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.

Bugsy, in reference to A NON-FARMER's post of Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:20:19 PM, says:

"Gee, you sure know how to spit a dummy."

Try reading a little more widely on OLO, Bugsy, before attempting a probably intendedly humorous, but nevertheless cheap, shot like that. Here is a real dummy-spit by A NON-FARMER in a place where it just might (one day) count. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8946#141976

I am not seeking to divert a General Discussion topic to the comments upon an OLO Article (although such is not against OLO Forum rules), but to highlight an aspect of the very thing A NON-FARMER has raised in this topic, that of "fallback from discourse and fair comment" due to shouting-down and topic diversion.

In the post to which I have supplied a link A NON-FARMER makes this statement:

"What scares most off from making product is the total refusal of banks to finance projects and the total refusal of ‘governance’ to abide by their own rules of engagement purportedly supporting OzIndustry in its vain attempts to get the job done."

I would have thought that this seemingly correct observation might become a start-point for some productive speculation as to why this problem exists, with progression from that to some inventive but sound proposals for overcoming the problem. Such discussion seems not to be occurring very much elsewhere in public debate.

There has in recent years been a bumper-sticker saying around to this effect: "Buy Australian. Buy your kids (grandchildren?) a job." It seems there is less and less 'Australian' that can be bought as time goes by. How then to buy those kids (and grandchildren) jobs? What is it that has not been being said, discussed, debated, decided, that has prevented a productive outcome arising from this otherwise seemingly commendable recommendation?

I suspect that a lot of it has to do with 'governance' operating to double standards. Has the real purpose of 'governance' been to put Australian-owned business out of business?

I have read more widely Forrest, that's why I said it.

Agreed Bugsy/Jewels.

You WILL get punters on this topic N-F, but you HAVE put it up because of your annoyance at not being agreed with, or not having enough responses to your topics.

NF

Have to agree with Bugsy/Jewely/Ginx, you are a tad abrasive. Having started a number of discussions myself I know to expect massive disagreement with my POV and not a little flaming. It is part of the forum experience, besides who wants a thread where everyone agrees with you - you'd never learn anything. That's the entire point of Freedom of Speech - the distillation of a variety of ideas, often we start out from different positions only to find that we are arguing for the same result but from different angles.

Forrest - I do share you concern over the process of extermination of small business that is the apparent goal of government/big corporations. But I posted a couple of reasonable posts on NF's threads and all I got back was whingeing.

Okay all,
Have you read about the Australian Press Council’s valid concerns about freedom of the press?
Would you find it paradoxical that when contacted about public interest issues the press refuse to publish in case they’re taken to court?

To make sure of my ground I contacted the press council.
Indeed, their very existence amounts to maintaining what they may of free speech.
I was informed that the ‘Common Law’ – judge made law – is, rightly so, their standard;
as also appears the situation applying within these forums.
One element of this is that ‘the editor’ has a right to decide what is published.

There is though, the angle of public interest where a certain amount of moral pressure may be applied.
Then there is the ABC – apparently a law unto itself.

I am simply trying to apply that pressure here in the absence of any care being displayed by the traditional media.
In the course of that I might choose to spit the dummy; or in the eyes of some, appear to do so.
I might not get the message across to some for some reason or other. (Did I suggest that might not be entirely my fault?)
I might actually have to be circumspect about, say, naming names – for if I don’t that may well cause my item to be rejected by the moderator.

On the other hand I refuse to froth at the mouth simply because I can, from the safety of distance, behind a computer monitor.
Now, forgive me, my frothing at the mouth is usually about what I see emerging in Australia –
An acceleration of the collapse of governance leading to increasingly arbitrary decisionmaking – with such decisions leading to the enforced detriment of increasing numbers of our population – such decisions being made by government employees, themselves increasingly marginalized by a system that gives them no other choice other than do what we, the Masters, say or face the sack.
Oh and freedom of speech might tend to appear as whingeing. Nyet?

That isn’t too difficult, is it

What, exactly, "isn't too difficult"?. That's a lot of words with no great sense of direction there. If you are going to have a bit of a rant about the nature of the responses you get from an internet forum, perhaps you should lurk more instead of making several threads about roughly the same idea. We get enough of that from the fundies.

Reading some of your more exasperated posts, I just have one piece of advice for you: don't let OUG get you down. You probably think that he's some sort of fundie nutter that's very bad at English, when in fact he's just a self-medicating pot farmer, that's very bad at English. Once you realise that these sort of people exist and can be at the other end of your terminal, you can safely ignore them and go about your usually civil self. Just don't treat everyone like that or you'll just get more back in kind.

"That isn’t too difficult, is it
Posted by A NON FARMER, Monday, 25 May 2009 3:14:50 PM"

OK. I wasn't very clear N-F...

You are a condescending little git.
_________________________

1 server error.
2 server error.

Dear Forrest Gumpp,
No. I’m NOT going to whinge (as some suggest is all I do) about your changing tack in the thread.
Your comment added merit to what I said here as well as elsewhere.

Your – “I suspect that a lot of it has to do with 'governance' operating to double standards. Has the real purpose of 'governance' been to put Australian-owned business out of business?” – fairly covers much ground about matters that do irk me.
More needs be said about the topic.

Then, ‘Jewely’ – “pounces on any respondent and calls them a lot of names that I find myself having to google.” – well, well, Online Education at its best.

‘Fractelle’ – I get abrasive and readily admit that fault. Would you like me to try harder?

‘Ginx’ – not annoyance at all. It’s arrogance I have too much of.

‘John D’ - “but repeat offenders like me need to ocassionally ask ourselves whether what we are about to say adds to the discussion.”
Seems, Dear John, (sharing notes with you as equals) the problem is that everyone has different priorities and varying degrees of cognition.
I like your ‘reply option’ concept but that might unintentionally lead to, forgive me, a ‘constipation of speech’. Trust you won’t take offence at my choice of words – I’m in enough trouble already.

‘Ludwig’
“How do you judge what is “apparent reasonableness”?”
‘Apparent’ – having the appearance of
‘Reasonableness’ – concept at law of a reasonable person of reasonable outlook and experience acting reasonably in a given scenario.
A person might be deemed to have behaved ‘reasonably’ if they showed ‘reasonable anger’ if confronted with, say, injustice or threat or repeated abuse.
The same person might be deemed to have behaved unreasonably if they uttered threats or overmuch abuse in a given situation.
To make that plain –
I’m answering your question as best I may without referring to books.
I am not, by the way, insinuating that you are an unreasonable person.
Now how about freedom of speech?

How absolutely smashing !

Freedom of speech in the Land of Oz.
Our messages crossed there ‘Jinks’ Didn’t read yours until I’d submitted my last.
To reply to your Shakespearian tome – I’ll have you know that I’ a condescending BIG GIT!

Part of the responsibility of free speech is making sure that whatever one says is reasonably accurate.

‘Bugsy’ I appreciate what you say, your last.
I’m supposed to take this forum with a boulder of sodium chloride, keep my head down, don’t make a choice myself about commenting or advancing views.

Meanwhile, having made the mistake of already doing so, I’m supposed to accept advice from a set of drong – sorry, a group of well behaved, learned, correspondents whose only interest is my well being.
Is that it?
Note that this time I've cursed no one.

Re – bloody – markable!

If it upsets you so much, why are you here?

We have freedom of speech but we also have the freedom not to speak.

I generally don't enter topics where I have nothing to offer or I don't understand the purpose or intent of the topic.

I am bemused about the interpretation of a discussion site is..Particularly OLO.

What it clearly isn't is a hate site or group therapy.
OLO isn't a site where the topic proposer is the moderator. That is the provence of Graham and or his staff.
His rules and previous history of adjudication indicate he doesn't tolerate excessive personal abuse/attacks or hate axe grinding. Offenders are and I would assume be dealt with according to his applied standards. As is his right.

I agree pirating a topic to discuss something off track is against the rules save the odd piece of fluff. This is not a structured site as such.
The means to handle sidebar/ secondary conversations/threads have been suggested but would require a software rewrite something that at the moment is not a current priority. In fairness the 'general' section of this site is a minor part and must wait its turn.

It appears the biggest concerns are in the area of other people's attitudes to individual's posts.

I note that there are a high numbers of 'tourists' and 'dabblers' (self evident meanings).
I bit like letter to the editor in the local papers. Lots read them, few comment those that do tend to do so only on topics that interest them.
Like you at the shopping centre you choose who, what you will chat about and at what depth and who you will duck.

Finally the issue is the expectations of people's responses.
In opening comment seem to be implying that one opinion/perspective is absolute. Sadly none of us are that.

Having said that I would suggest that if the intentions of the topic are worded so that it is either unclear, inaccurate or extreme it invites either attempts to add objectivity, corrections of facts, academic answers or a hotch potch of emotionally based, factually unsustainable raves.

The latter is merely the written form of shock jocking/chest-beating (trolling)and pointless.
OLO, and OLOer aren't perfect but it is where we are.

YOU ASK YOURSELF/TOPIC FREE SPEECH :
Posted by A NON FARMER, Monday, 25 May 2009 3:14:50 PM:
“I am simply trying to apply that pressure here in the absence of any care being displayed by the traditional media.
In the course of that I might choose to spit the dummy; or in the eyes of some, appear to do so.
I might not get the message across to some for some reason or other. (Did I suggest that might not be entirely my fault?)

ANOTHER THREAD OF YOURS/WANTING FREE SPEECH WITHDRAWN:
Posted by A NON FARMER, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 8:22:49 PM
This, all of course, is intellectual stuff, no doubt.
Why then, has not the great moderator in the sky shoved you in the corner?
If we cannot soar with the eagles; then why should we be grounded with such turkeys?
If the thread cannot progress without some timely intervention from the 'umpire' then why would anyone bother much any more?

YOU REJECT RESPONSES:
Posted by A NON FARMER, Friday, 22 May 2009 10:20:10 PM
Forgive me Bucko -
A beautiful conventional response, your's.
But why the Dickens would I be bothering anyone here if your straight arrow ideas worked.
I've been there and tried all that crap.

Posted by A NON FARMER, Sunday, 24 May 2009 9:44:31 PM
“Should I start a new thread, ‘nutter’s corner’ just for those few? If my poor efforts are so utterly featherbrained then may I refer the replies of the utter crackpots to “Nutter’s Corner” and leave the rest of the show to the intellectually advantaged?”
YES YOU SHOULD HAVE AND STAYED THERE.

What a strange approach that N-F has deployed in attempting to strike up an intelligent conversation with strangers about his/her pet peeve/s - a bit like those strange characters who occasionally blow in to your local pub muttering away about something, then abusing the locals because they aren't treated with the gravitas and respect they think should be forthcoming.

We know what happens to those types, don't we? They're always free to rant, abuse and bluster, but they usually end up doing so at themselves - outside.

Unless of course they learn some manners and pull their heads in, in which case they are invariably welcomed, at least by those they haven't managed to antagonise personally already.

It seems that ‘Pelican’ doesn’t understand one of the first traditions of democracy.
Perhaps fishin’ is more fun than engaging the brain.
Oh why not say it – this is the first pelican I’ve met that writes?

Such profound logic for the wise feathery one to say –
“We have freedom of speech but we also have the freedom not to speak.
I generally don't enter topics where I have nothing to offer or I don't understand the purpose or intent of the topic.”

But stop –
Here is perhaps an example of another of my precipitate responses.
I’ve reacted to only one inference that could be drawn from Pelican’s note.
I may have misinterpreted what was meant – but I don’t really thee-eenk so.

What did Pelican mean – freedom NOT to speak?
Here’s a person speaking here, clearly not actually some pelican – whilst simultaneously declaiming about not speaking.
Is Pelican an Egyptian God warning me off or just a sort of verbose Stoic, then?

Sounds like Sesame Street’s ‘Sam the American Eagle’ to me. (Hey Pelican, boyo; are you naked under your feathers?)

Pelican’s next line in that brief soiree actually opens many questions.
Vast resources (included human lives) have allegedly been expended maintaining democracy.
Part of that is free speech under the UNHCR.

So in a way Pelican is undoubtedly free to speak about not wanting to speak despite maybe having absolutely no handle on such a basal right within human rights as that of FREEDOM of SPEECH.

So acerbically speaking I can’t get a draught on much of anything here.
Please believe me when I say that I’m not angry.
I simply cannot find much of any decency or intellectual challenge here.
Even non committal statements hold barbs here.

Only thing I can’t work out-
Who pays you squeezers?
KRuddles – his Oppo, or the Bankstown Rissole – or all three?

Wise old Indian saying – “No-one can soar with the Eagles when they’re stuck on the ground with the Turkeys”.

There is another wise old Indian saying:

"Turkey who think he is Eagle run round in small circle with beak wedged up wozzer".

non farmer cant you see your doing it again?
why do you persist in being a fisure of men?

you go reacting to pelican for replying to you[clicking on his tag reveals he does plenty of posting[thus his comment should be valued when he replies he has nothing to say

but not content you make some mad ravings[then seemingly having vented come up that somehow we are govt paid stooges[and likely a few of us are,..but if so[so what]it gives weight to what they post

speaking for myself i get a pension[thus could be said being paid to post[but know im a free agent as to what i chose to post about[and am only replying to you now because your topic is the only new post in my in-box]and framing a reply for me is simply an activity i chose to do

now im chosing to end the post[allowing you to do as you chose]

Dear Non Farmer,

I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that you enjoy
a bit of a stir.

Look at all the posts that you've received with
your current thread.

The more you provoke people the more they react -
good tactic. (If all you're interested in is
getting people to respond) - however if you want
a genuine discussion on any topic - you have
to be a bit more tolerant, and actually encourage
a variety of opinions, even if they're not ones
you agree with. You also have to be clear on what
your topic is - and what you'd like discussed.
Opaque references leave the door open for discussions
going off track.

I like your consistant referrals to turkeys and eagles.
But it's wise to remember that you can't expect the
same from a sparrow - as you can from an eagle.
And if you insist on behaving like a sparrow, as
you've been doing to date, - you've
only yourself to blame as to how people react to you.

Your attack on Pelican, one of our most valued Forum
contributors was seriously out of line.
You owe the lady an apology.

Now to get back to your topic - Freedom of Speech.
I've always understood Freedom of Speech to be the
right to speak out publicly or privately. The term
covers all forms of expression, including books,
magazines, radio, television, and films.
Most scholars consider freedom of speech a
natural right.

People should be
free to critize the laws of their community and the
policies of their government. A government is less
likely to impose unjust laws on people who can openly
criticize its decisions. Without freedom of speech,
people can't have complete political freedom.

In a democracy, freedom of speech is a necessity.
Democratic constitutions guarantee people the
right to express their opinions freely because
democracy is government of, by, and for the people.
The people need information to help them determine
the best political and social policies. The
governments need to know what most people - and
various minorities - believe and want.

It would appear that NF has shot himself in the knees....he has higher ambitions than most.
On one hand he wants to be taken seriously and engaged on an intellectual level.
While admitting not being educated in areas yet he chooses to discuss.
Education takes one so far but research and objectivity does the rest.
Sadly his comments are overwhelmed by overly simplistic, tired old OTT sloganeering. This potentially displays a lack of understanding of the realities.

It is one thing to voice an unsubstantiated opinion but to be taken seriously that opinion must display at least some understanding of the complexities involve if to avoid being dismissed as irrelevant.
When some one who obviously has a better understanding of the topic offers some missing insight it is treated as a threat. Then reverts back to the tired old tactic "if you're out of your depth obfuscate with senseless attacks" rather than admit perhaps ignorance or fault.

His apparent definitions of democracy and 'right to freedom of speech are devoid of any societal context. Perhaps he should read a little wider and deeper than the daily Murdoch and the like.

The reality of life in a 'democratic' society has a different meaning to the esoteric notion of democracy.
" If the solution is really simple it would have been done already "

Foxy might help by explaining why I need apologise about playing with a pen name.
Good God, half your colleagues keep offering hints that (they wish)I should get out of the kitchen ‘cos I can’t handle the heat – then when I parse that brief comment from pelican I find that essentially she’s saying she doesn’t intend to say anything – and this about freedom of speech.

I’m reasonably aware that the good Pelican was saying that those who have nothing to contribute to a thread should stay out of a topic above their head.
I might also interpret that to mean she was subtly reprimanding those doing the ‘flaming’.
If so she should have said so without being obscure.
By the way, earlier in her career she wasn’t being so oblique.

I understand by your reprimand that the bird is actually a woman.
If she doesn’t want to speak about freedom of speech then maybe she doesn’t agree with that concept.
Or maybe she doesn’t want to say that she believes its men who shouldn’t speak freely.
I’d like to hear from Pelican herself.

Others here appear upset with my words, claiming they can’t understand them.
To make that plain I’d put the blame for that shortfall directly on the education system; illustrated by how pellucid is the authorship of UOG.
Brilliantly lurking between his lines is a well honed intellect.

Hmmm! Perhaps Pelican’s got a point?

Foxy – I’ve read some of your work in other articles but cannot understand why you only see injustice in other countries.
You finished, above, with a fair precis about freedom of speech.
I happen to believe it is being eroded here, alongside our liberties, in Oz., and especially in Qld..
I was hoping that someone might speak out about that or similar issues.
After all, Pelican’s illustrious career here once included concerns about whistleblowing, a.k.a. freedom of speech

I’d go so far as to suggest the ‘most hard bitten’ ethnic group in Oz. is the WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant).
But of course, nobody wants to hear that.

Play all you wish NM - I didn't take offence.

I must admit to being a bit confused by your intentions in this thread and did not expect such a long post to my very short response.

There was no hidden meaning, my earlier statements are as they stand. Correct me if I am wrong NM but I had the feeling you were castigating people merely because you did not get enough responses in your other topics.

Wishing not to speak about something does not imply a lack of belief. I don't particularly want to discuss pregnancy or the efficacy of various washing machines but I still believe in them.

Sometimes people get sick of seeing the same old posters repeating things they have said before such as your expert searching skills in relation to my previous comments on whistleblowing. Maybe one day I will write a book.

Then again am I just falling for your bait? Maybe I am - but then again pelicans do.

ANF - you need to learn to comprehend what others say to you.

You'd be more than welcome at my local if you learnt some basic manners - and/or took your medication.

Meanwhile, feel free to babble away at yourself. Bye.

I meant ANF in my earlier post not NM as I mistyped. Thought I better clear that up.

Dear Non-Farmer,

I don't only see injustice in other countries.
You'd have to scrawl through quite a bit of
my posts to see that your statement is not
accurate. You've probably
only scrawled through the latest ones that
dealt with overseas issues.

We've covered a wide variety of topics of this
Forum. Ranging from a whole gamut of issues -
political, social, religious, you name it -
chances are we've covered it.

And - injustice exists in every society.
Including this country.
Humans aren't always capable of making
good judgements. They often don't have the
ability, experience, training or wisdom.
Or are influenced by faulty reasoning, lack
of facts, or prejudices.

However, having said that, I admit that I
tend to look for the good in people - I still
believe that most people are basically decent.
And I love this country very much and am proud
to call it home. So I guess that does make
me somewhat biased. I've lived overseas, and
given a choice, I still prefer this country to
any other.

Hello Pelican. Best regards.
I’ve been told and discovered myself that your output has been prodigious.
My thanks. I note that I have your leave to play with the push.
I’m sort of replying to yours.
Suggest you read what I’ve already submitted.
If you have trouble gleaning the meaning – Tafe might help you all out.

This topic is great,
No finer example of the fact that the word, once written, cannot be withdrawn.
I chose an example in order to illustrate my point in my last.

I rely on the record – a quote from OUGs file.
In my view it exposes something of his soul that I find disturbing.
Strikes me that Morgan JC might have him in his pub for entertainment value.
Someone else said I need to apologise.
Then castigating was I?
Don’t believe so.
More wondering why, when I research these pages, I see what strikes me as a fair effort to push people to the sidelines in any manner that is most expeditious.
I’m not referring to my poor efforts – I mean throughout the entire show.

When I research that I see much of virtue subsumed to utter dross.
Put another way, we of this family can’t work out why Australians have become so tiny minded.
Now when I zip this off I’ll take a look at how important Morgan CJ finds himself!

Oh Non Farmer I think I have it. I was trying to work out why someone would be so rude to others and incredibly antagonistic.

Before going on any site I park up and read stuff, old stuff, and current messages. Get a bit of a feel for the place before brave enough to launch on in.

Did me no good here, I had to come in just to get people to explain to me what they were talking about.

I thought they’d laugh and I’d cringe and never come back but they were, on the whole, extremely helpful and welcoming.

But you did the other thing, came in all bluster and bulls#it. In the back of your mind you are busy trying to convince yourself we aren’t quite real and if real we are being paid to be mean to you.

Ease up on yourself. And if you are mean back to me know that I will cry myself to sleep.

PS… Read some more old threads today. I found the best quote:

“But you'll achieve something by understanding their
culture and then using that very thing in a discreet
way to bring about change. People skills matter in
this world.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 1:11:34 PM”

Actually, I am interested in finding out why you are actually here ANF. Your current behaviour doesn't appear to match your stated original purpose.

What exactly do you think you are achieving?

This is not a rhetorical inquiry.

GDay Jewely,

I have come to the same understanding. I mused over a reply to the question of FoS and became confused with the banter on forum, then I could not determine whether FoS was being discussed in relation to the Australian legal stance on FoS or FoS in the forum?

After carefully writing an SA to demonstrate my understanding and position on FoS, it was easier to decide to fall asleep and to wake with renewed strength to wit, I would ask this....is there a difference between the use of the 'soap box' and Freedom of Speech?

Your assistance in these matters would be appreciated

I presume that the 'Soap Box' allows for anything to be said without restriction and FoS being a state of monitored Speech where limits may abound to confine the extent of free speech such as the freedom of information act and the privacy act where a breach of the later 2 conditions of law may come into effect?

Hey One Nation,

“Your assistance in these matters would be appreciated.”

Well there’s a first so I’ll leap straight to paranoid and decide you are making fun of me.

But I don’t see how you can even talk about the subject FoS while in a forum where there are rules, message length, and inability to use certain expletives and a restriction of posts.

I read an old thread where someone was banned for 7 days for “flaming”. This flaming (which to my disappointment was deleted) may have upset someone else so I am guessing someone’s freedom of speech was tethered because of someone else’s freedom of being happy.

Now help me…

“I presume that the 'Soap Box' allows for anything to be said without restriction and FoS being a state of monitored Speech where limits may abound to confine the extent of free speech such as the freedom of information act and the privacy act where a breach of the later 2 conditions of law may come into effect?”

Did that mean before one says anything they should invoke the FoS or state they are merely on a SB without the FoS privileges (if any)?

I doubt whether ever in life I have ever seen such a sorry sack of idiots behave so stupidly before (well, except maybe for Foxy who came half good at the end).
Go for it.
You've ably demonstrated your beliefs.
Cruise through life knocking your collective selves unconscious on door ends.
May every one of your headaches be awesome ones.

Well since A NON FARMER has put his arguments to me so well and so articulately, I bow in respect. You are a true drama llama.

Which is, after all why we all here right? For the drama. I know I am.

Such is the nature of the internet.

Nice hissy fit!

I’ll exclude myself from your sorry sack of idiots NF and thank you for your excellent response to my question: "How do you judge what is ‘apparent reasonableness?’ “.

Hey Bugsy,
While keeping on topic -
Are you any relation to 'Squashed Bee"?
Got the nick name when he fell backwards off his scooter attempting a wheelstand, here, New year's eve 1970.
For years afterward the slogan went - "Hop on a Honda - and SPLAT".
Two bulging shiners for eyes once they picked out the speedo and tacho.
The stripes - go figure yourself.

My Dear Ludwig,
My most profound apologies.
You wanted me to provide my interpretation of – “apparent reasonableness”.
Actually, I’d lost track for the mo..

I’m sure I’d written a reply and it’d be there in queue somewhere.

It would have been sent along to your eminence immediately except for the attentions of what I (if I were old-guard Communist Chinese) might call the “Snapping dogs of reactionism” (your eminence naturally discluded).

However, faced with what has been rolling in from all sorts such as has caused us to laugh so much as to compromise our bladders (Graham won’t let me say we’ve been p*g ourselves laughing) at what’s been rolling up at such tour de force of discourse about free speech –

Where was I?
You want definitions.
Master; your word is my command –

‘Apparent’ – by way of appearing; (being able to recognize) a thing before a person, in plain view – antonym, virtual

‘Reasonableness’ – a societal concept, also at law; to be reasonable within accepted social and legal standards determined by custom and precedent – ‘A reasonable person aware of fact and circumstance would etc. – antonym ‘unreasonableness’; precedent, ‘Wednesbury Unreasonableness’.

“Apparent reasonableness” – towards a person being ‘reasonable’ in a GIVEN situation while being aware of fact and custom. A moot point whether personal attitudes signify.

‘Virtual unreasonableness’ – a play with words. May also describe the situation of my having to explain plain English to you here on the internet.

Observations –
Clearly, I shouldn’t have to explain English to those demanding it while apparently (that word again) pretending superiority.
If I have mistaken a benign, proactive or allegedly helpful comment in the vale of hate above then – mea culpa – I’m only human.

Conclusions –
I do not pretend to be completely innocent myself.
I admit to being hasty and confusing intended meaning in these threads.
I do not mind helping Ludwig with his English comprehension and I would value it if he gives me hell for what I’ve written here.

But he probably won’t read it anyway.

"I doubt whether ever in life I have ever seen such a sorry sack of idiots "

Well now you're just flirting with us.

Well said Pelican.

Where's Psychophant when you need him?

Pelican,
Flirting ain't the word and you know it all too well
Such a wise old bird should speak to me the way she spoke previously unless all those wise old words become discredited.
I have certain values that judged by your past efforts are of accord with mine.

Are you scared of someone new here?

Is that your problem?

Or what?
Put up your crop madam.