I am growing both more intrigued and frustrated with OLO. It's almost impossible to get a reasoned discussion up here that dares to question the new orthodoxies of "business bad, government good". Parochialism is killing this site.

Lest I be accused of the same, I can state that I have been consistently opposed to the sell off of NSW power. Perhaps I've been the only one to bring up their opposition to the sell off of the CBA, the fashion that was demutualisation, the growth of middle class welfare in Oz and other seemingly leftist viewpoints.

Enough rant. As a 50yo I consider I'm privileged to have a handful of 'best friends', people I trust implicitly and who trust me. People who don't care if I make a tit of myself and vice versa. People who would only deny each other as the cock crows for the gag.

The point of this? 4 of the 5 I'm relishing in as best friends are diametrically opposed to me politically.

My question is, is this the same for you guys? Do you like to hang out with people who hold dissimilar views? There tends to be a consensus view among many of the contributors here that is stifling. Witness the warm welcome back given the vile Ginx; after Boaz probably the most hate filled contributor on OLO. Witness the attempted shut down of KMB's most recent post by 'the usual suspects'.

It seems our conspiracy has been uncovered; blown wide open by KMB's thoughtful and disinterested thread and palimpsest's balanced appraisal of our efforts to gag debate.

Comrades, we must immediately cease our campaign to turn Australia into a commune of vegetarian Muslim homosexual polygamist nudists and concede that shallow bigotry more than compensates for a lack of effective argument, and deserves the commensurate consideration.

We must acknowledge the superiority of insular conservatism. Please wait for the modern era to be dismantled, and your local church will send a witch-finder along to burn you shortly.

"Witness the warm welcome back given the vile Ginx; after Boaz probably the most hate filled contributor on OLO. Witness the attempted shut down of KMB's most recent post by 'the usual suspects'." (Quote: Pratlimppest).

Don't be a silly he-she! 'Some of my friends disagree with me' and your other weak attempts at credibility, is a sad and pathetic attempt to justify the fact that those whose opinions you clearly strongly oppose, are perhaps currently (CURRENTLY-it changes all the time you know), more effective than you would like.

Tough. Stop with the silly tantrum, it's so immature.

Signed: The Vile Ginx.

(Thank-you, I appreciate that. Really. It shows I've got under the skin of people like you. I consider that a badge of honour).

I think that the financial meltdown has polarised opinion.The left see selfish greed ,free markets and capitalism as being the primary cause.I see an unregulated all powerful World Reserve Banking System being the primary cause.

People are so sure their conclusions are correct and now tend to attack the dissenter personally rather than argue the facts.

Arjay:"People are so sure their conclusions are correct and now tend to attack the dissenter personally rather than argue the facts."

Welcome to my world. I've even been told by one poster here that to ask questions is "bullying".

Whoah Nellie, ya sure chucked the cat in the chook-house there mate, lol!
But you're right, in a way, but as another 50 odd I reckon the appeal of those who dispute us is inherent, or symptomatic? It's largely a matter of circumstance though, in the long run we don't have much input on that, do we?
"Ya pays ya nickel and ya takes ya chances", that's life, friendships, the universe and everything!

This kind of, sort of, fits in with Foxy's thread about trolls.

It always surprises me that those who 'dish it out' cry foul when they get it back! How many times has the troll definition been used on OLO against those who stand up to others who simply do not like being stood up to! Who can REALLY define WHO is the troll/-the bully?

The simple bottom line here is that those who have opposing views to others, will then define them in a derogatory fashion, particularly when feeling undermined in some manner by their perception of how this,-or any other forum is developing; when it's not to their liking.

It surprised me to be referred to as 'vile', but it isn't upsetting. This is an online forum!
If a loved one had said this THEN perhaps one would feel a bit hurt.

It seems logical to me that I first look at what caused offence to the OP. After all I am second in line after BOZO for being 'hate filled'. Holy Macca's!!-I must have smashed all of the Pratlingpest's toys! Having recently returned home/here, I haven't said anything to the Prat in this period?? So,-I checked the post history of both of us. I still can't find where I dun' him over.

You are OP,-entitled to attack me generally of course, but my point is: who exactly IS 'hate-filled', hum? Your 'diatribe' ( I like that word. I saw it recently..) says more about you than me.

I'm a little disconcerted that the title of this thread is "Graham's Challenge 3." Huh? Graham issued a challenge for us to post threads complaining about other contributors and calling each other names?

The only challenge I remember is one in which it was agreed that the same ole same ole was getting boring and we were all fed up of reading threads that had little substance in them apart from denigrating various sets of people.

Leaping in to denigrate another set of people doesn't seem to me to have very much more substance.

And really - "the 'vile' Ginx? What an absolutely nasty epithet. The "second-most hate-filled poster"? I've personally never read anything that Ginx has posted which would justify the idea that she was "hate-filled".

Starting off a topic with such deliberately hurtfull personal comments doesn't seem to have any relation whatsoever to the title of this thread. It runs the risk, however, of making it seem as though an entire thread has been started in order to get people to slag each other off.

Maybe it’s a product of our watchdog bodies (Human rights, anti discrimination) that seem to reach everywhere, and if accounts are correct, will, via a Gillard initiative soon reach into preschool education, a worthy partner to Conroy’s intended Internet censorship.
[the latest Gillard initiative might be a worthy of its own thread on OLO!] But it seems that there are a number of subjects that polite circles have decided are beyond serious criticism–praise yes, criticism no.

For example:
It’s Ok to point to great art works and describe them as the ‘treasures if X’
(apparently because they were produced by persons who identified themselves as X’s
and, possibly took inspiration from various X texts).
It’s Ok to talk of the inventions of X scientists & Noble prize winners & attributable brownie points to X
(on account of the recipients being members of the X faith ).
But it’s not Ok to associate various violent acts with X –even where the persons involved identify themselves as X’s & take inspiration form various X texts )
If you do you’re liable to be labeled anything from ‘insensitive’ to ‘Xophobic’ with a few ‘wingnuts’ and ‘trolls’ thrown-in.Even things like “not another ….X post” are put downs.

And what’s more amazing is it’s likely to come from persons who do not profess to be X’s & appear to have little other knowledge of X ( judging by their comments at other times, on other threads ).And while neither of the aforementioned prohibit their making comment, it does make me wonder what is the source of such indignation.

I used to think it was just the sense of a fair-go coming out –standing apart from the lynch mob
( and people will be all to willing to claim such ). But when you really look at the incidents involved you begin to wonder just who is inciting the lynch mob. The person who raises the criticism of X , or, those who subsequently try to belittle & besilence that person

Horus ; It is a good lesson in the principle mapping techniques used in Modern Psychology – If we simply examine the virtues espoused by our Sociopaths – the warm and fuzzy expression of – Tolerance and Understanding ;- If only they actually followed the simple principles when expounding such virtues – but fail miserably in their own philosophy –

That is very prominent here.

Graham is not a clinical psychologist – to ask Graham to police and to label those that are; “Clinically Certifiable” is a bit much of an ask in a public forum; - It is far simpler for contributors to realise that some peoples Ego’s have reached a point – in probability one hundred times, well over their actual intellectual ability – Enter the sphere of a psychopath.

The world of, and the profusion - Propaedeutic Reductio Ad Absurdum – The Idiopathic and Ignominious ;-

Or

The antitheses.

Mind you , some are just confused

Dear palimpsest,

Firstly let me say that I can see that you're
frustrated and possibly hurt by some comments
that you've obviously taken personally that
someone has made on OLO. We've all felt that
way, as you can see from the posts that have
followed. But as Ginx has pointed out - this is
a public forum, so it is to be expected, I guess.
We all react towards negative things (labelling,
name calling, insults), far more strongly than
to the positive, as Fractelle's previous thread
confirmed. That's human nature.

As I've tried to point out on my thread on "trolling,"
we have to respect the rights of others to hold
different opinions from our own. Not all of my
friends or family agree with my views, including
my mother, and brothers.

I think, as others have pointed out the problem lies
with the tendency of some people to think that their
way is the "right way," and the people who disagree
with them are "bad." As I've stated in the past, we
can argue passionately, disagree vehemently - yet
appropriately. I can't remember which poster said -
we've forgotten the rules of debate or discussion.
Argue with facts - not labels or insults.

Anyway, cheer up - if we all at least try to maintain
a certain code of behaviour - and remember that there
are actual people reading what we have to say - we're
not just typing into a computer screen - we just might
make it all work a bit better.

I for one intend to try.

One more comment before I go. I don't agree with your
definition of Ginx. I've always found Ginx to be
fair in her posts, and often very funny. She actually
adds a great deal to what could otherwise be a very dull
Forum. And I don't believe that anyone really "hated,"
Boaz. He was "eye-eyed," in his views - but "hated?"
No way.

Take care.

cont'd

Ooops, a typo.

I meant to say Boaz was "one-eyed,"
not "eye-eyed."

And, palimpsest - please go ahead and start a
thread on whatever subject you wish, and we'll
try to contribute.

Don't be discouraged.

So far the only thing to be learned from this thread is that All- doesn't understand syntax or psychology.

Does it get better?

"Does it get better?

Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 26 April 2009 6:06:11 PM"

Only if you don't pick (at) it.....

Agreed, Sancho. The thing that I find most interesting about this thread is that Graham approved the OP, in which one forum member describes another as "vile". Hardly an auspicious start.

Foxy -

As it appears that Palimpset doesn't actually mean to engage with this thread perhaps I can be forgiven for addressing one of the points made?

To be fair, I don't think he actually meant to imply that anyone was hated: "hate-filled" rather than "hate-full" I think implies that a person is full of hate for others.

That's why I simply had to comment in respect to Ginx: - I really don't consider she would actually waste such a powerfull emotion on the anonymous denizens of some internet community. In fact, what I really love about her posts is the insouciance with which she treats sheer stupidity or ignorance when she encounters it. (A statement I am not relating to this particular thread: Palimpsest please note I said "When she encounters it".)

CJ,

That was the very thing that gob-smacked me. (The next thing was the person to whom the epithet had been attached).

I disagree Sancho- Firstly I find it difficult to believe; No – Impossible - you actually have the capacity to learn anything – and granted – Psychology is not one of my favoured subjects- but in context of your input , it is more credible than explaining it into the realms of Witch doctors- broomsticks , Gargoyle and goblins- dare I say Troll ?

The mystique of, and the magic potions conjured up in the dark crevise of primitive caves , boils the caldrons, and in loin cloths? ; So you cook up another dialectical monstrosity.

The hecklers performance in the Muppet show would aptly describe it.

CJ & Romany

You both echo my sentiments. I put a lot of thought into the discussion threads I start, yet Graham approves Palimpsest's opening post with its personal insult to another poster.

Why should I bother?

Look; I do thank some of you for such kindness, even though I understand you are referring to a general principle in terms of the reference to me, you have mentioned me as a poster.

First off: I AM nowadays rather lacking in feelings-and intensely cynical for good reason. The only thing I've kept of who I used to be is a sense of humour. It is my sincere believe that that sense of humour has saved my life.
For all the lack of feeling some of these comments have touched me. I have fallen out with most of you and probably will again!! So;-I thank-you profoundly.

Secondly: when I checked the post history of the OP (I KNOW I distort tags. I'm not proud nor ashamed-I never do it for those I respect. So:-the OP),-to see what set he-she off;-I had to make the comparison with my own post history.
It struck me then that my posts to say the least are somewhat abrasive! Again, I am not proud or ashamed. It simply occurs to me that I can dish it out, so should not fall into a vapour if this kind of nastiness is directed at me, and besides;-as I said;-this is a forum comment, not one from a valued friend. So it's of little impact.

The OP has not returned to this thread. From that quarter there is hardly a timidity to tackle issues-the comment proves it. So, why? I can only guess. And my guess is (walking on eggshells),-that this is a deputised response. I won't elaborate because I can't prove it, and the OP would deny it anyway.....wouldn't you OP? But I have a fair idea where it REALLY came from. As I said- I'm a cynic.

I'm not justifying this you know. It isn't nice. And;....I hope I don't have to swallow my words, but I would never be so stinging about another poster. With perhaps one exception-now absent.

OK., that's it.

Dear Romany,

Thanks for pointing it out. I did misunderstand
the opening post. That's why my comment about
Boazy.

Dear Ginx,

I for one have always appreciated the honesty
in your posts, your sense of humour, and your
strong views. To my knowledge you've never
posted anything with a "malicious intent,"
and I dare say you never will.

I'm glad that you're back. And if I could I'd
give you a hug!

Foxy,
Well done!

Psychopant,

After observing your work on a couple of threads, I now get it.

Clever.

Yeah Romany, there's a whiff of sock about, isn't there?

While I come in late the thread is interesting.
I do not think we are far from the real world here, not my real world few days go by without m meeting some one who refuses to hear other views.
My brother and mate, not always able to say that about a sibling, is a conservative.
Anti unionist and sounds like Wilson Tucky.
Closest non family mate votes conservative, first grade red neck!
I refuse to be confronting with them both, makes for fun bar b q at times.
We should understand its human to be different.