Dear Houellebecq,

Most posters don't use terms like, "Lying Socialist,"
or tell people to,"go back to whatever Socialist
country will have you..." or that their opinion is not
"worth a brass razoo," or that they have the "cognitive
skills of a newt," or call a mentally ill person," a
cheap con-bitch on a free-ride," or sees every discussion
as a "field of battle," where if a person leaves the futile
discussion, its seen as "one's adversary feeing the field
of battle with their tail between their legs," or sees
hurling insults as "that is and always has been my personal
right," or tells a Greek poster about how he's known
Greek women in the "biblical sense," or tells an 88 year old
on an article thread about sexual relations (the man was a
widower - who'd lost his wife a year ago), or sees our
Indigenous people as an 'irrelevant minority,' and the lists
go on. But hey, you see nothing wrong with that. That's
your personal right. Just don't expect others to agree with
you.

You're in the minority here. No matter which way you may
try to justify things -It simply won't wash.
There is no excuse for that sort of posting - and is
and will continue to be, to most people - unacceptable!

Now - go stand in a corner, there's a good boy!

OK, I will stand in the corner Foxy. Not sure what that means. Back now. You know that list I found quite amusing most of it.

"Lying Socialist,"
Is lying or socialist abusive?

'"cognitive skills of a newt," / (not a) "person with even a basic capability of reason.". Potayto, Potarto.

" a cheap con-bitch on a free-ride," , well, what about CJs constant assertions about different people's mental health you all laugh along with, because it's CJ saying it not Col. (BTW: CJ if you happen to look in on this, I'm not at all taking sides in any CJ vs Col (though I do find it entertaining), and sorry CJ not against your posts in any way, I just think you get away with murder here compared to Col)

It's offensive to let Greek people in on the fact that non-Greeks have on occasion had sex with Greeks? I did not know that.

Col probably sees all minorities as irrelevent. How's that abusive anyway? That's just politics, as are a lot of your list of so-called 'abusive' posts. I thought you were against *personal* abuse. You didn't seem too fazed when examinator painted that supremely ugly picture of anyone who happened to be patriotic? Is that because patriotic people are more likely right wingers?

'There is no excuse for that sort of posting - and is
and will continue to be, to most people - unacceptable!'

By some posters only obviously. By the sounds of your last post anyone who isn't a bleeding heart, basket-weaving, latte-sipping, chardonnay-guzzling, tree-hugging elitist member of the chattering classes perhaps?

Dear Houellebecq,

All you have to do is read some of Col's posts
in full. I didn't have the time to give you
the full picture of the context of each example
that I quoted - but you're probably not interested
anyway.

It isn't a question of "potato" /"Potato." None of us
use the vulgarity of language that he does. None of
us views discussions as a "battle-field," and we certainly
don't deliberately try to demean other posters.

We don't tell anyone, "I wouldn't cross the street to pee
on you if you were on fire." You might find that sort of
language entertaining. I find it offensive.

As I've tried to tell Col in the past. There is an
etiquette for communicating online. An informal "set of
rules" for behaviour in computer-based conversations. We should
comply to codes of conduct that make the 'play' easier and
more enjoyable for everyone. Manners and politeness rule.
Anything else turns people off. Many posters stop
posting because of the vulgar offensive abuse that they
experience. Why would you want to put up with such
unnecessary abuse - life is too short. And please don't
use cheap shots like we belong to the "cafe latte, et cetera
set," that's so lame!

However, this is getting rather tedious. You see things
differently - fine. That is, as Col would put it, "your
personal right." Mine from now, is to simply scroll past
your posts. And not bother reading them.

Cheers,

Foxy
I understand you and I agree with you that it is better if we are more sensitive and polite but people are what they are, they have their own way to write, to communicate, to express their self.
Some people use often hard words but in real life they are not hard persons, some persons are very polite but in real life they are very hard. I think I use hard words and in real life I am even worst!
The way we write, the words we use say something but they do not say everything about us.
There is not reason to try to change something you know that can not change or the cost from the changes for this person will be very hard.
Personaly I ignore the bad, offensive words and I try to write on the basic meaning of his/her text, If I feel angry simple I ignore it and I do not write at all.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Foxy,
The king is dead long live the king Houellebecq,

Houellebecq,
I agree that not all patriots are messianic or are they all petty dictators at home. Two points
• First it depends on what generation you are referring to any one over 50 will see the type (= or -).
• The other traits I mentioned are extensions of anthropological drives specifically to gather like with like (birds of feather) those tending towards the right end of the spectrum ‘tend’ to gravitate to absolutes and purveyors thereof. No put down just a statement of well documented fact. Perhaps I should have added all these individual traits are on continuous continuums and any one person can be a combination of all or none and in varying degrees i.e. unique combinations. I have given this qualification several times (and wrongly it would appear) was by now a given for any generalization I offer.
As stated previously ANY argument that can’t be discussed in civil terms is not worth having. In my opinion both you and Col are smart enough to make your points civilly Col simply chooses not to therefore he made the ride and must accept the consequences as do we all. (Including me)
I see no point in fights/ “battle grounds” they only injuries/deaths and no one really wins. Me I learn from everyone so I am disappointed when people write me off to me it’s a lost opportunity. Soppy perhaps but that's my experience.
Bu t like you said agree to disagree.

While agree that some of us should endeavour to restrain our enthusiasm for aggressive argument in a civilised forum like this, most of us (even dear old Col) post something substantive regularly between snipes.

In Houellebecq's relatively recent but prolific membership of OLO, I haven't noticed that s/he's posted any substantive argument, opinion or evidence about anything. Rather, his/her posts seem to be invariably meta-snipes about other OLO users.

I usually ignore his/her posts, but this latest hysterical outburst above warranted a comment. What exactly did Houellebecq expect, after appearing from nowhere and contributing little more than sequential attacks on established OLO forum users, regardless of their political, ethical, cultural etc dispositions?

Now s/he obviously feels on the outer, poor dear. Duh.