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?