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.