Might I suggest that “Ettiquette” includes a one month ban for hypocrisy?

On that basis we would see a lot of folk who go into type to object to

my values and
the achievements of those I admire (eg Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin)
and my right to free expression
as well as my “posting style”

here one day, banned for a month,
here a day, banned for a month
here a day, banned for a month . . .

I do thank Houellebecq for his astute observation of the facts

Foxy
“Bravo, you've made your point.

I'll now go and do a bit of soul-searching.
And genuinely try to do better all round.”

Should we include “sarcasm” among the sin which qualify for the banning ?

“Examinator was only advocating minor changes in our behaviour.
He felt that if we all tried we could attract people to the
Forum, not turn them away, or have people leave due to
personal attacks.”

Imho Examinator is very adept at bullying by waving the rule book and talking down to people.

“Ah well, at least he tried - for which some of us are grateful.”

He is entitled to try

Just as I am entitled to disagree with him and you and trust me

I will agree and disagree as I see fit and will not be silenced by the threats of being beaten with a bunch of rules.

I have seen it happen in other chatrooms, where moderators let the power go to their head and start directing the conversation through selective censorship of those they disagree with.,

I note Ludwig and I disagree as often as we agree, yet Ludwig never tries to talk down to me (Examinator, Q&A etc) nor does he try sarcasm (Fractelle) and I follow Ludwig’s lead, when either agreeing or disagreeing with Ludwig.

Same too Arjay. Pelican. Celevia and a host of others…..

TRUTHNOW78 I would see some possible merit in your observations. Oh your other thread (An Aboriginal Nation state ) stirred up a hornets nest, maybe you intended that

Dear Col,

I wrote the post with all sincerity -intending no offense
to anyone.

I do intend to try to improve.

Why don't you try to do the same?

My post was not meant as an attack - so kindly don't
turn it into one.

No one is trying to change you with any book of "rules"
the codes I was referring to in my post were ones of online
behaviour dealing with good manners and decency, applicable to
everyone.

Surely that's not a big ask?

Dear Foxy

You brought that debate onto this thread, not me

I find it discomforting, your claim to the best of intentions yet

haste to cast dispersions upon my valid right of reply.

As for “I do intend to try to improve.

Why don't you try to do the same?”

I have never made any suggestion to you or anyone regarding their need to “improve”.

You “trying to improve” is something entirely of your own volition and entirely your decision

Personally, I am quite happy with who and how I am…

your unilateral decision to “try to improve” in no way entitles you to suggest or request I do similar.

I recall some words of wisdom on a biscuit tin my dear old mum had

“Be to her virtues very kind
Be to her faults a little blind”

No one appreciates to be told to “improve” , especially when the source lacks the authority, either physical or moral, to insist.

I suggest you reflect on what you were so quick to suggest to me….

“Remember individuals are reading your posts and it is people at the
other end of the technology to whom you're speaking, not the PC
screen.”

Surely that is not a big ask?

Ooops..

I need correcting..

I brought the topic to this thread.. my apologies Foxy... I am wrong in that context to who brought the rule debate to this thread..

my apologies for that error... '

the rest of my post stands as is.

Congrats Col Rouge fraudulent bunkum? you did that very well.
Time and again you tell us of your clients and how you charge what you wish, but if you think thats why our super funds lost so much?
are you just a little bit concerned how totally wrong that statement was?
If the Libs won?
the world financial crisis would still exist, concerns would be slanted to the rich, the unemployed would suffer even more.
The warn out proven not to work tax breaks would be our front line defense not reasoned moves.
Australians are not fools we have a new long term government and no need to follow America and put limits on time served, the ballot box is that limit.

Col,

'Might I suggest that “Ettiquette” includes a one month ban for hypocrisy?'
A fine suggestion. Though I think that would make it pretty quiet around here.

Foxy,

'Examinator was referring to all of us'
Either I'm cynical or you're naive. Possibly both.

'yet it was interesting
to note that only a few really balked at the idea and took
offense.'

Perhaps the offense wasn't with the making of the rules, more those who put themselves up as the kangaroo court. Anyway, I'm not offended with the rules, and Col has stated he accepts the existing Moderator's rules and enforcement.

'Perhaps it is a generational thing. I was taught that good manners
mattered. Politeness rules.'

Not everything was better in the good 'ol days. Manners can be useful, but they can also be a hindrance to communication and 'spice'. It's a matter of degree and personal taste. It's also a matter of selective enforcement which you agree I have exposed.