Dear Houellebecq,

I don't agree with your take on this.

We're all subjective - that's a given.
But we don't all stoop consistently to personal attacks
and insults in our discussion postings on this Forum.

Discussions here are meant to take place between several participants,
and you can't have one with people who stoop to personal attacks on anyone that disagrees with their point of view.

As examinator clearly stated - it wasn't the points of view
that people found objectionable, it was the way
in which the points of view were being presented i.e. people
stooping to personal insults.
He asked everyone to re-examine their posting methods.

Which most of us saw as a fair and rational request.
Obviously some disagreed - and called him the "Great- Examinator-
Inquisitor ... et cetera." He even got "mooned" for daring
to suggest civility in postings.

Anyway, I can see that we are not going to agree on this
issue.

So, there's no need for any further discussion.

Cheers,

I think Foxy has got it right.
From the first post I looked at yesterday.
And in every one following sarcasm and rudeness is on display.
Give it a miss ok?
you will never impress us as much as you impress your self.

Foxy “I can choose to ignore it.”

That is and always has been your personal right

Just as what I choose to post is my personal right,

I further recall you have a hissing fit on the Sarah Palin thread

Spat the dummy and ran off.

Houellebecq “Col thinks it's in bad taste to denigrate Margeret Thatcher or say John Howard supports white supremacists.”

The difference,

I do not demand people change their views or invoke rules to have them deleted or banned..

I debate with them and counter their opinions, as I do with many folk here
Until someone attacks me instead of the points I make, then I will assume a mirror posture to their attack.

Eg ASymeonakis post, at the beginning of this thread, you will note I attack the points he makes. I did not attack him or this right to make them.

I see what Belly was saying, differences in the style of ASymeonakis post compared to most previous ones,

It is possible to have one logon supporting multiple individuals, although I cannot see the benefit.

Belly “how you charge what you wish, but if you think thats why our super funds lost so much”

What I earn is irrelevant to superfunds…

with more superfund money chasing a fixed amount of real investments, it is reasonable to speculate, they attract sub-standard investment products onto the market

The world runs on credit
Credit relies upon people having confidence in the future that investments will produce income and be secure.

What Krudd & Co has pursued are policies of magnifying the financial insecurities, which destroys confidence in the future

EXAMPLE guaranteeing the banks, causing a run on superfunds.

Regarding your line “are you just a little bit concerned how totally wrong that statement was?”

Argue your point, describe how my statement was “totally wrong” instead of just spraying unsubstantiated jingos

Btw… you comment on my disclosure of my work.. I notice you are never slow in regaling us with how you make your living.

how “alike” we are in that respect…

ain’t that just dandy…

Col,

A few corrections need to be made:

1) You said, "What I choose to post is my personal right."
Yes, but not to the point of using offensive language
and personal attacks. Good manners apply on a public
Forum.

2) "I do not demand people change their views or evoke
rules to have them deleted or banned."
Neither does anyone else on this Forum to the best
of my knowledge.
No one is asking you to change your views. Or demanding to have
you deleted or banned. All that is being asked is that
personal attacks and offense language not be used when posting.

3) You accuse me of spitting the dummy and running off
on the Sarah Palin thread.
My recollection differs from yours.
I actually ended up apologising to you.
You did not reciprocate with any apology
to me.
My exact words to you were:

"I do apologise Col ... I was wrong to be so arrogant.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I admit
that it is the wide variety of opinions that attracted
me to this Forum in the first place.
So I should practice what I believe in."

Have a nice day,

Foxy,

'But we don't all stoop *consistently* to personal attacks'

Perhaps consistency is the issue then? If so then I still think it could be subjective, as the individual occurences that make up the consistency are subjective. Anyway, I would say others (aka the self appointed Kangaroo Court) are very in-consistent, or selective, when dishing out the admonishment for such behaviour.

'Which most of us saw as a fair and rational request.'
Maybe those who were identifying themselves as the 'good kids' by naming a few of the 'bad kids' did. Perhaps that's ok. If 'most' of the posters identify Col and BOAZ as the bad kids, and are squeeky clean themsleves there is no hypocracy.

But I have a problem with the claims of squeeky clean, and also the idea of attempting to marginalise some posters for not fitting into the 'norm' (hence creating a gated society), while proporting to be attempting to *broaden* the appeal of OLO.

What you're really doing there is broadening the appeal for the 'right' kind of posters, as determined by the majority bias. You're not punishing individual instances of poor behaviour independently and objectively. Maybe that's what a moderator is for...

Anyway I just don't think you can quantify all this, and it boils down to, again, we're the good kids now let's make some roles to exclude the naughty kids.

Houellebecq,

There's no point in continuing this discussion
any further.

Cheers,