'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.