'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! :)