"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.