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