tell lies about his multiple accounts and to attack me endlessly for exposing his habitual use of sockpuppets. He's never forgiven me, poor dear.

Mind you, the exercise was useful in that he seems to have abandoned his former dishonest practices, and even admitted to them in this thread - albeit indirectly. However, he seems to be resiling from his lapse into honesty, for some reason that escapes me.

James/dagget/et al's accusations of me being somehow "vicious" towards him and his dishonestly expressed screwball ideas reminds me of the old Lou Reed song -

"Vicious, you hit me with a flower..."

Get help, James.

P.S. - is there anybody at all on OLO who has been persuaded by James/daggett that the 9/11, Madrid, London etc terrorist attacks were in fact orchestrated by the American government?

I thought when Christopher wrote, "Not while it's against the forum rules, James," he was telling us that the use of a second account on OLO could never be condoned.

But apparently, Christopher, did not mean that after all.

Apparently he thinks its only reprehensible for some people to make use of a second account, but not others. As far as I recall on that occasion my alleged use of a second account was no less 'brief' than the use of a second account by that other OLO user, so it would be interesting to learn from Christopher why he chose to only attack me on that occasion and not the other person.

No C J Morgan, while known to be verbose I never entered the thread.
Sorry I know you think I am too far right but the true very left concern me as much as the right.
America has much blood on its hands but not this time, better I not say what I think of that theory.
Glove puppets.
This thread had good intentions, we got lost but ANY known user of two tags including our freind Jonathan seems to be a clear breach of forum rules.
Any one who uses one to get around those posting limits should get a life.
Can I say all we need here is for existing rules to be enforced?

Col Rouge,

I'll try again and see if your brain's any clearer.

Your unattributed quotation has Margaret Thatcher saying:

“We want a society where people are free to make choices..." etc. Note the word 'society'.

"...to be generous and compassionate." Yes, she was compassionate to her gun-running son when he was jailed. And she's trying to get her daughter out of the pooh for her racist remarks about South African cricketers. She was generous to Johnny Major until he found a mind of his own and disobeyed her Ladyship (he was then PM but Maggie hadn't gone gracefully. She thought he was one of her constituents).

Thatcher goes on: "This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything...” The word 'society again, and a third time.

Now the quotation from 'Women's Own', October 31 1987: “...there is no such thing as society [sic - all her own words]. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

So no such thing as 'society' - just individuals. Dog eat dog. Devil take the hindmost. Where's her compassionate society, a society where people are free to make choices, where kids were able to drink free milk at school until the Mrs Milk Snatcher tipped that all out? User pays even for kids. Compassion!

You're such a fan and acolyte of Thatcher that I can see why you would say her Yorkshire critic is "quite likely...a disgruntled old commie...the bludging old pinko scumbag" Why argue with substance when you can chuck a mindless insult? Thatcher's style.

'The New Economist' October, 2005, "Thatcher was a class warrior, not an economic libertarian. Where market reforms benefited the rich (exchange controls) or bribed floating voters (council house sales), she supported them. Where market reforms could have helped the poor (school vouchers, macro markets), she did nothing...her influence was wholly pernicious."

I'm so glad you told us which of the two - Thatcher and Scargill - had the comb-over. At least Scargill had some humanity between his toupe and his jaw.

CJ

"P.S. - is there anybody at all on OLO who has been persuaded by James/daggett that the 9/11, Madrid, London etc terrorist attacks were in fact orchestrated by the American government?"

Yes, I'd be interested in knowing that too.

I haven't followed any of the 9/11 threads before, though I had a quick skim of the one you and James linked me to, and I did notice there were others who weren't dismissing the theory out of hand as you were.

What's lead you to feel so strongly against it?

I don't want to do a whole lot of reading on it right at the moment, nor do I want to highjack examinator's thread, but if there's ever another discussion on it I will get involved and follow the arguments more closely.

I'm not totally closed to the idea. When it comes to Bush, Chaney, Rumsfield and co, I'm firmly of the view that anything's possible.

Hi Bronwyn - without wanting to give any oxygen to what is the latest conspiracy frootloops' cause celebre, let's just say that while I certainly don't think the general public will ever know the full story of the 9/11 attacks, that doesn't mean that the evil American government perpetrated them. Contrary to James' bleating, I did read and watch much of the so-called 'evidence' when I first became aware of the conspiracy nutters' claims - and I remain much less than convinced.

I was certainly no fan of the Bush administration, and I opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, that doesn't mean that I've suspended my critical and analytical faculties. Of course, anybody's entitled to express their beliefs regardless of how far-fetched they are, but I object to them using several sockpuppet accounts in order to inundate others with them.

We've had plenty frootloops at OLO who introduce their particular obsessions into any and every discussion regardless of relevance, and the rules about identities and posting limits seem to me to be there to keep them in some reasonable check.

Bronwyn,

In response to your endorsement of CJ Morgan's question "P.S. - is there anybody at all on OLO who has been persuaded by James/daggett that the 9/11, Madrid, London etc terrorist attacks were in fact orchestrated by the American government?"

Here is a link to one of my posts to Ludwig's 'Three Years on OLO' topic that he opened on Thursday 6 November 2008: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2258#49556 I believe it explains my position, or more precisely, why I was prepared to examine the 9/11 events more critically. Such explanation is, I think, at least tangential, if not directly relevant to this topic.

Be careful not to identify what might appear to be my position re 9/11 as being precisely within the terms of CJ's question. It is in my opinion possible for events of the like of 9/11 to one way or another be orchestrated by interest groups within or close to executive government without there existing a 'conspiracy' involving such appointments as the presidency or departmental secretaries. (See this post for a fuller explanation: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48920 ) CJ appears to seek to widen the net with his references to the London and Madrid events in association with those of 9/11 in his quoted question. I have not formed any view with respect to them.

Here is my speculation as to the general nature of the events of 9/11: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#50533

Have I been persuaded by James/daggett ....? Only to the extent that he has posted supporting links, and that he has highlighted areas of seeming inconsistency between official explanations and other believably reliable testimony. Do I agree with his view? Not necessarily. In particular I think it dangerous to rush to judgement with respect as to who may have been actively involved in any orchestration of events. The convincing key, to me, lies in evidence of checks and balances, and standing operating procedures, having been violated.

If Christopher had properly read the evidence as he insists he has, then he would know that one of the reasons that "the general public will ever know the full story of the 9/11 attacks" is that no proper investigations of the 9/11 attacks were ever conducted.

Both the 9/11 Commission and NIST ignored and suppressed vast amounts of evidence which was contrary to the official US Government explanation. This included, as one of many examples I could give, 118 pieces of eyewitness testimony from members of the Fire Department of New York including accounts of often massive, unexplained explosions before and during the 'collapses' of the three towers (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf). None of this was discussed or included in the reports issued by the 9/11 Commission or NIST.

The 9/11 Truth Movement, including many who lost loved ones on the day and first responders, many of whom are now dying from the toxic dust they ingested on or after 9/11, want proper explanations and have therefore demanded a new investigation.

However, Christopher is opposed to the demand for a new investigation.

He has shown that, in fact, he prefers not to "know the full story of the 9/11 attacks", but, rather, instead, to trust the word of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al, who used 9/11 as the pretext to launch the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan that he claims he opposed.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Bronwyn, thanks for keeping an open mind and being willing to consider the evidence.

Anyhow, I agree with your suggestion that the discussion continue elsewhere.

One place to continue the discussion is the "9/11 Truth Forum" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=76. However, at 459 posts, being the longest single forum ever on OLO, it is becoming rather unwieldy, so it may be a good idea if someone were to request that another forum be set up.

Other forums at which the 9/11 issue has been raised (or should be raised) include:

"Terrorism and how it affects everyday life and how to stop the flow of terror" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=77
"What do we do about George W Bush?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2465&page=0
"Bush's democracy of hypocrisy" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8288#133131
"War: not in my name" (now closed) at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8306#130548
"Iraq: 'dramatically freer, dramatically safer and dramatically better'?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8331#131187
"Australia has no business in Afghanistan" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8338#131439
"Bush's legacy" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8484

CJ, Forrest and daggett

Thank you all for your responses. I'm totally intrigued now. Just wish I had super skim reading powers to get through all the evidence! It would be far too daunting to start from scratch at a 459-post thread, and no doubt numerous links, so I won't be doing that.

I agree, CJ, the whole scenario just seems far too implausible, especially as a straight out conspiracy theory. But there are obviously many inconsistencies that haven't been satisfactorily explained and could quite possibly have been deliberately covered up. So I'm certainly not dismissive of the theory that the government might have been involved in some way. Though of course I'll freely admit I'm speaking from ignorance at this stage, whereas I don't think you are.

I hear what you're saying, Forrest, and understand you're taking a qualified and naunced position. Your specific links were very well targeted and most helpful, thank you. (BTW, I still don't know how to link to specific posts like that myself and have on occasions wanted to be able to. Is there a how-to instruction on the site somewhere? Or is it just one of those very basic skills I still haven't figured yet but most others have?) Good to hear from you again, Forrest. I haven't 'seen' much of you lately, but you were definitely one of the posters I had in mind when I echoed CJ's question!

James, I haven't done so yet, but I will read the link of witness accounts that you sent in your first post. I'm also happy to read one or two introductory or overview type articles if any come to mind. I don't want to wade through whole threads or lengthy documents at this stage, but if you knew of something concise that might help bring me up to speed without involving too much reading I'd be very grateful.

Thanks all of you, Much appreciated.

Bronwyn,

I will desist from posting anything more on 9/11 after this post. From now on could I suggest you go to "9/11 Truth" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=77

There, I will in coming days post material which, before long, should enable you to confidently arrive at the conclusion that the official US Government explanation is hogwash and not be swayed by any 9/11 'debunking' material you may subsequently encounter.

I commend the following videos from US High school physics teacher David Chandler:

"WTC7 in Freefall" at http://911blogger.com/node/17685
"'WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall' ...The Movie" at http://911blogger.com/node/18771
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18951
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18969

They are most useful, because you will see total confirmation that the 'collapse' of the third Tower WTC 7, which was not even struck be a plane, was a controlled demolition and not a collapse caused by fire.

"'WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall' ...The Movie" at http://911blogger.com/node/18771 is particularly enjoyable, because, in it, David Chandler (off camera) confronts the NIST bureaucrat who produced the cover up report.

It is fun watching the NIST brueaucrat going through all sorts of evasions and logical convulsions when confronted with the evidence that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds - something they had, up until then, insisted was not the case.

---

Forrest, thanks for your thoughts. For my response, please go to http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=77#56092)

Bronwyn,

Re the posting of specific links

I don't know of any 'how-to' on the OLO site as to the use of Forum features. That is why I have suggested in the past the idea of a 'page page' button, a sort of a page help button on every OLO page that lists and explains the available features.

You post a link to a specific post this way:

Click on the blue rectangular icon 'copy comment URL to clipboard' at the right-hand end of the row of icons displayed beneath the time and date stamp of every post. If you are using Internet Exploder as your browser, the left-click will achieve this result I believe.

If you are using Firefox under Linux, you will need to right-click this icon, and then choose 'Copy link location' from the Firefox menu that displays.

You then return to your text editor (or to the posting pane, if your habit is to live dangerously and risk losing your priceless trains of thought in cyberspace) and click 'paste' after having first, of course, positioned your cursor where you want the link to appear in your post. The link will then appear in your incipient literary gem.

When you have completed your post in the posting pane, or copied it into it from your text editor, you then click 'preview'.

Your post shortly displays pretty much as it will appear in the thread, minus the as yet unallocated timestamp. You can check that each link, which now displays in gamboge-coloured text as such in the preview pane, actually works properly before you finally post your masterpiece.

Click 'post', and voila! You have posted, among other things, specific links.

Viewers using a specific link, once the OLO site has located the relevant post, can scroll to anywhere else in that thread as in most cases the automatic search activates the 'All [pages]' display option.

My apologies to examinator for this temporary technical diversion from the topic. We wouldn't want Bronwyn handicapped with respect to cyberspatial communication efficacy, would we now?

Dear Forrest

Thank you so much. That was very kind of you. Very thoughtful of you to spell it out in detail for me too, as you no doubt realise I need any techno stuff to be spelt out fairly clearly! Have saved your instructions and will bring them up as needed.

Thank you again, dear Galahad! :)

examinator,

I have been a little busy but I have a moment now.

I hope you don’t mind if I ‘examine’ some of your ideas for more ‘control’ rules, of comments.

I see you’re concerned about the nature/direction of some of the discussions.

You raised the Australia Day - what does it mean to you?
As I recall you opened that thread.
Correct me if I am wrong – but didn’t you start with something like this=
*Some rightly see it as invasion day *

Ok let’s go back to your first post where you complain about others and say the following…
…..
*Having a passionate opinion is one thing but addressing the topic/a fellow commenter as though as though our opinion is either holy writ/crusade or we have a right to be deliberately abrasive (insulting/rude) is more than PC it adversely affects all of us and the site.*

Did it examinator, not ever occur to you that many might find found your opening comment on Australia day just that. = *deliberately abrasive (insulting/rude)*

I take it your from an indigenous background by your comments. You should be proud.

You may not have intended it to hurt or offend anybody but surely you must have been aware a large majority of us and (I am no different )respect their British family members and ancestors.

I see Col and some of the others who didn’t agree with you have sort of been put on a short list.

Do you concede some might consider your thread could be seen by some as a case of calling the kettle black

How unsurprising that once the thread's run its useful course, the PALE&IF nutter/s stick their oar in. And getting it embarrassingly wrong again, as per usual.

Same old, same old.

I think that the very worthy movement to end live animal exports would be well served if PALE&IF stopped discrediting it by association every time they post idiotically on OLO, and who knows elsewhere.

Morgan

Do not tell me when I may or may not post on OLO
I have got nothing wrong- Here is the link the thread that was opened by examinator,+ his comments below=

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2468&page=0

*Some rightly see it as invasion day and would prefer Jan 1st*

I don’t think anybody can complain about the tone of others reply when they open a thread with something that’s bound to offend many.
His thread offended me and many others.

I was pointing out to examinator its very easy to offend and if he/she is going to get stuck into others they should have a unblemished history.

, I was far more polite than yourself when trying to point out the counter argument to Examinator.

To the best of my recollection yours was something close to the following-

• Gosh Examinator, if that is all you have to comment upon, I would suggest you try *to grab one of those bottles of vodka you spoke of , run a bath (don’t worry about the water saving regulations), get in the bath, drink the vodka and slash your wrists
Posted by Col Rouge,

Now that is totally uncalled for and IMO should have been removed.

It’s disgusting and shows a school girl type of nasty posting.

That and crude comments should not be tolerated on ‘any’ forum.
As for live exports I am pleased you support the phasing out of this cruel practise.

Given that judgement has now been delivered by the Lord Dymo, Thread Labeller in Chief of OLO, as to the precise extent of the useful life of this thread, perhaps a little further digression into the technical aspect of getting to grips with OLO site features might be tolerable.

Bronwyn, in the seventh post preceeding this one, raised the question as to whether there exist any 'how-to's in relation to Forum site features. I advised her that to my knowledge there were none, and suggested what might become known, if adopted, as a 'page page' as a means to making more sophisticated use of the site.

At the risk of becoming a little repetitive, should such a 'page page' become a feature of the site, that feature itself would somewhere require an explanatory page of its own, a page that would doubtless become known as the 'page page page'.

Should it be that an Arthurian motif, as seemingly favoured by Bronwyn, be applied to the design of the 'page page page', it would not be surprising to see a little mouse-over feature similar to Microsoft's 'Office Assistant in the form of a caricature of a page-boy appear when using the 'page page page'. This visual assistant would, of course, be known as the 'page page page page', wouldn't it?

Now for those OLO users having divided attention whilst on the site, some form of audio assistance could be in order to alert them as to the appearance of the 'page page page page' upon their screen. It would be of the nature of a pager alert. In the regressive manner with which the thread is now being uselessly extended, it is by now surely obvious that this audio alert would become known as the 'page page page page page'.

All makes perfect sense, I trust?

I am of three minds as to whether rule changes are needed to improve the standard of debate on OLO, more vigorous enforcement of existing rules should be implemented, or greater resort be made to satire where opportunity arises.

Forrest thanks for your humor and your advice I gain much from it.
yes the thread has stalled but if some one like you could start a question and answer thread for people like me?
I do agree rules need to be kept or not made.

You're right, this thread has become a hoot. I thought it was going to be about constructive thought on OLO rules. But then, I thought there WERE rules; amongst those being only one person posting in the one identity. But that rule is consistently bent, isn't it? Even on this thread, with PALE posting as "Macropod Whisperer" (again). Furthermore, it continues to discredit itself by accusing others of diminishing animal welfare.

Overall, the people I'm most in agreement here are Daggett and Bronwyn, Meredith (in part), and, although I never thought I would say so, Examinator, CJ Morgan and Belly. I certainly agree that gratuitous remarks about the mental health of people unknown to the poster are the domain of the intellectually challenged (and you can always pick them; they're the ones who lack the self-expression and imagination to communicate any better!)

But how did the thread meander so far that it got into the bashing of various religions? As for the Sea Kittens thread - PETA managed to meet its objective of making the subject a media discussion, which would, I suspect, have been exactly its intention. It speaks more about how media-savvy PETA is than anything else.

Nor does it detract from the other excellent work that it does, any more than any comments I or anyone else might make about PALE detract from the work of Lyn White and Animals Australia. PALE and Animals Australia might as well be on different planets (now PALE, you can start a special thread all of your own about people "trolling" you, when in fact the reverse is the case).

Nicky

Graham Young

Antje has her own tag. pls deal with this.

Originally five posted their own Ids who were pale members.

They were forced to stop of accusations+ damage done to our organisation who works in conjunction with RSPCA QLD.
This IS defamation of our organisation.

Because somebody is a member of something that should not mean they are not entiled to post as people.

I am a member of RSL but I dont post under their name.

The same 5 'used to' post as pale she complained also. Which is as you know why Antje asked you for her own ID thats MS.

I will not tolerate these accusations our organisation are cheats.

Especially given false double ids made up by those attacking us.

Forrest

People think they can defame an organisation and get away with it by using false Ids.

One has to actually take the forum owner to court because it is he or she who is publicly producing the information. This is unfair on the owner and the victim.

A few things that can be done. One is for people to use their own ids. I have always said if you have a comment to make you should be prepaired to own it.

The other - I suppose is for Government to take some controls of forums.

It does look like that is whats going to have to happen - and thats not a good thing either.

As for comments above Lyn White certainly does not feel that way about PALES efforts but yes there are others who are trying to take over RSPCA.

We work in conjunction with RSPCA QLD on live exports.

Lyn is delighted by our MOU with The Australian Federation of Islamic council- as is the Humane Society.

However some who follow the PETA bible and hate farmers and Muslims work to undermine PALE and RSPCA QLDS efforts to phaze out live exports and replace with chilled.

Lyn White is certainly not one of them.

I will call Lyn at a decent hour on her mobile and direct her to this comment.

Forrest Gump “or greater resort be made to satire where opportunity arises.”

Intriguing concept,

How does that work?

Nicky “You're right, this thread has become a hoot.”

Ah “become a hoot”?

Nicky, it was a hoot from the start… from its inception at 9:01 am, 30th Jan

To 2:53 pm on the same day, when I posted as the 15th post to this sagacious parody of some obtuse Gilbert and Sullivan opera including with observational comments like

“ROFLMAO” and
“It just cracks me up, in a very, very funny way.”

PALE “This IS defamation of our organisation.”

A few get “defamed” I take it in the course of things when someone (notably, among those who feel entitled to prescribe the rules we should live and post under, takes a gratuitous swipe or two, at my profession). My recourse is to call them on it and watch them squim like a suck pig.

In my history on OLO I have only once overtly suggested, in the thread (and not by whining directly to our host), the content of a post was inappropriate to the nature of the forum and that coincided with the host deleting the offensive post. I see no merit in burdening the host with individual issues when he seems to be doing a fine job anyhow.

That is what the host is for to control his standards on OLO .
So why dont you give him a break if nobody else and follow the rules.
As I have said many times before to you I do not wish to exchange words information etc. You 'continue ' your posts to me with either crude comments or uncalled for attacks.
You follow us from thread to thread. Not making comments on Animal Welfare but insulting crude one line cracks.
I refuse to be in the company ( be it on a forum or in person) with a man who makes such crude or rude comments.
Some of your comments are so crude we can not even imagine what type of person would either print or say these things to anybody.

We are not the only ones that have complained about your rude crude comments.
Its really not the best adversting for OLO or Australia for that matter. I suggest you dont not comment or even bother to read our comments because we certainly intend to take good advise and not respond to you again.

So that problems solved.

PALE "We are not the only ones that have complained about your rude crude comments.
Its really not the best adversting for OLO or Australia for that matter. I suggest you dont not comment or even bother to read our comments because we certainly intend to take good advise and not respond to you again."

that you can read my comments indicates the host obviously holds this forum to a different standard to you.

Maybe you can point to the crude nature of the post I addressed to you here and then we will have a sensible debate

failing that, i suggest you consider your post in the light of common vernacular of Australia today and ask yourself how "in or out of touch" you are with real life...

If you want to ignore me, so be it.... It makes no difference to me

I post here for fun and to slap a few lefties around, as they are in dire need of a good slapping.

I am not here to enhance my public profile, promote some dingbat cause for common critters or give some fleeting meaning to my existence.

You just feel free to please yourself

Because I will please myself and post what I see fit whilst maintaining a vocabulary and content which (hopefully) conforms to the tolerances and expectations, not of you but of the host.

I suggest you go lay down and take a valium or two.. or three.. or down the whole bottle....

It was good to see Prince Valium had not been unseated in the joust.

Val had given as good as he had got out here, offshore from Arthur's great Britain. The island of Lesser Britain was a rough inhospitable place, and the only language the local inhabitants, the Jokeln, really understood was that of the gratuitous insult and the odd knightly slap with a burnished gauntlet. It would have been a most unfortunate indignity was Val to have been unhorsed out here, beyond the pale.

Some even said many of the Jokeln were slap happy, which, if it were true, would have only doubled the indignity of any unhorsing at their hands, as slap-happiness was regarded as being but little short of litigious mania, a serious and terminal disease of the ever-observant Perve Erse, as the indigenous, as opposed to the more recently arrived, Jokeln were sometimes otherwise known.

Forrest took another swig of the 'Camel' laudanum from the silver flask to dull the constant nagging pain of boredom. It wasn't as if this was the Grand Spring Tournament at Camulodenum, and boredom was always an occupational hazzard for any commentator at these mere provincial tournaments, or Phlaigmes, as they had been known Erse'd while before Brutish had become the lingua franca of the land.

There was one thing you could not take away from the Jokeln. Almost to a girl they had this incredible rapport with animals. That, and their musical talent. Forrest tried to think of a song that best represented the Jokeln ethos. "Run Around. Sue."? No that didn't quite capture their essence. In a flash of inspiration, Forrest had it, lyrically speaking!

"We're gunna talk for the animals,
doubtless being rude in Kangaroo,
we're gunna speak for the primate race,
(now speaking Chimp for chimpanzees)
Yes, we'll all get inya face,
Hate all the human race,
But youse can't talk to us!

Forrest was sure they were the lyrics, and feared not any spell the wizard Morgan might cast for error. Out here nobody could spell!

Another OLO user just posted this to me:

"What a fuc*ing useless thing this 2 post/day limit is. I have to
wait 22 hours to reply to something someone has just said.

"It creates discontinuity and redundancy within the discussion not
equity or amenity. If someone is being overabundantly pointless why
not leave it to the forum participants to either arbitrate or call
for arbitration of the matter? The stupid mechanism is akin to a
policy of universal decapitation to avoid possible distress due to
occasional halitosis."

Now just supposing, hypothetically speaking, this person tried to get around the limit, by setting up a second account, but instead of openly proclaiming that that was what he had done and thereby appearing to be in open defiance of the administrators, he were to be a little more discrete?

If, instead, he were to simply post through the second account, but leave no one in any doubt as to the origin of the post, for example, by writing at the start, "This is being posted on behalf of Fred Nurk," would anyone here consider that fraudulent or dishonest?

Would anyone here then feel that this would warrant that person being immediately denounced and pilloried?

Does a suspected technical breach of an OLO rule then give another the moral right to then make a baseless allegation of fraud committed elsewhere and then to refuse to even acknowledge clear evidence that refuted that allegation?

Does one then have the moral right to depict that person, without any evidence, of having also set up numerous other accounts?

Does one have the moral right to then wantonly disrupt at will any other forum that that person attempts to engage in?

Sorry bloke but no one, ever should need to have two IDs
We all fall into the no post times problem but its a rule of the forum.
Just maybe its a good one too, some would flood the thing without rules, the thread seems to have run its course but the rules we have should be both obeyed and enforced.

Belly “Sorry bloke but no one, ever should need to have two IDs”

I agree

Daggett “2 post/day limit is.”

Learn to live with it, every one else has to… consider it a pathway for you to develop some personal growth.

Remember, this is a privately owned and operated forum, not something which is provided as your entitlement.

I think you are right Belly, the course is probably run and like all things some might think they have “won” but if we consider, the primary objective is to allow people to express their opinions

We all win… :- )

now someone post something quick or I will get accused of trying to have the last word......

And of course there are certain fools who waste the limited number of opportunities they have to comment (or indeed respond to comments on articles that they write) by pursuing puerile, obsessive personal vendettas. I think that the comment limits are an effective way of controlling such nonsense - as is the rule about sockpuppets.

Yabby, didn’t like the ‘Forrest’ at times. It seemed so unnecessarily cruel.

Sweeping in from nowhere, to dominate, destroy and suck the life out of anything in its path.

Why?- He `d heard it was a ‘freak’ of nature. Genes gone wrong, his mammy, used to tell him.
His little eyes suddenly filled with tears at the thought of his mother.

He was just one of a few lambs that had escaped the fire.

Nobody of course, would care too much, about his Mum and family all burnt to death, least of all this self opinionated pompous arse the cruel meaner mouth Forrest.

With tears and smoke blinding his sight he had tried to find a drink.

His coat on fire and a roll in that mud also would help to ease the pain. He dragged himself along too weak in body and spirit to go much further.

It was then he saw Prince Valium had not been unseated in the joust.
There he sat upon his overly inflated bottom that somehow matched his equally over inflated peculiar head.

Yabby knew this mean spirited man would never allow him to take a drink from the creek that he hogged.

Forrest took another swig of the 'Camel' laudanum from the silver flask to dull the constant nagging pain of boredom.

Yabby knew the brand well and smiled to himself despite of his own thirst and pain.

He knew it could be obtained through s an ‘alternative’ to Government controlled culling programs, CACIA has developed markets for trade in’ live camels’ and camel meat.Eid-al-Adha; unimaginable cruelty.

He Knew too that each swig Forrest took was another of stale P izz from the Camels tied down onto the boats.
Camels Australia Export is the registered business name of the Central Australian Camel Industry Association Inc (CACIA).

This Association is made up of members from the pastoral industry, meat industry, aboriginal communities, tourism operators, transport operators, contractors and Government agencies.

He smiled even broader at the thought of all the diseases the cruel lot were drinking as they promoted the barbaric live trade.

Of course, it was to be expected that the essential point of my previous post and the points made in the e-mail I included, would go completely over the heads of a number of people on this forum.

daggett,

I do apoligise. That was rude of us. As a matter of fact your comments are of particular interest.
Just let me finish organising more Hay for the Fires and I will sit and ponder a reply to you.

Once again I do apoligise and glad you yelled out.
Otherwise we would have missed are oportunity to discuss this

It's just occurred to me - within the context of OLO, daggett is to environmentalism what PALE&IF is to animal welfare.

Little wonder they're drawn to each other...

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,

No need to apologise, but thanks all the same.

I didn't have you in mind.

It was another group of people who would evidently have us think they believe that the answers to all of life's great moral dilemmas are to be readily found inside rule books.

Whilst Christopher has shown himself to be selective in how he goes about policing the OLO book of rules, I suspect that the others also don't consistently apply to their own lives the principle that they must rigidly adhere to all rules at all times.

If they did, then I suspect that they would be even less interesting people than I usually find Christopher to be.

In any case, I only made that post for the record. How others respond or fail to respond is not so important.

daggett,

Hi There. I just got back finally to this thread.

I am going to read all your posts early morning I can follow everything you have said. Then I will get back again.

You have certainly hit the nail on the head about Ids daggett.
Pardon my ignorance but who is Christopher?

When we first started on OLO lots of nice people contributed to the threads.

Now everybody has been chased off.

It isnt fair on the Animals.

People from extremist groups have trolled us and famed for years. They use two ids- Actually many more.

Any advise appreciated.

Goodnight. I will post you around 7am.

PALE&IF asked, "Pardon my ignorance but who is Christopher?"

'Christopher' may be better to most as 'CJ Morgan'. He has also been referred to by other names on this forum including 'CJ', 'CJMoron' or simply 'the Moron'.

I hope that answers your question.

PALE&IF wrote, "People from extremist groups have trolled us and famed for years. They use two ids- Actually many more."

In fact, if you had read the discussion more closely earlier on you would see that, I, myself, have, in fact been accused by Christopher of using more than one account.

However, if that scurrilous allegation were to be true, I assure that it would have not been done to mislead others. Rather, it would have most likely been used as a temporary means to get around the OLO limitations.

But of course the allegation is untrue and if it were ever proven to be true I would wish myself to be immediately struck dead with lightning.

I find it simply extraordinary that PALE should accuse anyone of posting under more than one ID. A brief look over the posts over the last two or three years reveals identical grammar, (mis)spelling, atrocious formatting and punctuation appearing variously under the names of PALE, Macropod Whisperer and TarynW, and in earlier times Antje Struthmann and Wendy Lewthwaite.

The key is that in some instances those people clearly have written for themselves in markedly different style, that is why the contrast is so stark and obvious when the material in their names is written by PALE. I refer in particular to the thread in which TarynW purports to be speaking for "Wendy" (aka PALE), when someone else has also identified this as well.It is so blindingly obvious to anyone with fundamental research abilities.

PALE, "people in glass houses ...", and be careful what you wish for.

I'm with CJ Morgan on this (in the context of PALE's contribution to animal welfare). It's contribution is an embarrassment to everyone who is committed to the animal welfare debate. The professional organisations would never write such damaging and compromising rubbish.

If everyone stuck by the rules we have, we wouldn't need to be having this discussion.

Nicky

Now James, reverting to telling porkies isn't going to do your tenuous credibility any good at all.

Nicky your lot have been using double Ids "for years"!

daggett,


I agree with what your saying. I recall another complaing about the same thing. So that makes three of us.
Also when it comes to people making snide remarks about the dead I think OLO staff should suspend them for life.

In our case you only need to look at the posts.

*Nickys every single post is anti pale.* *When 'we' stop posting 'so do they'*.

*No work is done on Animal Welfare by them what so ever.*

*When we resume posting they start up again.*

Not to do Animal Welfare work but to Defame, personally insult and attack our organisation.

RSPCA has been under attack by others for quite some time. Truth is they want to take over. We work in conjunction with RSPCA QLD hence the Anti IMO.
I cant say we were not warned by RSPCA before we started but someone has to stand up to them and come up with something for animals.

Daggett Taryn, Antje, Ronda, Ben and others- all posted in their 'real names'

As we do now under our organisation. The reason those people no longer post under their names was Nickys complaints they were all pale members.

So we changed our tag to post under our organisation.

In fact the members requested it.

Now they are asking for our tag to be removed off OLO.

This is because they dont want any other group working in conjunction with RSPCA QLD to be heard. They want control.

We are open about who we are always using real ids.

The others hide out. What does that tell you.?

I would say to the following people whom we have had contact in the past - Glenys, Suzanne Caz , Dawn, Debra Morris to know that our late father did a lot back in his days to try to get some standards for treatment of livestock.

comments referring to him were deeply disrespectful, uncalled and hurtful.

Help the fire victims and Animals. Do something decent

If not for animals then for your own personal development.

Thank you, Christopher, for reminding me why I wrote the following:

"I couldn't stalk (Christopher) even if I wanted to.

"Once, out of curiosity, I did look at a succession of (Christopher's) posts, but found the content so stupefyingly boring that I have never since dared do so again."

Just to make absolutely sure that that can never happen again, I intend to, without delay, install on my computer Internet filtering software that will permanently block the following URL from my web browser:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=28653

---

Nicky wrote, "I'm with CJ Morgan on this (in the context of PALE's contribution to animal welfare)."

So I presume that you have grasped my point that, in other contexts, Christopher has not been altogether consistent in his self-righteous policing of OLO rules?

---

I can't comment on your allegations against PALE&IF

Of course, the use of second accounts to intentionally mislead other users or to engage in harassment of others cannot be condoned.

However, as I pointed out above, reasonable people would understand that there may be other legitimate reasons for the use of a second account.

---

Also, as I have shown, a good deal of harm can also be done by people who comply with OLO's formal rules and who post within the limits, as Christopher's role in the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=22#47512 demonstrates.

And, on the other hand, material posted by someone through a second account can, on occasions, be helpful to others and help expedite the flow of discussion.

Indeed, many here would be surprised to learn that Christopher, himself, once acknowledged the value of a contribution allegedly made by myself through a different account.

So, again, contrary to what Christoper would have led us to believe, this issue is not black and white.

---

The sentence in my previous post:

'Christopher' may be better to most as 'CJ Morgan'.

... should have been:

'Christopher' may be better known to most as 'CJ Morgan'.

Col Rouge asked, in his post of Monday, 9 February 2009 8:27:06 AM (the 167th in the thread), with respect to greater resort being made to satire where opportunity arises as a means to the encouragement of better quality posting and debate on OLO, "How does that [intriguing concept] work?".

Between them, the posts of Forrest Gumpp on Monday, 9 February 2009 3:51:35 PM (the 170th) and PALE&IF on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 11:47:57 AM (the 175th) provide an illustration of how this works.

Just look at the innate quality of PALE&IF's post in response, a quality seemingly elicited by that of Forrest's. At least one of the seemingly multiple personalities of PALE&IF has a sense of humour! This can only be good for the general tone of discussion on OLO.

New and informative factual content is present in the PALE&IF post. For example, I never knew there was a live export trade in camels, let alone of the existence of a new acronymic identity. A CACIA! What'll they think of next? It just goes to show you can learn something new every day.

PALE&IF's post has even pricked my own (pompous?) conscience. I may have been unduly unkind to CJ Morgan (aka the Lord Dymo, the wizard Morgan, Christopher, and other unkind names without number) earlier in this thread, in that I may have appeared sneeringly dismissive of his acute observation in his post of Sunday, 8 February 2009 12:18:04 AM (the 161st in the thread). Much as I hate to admit it, CJ Morgan was right. One of the redeeming aspects of multiple personality disorder, however, is that a new and good nature can come to light, and it seems as if this may have happened with PALE&IF to OLO's great advantage.

PS My 'Camel' laudanum is sourced from Efghunistun. It may have a high Bactrian count, but is nothing like the Chateau P' izz 'Dhrom ad Dhairy' (appelation controlee) laudanum from Eid al Adha.

Yes, Daggett, I'd agree that there are certainly inconsistencies. But they are not restricted to CJ Morgan (Christopher?). I think that most contributors generally try to comply with the rules and behave in a civilised fashion.

PALE, my point exactly, you have proved me right. Certainly those people posted on occasions in their own names. But so did you post in their names, that is crystal clear from the writing style/s. Nor did anyone make any comment about "the dead", just about a slaughterhouse website.

Since you don't know who anyone is, you cannot possibly know what they do in animal welfare. People "hide out" as you so quaintly put it, because they do not want to be harassed to death by PALE, and there is plenty of evidence in old threads of such behaviour.

No-one is critical of RSPCA Queensland either. I and others have, and will, quite rightly criticise RSPCA branches where we believe that that it has failed in its statutory duties; that is our opinion and we have the right to express it. Every such organisation is subject to public opinion and criticism, and that is something you use against others viciously and relentlessly, despite the fact that they have "runs on the board" and you don't.

So please get over the notion that you have been singled out because you (claim to be, and maybe in the distant past you were) associated with RSPCA Queensland. If you are singled out it is because of your vilification of everyone else involved in the animal welfare movement - that is, your behaviour. You also claim to have broken your "MoU with Muslim leaders" yourself some time ago.

So please spare us the pretence of PALE complying with OLO rules. You yourself have posted in multiple identities for years. You have also named, without proof, any number of perfectly innocent people several times who, so far as I know, are not contributors to these threads, and that is hopelessly unethical and breaches the privacy rules.

Nicky

Forrest Gumpp: << ... I may have been unduly unkind to CJ Morgan (aka the Lord Dymo, the wizard Morgan, Christopher, and other unkind names without number) earlier in this thread... >>

Fear not, dear Forrest. I thoroughly enjoy every one of your missives, even those that chide me. I've never detected any malice, and I'll refrain from commenting on potential perceptions of pomposity (if only because it's far too alliterative).

After all, life is like a box of chocolates...

And I agree about the satire.

*Since you don't know who anyone is,= *Wrong

Dont embarress youreslves in court. Could be shattering + expensive.

Given a moment, I will post the muliply Ids that used on OLO. Busy with fire now( as you should be)

Here`s a way out for you lot, to save face and consider the other OLO users and GY.

You agree 'never' to address or refer to Pale again and we likewise.

Hows that?

Nick Said-
No-one is critical of RSPCA Queensland either.
I see then explain this-

http://www.animalactivism.org/campaigns/rspca-cruelty/
Here is A national Press Conference dedicated to people like you and your friends.
http://www.livexports.com/hughwirth.html

To the best my memory serves me these are a few more comments from you Nicky. Most of your posts starts with Pale or bagging RSPCA.=

1 What sort of "organization" is PALE? Not one to do with animal welfare, honesty, accountability and transparency, obviously.
( BTW thats ones suable- called defamation)

2Only last week it was revealed that RSPCA NSW is under investigation over just that issue.

3The RSPCA is at odds in some states with the REAL animal advocates because it fails in its statutory duty.

4If the RSPCA wants to be associated with PALE, does it also want to be seen to be profiteering from slaughterhouses? Probably. It seems to have no problem ignoring appalling abuses on pig, battery hen and broiler farms. Come to think of, it, nor does PALE. Nor does it bother attending live export ship loadings to enforce State legislation .

5 Maybe PALE&IF should change it`s name to PATCOB (People against throwing children off bridges) in "jabberwockish-speak"

6 RSPCA NSW is currently under investigation for paying its board members legal fees to undertake its prosecutions (internal corruption). It also receives royalties from one of the worst battery egg farming operations in the country. RSPCA WA has two farmers on its State Council who sell animals to the live export trade

Many more and far worse.

So hows that deal looking Nicky?

Best make it snappy.

Put your energy into helping in Victoria

PLS

PALE, do run away get some proper legal advice, because you certainly aren't getting it now. Defamation legislation has been largely standardised in recent times across states and territories (fundamentally based on the NSW legislation). While no-one I know takes any of PALE's comments seriously enough to action them, here's some free advice for you for the future:

"A communication that is insulting, annoying, false or damaging to someone’s business doesn’t meant that it is necessarily defamatory.

Defences include:

1. Honest opinion (previously known as fair comment)
2. Justification/Truth
3. Qualified privilege (where the publisher believes s/he has a moral duty to publish the information)"

Clear enough for you?

Reference to RSPCA NSW investigation:

http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/rspca-investigated-over-inhouse-legals/1414523.aspx

But do go and try and sue FarmOnline.

I do not provide material for AAQ's website; they are free to do that themselves (but you misrepresent it, once again, as current information when you know that it was posted there some time ago). Nor was it I who posted the comment about people throwing children off bridges (indulge me - in what way do you believe THAT was actionable?)

No-one on these fora, so far as I have seen, has criticised RSPCA Queensland. Certainly there has been criticism in other areas. Would you like a copy of the transcript of "A Blind Eye" (You could try suing the ABC, although you are out of time for that)?

And how often do you need to be told how little Hugh Wirth's opinion of other organisations matters? He is free to make any comment he chooses, even if it did make look like an idiot. Once again - old news, with you misrepresenting it as something new. But he can't be totally inept, did he not also fail to fall into PALE's traps for the unwary?

Finally, I will continue to write what I want to write, when I want to write it.

Now do run away and do whatever it is you claim to be doing "for Victoria". You are so behind with all other relevant information, I'm surprised you've even heard about it.

Nicky

No point dragging himself further. Forrest had only water within miles.
He knew he’d starve regardless. Even if people wanted to help surviving animals, trucks couldn’t get through with hay. It had been declared a crime scene.

Yabby was glad people came first. He prayed the children who play with him were safe from the fire. He smiled thinking of his friends. He still had the footage of other farm Animals who`d been sent to ME in the ships. The footage they snuck out together, tucked in his blackened coat. He was glad the Muslim Leaders Of Australia had exposed the Governments lies with this-

http://www.livexports.com/afic.html
But he needed someone to follow up on charges with this-
http://www.livexports.com/cowgun.html

He wished there was someone to give it to. He counted his blessing remembering the farmer where he was sent his stock to local abattoirs. But he worried about the others who were not so lucky. He still had nightmare recalling what they did to Bogart his friend the Camel and Millions of Others on the ships.

He turned his head and looked back to the Forrest for one last time. Forest was watching him. He held curious look.. High brow which mammy had always said was a sign of being smart, and a receding hair line:)

Forrest bent down and his hand was on a big rock. Yabby thought he was going to be stoned to death like so many of his family and friends in ME. But instead his grabbed this-

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=TzyPOy1rIJk

Suddenly he was before him with water in his hat. Little Yabbys legs were trembling.
Was it possible after all Forrest cared about cruelty to his friends. Was he wrong about Forrest . He was slipping into darkness now as he was carried away.

Yabby didn’t know what tomorrow would bring or if he`d live but he somehow felt better knowing someone cared about the animals that most don’t worry too much about.

Gosh. What are they drinking and smoking?

Nicky

Camel juice, do you think?

Bronwyn can't be allowed to have the last word in this thread. She just can't!

By way of compensation for depriving her of the honour, however, I do bring her some good news. Earlier in this thread Bronwyn, in a post in which she was questioning whether daggett's '9/11 Truth' topic had persuaded anyone on OLO to change their views with respect to the nature of that event, said, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2479#56066

"I don't want to do a whole lot of reading on it right at the moment, nor do I want to highjack examinator's thread, but if there's ever another discussion on it I will get involved and follow the arguments more closely."

More specifically she also said, in a subsequent post, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2479#56088 , that:

"I'm totally intrigued now. Just wish I had super skim reading powers to get through all the evidence! It would be far too daunting to start from scratch at a 459-post thread, and no doubt numerous links, so I won't be doing that."

Too right she won't.

As at 8:00 AM on Sun 15 February 2009, the topic '9/11 Truth', which was still actively being posted to and certainly not in 'flame' mode, had disappeared from the OLO boards entirely! I for one had been regularly viewing, and occasionally posting to it. The entire thread gone! All the links that had been posted with it, gone! What was the problem? All the links, and some of the discussion making scepticism as to the official story too easy, or perhaps even respectable? One wonders.

Just in case I had somehow transgressed the OLO rules (for I had recently posted to both threads) I checked my email. No rebuke from GrahamY or SusanP. I am at a loss to understand. Has the OLO site been hacked, or have displeased government interests exercised 'editorial control' over 'unwanted content'?

Dayyum! May they all have to drink camel juice.

I missed a couple of beats after I read that.

I sure hope that Forrest Gumpp only imagined that the "9/11 Truth" forum had disappeared.

If Forrest definitely did not imagine that it had gone, at least it is now thankfully back at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=78, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?iscussion=2166&page=77, ... or (if you want all 459 posts totalling 536K) http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0

It's still there, Forrest, warts and all. You have to reset your preferences in the General Discussion forum to "Show 10 discussions per category, having been started One year back".

It's somewhat annoying that we can't save those preferences from one session to the next.

Yes, it was all a terrible mistake. I had already pressed the 'recommend this comment for deletion' button on that post, in the hope that it might disappear before it attracted any comment, or indeed many views. If it does disappear, be aware that it was at my own request, and be not alarmed.

What happened was that, contrary to my usual habit whereby I click 'last post' in the General Discussion area of the Forum and subsequently move to the Articles area with that preference automatically transferring to the Articles board display, I went first to the Articles and clicked 'last post'. Just as I did so, as a result of one of those annoying jumps the content of the page makes (presumably as the ads load up and display) it appears that the click registered on one of the ads, which opened in a new tab.

I promptly closed the tab, and Firefox took me back to the Articles board, which appeared to be displaying in last post order. When I clicked back to move to the General Discussion area, I assumed the preference would transfer automatically. Either it didn't, or I hadn't truly had a 'last post' order display when I thought I had.

The page had earlier jumped. At the point of having moved to the General Discussion board, which I *knew* to be in last post order, I jumped - to a conclusion that those two long-running threads had been taken down in their entirety. That could have only been the work of Steven Conroy, of Conroy's Gap, that nasty internet-censoring chap! Or so I thought.

It would almost have been better if there had been some hacking or censorship. That was an otherwise good post, even if I do say so myself - what a pity it was about a non-event. At least it displaced Bronwyn from the 'last word' position at the tail of this latterly uselessly extended thread.

My apologies to GrahamY for besmirching the reputation of OLO by implying any censorship.

But 'sticky' preferences would be good.

Forrest Gumpp,

Well done. I wish I had your skills.

*That could have only been the work of Steven Conroy, of Conroy's Gap, that nasty internet-censoring chap! Or so I thought.*

Umm, I am just wondering what happend to forty years of information on the AMIEU site.

Reckon that Nasty listen inernet censoring chap might have that also.

Well one of them at least. How do you loose forty years on work any other way.

Just as well we have a copy for the Australian Public to read. I must get busy and promote it.

PALE, I would be very surprised if the AMIEU had a website 40 years ago, and even more surprised if Stephen Conroy had anything to do with changing it. Paranoia rising again.

Nicky

Forrest

"That was an otherwise good post, even if I do say so myself - what a pity it was about a non-event."

Ah, Forrest, LOL. Yes, it was a great post, I agree. As was your Prince Valium post a few pages back, even though I fear it was completely lost on the good Prince Valium himself!

Regarding the non-event that you thought for a moment was indeed a major event, I fear dear Forrest that's what happens when you try to 'dull the constant nagging pain of boredom' and swig too much 'Camel laudanum from the silver flask'!

Well, you certainly jolted James out of any boredom he may have been feeling at that particular moment! :)

For the record, I just posted post number 200 on this thread at around 12:23am, and while it was recorded on the General discussion Index, the post itself hasn't appeared here on the thread. Has this ever happened to anyone else?

Don't feel too bad, Forrst, I jumped to a similar conclusion some time back and emailed graham. He wasn't best pleased...

I'm not sure if there's any real benefit to limiting the timeframe of the index. Perhaps Graham et al could look into removing that filter?

Yea, and verily Bronwyn, it is not just you. I too have noticed this phenomenon. After yesterday's little debacle over the 'missing threads', however, I was reluctant to post feedback. You know, damaged credibility, persona non grata, and all that.

What this phenomenon may indicate is that moderator vetting of posts before publication can now theoretically be done on OLO. Perhaps they are just trialling the software that may allow this. Hopefully this may be a first step toward the re-opening of archived threads to moderator-vetted posts. Some threads, particularly those on which a fair bit of background research may be required before constructive participation is possible, are such that responses may be quite delayed, but nevertheless most illuminating. I hope the present curious behaviour is a harbinger of this.

The index pages did concurrently with the non-display of posts in the thread display the fact of a post having been made to an article or topic, and the post-recency flag gave an indication as to when the last as-then-yet-undisplayed post had been made. I took screenshots just to be sure, and if anyone is prepared to accept the date and time displayed on my screen in those screenshots, then this aspect of the site's behaviour can be proven.

I also noted that the 'new post' button etc was not displaying at the bottom of pages, and that ads were seemingly not loading up, while these posts were backed-up undisplayed.

GrahamY gave a reason in April 2008 for closing archived threads to new posts here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1649#31803 . I had bitched about it.

*PALE, I would be very surprised if the AMIEU had a website 40 years ago, and even more surprised if Stephen Conroy had anything to do with changing it. Paranoia rising again.*

Nicky

Nicky
The paranoiayet, again is yours.
Its a pity you didnt, check the
sites before making a goose out
of yourself, yet again.

Click on WA and tell me if you see
what you used to PAACT them
working on live exports.
GONE

Then check out all the other
sites State by State.
GONE

I dont know if your were
even familar with their sites
over the last ten years.
( Probably not, those terrible meat people)

What I said was there`s forty
years of 'history' gone.
Yes I am sure it can be
found in arcives libaray but
thats hardely the point.

Tom never used a computer.
Like me hates them suites too.
That doesnt mean there were not
plenty of documents addressing live
exports written by him.
GONE

Russle Carr had so many
it filled up a whole site
GONE

The thruth is they were
ordered to back off live exports.

FACT some time ago.

We saw two Federal Leaders resign shortlty after that.
Learn from it. Now go look at the web sites.
Thats IF you ever knew how they used to be.

If you dont then you wont notice anything- as usual.
I would have thought your
pro labour friend might
have told you that

I think the time limits after which comments are not allowed are too short.

It takes time to think about and compose a post to some of these discussions and I don't always find the time before the three week limit has passed. So, as a consequence, on a number of occasions I have not been able to post to discussions. (I certainly wanted to say something about Peter Saunders' latest piece of welfare bashing written from the UK, for example.)

---

Bronwyn, I noticed that the very last posts on all the discussions were omitted this morning. So, I formed the impression that my latest post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8485&page=#135117 to the discussion in response to my article "How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future"(1) at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8485&page=0 had not been posted. I assumed that rather than posting it, I must have only composed it and then failed to save it.

Also, for a while this morning, only the very first part of the home page at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au was shown, so the listings of the most popular articles, etc. referred to below, and everything below, were omitted.

=-=-=

1. BTW, I learnt the happy news that that article was the most discussed(2) article of last week and the second most popular of last week, at least as of this morning. Of course, I urge anyone here who has not read it already to do so without delay.)Possibly if the contributions of the author (8 in my case) had been omitted,

2. John Hepburn's "Is climate change serious enough yet Mr Rudd?" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8539&page=0 might have beaten mine, and, having been published on Thursday and not Monday, it still has nearly three and a half more days to claim that coveted status.

PALE, websites (except yours, which haven't been updated to reflect anything current in years) are updated continually, in order that they may reflect current issues and news. Previous content is usually "rolled over", but in mot cases, still able to be found by means of specific search criteria.
The AMIEU is no different. Just because PALE sees no reason to, and certainly doesn't, maintain a professional profile to the world doesn't mean that no-one else is, and doesn't. Your conspiracy theories are baseless as usual.

Nicky

Antiseptic,

Sorry for the delayed response, but I have only just realized that your reference to the 'time filter' being the reason for my paranoia meter having suddenly gone off the scale on Sunday wasn't quite correct. I well know, and regularly use, the 'show all topics one year back' display option, if only to keep in contact with Belly's 'Power without pride' topic upon which he kindly lets me sort of 'blog'.

My problem was that to me, what I now know to have in fact been a display in order of topic posting, I identified as being a display in order of post recency. The order of the topics in each of the display options was at that point coincidentally similar enough for me to deceive myself as to which one I was in. To make matters worse, I 'double checked', and actually took a screenshot at the time, just for reference. This only reinforced my conviction that the two threads, '9/11 Truth' and 'Power without pride', had been taken down.

What made me think twice, after first telling the world about this 'censorship', was the fact that I was able to bring up the '9/11 Truth' thread by clicking on the link given in daggett's earlier post in this very thread on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 9:09:18 AM. In that instant I knew GrahamY would soon be less than fully pleased. I reached for the 'recommend this post for deletion' button, but it gave no response. The ground was coming up, fast! Thud.

Being able to vary time filtration actually fulfils a useful function. If, for example, one tries to bring up the article index page in order of post recency while using the 'display all topics, one year back' option, the index page takes forever to load. Going to the article index using the default setting of 'one month back' and clicking 'last post' results in a relatively quick sort and load.

Perhaps I should use bookmarks to access these old threads? Wouldn't show posting activity, though.

(continued)

Perhaps this is a good place to atone for my seemingly churlish failure to apologise to Antiseptic after an exchange on the 'Violence against women and absolute statements' thread in October 2008. There had been a post taken down (a fact subsequently confirmed by GrahamY in a post), apparently at the request of the original poster, OLO userID 'JW'. Antiseptic had been castigated by poster SallyG in that thread first for making this post up, then subsequently, once it was confirmed the post had once existed, for altering the wording in his quotes from it so as to misrepresent what was originally said by JW.

Usual Suspect's comment, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153#47266 , "... some people ...... look[ing] through 100s of posts to attack someone.... shows a lot more about the searchers than anti.", seems to be borne out by the content of the opening lines of the most recent posts of SallyG, the last of which was made on 30/10/2008 11:50:42 AM, see here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=52481

Time has told as to SallyG's ongoing interest as a poster on OLO. I'd have to observe that anyone who felt the need to lay the boot into Antiseptic as much as she can be seen to have done, in claiming vindication, at the end in her User details page had to have been pursuing an agenda based more on a desire for vengeance than upon truth. It is highly probable Antiseptic was quoting accurately at the time: it is just a pity that the removal of the post in question made it impossible for anyone else to learn the truth for sure.

In hindsight, its enough to make one wonder whether SallyG was a sockpuppet!

Any apology at the time would only have been like throwing petrol on a fire. Except for commending checking as a general principle, I really was mainly a reader, rather than poster, on that thread.

Misquoting Jesse Owens, "[Antiseptic's] here, [s]he's not". QED.

Nicky Previous content is usually "rolled over", but in mot cases, still able to be found by means of specific search criteria.

No Nicky, wrong again: That`s not the reason it at all. And I did say

* I am sure it can be
found in arcives libaray but
thats hardely the point.*

As usual, your 18 months behind.
Too busy updating web sites I suppose.
Or posting on forums in working hours.
I say, I hope the boss isnt
paying for this is he.?

I suppose you could always request
a joint rally and see how you go.
Then again if they had been
going to do one - they would have marched
and rallied just last week in WA when
Harvey closed down- I 'suppose.

I just dont know what you
girls would do without me Nicky:)
you never seem to be able to keep
up with information.

You spend too so much energy
worrying about 'our web sites'
and what 'we are doing.'

FYI our web sites are taken
are of by RSPCA QLD
web master and "hes very busy"
as you can imagine.

I must say PAACT have done
some fantasic work.
What a great bunch of people.

BTW The never really
told us what 'you' do.?

Apart from worry about
what we do - that is.

And PALE, you know this how? Empty, vacuous, unfounded information again. And the RSPCA webmaster must be extraordinarily busy not to have touched yours in three years or so (and that's not the story you told some time ago in another thread either. Or was that the alter-ego TarynW?). Nor, clearly, do you have any idea about the operation of websites. You do not provide ANY information, just back-biting and venom about other people. If you want to be up to date with anything, I suggest you do what I recommended ages ago - subscribe to some newsfeeds, and read some newspapers (you might even learn written and spoken English and comprehension as a bonus).

I actually keep in touch with information from everyone, so nothing you provide is in any way noteworthy. In fact, you don't actually provide anything at all.

Thankfully, I am not at the "beck and call" of an employer, I make my own fortunes. But if I were, you would see that my posts are usually in the evening, unless I happen to have some time at home. Not that it's any of your business, of course.

Tragically, your material is so far behind the rest of the world that is pretty worthless, so I wonder how you justify the expense of web hosting. And for someone who claims to spent 24/7 "working for the animals" you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time posting on threads about which you know clearly nothing on matters totally unrelated to animals.

Nicky

Oh dear, PALE's telling porky's again. Must be that camel juice...

Forrest, thank you for the very gracious apology over something that was dead and buried long ago. The egregious and dishonest JW and SallyG are, I suspect, the same person, or very closely acquainted. It matters not, since they've "both" scurried off with their tails between their legs. No loss.

I do think that post-deletion is regrettable and that while JW may have had a perfectly valid reason for requesting it (perhaps her husband had got interested in the thread and she didn't want him seeing her comment about him), her behaviour after having done so was not conducive to anything other than the worst interpretation of her motive.

Nicky


Tell you what I will contact the web master and send him a copy of your complaint. Also our CEO . Everybody knows who you are.
How childish and embarresing. Actually because of your posts all over the net since we joined OLO Nicky 'we' suggested to take off the in conjunction off "Several Times"

*The answer was NO please leave it.*

What difference does it make considering we have two other web pages with the information and share a world wide petition.

Antiseptic Dont go getting yourself into trouble . Its very different in saying someone told a porky to a poster under a private Id tage than it is an organisation.- by law.= See below. Dont say I didnt warn you.
http://www.livexports.com/
http://www.halakindmeats.com/

You have picked a very bad time to take a swipe at an organisation Anti. Our lawyers have been in contact with OLO and Nickys going to be invited to court. Then she might see how happy everyone 'really' is with her.
That was also at others request.

I am not trying to be nasty to you Anti. I am simply warning you that other people are watching her posts and you could easily be a innocent victim just be saying something like that.

I have posted the information from our organisation for you so if you wish to continue be it at your own risk.

We have no wish to see others sued.

PALE:"Dont say I didnt warn you"

Oh dear, the girls from PALE are having those delusions again.

Do go ahead dears, I'll have lots of fun. Mind you, it's be better if you simply stopped telling porkies, ISTM. They get so hard to keep track of, don't they?

PALE:"Our lawyers have been in contact with OLO"

I'm sure GrahamY is fascinated. Mind you, I'm still waiting for those lawyers from the last time you had these delusions. As I recall, they were supposed to be in touch about 6 months ago, after I contacted you and gave you my name and address. No doubt they're "very busy"...

For reasons difficult to understand, I have just suddenly come to a realisation that a huge, huge gap exists in OLO's Rules of Engagement for this Forum. Thanks, examinator, for opening a topic within which there has been such focus maintained upon the adequacy, or otherwise, of OLO rules.

This gap has to do not so much with the debate quality degradation potential posed by the problem of the use of 'dual (or multiple) identities', as with the absence of any provision for OLO oversight of literary style. This gap, this no man's land, covers (or fails to, in actuality) the inverse of 'dual identities': the problem of multiple literary styles emerging under the one identity.

I believe this calls for some action on the part of OLO. If my rudimentary German does not fail me (and I am sure Ludwig, you know, Mad Ludwig of Herbaria, can correct it if it does) the organisational structure necessary for achieving this oversight would be known as a 'Geheime Literatische Arbeit Treuer Obersichtstdienst', or, acronimically, a GELATO. I only suggest this structuretitle in what I hope is respectable German because somewhat similar structures (and acronyms) have in the past been found to work in Germany. A free translation might be 'Secret Literary Style Genuineness Oversight Service, or if one must, SLISGOS, although that doesn't have quite the same evocative ring to it as GELATO. I'd stick with the German version; I don't think we want any pale anglo imitation nonsense, or PAIN.

The GELATO would work this way. All registered users of OLO would have access to a new icon in the group of icons that display beneath the timestamp of each post. (This new icon could perhaps take the form of an ancient Indo-European fertility symbol.) When a user thinks they have seen the emergence of a new or different literary style under the same OLO userID, that user simply clicks the new icon, and the suspect post is reported to OLO.

Once a predetermined number of reports accumulates, the GELATO swings into aktion.

TBC

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming

"You have picked a very bad time to take a swipe at an organisation Anti. Our lawyers have been in contact with OLO and Nickys going to be invited to court. Then she might see how happy everyone 'really' is with her.
That was also at others request.

I am not trying to be nasty to you Anti. I am simply warning you that other people are watching her posts and you could easily be a innocent victim just be saying something like that."

PALE&IF, I know nothing of the ongoing feud between you and Nicky and have no wish to know. Unfortunately though, because you are continually airing your animosity on this forum, it's becoming increasingly difficult for the rest of us to ignore.

OLO is a public opinion forum. It's not a vehicle through which to conduct personal vendettas. These threats you've made here are totally over the top and out of place.

I think you'll soon find that many long suffering OLOers will lose patience with you and start making a few complaints of their own. Take it somewhere else, PALE&IF. I'm sure few here are interested in the petty machinations of your organization

Forrest Gumpp, I think that's an excellent idea. People are able to post in more than one ID if they have access to more than one computer. Graham is aware of the case I have mentioned.

Antiseptic, I am saddened to see that you are to lose your house too (I've been threatened with that on other threads, as have any number of other people).

Bronwyn, you are absolutely right, and for my part in that, I apologise. I just have an overwhelming dislike of pretentiousness, hypocrisy, personal attacks upon, and discrediting people who do not (as far as I know) contribute to these threads and therefore cannot defend themselves. Add to that the venom, vilification, abuse, bullying and empty threats delivered by PALE at every opportunity. Perhaps it is a perversity on my part, bothering to respond.

PALE, please provide the name and address of your "lawyers". I will then provide random samples of the posts in the names of PALE and its alter-egos, many clearly written by the same person, and when they stop laughing (if they have any clues about Tort Law), they will explain, in little words and simple terms, the laws concerning "defamation". I have tried, but it was clearly above your intellectual grasp.

I am not in the least surprised that you have been asked to remove the "in conjunction with..." either.

Insults and abuse work much better if the spelling is ever so slightly correct, they make sense, and you have the background knowledge to state them.

Queensland does not appeal to me at this time of year.

Nicky

(continued from above)

The GELATO, consisting of a jury of OLO users, none of whom are under any disciplinary disabilities imposed by OLO for breach of Forum rules or etiquette, and chosen at random, confer in a private chat room to which they have been given temporary access by OLO for the purpose of making a determination in respect of a particular case of claimed inconsistency of literary style.

The making of such a finding may require of jurors collectively that they concentrate together upon the issue at hand. Almost as if they were attending an electronic digital virtual conference, or camp. A concentration camp, if you will. There, quicker than you could say 'Treblinka', a determination could be arrived at classifying a particular OLO userID as in fact representing an organisation, rather than as simply being a natural person or clever digital android construct operated consistently by the one human intelligence.

A userID once classified as being 'organisational' in nature could then be treated differently by OLO with respect to posting entitlements as compared to mono-dimensional rule-abiding registered OLO users. A little icon could henceforth accompany the userID of such organisationally-classified OLO user such that other mono-dimensional users could know that they could effectively not know with whom they might be debating should they decide to enter the lists: perhaps that icon could be a little yellow star, or something.

A so-classified 'organisational' user could, for example, be restricted to posting only within the General Discussion area of the Forum, and then only upon topics submitted by themselves subject to the normal OLO topic approval processes.

By adopting such an approach, OLO could go a long way toward 'icing' thread-hijacking, and 'creaming' would-be ideologues attempting to pole upon the status of the Forum in their quest for fame. Who knows, the standard of discussion on OLO might improve dramatically, the boredom index decline, and a thousand electronic-paper flowers bloom!

GELATO. Keeping things cool, and OLO free for ideas!

Serving on the GELATO. Doing your levelling best for mass debating, with style.

Graham

Your are aware there are only two organisations A -and B you have already determined that as we all get the same amounts of posts that would be unfair.
A lot of this comes down to ignorance. Remember when someone complained that our organisation had commented on the Rudd Trade China thread.

In they rushed boots and all shouting loudly. What has China Rudd and Trade to do with Live Exports? ( I rest my case )

Another example which I feel even you may have overlooked Forrest is ALP State Government and ALP Federal Government are reasponsible for intensive poultry etc.

Of course the Libs were for ten years in parliment as well before them. So there for nothng was off topic.
Also Graham Young do you recall posting on this forum a year back or more.
That you have assured yourself our organisation works in conjunction with RSPCA QLD. You wrote on the forum you did not want this raised again and you would suspend anybody doing so.

There for On behalf of all of us I would appreciate you doing your job and taking some control over Nickys posts claiming otherwise.
It is an attempt to discredit us.
Graham One Id per person would be best. Outside control of OLO is required. You have got IMO members of Animal groups attacking our organisation by logging on your side using false names.

The AT office as you know is now looking into these types of problems

Forrest Graham Young

May we also draw your attention to the thread referred to please.

It is a FACT the only poster that didn’t go off topic is pale.

We see life story’s of immigration which BTW I approve of. We see jokes, cooking advice, and Nicky going on about half a dozen topics. That would be mostly union rules.
Pls note Graham nobody has complained about that. Foxy who started he thread was using it to post menus. I* pointed out to her it was *off post
So once again what is’ clear is the agenda’ against an organisation made by posters who refuse to reveal their real identities.
As for Nicky’s obsession with Pale working in conjunction with RSPCA QLD Graham
One only has to look at the web site. Not to mention the pictures of the CEO working on our MOU with others.

Now here is something I was reluctant to disclose before knowing Nicky jealousy
Fact All our sites are RUN by RSPCA QLD Paid For and hosted on RSPCA QLDS hosting.- As you know.



So Graham Once again we ask you to enforce your own rules.

You said after letters sent to you from lawyers quote.

I have satisfied myself pale has a relationship with RSPCA QLD

*Do not raise this issue again.*

Well Graham, it’s been raised over and over again. So what are you going to do about it?

Shane made it pretty clear we are not going to put up with it last time. It is a lie and its done to discredit us!

I will tell you we are not going to allow a bunch of nasty extremists posting in bogey names to defame our organisations.

So what I am saying Graham is in fact RSPCA QLD are serious about phasing out live exports. THAT’S why we are here.
I was asked to put this on public record.
Done!

PALE:"Fact All our sites are RUN by RSPCA QLD Paid For and hosted on RSPCA QLDS hosting.- As you know"
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Thursday, 19 February 2009 8:25:59 AM

TarynW:"I as well do the web pages . I do it when I can."
Posted by TarynW, Monday, 30 June 2008 5:56:02 AM

TarynW:"RSPCA QLD pay for the site to be hosted"
"a web master was paid about eight months ago"
Posted by TarynW, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 5:20:43 AM

It appears that the poor dears are all confused again.

It's so hard to keep all the porkies straight, isn't it?

I dislike it with a fiery passion, when people try to pull out the 'lawyer' card to win a debate. I've argued with blatantly racist, sexist and horrifically offensive and insulting individuals here, but I've never felt the need to complain to management or lawyer up. It's especially pathetic when it's pulled out on a regular basis and without grounding.

A proposal was put forth at the beginning of this thread - don't feed the trolls. I suggest we follow it.

The same goes for phantom lawyers.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,

Truer facts plus better logic beat threats of litigation any way you look at it - but especially when you invite other people's opinions. Ideas never hurt anyone. Why such a thin skin, especially when you are perfectly capable of dishing it out yourself?

Credibility is the word that springs to mind. Are you gaining or losing in that respect?

Forrest

OT, but this is the quickest way I can get your attention.

I have just logged on and see that "Col Rouge" and "All-" have logged on "twice".

How or why does this happen? Maybe they have 2 computers and have logged on at different URLs?

Any thoughts.

Antiseptic,

Yes thats right Taryn 'used to' PREPAIR the web sites.

She 'prepaired' material to send to the web master.
She did this also= herself!=

http://freerangefarmers.com/freerange/

=http://consciousevolution.com/onshu/view_signatures.php

None of these good people are paid. How dare you critise.!