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!