If there is some fallback from discourse and fair comment on a forum it may come to be believed that the show has become somewhat compromised.
Onlineopinion has multitudes of contributors listed.

It seems that very few actually keep contributing –whereas only a very few contribute, and mostly in negative ways.

I’ve recently had the time to provide some inputs to this forum.
I do have some background at civics, governance and law.

I have come to notice that an emerging trend is for some contributors to shout down and divert the original topic beyond possible recall.

As it happens, I believe myself a lateral thinker and have absolutely no problem with anyone contributing ideas from any angle so long as their contributions have merit and are applied with apparent reasonableness – no matter what the agenda of the contributor.

A fair way of putting that goes this way –
Some other person might well recognize some element of comment lying within someone’s published statement.
They may wish for clarification of the point - or they may earnestly desire to bend the matter towards their own scenario – or anything within reach of imagination.

Such and other reasonable response pathways are entirely acceptable – except by way of resorting to the politics of hate.

Gee, you sure know how to spit a dummy.

i have been watching your posts non-faRMER,..interesting that you frame the debate/under the heading freedom of speech..[does this fredom of speech extend to correcting your previous speeches]

talking specificlly about what seems your last few speeches,..including your last posted topic where you rant at every respondant,..using the topic to make a vague series of hyperbole framed as presumptions aimed only at feeding your ego

should we be allowed to take into acount previous/postings of any given poster..[you complain that people dont respond..[and yes your correct many people cant be bothered responding,..NOT only to you..but thats their choice,..many may not comprehend what your asking them to reply

but your mind dosnt extend to the freedom/to chose to respond or not does it..[in fact going by your previous postings your one of those who would gladly see half the world die..[yet are fearfull of your own demise,..re your leukimia fears]

such contradictions..[is it any wonder for you protest dosnt work...lol...seems you have the same problem with posts..[well maybe this time people will respond to you]..but its their choice..[not yours]

and/there is plenty to respond to...your back-ground in..<<civics, governance and law.>>..is that allowed by you to be included..into the debate?..[or will you see those are specificlly excluded..[or only excluded for those who dare trangress your bounds of it]..

the more i read of your posts the more i realise your as limited in your ability to respond[to topic outside your personal boundry..as much..if not more than those you derogerate as non responsive..those as you are..reluctant..in thinking outside of their box

but you will take any critisism..so personally,..and bite back so visiously..at the slightest percieved corrections,..i know its futile to try to explaing anything further to you,..but you reveal aptly the limitations inherant in..<<''civics,governance and law''>>..

i would add in medicine,..finance,..banking and global warming/cooling/change..but that would be taken..[by you]as rebelious..[and likely be flasged off topic]..thus outside the protections of free-speech..outside the limitations..you framed in your preamble..

i wish you would post more..about those topics..[as we all may have opinions..on the things..you could reveal..about their shenanigans

NF, if respondents feel the need to express hate, then why shouldn’t they be able to?

We see a fair bit of hatred expressed on OLO, not least in relation to racial/ethnic/religious intolerance. But hey, if people feel that way, they should be able to freely express it, yes?

How do you judge what is “apparent reasonableness”?

I don’t like some of the strong sentiments expressed on this forum. But it isn’t hard to just let them pass by.

“We see a fair bit of hatred expressed on OLO, not least in relation to racial/ethnic/religious intolerance. But hey, if people feel that way, they should be able to freely express it, yes?
How do you judge what is “apparent reasonableness”?
I don’t like some of the strong sentiments expressed on this forum. But it isn’t hard to just let them pass by.”

Ludwig if you pop back to any of Non-Farmers threads especially the “How many Sickos Can Fit On The Head Of A Pin” you will see anyone trying to help is met with quite a nasty attitude, I think what he is seeing as “hate” is really annoyance.

Just about every one of Non-Farmers threads he asks a question or puts forth an idea and then pounces on any respondent and calls them a lot of names that I find myself having to google.

On topic; on OLO there are rules so Freedom of Speech can only exist on here within those boundaries aye.

Expressing anger becomes a bit of an interesting exercise for me once my normal vocabulary is met with the request from the editor to remove certain words.

There are some topics that always seem to get taken over by a particular argument. For example, any climate change topic tends to be taken over by the believer/skeptic argument no matter what the starting point is. It would be good if this forum had a reply option that diverted these overwhelming side discussions into a separate thread?

There can be problems too when comments are being made after a particular line has been flogged to death. No easy answer, but repeat offenders like me need to ocassionally ask ourselves whether what we are about to say adds to the discussion.