In another thread, Foxy aske: "Do people who enrage us do it intentionally, or is it a by-product of words or behaviour that they
think perfectly appropriate?"

Speaking for myself, as a poster who seems to enrage some others quite regularly, it's sometimes one, sometimes the other. While I've done my bit to deliberately cause offence on occasion, I've also had words I thought were perfectly innocuous jumped on as signifying all sorts of dire things about me, my family, my views on life, my lifestyle, my sexual prefence and so on.

So what of the rest of you: do you ever find yourself defending things you didn't say? Do you find yourself responding to the tone of a post rather than the content?

Do some of you try to provoke an enraged response from others? What motivates you to do so?

I have found that there is propensity for people to scan comments and fill in the blanks so to speak. The problem with this is that this tendency is to assume extreme opposition. i.e. Not believing Monckton's half baked nonsense = being a devotee in the church or Gore. In reality I'm no fan of Gore either.

Therefore, yes, I have had to defend against something I didn't say.

However, to put this in context one needs to understand why this happens.

Many discussion issues are oversimplified often beyond the point where by what is being discussed becomes confused between emotional bias and reality/fact. There is a point scoring debating/sales technique called 'reduction to the ridiculous.' that illustrates the point
In a sale perspective "this exciting 1.5 meter TV will only be $1.74 per day, less than half a cup of coffee.
In short it confuses the issue with emotion 'exciting'(replacing the reality...Cost, 60 mths = $3144 for $1800 TV).
The verbal version of this techniques is often used to hide the true impact of what is being said. i.e. "Umpteen squillion dollars goes to single mothers ...nanny state...baby bonus". it replaces emotion for fact.
- single mums are a minor part of Social security
- *some* go for the baby bonus but hardly a majority the single mums.
- by far the greatest number of recipient have parteners.

Too many such ill considered comments like the above are proffered as comments and are indeed insulting, infuriating.
If a commenter throw this theme up consistently, and yes they will be characterized.
The question is who is really at fault, the commenter espouses emotional bias, the reader who reads it either based on previous comments or views the comments through their own bias?

Given I have no bias it's everyone else. :-)
A bit of both comes to mind

Well it wont surprise anyone I like to encourage enraged responses where ever I can.

I think people say things they regret while they're angry, but quite often what they say in this enraged state is much more honest than what they would say otherwise. You get their prejudices coming out, their fears, oh it's exhilarating. It's more to the core of where they're at, not the censored facade.

I think also what irks people about other people are things they can see in themselves and wish they didn't. It's why family member who are very similar often clash.

I think habit can form as well. Some things antiseptic says would not rate a blip on the rage-o-meter if they were said by the beautiful gentile man that is r0bert.

Also things I say have caused a reaction more for the words used than the ideas behind them. I've often heard someone express in a serious way exactly what I was expressing with hyperbole and stereotypes and unfair generalisations, but the serious post from the respected poster gains kudos. Don't worry, I'm happy enough to live without the recognition, and content some people are on the same page.

And as I've said before to pynchme, it's a courtesy service to other posters to allow them an out if they cant refute your argument; They can then just go off all irate about some of the 'offensive' words you used to make it.

'do you ever find yourself defending things you didn't say? '
A lot of the time. Especially from certain posters.

OK examinator I except the challenge.
Having form for having blues with a few posters I think I can shed light.
And if we get honest? it may just be the longest thread in OLO history.
The problem belongs to both sides of an argument, most times.
But as you highlight it can be just miss understandings.
I promise you, only once, ever, did I want to provoke a poster, years ago, and got warned for it, but for the wrong target.
Each of us has views and surely we believe in what we say?
Some views to me you every one are not ones we share.
But it takes many posts, even conflicts before I judge some one.
Look at my posts guilty, I am allergic to some ,just the odd few.
But I think my posts heated as they are, are not rage.
Some do, can you doubt it? provoke in every post, it is Aussie larikanism or is it?
I fear the forum brings some not just a few, who can not get a hearing in RL and many of us lash out sometimes.
OLO is however far more controlled in such matters by its contributors than most.

Is it rage to insult the ideas others put or the person, is it both?
I seem to suffer fools badly, maybe I am the fool.
But is it rage?
I have provoked rage, often by just putting my view strongly , even rebutting strongly what others say.
Is it bad manners to think differently.
Not sure it is you and I often agree but often head butt on our different ideas too.
Surely that is ok.
ten thousand times on standing in front of those I serve I have said these words.
*tell me what you truly think not what you think I want to hear, only truth has value*
To stand and fight, hit the verbal tennis ball back across the net is an instinct we bought from the caves with us.
It has saved lives and made us what we are, if it was my job to judge OLO posters, to define rage users, I would find only one of those who post today on my list.
And I would burn the list rather than hand it in I see no harm in robust debate.
I however find fault now and forever in those who think it is worth while to provoke people for fun, lower IQ holders often think they are being smart but in truth such actions glare out of idle brains in action.

I have to wonder why a person does get angry.
Is it because they get told "Lies, it is all lies" when in fact proof has been shown.

So what it comes down to is Bias in some who do not wish to see the truth, but their own world they live in.

So as being number 1 on some lists has to make me proud, it shows that i am in fact making a point.

When the facts to an issue are produced some people just stick their heads in the sand and go"I cant see that",I dont want to know the facts"
That is no problem but there are those who do find that some posters enjoy posting new discusions, or even making comments which are hypocritical.

I don't recall ever hitting the Post button on a post intended to enrage - I have written a few but I prefer to delete those ones and think about a better response.

I do occasionally misrepresent what I think someone is trying to say in order to mock it more effectively. Generally that would be religious posters trying to use the god say's argument. In particular I've had some fun with Philo's "God does not like wasted sperm" approach to opposing homosexuality. By the way I consider Philo to be one of the more decent of the "fundy" posters.

Earlier today I posted a link to a christain pro-choice article which may well enrage some fundies who are convinced they have the absolute truth when it's comes to god's views on abortion. The intent is not to enrage, rather to demonstrate that the foundation they claim to have is not all that solid. Any abnormal spikes in blood pressure which might strike religious extremists as a result is purely a happy fringe benefit.

R0bert

Recently, I wryly called this classic post by Pynchme 'forum rage':

"Suzie, I wouldn't worry about police officer Cornyflower.

You've been very polite in even replying to those provocations. I get grumped at frequently too - but no bloke ever will you know. Cornyflower lives in pathological fear of feminists or anyone who even vaguely resembles one. Terribly uninformed about feminism, but nevermind.

I think Corny is a bloke btw; though some have wondered if he/she is
Antiseptic'c mum.

Which would explain a few issues I guess:)
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 1 March 2010 1:12:08 AM"

It was even more funny for those who had seen Pynchme's remark a little earlier that she was advantaged by anonymity (as a public servant, she said) and was concerned about the 'sociopathy' of others:

"Grim I see exactly what you're saying and I think you're right about courage in anonymity.

I am quite sure the sociopathy we sometimes see is quite real - just interesting to think about how it's hidden for every day purposes"

Sociopath Alert! Goodness gracious! Taken alone or together these are very funny posts. A person who has taken on the persona of the tough, irascible radical feminist, with Marxist leanings it seems, who takes herself far too seriously and betrays herself as insecure and anxious about the 'risky' people around her. Would that everyone could be so important as to need protection.

It was flaming of course, but somehow being flamed by Pynchme loses its Ooomph.

However there are many drama queens and not all of them are women.

Then there are those who wear their faux hearts on their sleeves, the list goes on. Did I mention the vehemence of the self-appointed soldiers of political parties, protecting their 'team' (heh, heh, as if the party machines cared)?

Like it or not that is what public Internet forums are about and it is often more sideshow that anything else. Just like the pollies on the TV, God bless them.

This Forum provides us with anonymity,
and inter-action with a very diverse
group of individuals.

There's bound to
be people who harbour a lot of internal
aggression, and who get a perverse sense of
gratification by directing this aggression
at others. People who bully are very adept
at creating conflict with verbal insults,
disparaging comments, false criticism,
patronising sarcasm - while contributing
nothing of value.

We're fortunate that on OLO most of the posters
are not people whose aim is gratification from
the distress caused by provoking and tormenting
others.

However, as one website pointed out:

"Problems with aggression and violence continue to
plague people's inter-personal lives, their
inter-group interactions, and society in general."

Let's be honest, people's personalities do play a part because we all build up a particular reputation or profile where we are only known from our written words.

And while RObert may articulate the same point as Antiseptic, the delivery is more reasoned and even-handed, recognising that issues are not always black and white. This does not make some of Antiseptic's points invalid but it is more difficult to digest if it is offered as a general diatribe against women.

Happens in real life too, someone you know can get away with more than someone you don't. I try to take someone's comment at face value regardless of the deliverer but I'm not Little Miss Perfect and occasionaly post something without thinking it through or making the point more clear.

Anti might carry his own demons and dishes out the poop sometimes but he cops a bit too.

We seap what we row.

cont'd ...

I forgot to add that I will react when
the right buttons are pushed, but I'm getting
better at controlling that impulse.

I'm also getting to the stage where I simply
scroll past certain posts - and don't bother
to read them simply because I've learned that
with certain posters if you make the mistake of
entering into the debate, you pay a price -
and it's not worth the aggrevation.

pelican, "Anti might carry his own demons and dishes out the poop sometimes but he cops a bit too.

We seap what we row."

Some small group dynamics at work too.

I realise I have probably (no, certainly!) been guilty of 'raging' at some people on these forums.

I try not to get too personal, but do admit to losing it if I am feeling really aggrieved. If only everyone would just agree with everything I say. :-)

I do find that some posters do misjudge me at times, although I have also been accused of this. It is sometimes hard to understand everything someone writes, if you can't see the expressions on their face, or if you don't know them very well.

It all depends on how well they express themselves in words, and whether they need to resort to petty insults to bring home their point or not.
I tend to react negatively to the latter sort.

Forums are meant to create debate though, and if that means some people get a little hot under the collar, then so be it.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the fire.

Cornflower I can not remember ever before being put of by one of your posts.
Maybe it is my memory?but you got me offside here.
Please consider what you said, to infer we who hold strong views on politics are foot soldiers is weird.
But it highlights a problem, we, all of us sometimes shoot to message if it is not our own.
If we wanted an answer about a native tree from Queensland most would ask Ludwig, would his lifetime of interest brand him.
Is it wrong in a forum that contains Australian politics in its name to be interested in the subject?
Can you truly think having views stating them ,makes you the soldier/private property of a party?
To retreat from those who hold views such as yours would stifle this forum.
Now another point, doubt it, look see, my posts a commited soldier for my party my movement, are my honestly held views, ALWAYS.
Never spin, do not please join the small group who think if its not my view it is lies or spin.
I find nothing in any post so far that truly is rage, sorry howler, easier to spell, but I find you have the brains to do better much better.
But it is in your hands.
I believe gee do I truly think, we do our selves a disservice we lie to get a point across, if we fail to say it like we think, if we think only we understand issues we are truly lost.

Thanks for the responses, folks, they're quite illuminating.

Examinator:"Many discussion issues are oversimplified often beyond the point where by what is being discussed becomes confused between emotional bias and reality/fact."

Very true. One of my pet peeves and probably the thing that most gets my vituperative juices flowing is the poster who uses the "appeal to emotion" in lieu of logic. One of the reasons for my strong response to the Family Law is that so much of the Fanily Law itself is based on an appeal to emotion, "the best interests of the child", producing a very high rate of poor outcomes for all parties.

We could have a whole discussion on logical fallacies, but www.nizkor.org has already done so pretty exhaustively. Suffice to say that many are well-represented among the posts on OLO.

Houellebecq:"quite often what they say in this enraged state is much more honest than what they would say otherwise."

That's pretty much why I sometimes wind people up. The downside is that it can entrench views, leading to a stultified discussion. As you say though, it sometimes opens the door for a more conciliatory poster to enter the debate. It's amusing watching people contradicting their own words simply because they're responding to a different interlocutor.

Belly, in your first post you thought you were responding to examinator and your tone was quite different to your second, when you realised it was me. That ties in quite nicely with cornflower's observation about "small group dynamics". Foxy too has indicated that she responds differently to different posters, even choosing not to respond to some people "to avoid the aggravation".

R0bert, I beieve you. You're the soul of politesse.

[cont]

'it is often more sideshow that anything else.'

Indeed. People need heroes and villains in their lives. Foxy doubly so, you only have to hear her anti-liberal rants. I'm happy to play the villain, as villains are always much more interesting and entertaining than heroes. Let's face it, entertainment is what the world is all about. As a smart man once said, 'life is one big joke and everyone is here for my amusement'. The look on the face of the old lady who overheard him was priceless. It may have even been Foxy.

Foxy,

'verbal insults,
disparaging comments, false criticism,
patronising sarcasm - while contributing
nothing of value. '

Nothing of value? Well, to you perhaps, but those are my favourite parts.

cornflower,

'Some small group dynamics at work too.'

Yep. I love playing with that. So much fun can be had by siding with the unpopular, switching teams randomly etc. It's the arguments within the arguments that are the interesting part.

BTW: I find pynchme one of the funniest posters on OLO. Surely you can understand she doesn't really believe all that 1980s gender studies stuff. Nobody in real life could possible be such a caricature of a radical feminist. She's just playing a part. Like me.

Suze,

'if you can't see the expressions on their face'
Take it as read, there is always a massive grin on my face.

I had hoped that some of the more aggressively feminist posters might try their hand at this.

Foxy:"People who bully are very adept
at creating conflict with verbal insults,
disparaging comments, false criticism,
patronising sarcasm - while contributing
nothing of value"

And sometimes people are simply good at the language and have no intent to bully? Acerbic wit has long been valued and repeated. think of the famous (and no doubt much-embellished) exchanges between Churchill and Lady Astor. Think of Latham's "conga-line of suckholes" or Kennett's comment about Costello: "all the qualities of a dog except loyalty".

Provocation is not bullying. The response of the "victim" may be to feel intimidated or put-down, but that is their own response, not necessarily the intent of the "bully". Speaking for myself, I live in constant hope that someone will surprise me with an original response to my provocations. The last thing I want to do is shut that person up.

Our nation's developing victim culture seems to have reduced many discussions to nothing more than whinges and dog-whistling, sadly.

Pelican:"This does not make some of Antiseptic's points invalid but it is more difficult to digest if it is offered as a general diatribe against women"

But it never has been offered that way. It's only ever been about specific groups and the way in which those groups have skewed the laws and about the common ways people respond in common situations. Your reading of my posts is influenced by the fact that you identify with those people as women, rather than the content. I have a deep loathing of "weasel words" thanks to years of writing engineering reports and I will not use them. Take what I say as being what i meant and I'll thank you if you point out an ambiguity.

Suzeonline:"If you can't take the heat, get out of the fire."

Starting to HTFU, I see. Good for you.

antiseptic,

'Speaking for myself, I live in constant hope that someone will surprise me with an original response to my provocations. The last thing I want to do is shut that person up.'

Oh I hear you. I love it when people call me on something or try to provoke me or challenge me. People call me your little friend and stuff but I've slagged you off at times. It's fun too, you're an easy target. But I always get the impression you're having a laugh and it's like water off a ducks back.

I really do think gender plays a part. My friends and I are quite unkind to each other, and we laugh at the put-downs and digs we have at each other. I am 100% confident nobody is ever upset about anything said, as even if there is often some truth in the jokes, actually some very home truths at times, the spirit and the camaraderie override any antagonism.

The female groups I have observed just wouldn't say the things that are said in groups between males. They say some much more dreadful things about absent friends though.

In the end OLO's a graffiti wall. I cant understand how anyone can hold any stake in the opinions of a total stranger. How they can search for 'respect' or kudos or some affirmation that they hold interesting or informed opinions.

But there's this strange atmosphere here at times that there is some sort of competition to sound educated or intelligent. People have often talked about 'contributions' as if it's some sort of Rudd 20Twenty summit. People have suggested it's somehow shameful to not be seen to be adding 'value' when 'value' is somehow only defined by serious and earnest pontificating.

'But it never has been offered that way.'

Oh it has sometimes. I've even heard Violins!

The stated modus operandi of some is so logically flawed, as to be equivalent to throwing someone overboard just to see their fear. Frankly, that attitude/behaviour says more about the protagonist than the victim (target).

Because, every one has flaws and foibles, that is a no brainer, a given. It has been said said before, that one doesn't need artificial means to see them, merely perceptiveness aka the ability to see beyond one's own needs/flawed views.

Based on the rules attack what's being said not the individual, I think makes it clear that the primary point of OLO is *contributing* views, understanding, solutions etc.as a whole.
What OLO isn't, (thinking about the rules an what they mean/intended) is a selfish "look at me" poke fun at others regardless of the individual from some behind some facade confected humour, which at the end of the day is self amusement at the cost of others and contributes nothing.

Say what you will about me, my idiosyncratically (overly) analytical nature or others' unique ways, most are prepared to *contribute* as a PART of the community not separate from.

True, some do so from an overly simplistic perspective for my taste, (note Houellebecq's comment about everybody needing heroes...) but that's people, all different etc.
______________________
Antiseptic

Your views on family law etc are well know the problem to me is that they tend to be often binary consequentially the same argument/logic also is readily applicable to other related issues thus allowing you to be readily pidgeon holed on a range of quasi related subjects.
NB. It may not be your perspective that is the infection rather the readers perspective of what you say is the problem.
That certainly applies to me see my examples

I don't think I've ever been "enraged" or even made angry by anything I've read at OLO. Sometimes I'm bemused at the nonsense some people write, or even appalled at the attitudes they express, or slightly irritated by the repetitive bleating that comes from some. Mostly, however, I'm amused by comments that are clearly intended to insult or bully.

On the other hand, I seem to regularly get up the noses of (if not enrage) a few of those who disagree with my enlightened view of the world :) I acknowledge that I sometimes poke fun at the worst bigots, and can be quite rude to those who repeatedly post hateful, bullying or idiotic comments - or who set out out to insult me because they can't counter my invariably well-written and reasoned arguments :P

My approach to conversations here is similar to that which I employ at dinner parties rather than, say, the pub. That is, I am mostly polite and considerate, but as the dialogue descends in quality, I'm quite capable of putting idiots and boofheads in their place.

Forum rage? Pah - it's not that important. Mind you, I have much the same attitude to road rage, which is apparently becoming quite a problem in the cities. I put it down to a general decline in civility and good manners in contemporary society.

I have to say I spend far too much time on this forum when I could be doing other more useful things, but like a lot of others I guess, I get sucked in.
There is no doubt that the likes of Morgan and Fractelle always have interesting points of view.......maybe because they often reflect my own. However they always take the time to write well and are articulate without being loquacious. I too tend to skip the more rabid self opinionated posters who appear to me to be so prejudiced as to not be worth worrying about. By and large I find it quite a good forum. I just need to keep away from it more often !

Sometimes points can be lost in delivery but all in all most posters on OLO seem to stick to reasoned debate for the most part.

We could all be more self-aware.

Houlley why do you treat OLO as some sort of test tube experiment adding bits and pieces to invite a reaction?

Hihi!

Pontificator!

You give me so much to work with... oh, you're just a joy.

I just get so excited by posts like that, so full of self righteous condemnation and indignation.

'logically flawed'
Haha. Only through your narrow perspective. How come it riles you so much that someone can honestly say they have no intention or interest in playing by your rules. Are you jealous of the freedom of one who is happy? Are you so intimidated by the thought of someone renouncing table manners? What kind of father did you have?

Shed your clothes and run free man. Liberate yourself, and then you may smile in contentment.

'that attitude/behaviour says more about the protagonist than the victim '

Yes it does Hyacinth, it says I've got your number. Why do you object so much to the workings of your ego being put on display. If everyone has flaws and foibles, what's so scary about 'luxuriating' in them? Maybe it's because you're a counsellor, someone who earns money from supposedly being able to dissect such things, but being shown to be so helpless and stunted by a simple holding up of a mirror.

'as a PART of the community not separate from. '

I'm part of the community, I just jeer at the more pretentious pontificating and take more interest in the group dynamics. Every court needs a jester.

'self amusement at the cost of others'

What is the 'cost' to others, and if it is so costly why do they keep coming back for more?

'What OLO isn't...'
The objective reality refutes your delusions about what OLO.

'selfish'?

Ah, the confirmation. So you're posting your thoughts on an anonymous forum for altruistic reasons; To give people the wonderful gift of your perspective. With every post you prove everything I've always said about you pompouficator.

pelican,

'Houlley why do you treat OLO as some sort of test tube experiment adding bits and pieces to invite a reaction?'

Because it's fun. See above. I'm just a sociopath aided and abetted by so many on here who take themselves so seriously.

Come on anti, it took a lot of hard work.
From you
To get me not liking you much.
We once stood shoulder to shoulder in fair go for fathers type threads.
But I left after the real you emerged, nothing to do with small groups, promise I would walk past you in any crowd.
Now Howler, well I knew a bloke like you, people called him General.
Unfortunately his full name was General, above average, Knowledge.
Here we are in a thread about rage acting just as Aussies do in RL.
I see no rage, I do see Henny Penny syndrome, every day and here now.
Stirring the one we know takes the baits.
The sky is falling stuff
We need not take the birch to ourselves here what we do here is what most of us do in RL.
I am however not so sure we need to cringe in a corner for having views, any of them.
We may not all come for the conversation but tell me then why do we come?
Apart from howler to insult and provoking to be anti me to heavens to Betsy be a foot soldier.
Would not be dead for quids some of those who give me a bit over that are the very ones who know less about life than they will ever understand.

Belly

Sorry if I unintentionally offended you. The reference was to the few who toe the line without exercising their own critical thought. From your replies you would question the party line if you disagreed with it.

I've only just managed to catch up with this thread.

"Forum Rage" by Antiseptic.

Oh, the irony of it all.

Being human like everyone else here, I have probably upset some types - I do love to tease a bit. However, I loathe a bully, while I manage ignore them most of the time, there are unguarded moments where I have had enough. Nevertheless, I couldn't say I ever felt "rage" at anything I've read here. Appalled, yes. Outraged, never.

I have asked Antiseptic before to present his opinions without the gratuitous insults - I know you are capable of it, you are obviously intelligent and articulate, that you choose to pepper your posts with ad hominem attacks.... I wonder just how you would react if anyone responded to you with equal venom. I posit we'd witness some rage then.

:-)

Thank you Snake for your kind words regarding Fractelle and so you know, I am now posting under the moniker, Severin.

Cheers everyone.

c J Morgan, "My approach to conversations here is similar to that which I employ at dinner parties rather than, say, the pub. That is, I am mostly polite and considerate, but as the dialogue descends in quality, I'm quite capable of putting idiots and boofheads in their place."

Those must be some dinner parties on the other side of the tracks.

A bottle of rum, an axe as the table setting and red and blue party lights on the cab home.

If you get angry with drinks give it up. Women rightly fear loud-mouthed, violent drunks.

Just to underline that point, I find few people as worrying as the man who stews away at a social gathering only to erupt during the course of the evening.

That is scary.

Why build up a head of booze-fuelled agro?

If people offend so much why not make a polite excuse, leave early and spare everyone else the scene?

Pornflower: << If you get angry with drinks give it up. >>

I didn't say anything about drinks, or getting angry. Dealing with offensive boors at dinner parties is best achieved calmly and soberly, in my experience. You must go to some great dinner parties.

<< Women rightly fear loud-mouthed, violent drunks. >>

You mean, like some of the misogynist men around here?

C J Morgan,

The quote was exact and this is what you said: "I am mostly polite and considerate, but as the dialogue descends in quality, I'm quite capable of putting idiots and boofheads in their place."

Your slip is showing, your 'mostly polite' was followed by the aggressive threat that you put 'idiots' and boofheads' in their place. Hardly the words of a diplomat, but common enough vernacular for rough types. You did not mention any of the methods a peaceful person would prefer. You say you choose your words deliberately.

It is shabby ploy and a great pity that you cannot confront your anger and instead you try to divert attention onto others. Man up!

Cornflower,

How unsurprising that you choose this thread to try and pick a fight with me (yet again).

You tried to insinuate that I'm a "loud-mouthed, violent drunk" whom "women rightly fear". Anybody who knows my posting history here will know how risible that insult is.

However, as I usually do with Cornflower, I'm not going to play. My previous post was pretty much how I would respond to some waspish old cow who said something like that to me in polite company. Indeed, as I said above, that is my general approach when dealing with idiots and boofheads.

That's about as violent as I get, and know woman I know fears me. Quite the reverse, actually :)

Dang... I meant "no woman I know"...

Mind you, "know woman I know" is an interesting phrase - sounds like a song :)

Dear Cornflower,

Why would you assume that CJ made aggressive threats?

All he said was, "As the dialogue descends in quality,
I'm quite capable of putting idiots and boofheads in
their place..."

You interpreted that as aggression?

There are other ways in polite society to get a point
across apart from gutter language - which not only
demeans the user of the language but shows a rather
limited vocabulary and intelligence. Neither of which
are CJ's traits.

Perhaps you've missed out on exposure to civil behaviour.

I was also a little puzzled at the conclusions you drew from C.J's post, Cornflower. I haven't been posting here long but have always found his manner to be measured and polite.

Why shouldn't anyone who makes the sort of statement that C J did not be questioned? From a normal reading of course it gives considerable scope for the interpretation that aggression was being his proposed solution and yes, CJ is often brusque and arrogant in his replies to people on the forum. He says so himself, although he is also quick to excuse himself through blaming the other party.

It is usual for CJ to set himself up as the standard of sensitivity to which other men on this forum ought aspire and I don't take one step back from my challenge of him to explain himself in this case.

That he should have expressed himself differently was shown by his immediate correction to, "Dealing with offensive boors at dinner parties is best achieved calmly and soberly".

For myself, I would prefer to think that C J was puffing up his boofy manliness when he said he was "quite capable of putting idiots and boofheads in their place".

Poirot, "I haven't been posting here long but have always found his manner to be measured and polite."

He just hasn't got around to you yet. For instance, it is par for the course for C J to call people disgusting names, referring to me above as 'Pornfower'.

Disagree and win a label.

Same Poirot and Foxy,

C.J. has always been polite even if we disgreed on something. What I admire most is his courage in stating his opinion even when it means copping alienating flak from some other fellas. He doesn't follow some sort of bonding ritual.

Examinator and Belly (I have disagreed with both of them too) and a few others are the same - they can joust a bit and exchange opposing views without being foul.

Lots of nice people here actually.

You would stake your reputation on that eh, Pynchme?

You wouldn't like your blunt weapon to get damaged either.

Antiseptic< " Starting to HTFU, I see. Good for you."
Well, thanks for that praise. I'll take it when I can get it!

It's rather ironic that a thread entitled "Forum Rage" should mainly star the ever enraged Cornflower (aka Pornflower).

It's a wonder 'septic hasn't taken Cornflower to task as the star that outshone him in his own 'rage' thread!

Well cornflower I do not take offense but carried on a bit in other threads about the foot soldiers bit.
In truth very many over the years have complained about too much politics here.
I am often charged because of my basic Labor stance that I am biased and therefore biased beyond worth taking notice of.
I firmly think we are not seeing much rage here, and we need not change much.
Dare I say it? is there room to be rude to be honest?
Worst offenders to good conduct,,, are not using rage, toning it down a bit nore are they using the brains they claim are better than others

Well, as predicted by Graham and myself before the topic was approved, the thread has degenerated.

As usual, the dog-whistling from Severin was just too much for CJMorgan to resist and it went downhill from there. Well done you two, it must be hard maintaining such a low standard at all times. Not so hard for you, obviously little fella...

Belly:"it took a lot of hard work.
From you
To get me not liking you much."

Amd just think, to get me not liking you much all you had to do was answer the dog-whistle a couple of times. I guess I'm just naturally more likeable.

Actually Belly, I do quite like you, but I don't much like your tendency to whiteknightitis, which often manifests as an unfortunate case of brown-nose, which seems to be contagous. I don't have much time for your beloved unions either, as you might have noticed.

Examinator:"Your views on family law etc are well know "

You've noticed! Have you also noticed that they tend to be diametrically opposed to the view put forward by the victim-milkers?

My postings on Family Law are intended to highlight the "special pleading" and "appeal to emotion" www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies that is relied on by women before the Law. It always fascinates me that the law (not just the Family Law) holds men more responsible for their actions than women in nearly every way. I won't go further into it here, it's not the appropriate thread, but I may start another...

Snake:"they often reflect my own."

Aren't these sites great? They let us pick and choose and only read what we want to read. Perfect for those who don't like to think much, especially if they only read the Dog Whistler and her faithful lap dog, Butch...

Pelican:"We could all be more self-aware. "

Not me. I'm perfectly well aware of my state of perfection...

Cornflower, don't mind the little fella, he's just overcompensating for his fear of men by hiding behind the nearest skirt and yapping as usual.

Now all that "small group dynamics" is out of the way...

Severin:"I loathe a bully,"

But you quite like ganging up, don't you? To me there's a great deal more intellectual honesty and basic courage of conviction in standing by one's individual words and views rather than relying on a chorus of "yeahs' and "me toos" for validation.

Here's a tip: if there are several ganging up on one, it's not usually the one who is doing the bullying.

If you don't like my posts, you have a simple remedy - don't read them. I made you an offer in another thread to stop offering you insults if you stopped offering them to me. Your response was yet another insult. No worries big fella, at least we know where we stand, eh?

CJMorgan:"I'm quite capable of putting idiots and boofheads in their place."

And how do you do that? By making what you think is a smartarse one-liner from the side of your mouth as you head for the door, hoping desperately noone hears it, except perhaps a couple of the "ladies" sitting in the beer garden? What a man!

I'd like to like you, CJ. I suspect that we actually share a lot of common ground. Unfortunately, you never add anything of value to your posts, not even your intended put downs are interesting or original. Try to loosen up, you might even like it.

Cornflower, I'd not worry too much about CJMorgan's efforts to puff his little chest out. It's not as if his claim is actually credible.

Belly:"is there room to be rude "

Yes, if there is a point to it. A post full of name-calling with no content would be a waste of time. However, speaking for myself, I never do that. I do seek to provoke and to rididcule where it is deserved, because I have found that it sorts out those who hold genuine well-founded views from the mere hecklers, of which there are many.

It's a shame that so few of the hecklers seem to possess any wit at all.

CJ has always been such a gentleman to me. In fact, I really think he's the most intelligent and articulate poster on OLO. I'm sure if I were to meet him, I'd be smitten. In bed, I bet he's assertive in a way that isn't aggressive, and submissive in a way that isn't wussy. He just makes me week at the knees. Mr Darcy, you've got nothing on CJ!

Of course, one of the very best strategies when dealing with boorish oafs is to simply turn one's back on them and talk to others with better manners.

Which is exactly what I intend to do with the rest of this thread :)

Thanks to Poirot, Foxy and Pynchme for the kind words. I love you too, Howler :X

CJMorgan:"Thanks to Poirot, Foxy and Pynchme for the kind words."

Me, a couple of posts ago:"To me there's a great deal more intellectual honesty and basic courage of conviction in standing by one's individual words and views rather than relying on a chorus of "yeahs' and "me toos" for validation."

As I said...

Hey pynchme,

Can I be called nice too? I really really like feminism! Please! Oh, why wont you like me! I'm really not like that nasty antiseptic. Really. Ask pelican. But don't ask that Fractelle. It makes me so sad that you cant understand I need love too.

Antiseptic,

You rarely add anything of value to OLO, and it's a good thing there are some good men in the world who don't hate women like you do. Girls, I'm sorry for antiseptic, but be safe in knowing men aren't all like that. There are men like me that are non-threatening, and ready to give you cuddles.

I respect women, and I want to shout it from the rooftops!

Oh, and I can be hard, but in a respectful, intelligent and polite way, and I will defend the honour of you girls, and be fearless in the face of the overwhelmingly frightening threat of an anonymous post pooh poohing my opinions. I'm so brave.

PS: pynchme, what about now?

How about we try "PO," - "Provocative Operation?"

According to Edward de Bono:

"Provocation is an important lateral thinking
technique that helps to generate original
starting points for lateral thinking..."

"To use provocation make a deliberately stupid comment...
and use the statement as the starting point for
generating ideas... "

Look at:

1) The consequences of the statement.
2) What the benefits would be.
3) What special circumstances would make it
a sensible solution.
4) The principles needed to support it and
make it work.
5) How it would work moment to moment.
6) What would happen if a sequence of events
was changed?

Antiseptic, Houellie, Cornflower, anyone,
game to give it a go?

Err...Houlley
"Ask Pelican".

Good attempt at wedge politics there.

Don't ask me because you are a bit of a troublemaker but quite harmless. In fact sometimes when you are actually making an on-topic comment you display a lot of good commonsense.

Pity we don't see this side of you more often.

But I still love you and can see you need lots of cuddles.

Pelican

I'm sure Houellie needs cuddles, we all do.

But.

The one who is most in need.

Is Antiseptic.

Just to prove I'm not a 'me too' CJ's Grannie wore witches britches, and he's not a good looking as me! So there! :-)

Small group politics?.... Mine's is an ini after my op and sometime gets fluff in it there's also half(?) a smartie..... hmph! a bit stale... We *are* naval gazing aren't we, anti? :-o

See ya on the flip side.

I would be more concerned about a small group that is forever trying to enforce its world view and opinions on others.

It is called group think and some of the symptoms are stereotyping others, cat-calling, self-censorship, mind-guarding (enforcing blind adherence by not allowing alternative views from being presented) and illusion of unanimity. Taking it a bit further, it is the behaviour that is found in cult members such as Heaven's Gate.

It is no surprise that there are regular appeals from this group for opposing (construed as adversarial) views to be penalised, censored and the person/s concerned to be removed or preferably banned.

There is no surprise that Antiseptic is pursued by an easily identified group or that he is tagged by its members with an array of offensive nicks including the scurrilous title of 'Antiwoman'. It matters naught that he is in fact challenging certain laws and gender feminism or radical feminism, he perceived to be a threat and must be greeted with cat-calls or worse.

It follows that anyone else who might express a view that is opposed by the small group is likened to 'Septic' or 'Antiwoman', as Pynchme and C J Morgan have regularly done to me with various offensive nicks.

Like others who have also make a similar comment over time, I cannot see any convincing evidence that Antiseptic is opposed women as a gender, however I would not always believe that of the tag team that usually opposes him who insist on generalising about men despite appeals to be specific and use the qualifier 'some'.

Gender feminism and radical feminism are abominations, presenting a jaundiced view of men and boys that was always alien to mainstream feminists and women.

Mmmmm Cult.

It is interesting though. How come if some of you can admit antiseptic has some valid points and can be articulate and has intelligence, and you all being the huge 'contribution' junkies wanting to further the knowledge and understanding of all human kind via OLO, cant you just ignore and look past this supposed 'abuse', and take the baby and leave the bath water.

Since you cant, that reduces it to what cornflower is saying. Pure in-group peer pressure. No different than laughing at antiseptic because he isn't wearing dunlop volleys.

And if the 'abuse' is so bad, why do you return fire with the same sort of gear?

No generosity of heart, no loving human spirit. Just a bunch of mean girls, wanting to rule the school.

OLO; The Journey of antiseptic.

You guys make this guy the pin-up kid of the whole site. For what? I'm much more interesting.

Foxy,

explain how it's supposed to work. Does it involve flexibility?

It's called the "them" and "us,"
syndrome!

There was an excellent article reprinted
in "The Age," a few years ago:

"As everyone knows, the world is divided into
two categories: Other people and Us!"

Other people are rude, make offensive remarks,
try to shut us up ... et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera.

Life can be defined as a long process of putting
up with other people's irritating habits. Yet
you may constantly be amazed at how tolerant even
the most intolerant people are of their own foibles.

Sounds hypocritical?

Let's face it. For some of us life is only tolerable
when we can look down on someone else.

It's other people who get drunk and behave disgustingly,
while we're the life and soul of the party!

'Let's face it. For some of us life is only tolerable
when we can look down on someone else.'

Oh Foxy! Surely you've noticed how long and how hard I've tried to expose this phenomena on OLO. As I've said before I offer a service to OLO for this exact reason. So does anti. You all owe us a debt of gratitude.

How about starting with a cuddle? Aye? Come'on, be flexible!

Any chance that we can get back o some sensible debate ?

Anti sorry not brown nosing bloke its my spell check, had a nervous break down trying to work out what i was saying.
Do you know bloke only the letter T separates a Wit from a twit?
So GY said it would degenerate?
Bet it has not in the way he thought.
Needling yes , unfunny stuff yes but it is harmless.
I still have not seen anything to be ashamed of written by anyone here.
But if we look, truly look we can see its a mirror of life and our workplaces.
We agree with those who think as we do, disagree with those we feel do not think at all.
Each of us takes up the verbal tennis challenge most getting the wit bit right some never.
Still it has been an interesting thread and far from finished.
In total truth howler and anti I do not dislike you but refuse to listen much to you.
GY may have feared a combat session with some of us, I remain convinced some are unable to think clearly but it is my fault not theirs I fail to ignore them.

Foxy
Sorry sweetie but you're wrong.

There are indeed two opinions Mine and the wrong one! :-) Sorry I couldn't resist.

But I do object to the whole notion of two sides, Ours and them. it is as unsustainable as a generality as my joke.

To be completely honest I can't think of too many topics where we all agree. We do at times agree with individuals within that amorphous group of regular contributors.
Its a very long bow to draw that we are in some sort of group think. IMO it's just not sustainable.

I would venture to suggest that the similarity is one of being able to carry a conversation as some meaningful level and be relatively understood in the context of OLO.

I admit to having difficulties in wanting to maintain conversation, with some people who I find are myopic and aggressive about it.
I recently left a site because it was impossible to have a conversation without negative hyperbole and/or ill placed angst. Everything not conservative country was a communist/socialist plot/conspiracy, out to get them. Where BFI, bad manners was straight talk and any contrary opinion was BS or PC on steroids. Racism is saying, how it is. *Everything* political was Chairman Krudd fault.

I guess the point I'm making is, when a set of topics responses from an individual have the overtones/edge, and similar arguments. I distrusts the words and focus on the motive, the real topic. Yes 'h', just for you, it's probably a conditioned reflex from my past

Dear Examinator,

I was merely responding to Cornflower's post.
A "them" and "us" scenario.

It was done with my tongue firmly lodged in my
cheek meant to expose all the vanity and
hypocrisy that we all share. Your joke
fits beautifully. "I'm perfect - you're not!"

Or -

Other people snore.
Other people have garlic breath.
Other people are inconsiderate
when their noisy parties continue
until 4am. When it's 4am at our
parties everyone's just having a
good time and the people across the
road have always had a grudge against
us, anyway...

Other people litter and it's disgusting.
When we drop paper it's the council's
fault because we can't find a bin anywhere.

Well, you get the picture ...

cont'd ...

We can always find excuses for our own behaviour.

I asked in another thread -

"Do people who enrage us do it intentionally, or is
it a by-product of words or behaviour that they think
is perfectly appropriate?"

If it's the former, don't give them the satisfaction of
knowing they succeeded. If it's the latter - will
displaying annoyance stop the behaviour or simply let
them know they've found a soft spot?

How we react will depend on our personality
traits. Some people having aggressive
personalities are more likely to engage in
aggressive behaviour regardless of whether situations
were provoking or not.

snake: << Any chance that we can get back o some sensible debate ? >>

I don't think that there was ever much hope for a sensible discussion here. Between the OP, his odious godmother and the self-appointed court jester it's gone pretty much the way you'd expect.

All credit, however, to those who aren't biting at the deliberate provocation.

I should also thank snake for his/her earlier positive remarks that I overlooked in my last post.

Note to Antisocial - that's called 'good manners'. Apparently you don't know about them. They're very useful, particularly when people who disagree about things want to find a way to discuss their differences.

Cornflower, I wouldn't waste any pity on Antiseptic.
He is more than able to stand up for himself, and he enjoys doing so.

There is no us and them conspiracy at work on this forum.

There will always be at least one person on any forum or in any conversation who is more controversial and 'out there' than all the others.

On this forum it is almost always Antiseptic- and he thrives on it!

Foxy good stuff I have considered a thread for a while, on just what you spoke of.
My name was to be not me mate.
I had seen a person sprint to get across a pedestrian crossing car keys in hand being quite rude to drivers who had waited too long.
Then push over while people tried to cross in her own car minute later.
We have no group here, but some who work hard to put themselves in the too hard basket then complain because they have done just that.
Love anti every things insults about unions, full of lack of understanding and knowledge ,evidence too, but it is a personal mud ball thrown rather like stamping feet or holding his breath.

Haaaaaaa.

Hear the crowd yell Haaaaaaa

'clearly but it is my fault not theirs I fail to ignore them.'

And Belly gets the prize!

pontificator,

'I distrusts the words and focus on the motive, the real topic. '

See, that right there is exactly what I do. But when I 'luxuriate' in the 'flaws and foibles', you say that's bad manners, or not sticking to the topic. Where really, it's just that you feel you're allowed to luxuriate, but when the topic is you it's suddenly offensive.

CJ,

'manners'? From an anthropologist that's really funny.

Anyway, I've said many times that pontificators style and prose is deliberately patronising, opaque, convoluted, and offensive to me. My style is offensive to him. He refuses to accommodate my needs as I refuse to accommodate his. Manners is the effort to accommodate another's needs.

'H'UF(hideously unfunny fool) (fool being the original name for a jester)

The difference is I don't respond, or if I do it's not to make fun.
It's to help, but that is a crime in your mind.

Old wisdom 'if you can't help get out of the way, don't hinder.'

The point was the angst/pre occupation over shadows/distracts from the response.
Even you should see the difference.

Nice to see that there's some more life in this thread yet.

foxt:"Us and them"

Is it really that clear, or is it more a case of the "group think" that Cornflower mentioned? IOW to be part of "us" (whichever "us" you want to identify with) on a forum like this one needs to offer much validation and little critique of the views of others within that group, leading inevitably to a homogenisation of expressed opinion, or "group think". Dissent is anathema to acceptance.

I say screw that!

Belly is keen to ba part of the group though:"anti I do not dislike you but refuse to listen much to you."

Houllebecq:"No different than laughing at antiseptic because he isn't wearing dunlop volleys."

Oh, but he is. Steel-capped 'n' all. Nearly as stylish as Docs, and much more brutal. Bit narrow in the toe, though.

foxy:"It was done with my tongue firmly lodged in my
cheek "

And isn't it irritating that you've had something taken the wrong way?

Butch:"I should also thank snake for his/her earlier positive remarks that I overlooked in my last post."

Me, a couple of days ago:"To me there's a great deal more intellectual honesty and basic courage of conviction in standing by one's individual words and views rather than relying on a chorus of "yeahs' and "me toos" for validation."

And the little fella leaves the room again, desperately trying to think up a suitably cutting remark that can be safely delivered out of hearing range of anyone but the old scrubber throwing up her guts on the footpath.

Belly:"insults about unions"

Glad to hear it. There will be many more if the union movement doesn't lift its game. How many new members did the AWU sign up last year? how many new women members in the PSU, ACOA, etc? Do you think that might explain why the Unions/Labor are so keen to discriminate in favour of women?

pontificator,

'it's to help'.

Hahahaha. Still patronising I see.

'over shadows/distracts from the response. '

As does (insert what's/rubish) inside what's rubbishes/human effluent in luxuriating style. Apposite.

There are individuals whose aim is gratification
from the distress caused by provoking others.
The internet provides the perfect forum for this.
They have anonymity, ease of provocation and
an almost infinite source of targets - meaning
they can target anybody.

Yet when confronted their defense often is -
"You started it!" or they'll refer to "group
dynamics," or they'll attack the language of
other posters as being "verbose, too analytical,"
et cetera . This is standard "bully speak,"
and a distortion.

However, having said that - we're lucky that on
this Forum - most posters don't choose to behave in
this manner - and are able to behave with civil
courtesy towards each other. That's not to say that
there aren't clashes - but cyber-bulling - so far
has eluded OLO.

Houellebecq:"Manners is the effort to accommodate another's needs."

Or another's wants. "Manners" are what can be socially constructed; they are only ever an overlay. What we need as humans is food, water and some mental stimulation. Those things can be delivered with no social overlay at all.
It is only the most shallow thinkers who demand manners as a prerequisite of communication. Much of the most interesting conversation arises because of the subversion of such overlays.

Houellebecq:"You guys make this guy the pin-up kid of the whole site. For what?"

I suspect that more than anything else it's because I am articulate, but I don't subscribe to their preferred set of memes. In fact, as you have pointed out, I tend to use conversational gambits and positions more commonly found among blue-collar men. I do so deliberately, because the blue-collar man rarely gets heard.

That means that to the overwhelmingly white collar (yes, even you belly - when was the last time you actually struck a blow?) membership here, there is a disjunct between my mode of expression and the thoughts expressed. They are used to being able to use some big words to shut down ill-educated buffoons who question their pronouncements.

Sadly for them, I know lots of big words too and I put them together better than they can, so they feel threatened.

Besides, I'm better looking than you.

My first visit to a thread on OLO was butting in on a "discussion" between Houellebecq and examinator which I thought was rather lively. It's nice to see that nothing has changed and I've come to the conclusion that I look forward to the opinions of both whenever I see them on a thread. On the whole, it is great fun watching everyone playing dodgem cars with their opinions (and insults) - and educational too.

Foxy,

'gratification'?
So that is the real gripe. How dare one enjoy OLO. I provide gratification for you and others Foxy, as I give you a villain and someone to feel superior to.

People voluntarily engage me Foxy. 'Provoking' I could accept if it is someone who is new to the forum, but I see you lot getting heaps out of it all. Why else would you keep coming back for more.

'You started it' is the standard defence for slagging off antiseptic. You big bunch of bullys.

There is one of him, one of me, and umpteen of you lot; and WE are the bullies? I don't think you've thought this through.



anti,

'a prerequisite of communication'

Yes, as I said,
'How come if some of you can admit antiseptic has some valid points and can be articulate and has intelligence, and you all being the huge 'contribution' junkies wanting to further the knowledge and understanding of all human kind via OLO, cant you just ignore and look past this supposed 'abuse', and take the baby and leave the bath water.'

They choose to take offence rather than addressing the points they admit they comprehend. They are choosing not to communicate. For a pay-off of having someone to castigate, and averting their eyes from arguments they don't feel able to refute.

'I'm better looking than you'
Oh, I think you'd be surprised. I'm much younger for a start. And I imagine you're hiding Koalas in your back pockets. You'll never compete with my 33 inch waist.

Dear Houellie,

Most of us do consider
others when posting. Or
at least they try.

The reason posters keep returning to
this Forum, I would hazard a guess,
is because it is a Forum of social and
political debate. A discussion Forum that
most enjoy. It's not looked upon as a
"graffiti wall," as it is by your own
admission, to you.

Anyway, far be it for me to deprive you of your
"enjoyment." Just don't expect responses to
inappropriate provocation - which is neither
intelligent nor entertaining for any one else.

I get plenty of responses Foxy, and I wonder how you propose to speak for everyone on OLO.

My point isn't about posters returning to the forum, it's that they respond to me and continue to respond to me yet say they don't enjoy it. Surely someone who doesn't enjoy an activity would cease to do it.

It is hardly rage when someone disagrees with a point or makes a comment about bad manners or makes a comment about someone making a comment about someone making a comment about bad manners.

Just post at your will. Why is a thread about posting that important when I am sure if any poster crosses the line they will be moderated by Graham or Susan.

Does all this talk about forum rage really matter?

Pelican
Fair point.
I'd suggest some are simply in "look at me, look at ME!" mode, hardly a hanging offense, I agree, hmmm um maybe, not aalll the time, anyway. :-)

Dear Houellie,

I do not claim to be speaking for everyone else.

And, people respond to you for a variety of
reasons - whether "enjoyment" is one of them,
is guesswork on your part. However, many don't
respond to you as well, and many have explained
their reasons for that to you.

As Pelly and Examinator have rightly pointed out -
on this Forum we've always managed with good-will,
tolerance, and respect for each other, to solve
any heated discussions and problems that arise.

I'm sure that we'll continue to do
likewise in the future. We've usually managed to
put aside our personal differences - and live and let
live.

OLO is bigger than any of us. And will continue with
or without us. Graham will see to that.

cont'd ...

I forgot to add that your theory that OLO
needs you to "castigate," is a mistaken
one. You're neither that important or great,
in the general scheme of things.

And, as for your saying that " people avert their
eyes from arguments they're unable to refute..."

Nah, they simply can't be bothered making the
effort when they see who it is they're dealing
with.

Yeah but you're still making the effort Foxy. Come'on, admit it. You love me!

I came to the thread in self defence?
I am aware[ and grateful it made howler happy] I go too far in defense of my belief, some times you can never win.
So I came as therapy, to remind myself the forum is indeed bigger than all of us.
Antiseptic, please no white collar stuff, and those other unions?
I may have to stand up for a week, but have always said unions there is a difference.
PSA is no union, it serves only its self, the others how would I know.
AWU grew last year by big numbers it continues to grow.
just before I turned 13 mate I went to work.
Long list hard jobs hard work, salary now no overtime but never stops.
I would even now love to host a jack hammer and work all day but 15 to 18 hours a day 600 klm in one day is stress and work.
63 e mail addresses in my PC every one gets a monthly report done out of hours.
Amusing your idea I am not a worker and your little sling at women here to, problem there bloke?
Do they not like you? I do not want to be short with you, but is that why?
Why you call C J Morgan short fella?
I got the long thread right bloke didn't I?

Houellebecq,

Your shenanigans aren't worthy of comment so I won't

Foxy,

Did you know that in days of yore if a jester failed to amuse they amused the gathered assemblage of guests by having the unfunny jester beaten. Don't cha love the old ways hmmm ? :-)

Anti
from your own computer you deliberately play games (verbal techniques tthat reflect blue collar views) to get a response.

Hmm where do I start?
Blue collar? (generalization) my adopted parents fell into that category as did most of mums rellies (40 of them) But none of them ever expressed any opinions that remotely reflected your views.

I'm sorry blue collar doesn't mean dumb, or just plain rude, unnecessarily provocative for provocative sake.

Did it occur to you that the reason some come to OLO is to chat/discuss on a sensible level. Certainly not on the some ignorant angst ridden level that seems to be prevalent on talk back radio level.
Look at it like this I've dealt with alcies in a refuges, druggies, crims, pollies, so I am aware of their thinking, that doesn't mean that I want to roll in it when I'm seeking recreational mental stimulation and conversation.

Likewise because mind numbing stupidity is there doesn't mean I want to partake. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of other posters had similar views.

Dear Examinator,

In days of old when knights were bold
and some ladies needed rescuing ...

I do love the days of yore. However, as far
as court jesters go - they actually were
immune from punishment. The role of the
court jester historically, or as is known
in Shakespearian Studies, the wise fool,
was not only one of entertainment but as
the voice of reason. The court jester held
a special dispensation to speak his mind.

His words could be laughed aside as that of
a simpleton, but more often than not, they
were taken to heart.

Belly:"I came to the thread in self defence?"

Just as well you put the question mark in. You were one of the first posters. They do say the best form of defence is attack...

Houellebecq:"They are choosing not to communicate."

Very true. They've taken my old Mum's advice to heart:"better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt". Of course, for some of them, being thought a mere fool is the height of personal aspiration.

Houellebecq:"You'll never compete with my 33 inch waist."

Scrawny bugger, aren't you?

Foxy:"Most of us do consider
others when posting. "

I'd say all of us do: why else post? The bone of contention is the type of consideration we give. Do we pander to the artificial mores they impose, censoring ourselves in either content or mode to suit their comfort? Do we rather choose to test those mores by failing to observe them?

Pelican:"Does all this talk about forum rage really matter?"

Not at all. I suggest that we all return to discussing our putative latent homosexuality immediately. Or Lara's boobs.

Foxy:"we've always managed with good-will,
tolerance, and respect for each other,"

Hahahaha. Did you get some really good eccies this arvo, Foxy?

examinator:"my adopted parents fell into that category as did most of mums rellies (40 of them) But none of them ever expressed any opinions that remotely reflected your views."

Having read your stuff, I doubt any of them ever expressed an opinion that was remotely intelligible. Let's not demand miracles...

Examinator:"blue collar doesn't mean dumb, or just plain rude, unnecessarily provocative for provocative sake"

When was the last time you were on a building site, old chap? A wrecking yard? How about the tip? A sawmill, perhaps? Done your share of toil at the mines, eh?

Oh, that's right, mum's rellies told you all about them. Gotta love armchair experts...

Dear Antiseptic,

You ask me, "Did I get some
really good eccies this arvo?"

I don't understand what you're
asking - so your comment has
fallen flat. But I'm sure you
meant it to be clever.

Never mind - you can try again in
your next post.

Dear Examinator,

I meant to explain about my court jester post.
I don't see Houellie as the court jester type
at all. He's not here to entertain others -
only himself. To me he'd fit more into a
court knave category. Hence, an impudent rogue,
or scoundrel... would be more apt.

Dear Examinator,

You may have mixed up the jester with the knave.
It was the knave who usually got punished in court :-)

"The Queen of Hearts
She made some tarts
All on a summer's day

The Knave of Hearts
He stole the tarts
And took them clean away

The King of Hearts
Called for the tarts
And beat the Knave full score

The Knave of Hearts
Brought back the tarts
And vowed he'd steal no more."

Luverly!

Foxy:"I don't understand what you're
asking"

Not surprising, those eccies must have been really good...

Just for you: my remark was prompted by your comment bout the forum being all about sweetness and light. eccies=ecstasy tablets=feeling of goodwll towards all (or so I'm told...).

Still, it's good to see you're maintaining solidarity with the tarts. A day's not complete without a sweet tart at the end of it.

The answer is so simple what we purpose in our heart becomes our passion and we tend to defend our passions passionatly .

Can Squeers be psychoanalysed here? I think I can lay claim to being occasionally infuriating (well I do my best). Is the fault mine, or are we sometimes too conservative? After all, we don't want OLO to degenerate into a love-in.
I think our motto should be: "have your cherished views challenged and be prepared to think again". Our opinions have been years in the making, assuming they're based on reason, and the danger is keeping them sacred.

Coming on this thread is like watching a re-run of the Three Stooges.

It is a bit like watching a fire, you know if you put your hand in it might hurt, but you can't help yourself drawing closer to the flame. :)

Anti: "Not at all. I suggest that we all return to discussing our putative latent homosexuality immediately. Or Lara's boobs."

Well, I suppose Lara's boobs are nice.

It is interesting that the poster starting a thread about forum rage is the one calling everyone a tart.

Classic stuff. Houlley will be enjoying himself.

Dear Anti,

Thanks for explaining what you wanted
to say to me.

I wish that I could eat sweets.

However, I'm on a strict diet since
my surgery. The same goes for taking
drugs. I'm on prescribed tablets -
and that's all I'm allowed.
My health is too important to me and
my family to risk doing anything
apart from what my specialist allows.

Anyway, see you on another thread.
This one's run its course for me.

Pelican:"It is interesting that the poster starting a thread about forum rage is the one calling everyone a tart."

And all in the best possible taste.

The big question is, what sort of tart are you? The delightful little sweet cherry with a soft, easy-to-handle case, or the blue cheese and onion with a brittle, overbaked sourdough crust?

BTW, it was Foxy who mentioned tarts. She's definitely the neenish variety: completely inoffensive and always giving the impression that there's something hidden beneath the surface.

Ha ha anti, you do have a sense of humour which one needs on OLO at times.

"The big question is, what sort of tart are you? The delightful little sweet cherry with a soft, easy-to-handle case, or the blue cheese and onion with a brittle, overbaked sourdough crust?"

That is a difficult choice anti, because my taste is more for the savoury but hopefully one that's crust is not overbaked. What about savoury with a light flaky pastry.

(No comments about the flaky bit please) :)

cont'd ...

Dear Anti,

Before I go - this one's for you:

"The Queen of Hearts
Ate Neenish Tarts
While the fimble-bamp played the bamzoo

And down by the sea
Danced the quirrelly-quee
With a snake and a grey kangaroo"

I am still getting a grin and interest out of the thread.
Antiseptic your drug reference, eccys went over Foxys head but just maybe it said something about you.
Funny we, yep me too, can not avoid answering you and howler, even if to say we no longer will.
You glossed over my last post did not get involved in its direction.
Your dislike of women is noted and some real unhappiness may lay behind it.
My only advice? often it is the very Small things that come between a man and woman.
Nothing can help just do not be bitter live with it.
Try not to let it change your happy nature.

Anti,
Worked in several factories,
A chicken slaughter house,
several warehouses,
a council yard,
grew up on a prison farm,
amidst forestry workers and oilers.
Even as a licensee to a wharfie pub
plus the lot I mentioned
The point was why roll in it for entertainment.
______________________________________
Foxy
Knave, Kjester all the same to me, beat them I say beat them!
Like my favourite 2 dimensional TV character "Fi" from 'burn notice'
says "can we shoot them now?" or "if something seems that simple perhaps we should shoot it to be sure". All the males in our family think she's so over the top, she's a hoot.

Take what he says to heart? nah he's like a mosquito without its proboscis more a nuisance than a problem

Pelican:"savoury with a light flaky pastry."

Flaky? Never. I'm thinking cheese and asparagus in a very short crust.

Well peppered.

Foxy:"The Queen of Hearts
Ate Neenish Tarts"

Is that yours, Foxy? It's very Lear-esque.

I loved Lear as a kid. Used to read him with a dictionary to hand to check myself on spotting the nonsense words.

Belly:"Your dislike of women is noted "

Oh dear, Belly, you can't resist the dog-whistle, can you?

How many of the blokes working on the road construction crews are doing it because they no longer have a home and a wife and children they can see, but they do have a large Child Support and family court legal bill? When I was working down your way at Tarcutta and Yass, the percentage was very high indeed. I learned the blokes to avoid at the pub after a few beers, because they were simply too miserable to be decent company or were always angry.

Your union is a Union of men, to a very great extent, so why does it support discrimination against men? Why does it support laws that actively disadvantage a great many of its members?

Examinator:"why roll in it for entertainment."

Roll in what? You see a blue collar perspective as something nasty to be avoided?

I think my point stands. The blue-collar perspective is not something that the middle-class is used to having to hear about, especially if it is well-articulated, rather than the dog-whistling of the Unions that is all you usually hear.

A typical male blue-collar worker does not participate on sites such as this because he doesn't possess the language to do so, or regard the doing as worthwhile. If he did, he'd be shouted down by the smartarses and would probably not bother returning.