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