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.