Julia Gillard has said some things about political debate that I think are worth highlighting. There are many things I would disagree with her about, but I think she has hit the nail on the head here.

According to this ABC report http://bit.ly/9Ke7jF

"Ms Gillard signalled a break from Kevin Rudd's asylum seeker policy yesterday, when she said "political correctness" should not be allowed to hinder debate about the issue.

Ms Gillard said people who were anxious about border security should not be labelled racist.

"I'd like to sweep away any sense that people should close down any debate, including this debate, through a sense of self-censorship or political correctness," she said.

"People should feel free to say what they feel. For people to say they're anxious about border security doesn't make them intolerant. It certainly doesn't make them a racist - it means they're expressing a genuine view."

Ms Gillard also says the label "soft" should not be levelled at those who voice concerns about the treatment of detainees.

"People who express concern about children being in detention, that doesn't mean they're soft on border protection - it just means they're expressing a real human concern," she said."

This is the OLO approach. But what really interests me is, after we have been practicing this approach for 11 years now, has it made a difference to how the OLO community approach this issue?

Well, no, because there's still financial and political agenda that gets in the road of humanity.

Ms Gillard’s challenge will be less about government ministerial compliance and more about getting the commentariat to join in. Like many other topics, refugee advocacy has come to rely on intolerance of contrary views as expressed by name calling, public vilification and hiding behind PC.

I object to comments from our PM that I should be allowed to have my views heard without vilification; don’t I have that right now? The mere fact that our PM has needed to say this is indicative of just how powerful, emotive and vocal the commentariat has become.

It is not and never has been about the right to express contrary views; it is about being able to have those views taken into account and without abuse and vilification.

Sadly GY, it is no different on OLO, just check the advocacy responses on current refugee threads.

Julia Gillard’s address at the Lowy Institute today filled me with dread as she tried to ride two horses with one bum. No acknowledgement of failed current policies, no indication of the time it will take to reach the “regional cooperation” solution (and no, I can’t distinguish it from the Pacific Solution), no indication of what we do with the current 5,000 detainees, 500 of whom are women and children, no indication of how many will arrive before we have the regional solution.

The ALP said they would close the “White Elephant” at Christmas Island. Instead they packed it to the rafters and then reopened some more. We already have Military and Customs fully engaged, 18 patrol boats and numerous aircraft, now we are to build another 8 patrol boats at tax payers expense. Don’t tell me that only 3% of immigration is boatpeople; tell me about the proportional costs.

If I were in the people smuggling business I would be offering “red hot” specials for the next few months to get in before the proposed regional centre in East Timor opens, although I suspect there is no rush really.

This is an unmitigated shambles of a policy, from another tokenistic ALP spinner.

I like and agree with the post GY.
Free speech is often silenced by fear of being targeted.
I am unashamed by JG, her actions are just about the views of middle Australia.
I Have developed a hardening against boat people getting an advantage over those who stay in camps waiting.
Both sides offer a harder approach, because voters want it.
I find Abbott's plan harder to implement, is it not true if no papers can Be found no country may except them.
And the plug will be pulled boats sank as our Navy comes near.
East Timor must be involved because its economy will get a hand.

Over time I think that the OLO community polarises into two categories: those, whose prime purpose in coming onto the Forum is either to push a particular line, or to attempt to shut down debate on particular subjects, who unless sucessful generally eventually leave, or, remaining, eventually lose all credibility; and those who with time get to be able to look behind the labeling that may have been applied to other posters and engage in useful, maybe even revelatory, debate.

Whislt on OLO we are continuously, although not exclusively, bombarded by the commentariat, it is the OLO community (ie the registered users) that determines what it will discuss. It does this in a negative way with respect to the articles area of the Forum by simply not posting responses to articles in some cases. It does it in a more direct way in the General Discussion area by putting up, subject to a small degree of moderation, the very topics, or aspects of wider issues, it wants to discuss.

How the viewers, as opposed to users, react to this, only OLO Forum administration knows.

This cannot happen outside of OLO, in MainStreamMedia world. That outer world has many predators, called editors, and sometimes even proprietors, that keep many that are not of the tolerated domesticated commentariat or the elect from being heard. In Canberra, Julia is perhaps becoming un-nerved that in the general community this talking-back at the commentariat has become so muted, especially as so many of these mutes are able to vote, and especially as so many government policies have been formulated to satisfy the commentariat, not the mutes.

Julia must be feeling the pressure, feeling the government may have lost touch with the mutes.

Perhaps GrahamY is also under pressure from such as would have him introduce MSM-style censorship into OLO. So far he seems to have resisted it. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3050#73310

Its harder to shut down the anonymous, once they have established some credibility, if they have a mind to tell things as they see them.

Julia should look to OLO.

Perhaps she already does. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3050#73511

Dear Graham,

The PM's call for a debate on the issues -
is what most of us try to do on OLO.
Does it work? Not always as you probably
know. It's not an easy task to be able
to comprehend another's point of view.
We often think from our own frames of
reference, which to us make perfect sense.
The problem is that we're often unable to
see the limitations of our own frame of
reference.

However, I do admire the PM for her rationality.
Perhaps it may encourage some of us to try harder
in focusing on the issues when debating
on this Forum.

I want to go a little deeper, I think open debate aways works.
On any subject.
Remember no issue you can name can be resolved in a way that pleases every one.
So in any debate an unhappy group, feeling betrayed will gather.
It may only be ten percent, but convince themselves the rest got it wrong.
But hidden within JG,s statement was this, she does not believe in political correctness.
I do not either ,in fact think it is a way minority views are often imposed on majority's.
Boat people is such, look into the eyes of those children.
But look also into the eyes of children who have sat for many years in camps looking for a life.
Is it wrong to say 20 million refugees wanting a new home can not all be accommodated?
Even now, here I want to say something else about migration.
But I can not, Yes I know my view is shared by more than half Australians, but to say it would bring the roof down on me.
Well, big shoulders, how much of our fear about boat people is driven by the average Australians fear of some cultures?
I am unsure we can truly talk about the subject.

<< …but to say it would bring the roof down on me. >>

Say it Belly! Express your opinions openly.

Your leader has denounced political correctness. You agree with her. So don’t be held back. You and all those on this forum who matter are quite capable of determining what might be a reasonable response to your views and what is over-the-top PC.

Or have you said what you said you can’t say?

Are your comments regarding concerns about boat people being driven by the fear of other cultures the comments that you said you can’t say?

I’m not trying to be smart of difficult. I’m just not sure how to interpret your last post.

In my years of participating at OLO, I haven't particularly noticed that "political correctness" has stifled debate on anything, least of all about asylum seekers. When I look at the commentariat and see the likes of Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Christopher Pearson, Miranda Devine, Janet Albrechtsen, Alan Jones etc etc, I don't see any great evidence of "political correctness" silencing anybody.

I'm wondering where, exactly, anybody's been constrained in expressing quite openly bigoted views by so-called "political correctness". It certainly doesn't seem to have been in Australia.

Indeed, that's why Gillard's superficially laudable call for open debate has been described as a 'dog-whistle'. The implied suggestion that debate hasn't been open until now is a covert call for a ramping up of the bigotry that is already being expressed quite openly.

To answer Graham's question, I don't think it will work any better in the National arena than it does here. While it's good to bring the ugliness out into the open so we know what we're dealing with, I think that the net result tends to be a hardening of existing positions rather than any move to consensus.

Yes, PC has never stopped robust debate on OLO but how do we have those conversations in the wider electorate about asylum seekers?

Open debate and discussion is one thing, but how do you quantify opinion other than through broad sweeping polls or focus groups? And perception does not always = fact.

The test of a successful debate would be it's ability to define exactly what the concerns are, if they are valid and what policies would increase public awareness or feelings of 'safety', particularly given as one writer put it the number of people who arrive by boat would not fill a football stadium.

Most of the fears appear to be (if we take OLO and other media at face value):

- lack of national security measures in screening asylum seekers and immigration applicants;
- perception of threat to lifestyle/laws should vast cultural or religious differences influence public policy in relation to democracy, women/children and the law;
- dislike of those who jump the queues or attempt to use asylum status illegally;
- fear of burgeoning cities and lack of infrastructure to cope with growing populations; and
- fear of terrorism and escalation in criminal activity.

This sort of discussion also crosses over and blurs environmental concerns including population sustainability when a one-in one-out policy would put paid to that, once a population 'figure' or range with some elasticity has been agreed (if that is at all possible).

Others may be able to add to the list.

ok Ludwig, but this will make me a bigot in CJ Morgans eyes.
I admire the bloke but differ greatly here.
Can we truly honestly talk about SOME Muslim culture I think is unwelcome here?
I can say openly I want far less intrusion in government and lives by Christian Church's can I say that about Islam?
Am I wrong to compare freedoms we give that we would never get in a Muslim country?
Today a screaming group gathered to protest about Gillards new actions.
One woman shouted that it was a dog whistle, and an attempt at populism?
Is popularism a crime? she went on to say pleasing the masses, most of us, was wrong!
We should do the right thing! her view of it I take it.
In fact we can not debate the Muslim migration issue here, if we tried to control some who would invade it we would destroy it.
Both yes and no have radical views.
I can not even list the reasons I do not want more such migration, Ludwig in Truth mate ,this subject remains a taboo.
Until we are truly able to hear the voices of middle Australia who in my view in growing numbers share my view we will be roped in by PC minority views.
Watch the insults come my way but know my view are those of middle Australia.

I would regard the continued denigration of people with the intestinal fortitude to call a spade a spade (no pun intended) as being somehow "Un-Australian", PC gone mad. Yeah, our new PM is from Wales, what of it? The majority of our population is from the UK/Western Europe, so too the majority of our migrants. Birds of a feather flock together so to speak.

We aren't Europe, we aren't Asia... We are Australia, a whole separate Continent, which despite its geographical placement, had its Constitutional democracy built upon the same basis as the best Europe & Northern America had to offer. Saying we should be filling our queue with Asian migrants because of our longitude, is as facetious an argument as suggesting we should fill our migration queue with African & South American immigrants on the basis of our latitude... For the same reason, the suggestion we should modify our outlook on life based on either is specious... Australia is a Continent, like North America, Europe, Asia, Africa or Antarctica...

Or maybe we should we adopt the idea of pushing one another off the ice floe to test for sharks & seals like the penguins, simply because we neighbour Antarctica (both by longitude & latitude, so that suggests that is the one we should most closely conform to, guess what, we do... Especially in terms of population density, which is how most Aussies want it).

GY

Your forum your rules.
Call me pedantic but the headline statement that "PM Gillard endorses OLO approach" appears a bit of political over interpretation on your part. None of her statements you reported referred to OLO even obliquely.
I would put it to you that PM Gillard is simply trying to get elected by burying/defuse those issues that was costing votes.

Polispeak is by definition is ambiguous in order to give the impression the widest coverage/inclusion. In this case it is being interpreted to justify many on the right's POLITICAL leanings.
While your motives may simply be, as stated political I am not so sure about many others.
Without specifics from you what is bigotry, stupidity/emotionalism, selfishness or plain bad manners will be seen as justified

To me it is a sad indictment of the average Aussie.

I could see what the appeal to a pollie would be of the OLO way of debating things... Put an idea out there, gauge what is being said for or against it, work out a standpoint which pleases the most readers... Cynical I know, but even in these modern times if you draw position 1 on the voting papers you get about 20% of the vote due to compulsory voting (how Fred Nile got into where he is). Of course in modern times a computer can do a reasonable job of randomly positioning all candidates on different forms, but I think they also like the luck element of getting all those donkey votes. She's not a complete fool, she has worked out whats best for her and most likely to benefit her chances of being elected.

Good on you Belly.

I understand your anguish about expressing such things – things which we should all be able to express openly.

If we are principled, we should just go ahead and express them regardless of the reactions. But I know that it can be tough. Even on OLO, such views have met with very strong and persistent slander.

But I’m getting the impression that this situation has improved somewhat. So I’ll be interested to see if you do indeed get harangued for saying what you’ve just said.

Cheers.

The OLO approach isn't to say that your views won't be tackled robustly by your opponents, just that we will allow you to express them without shutting you down, so long as you don't break any laws.

I can't talk about the times we have stared down organisations or individuals trying to shut discussion here down, but we have. There have been complaints to HREOC and also complaints to sponsors.

Please note, I'm not saying that Julia Gillard mentioned us, just that she appears to endorse the approach that we have adopted. While I believe this approach is the correct one, I'm always open to new evidence, which is why I started this thread. I want to know whether the approach has actually made a difference.

CJ thinks it hasn't. I'm not so sure. I hope Belly gets some constructive engagement with his post. He's a good supporter of the site, and while we probably don't agree on much, we do both share an enthusiasm for what we're doing here.

Some of us have been "frontline" in the political battles, but now we're more relaxed. I think OLO does have a spot where some of the arguments can be worked out and others who are more "violently" involved may trim their rhetoric as a result, or come to different positions.

As it's life, there will always be antagonism. That's how it works.

Political Correctness, as stated by Belly IS a way by which the minority can govern the majority... Especially when it has been enforced so brutally and as nastily (Pauline Hanson is a prime example, agree with ALL of what she said or not, she had the guts to say it & did her time in a QLD Jail, which as a stated 'rascist' would be somewhat difficult shall we say?)...

As an example, discussion of Aboriginal communities is sidetracked by self-serving coconuts, who SINCERELY DO NOT WANT the Federal Government involved and to be made to account for the gaping holes in the books. The Nepotism, the corruption (particularly with contractors and the awarding of contracts), the misuse/misappropriation is incredible, by such a small part of most communities...

Yet the politically correct refuse to consider that they are being played, so they sit on the sideline while the argument is then dragged into the mire by ignorant fools who truly seem to believe in the 'mythical' better deal Indigenous Australian's supposedly get. FROM WHOM?

IN WHAT WAY?

Life expectancy is below that of Bundaberg Hospital patients, they are far more likely to be harassed by Police until they respond - giving the trifecta (which has made a REAL COMEBACK - quinella = assault police/resist arrest, trifecta = drunk & disorderly, assault police & resist arrest, with the added bonus of the victims of crime claim for the pig). The incarceration rate is insane, the terms for similar crimes are, contrary to as is often reiterated but never demonstrated, wholly out of balance...

That is the result of political correctness, none of that can be discussed openly, I mean, how dare ANYBODY suggest that nepotism, corruption, misappropriation and blatant fraud is being carried out by some ATSI People? Until it can be discussed openly, the wound will never heal. Until then, conditions on communities cannot change, regardless of how much money is thrown at them.

Some references seem to be for me, I except them warmly proudly,for in your terms I am a bigot.
Now let us face facts, Gillard did not lead Labor to the right.
She followed voters there, no leader can win leaving middle Australia behind.
I Offer this as evidence PC is never going to drive this country, unless we lay down in front of minority's steam rollers.
After Paul lost to Howard a NSW wide forum asking ALP members why was held.
We shouted at poor old Dela Bosca PC! we had enough of it.
Lathams execution of the ALP, well at that time Australia was looking for other than John Howard.
Construction lunch rooms, always a good measured voting intentions shouted no way ALP!
Boat people, migration, cultural differences, from people who made this country great post ww2 migrants children.
ALP this week finally followed the voters not a few left of reality.
Bigot? if you must but while I would go hungry to feed them lets not forget why I am opposed.

Some of the most truly bigoted stuff arriving in my in box is from totally fully commited Christians who are also never to be budged conservatives.
Our friendship is real a good thing about this country, we do not war with one another over politics.
I share some of the views in those e mails,Australia does.
Now go to Iran Iraq, Egypt Saudi Arabia even to some extent Malaysia,pick a Muslim country.
Say one percent of us goes to live there.
Would we be able to ask that celebrations of holly days be muffled so as not to offend?
Would our thoughts on the way women dress be allowed?
Would our attempts to change them be ok, stop kidding your self!
Entrenching my bigotry here am I not.
My family is a united nations of post ww2 migrants and their kids, love them all, few want me to change anything, often they'd change me.
I have learned so much our country has from them.
We are training our selves to be lead around like trained cattle by PC fools who discount the murders of Christian ministers murder and rape, tell me my concerns are blindness but my views are shared by many.

Forrest, good post.
GY, good forum.
Contributors, thanks for your input.
Onlookers, great you're looking.
Everybody, ciao.

Some times, often in fact, a thread dies after a post like my last.
I went out into the mud, the deep end I did not agree with minority PC views, never ever will.
I forever will go that extra mile for some one from a minority or underprivileged group, any group.
Not in union? still be there to help.
But it is in fashion to not publicly say, why the difference?
Why is it the people who helped build this country those post war migrants, share my fears?
Why is it no group of them ever asked me to change.
Why did I change? because they added to my country showed me better ways to eat and live.
Multi culturism works, but not for every one within my country some seek a separatism that we would be wise to watch.
Hiding behind a word that has no meaning for some mono culture within our culture is not going to work.

Belly "Some references seem to be for me"

I looked and could not find them, any hints.

You don't seem to have copped the expected flack, possibly because most posters know that you are not religious right so your views may be treated in a different manner. I'm speculating with that one.

I enjoy a lot of things about our multicultural society but do believe that the views of some are so contrary to social norms that they would be better off elsewhere. I'd not like to see certain clothing banned but I also think that those who want to wear (or have a partner wear) a full covering on a Queensland summers day are unlikely to fit in well with Australian society. There are difficulties and sometimes either inconvenience or genuine hardship for others because of the conflicts at times.

I get the impression from snippets I hear that some of the same assaults and abuse of "skips" by gangs of lebanese youths that lead up to the Cronula riot are still going on in parts of Sydney but I don't know for sure. The attitudes behind those actions have no place in Australia.

On one hand there is the extreme vilification of an entire group based on the actions of a minority, on the other hand is the suppression of association of a particular problem with a group and the corresponding difficulties in fixing the problem. Somewhere there is a balance but it's never an easy one.

R0bert

On Wednesday my son had his skull cracked in 3 places, in hospital.

This was to repair damage caused when he was attacked by an ethnic gang, while walking home, in daylight, from work. Yes a bunch of "lebs" who will do nothing but cause trouble for all decent Australians, for decades to come.

The nationalities are different in different places, but the story is identical, just the level of viciousness varies.

CJ, I'm a bigot, with good reason, & proud of it.

WE have let these undesirables in, housed & fed them at public expense, & gained nothing but resentment for our trouble.

I would like to shut the boarder now, & also shut down the faulty systems that allow these scum to get citizenship, then return to their country of origin, & continue to collect our welfare payments.

WE have been made fools of by ethnic politicians, with multiculturalism a huge rip off, buying their votes.

Belly et al,

My concern is with this and like conversations is the failure to define what is meant by PC.
PC is one of those near mythical un or ill defined urban terms that is (ab)used to combat everything from justifiable accusations of racist, simple bad/childish behaviour, to unwillingness to either engage in rational thought or prejudice.
I find it difficult to explain much of the angst against 'boat people', Asian or African, Muslim migrants other than by various types of bigotry or plain wanton ignorance. This is especially true when one considers that Australia has a bigger problem with visitor over stayers and "over the ditch" economic migrants and never a paranoid word is said. How else does one explain the selectivity?

Maintaining Cultural integrity is the semantic equivalence of renaming Amphorphophallus (stink lilly) as a rose....it still stinks.

All too often criticisms of 'boorish behaviour', 'lack of regard for others' are wanton ignorance are taken as PC or criticism of a lesser education. Let me be clear education and intelligence are not necessarily synonymous.

Neither side can rightfully automatically necessarily claim the moral or correctness High ground.
As in all topics on OLO this one is tending towards argument by irrational extremes.

IMO GY's problem is where to draw the line. Personally, I hold the view that one doesn't have resort to extremes of behaviour to make a point. Sadly, it is a flaw in our system that allows/encourages aggression/polarization and opposition for opposition sake, as a means of political discourse. All of which tend to be counter productive .

Hasbeen: << CJ, I'm a bigot, with good reason, & proud of it. >>

Of course you're a bigot about some things, and you've always been quite forthright about it. It's one of the things I like about you :)

Mind you, you're quite wrong about having good reason. You can't generalise to an entire ethnicity on the basis of your vicarious experience at the hands of a few louts. While your anger is understandable, it doesn't justify your bigotry.

Which is, of course, the kind of stuff we love to argue about all the time at OLO. Graham's quite right that "PC" has never been a particularly silencing discourse at OLO - my argument was that it doesn't seem to me to prevent the expression of all kinds of non "PC" ideas in the wider arena either. Indeed, Gillard's implied suggestion that it is, is what constitutes her dog-whistle.

I also haven't really noticed anybody trying to shut my old mate Belly up on "PC" grounds. Those who have problems with him tend to object to both his politics and his way of expressing them. While he and I disagree on many things, I haven't noticed that he's held back on expressing his views candidly and certainly wouldn't want him to.

I'm currently reading Waleed Aly's book,
"People like Us." In it he sums things
rather well when he tells us:

"Ultimately, when the chatter of the talking
heads finally stops, when the nonsense of
politically motivated and self-serving conversation
is duly ignored, and when the clutter of endless
analyses is cleared away, we are left with this
one indisputable truth: that we are all human.
This is a powerful realisation if we can truly come
to it. It means that for all our variances, we share
the same emotions, the same impulses, and at the
very deepest level, the same motivations. We, are
none of us, simple personifications of ideology.
We are also complex products of our social and
political histories, our socioeconomic conditions,
our life experiences, our social environments, our
educations. We are individually, and even collectively
capable of giving this noble or evil expression,
but it is never true that entire societies are
virtuous or vile. This much we understand of what
is familiar and dear to us. how much more sense we
could make if we were prepared to concede to others
what we expect for ourselves..."

Foxy

Absolutely correct in my mind. What I find hard to take at times is that some are happy proud to be bigots. i.e. wantonly socially/morally/behaviour retarded and more than willing to abuse, insult, bully others into their regressive perspective.

To me the most contemptible are those that know better but but are prepared to make the whole worse off for personal self gratification i.e. leaders politicians etc.

GY

"...does it work?" That all depends on if you are trying maintain status quo or looking for solutions, resolutions improvement. If your objective is the former then the answer is yes.

If your objective is to be positive (better understanding between those who need it the most), then the answer is no.
You and I know that negotiation between interested parties need agendas and moderation and sticking to the topic.
The Laissez Faire approach (to anything) is without recognition of reality in that all "freedoms" including that of speech, need to be overall positive in effect must have both direction/limitations and entered into in good faith. Clearly many posters don't.

In the final analysis OLO is an niche advertising venture and as such makes "political/commercial" decisions that limit its ability to be a positive (neutral) conduit for in-depth understanding and totally meaningful discussion.

Examinator

You found the words I was looking for. I agree completely.

However, that begs the question - if we are not making any progress towards enlightened communication or even understanding with each other, why do we keep coming back?

I know I have learnt a bit. And, there have been times when I thought I had made a breakthrough and I was understood, only to find on subsequent similar topics, that whomever I thought I had reached was repeating the same old, same old.

OLO is based on adversarial tactics - old as human history. At the other extreme PC simply stifles free expression and is false.

There is, surely, a happy medium, where a person can state an opinion without personal abuse. Until then, any claims that homo sapiens as a species is remotely civilised is a load of rubbish. I am sure that this is what Gillard meant by dispensing with PC and not that every discussion be open to the stereotyping that some think is debate.

We in OLO are no different than real life, maybe we think things out more than some.
RObert you are one who has always been high on my list as a good poster.
Examinator too but I am not going to join in the Cronulla was white Aussie racist rubbish.
Both sides contributed,remember an Innocent stabbed and kicked and our flag torn down from the RSL.
Find me any mainstream religion we need to fear.
My non belief in God is not anti God time and again I say truly religious are mostly good people any religion.
That song, what the world needs now, the one big melting pot, love to see it come about but will not happen religion of one minority says it can not.
I truly have concerns todays multi cultural target is nothing like the post war leap towards greatness we took with help from all over the world.
And want to record my view open debate on this issue is much needed, remember I and those who support my views are not saying we do not care about their fate, we are however saying we care about our country's future.

I would really like to connect with the 'silent majority, here.
I'm quite certain these discussions are watched silently by far more than participate; one only has to look at the number of members.
Of the ones who do participate on a regular basis, how many have ever changed their minds in any fundamental way, due to an OLO discussion?
I know the names of the many writers I generally agree with, and those few who I could never agree on most points, and strangely, I'm far more inclined to respond to an email about the agreeable ones than the disagreeables.
My point is all the contributors are strongly opinionated (no mystery) and firm in their attitudes, so I guess we must all be (unconsciously, perhaps) performing for that silent majority.
When I argue economics with Peter Hume I know full well I will never change his mind, so why do I bother?
Graham, have you ever considered setting up polling on every thread, so the silent ones can at least register a vote?

Dear Examinator,

I always enjoy reading your posts.
You're a vessel for a golden heart,
a man of humility, sincerity, honesty
and integrity. You convinced me at the
very beginning that I had something to
say, and fostered in me the courage to
say it - even if you didn't always agree
with what came out.

Dear Severin,

I want to Thank You for having
disagreed with me at times on OLO.
Without intellectual tension there
can be no intellectual development.
Through your contributions to OLO
you've taught me much and improved
me considerably.

I feel that we live in an age of arrogance
and ignorance. Whether this can be cured
will very much depend on people like yourself,
and many others, who contribute to
this Forum.

Foxy we must differ here, in my opinion we live in an age of enlightenment compared with even our recent past.
Grim too, not sure what you think the minority's think but are you too hard on us?
See you have no doubt about your posts but just maybe put mine and others in the harsh basket?
Lets look at today compared with some yesterdays, Australia one hundred years ago would have shot every single boat person, not nice but surely you do not doubt it?
England used India and its people as a cash cow, slaves in fact.
I truly suspect the silent majority do not differ much from my views.
And without reserve am forever and ever opposed to PC, minority's who will not except majority's rule in Democracy's.

Dear Belly,

How much we could achieve if we were capable
of viewing each other in full, nuanced,
human colour. Our humanity does not excuse
our respective wrongdoings, but the fact that
it is unquestionably in common gives us a
frame of reference through which we can
transport ourselves from a world of ignorance
to a world of coherence.

We have to resist the mutual temptation to
assume that other people's worlds would be so
much better if only they were like us. Such
positions allow us to air-brush our own
iniquities from our conscousness.

Anyway, if we continue to consider ourselves
as the sole repositories of virtue and
enlightenment, the only outcome is going to
be perpetual and escalating conflict.
Whether this will be cured depends very much
on people like us.

There's a lot of soul-searching going on here, which is nice.

I didn't know how long OLO had been going. I was introduced to it by a friend, and it has become engrossing. I suspect virtual communities like OLO compensate for the demise of community in the physical world. I'm struck too by how inflexible we are about our opinions. They're held with such dogged conviction of their rightness and rectitude in their respective camps. We can't all be right, of course, though we could all be wrong. It's hard to resist Wittgenstein's conclusion that it's all just language games.

Cynical perhaps, but I think Gillard's playing the PC card is just another shrewd (lol) political move. She's made a political gamble following the conservatives on border protection, obviously to steal some votes, but in order not to offend the "intelligentsia" on the left she assures them it's ok to air their repressed anxieties. PC is Australia's unofficial institution and I suspect the (not)soft on asylum seekers approach on OLO (which I'm not familiar with) is probably ingenuously disingenuous (or vice versa) in many cases.
OLO is where we get to "represent" our ideal one-dimensional selves, where language can airbrush our mundane defects and make us suave or sexy or simpering or assertive; where we can be our real selves; how we wish or imagine ourselves to be, or how we actually are, without all the other role-play and props and typecasting we're forced to accommodate in the fictional real world... Whatever.
One very healthy aspect of OLO is it continues to be cynical about politics. Our politicians are the least "inspired" or "genuine" of any in history imo. Which is perhaps a good thing; such convictions were/are dangerous/luxuries respectively. We're better off without them. We'd be better off representing ourselves collectively rather than being represented as a collective by some, who knows, crazed representation. Perhaps there's wisdom in numbers?
I can't vote for either major party. I even grudge my preference be directed to their populist policies.

Political correctness has been put to very effective use in Australia. The creation of the Red Haired Hanson Monster out of a politically unsophisticated Ipswich housewife is an excellent example. Even now there are those who try to call up the Hanson Monster to reawaken and re-power the simplistic stereotypes used to derail and frustrate opposing opinion, however well founded in fact and reason.

What was really offensive about Hanson's treatment was that ordinary people, in particular women, were warned off political participation for fear that they would be subjected to similar personal attack and humiliation. Even more worrying is the reality that the baying mob was so easily whistled up and manipulated, with so many tertiary 'educated' people involved.

Matter of fact, many of Hanson's most trenchant and unfair critics in the media were highly educated and some were university academics - who felt free to flaunt their positions to add weight to their opinions. Few ever stopped to examine what Hanson actually said or might have meant, they were too keen to indulge in the ritual of PC blood-letting for that.

One sees the same sort of thing in microcosm on OLO. For example, a respondent was moved to apologise in advance, deferring to one of the PC nuisances before proffering an opinion. He received a backhander in return of course, but still went on and more power to him.

However the most concerning aspect of PC is that people who are more introverted and could add depth and perspective through their well targeted questions and observations are likely not to bother to comment at all. That cuts out a lot of possible talent. I feel at a loss for that because as someone who always has too much on the go and drafts OLO replies quickly, I am one who appreciates the input of those with restraint and an eye for detail. There are some very capable, logical, reasonable, generous, sensitive and effective individuals out there who should be heard.

contd..

To conclude,

Q, Does the OLO approach work on OLO?
A, To an extent but there are obviously many who drop off or do not contribute.

Q, Will the OLO approach work for JG?
A, To a limited extent and only for a short while, unless she can rely on the support of others around her in the parliament and in the media to eschew the cheap shots in the interests of the nation. Of course that assumes that Julia is serious in her concerns and she should be given the benefit of the doubt for that for a while at least.

One thing is for sure and that is that the 'new' electronic means of communication are here to stay and fewer people are prepared to read more than a score of words - ideal for PC!

Hey, Belly, I'm sorry if you found my post in any way offensive; that was not my intent.
My point was OLO is a microcosm of the wider community. 'Out there' we have die hard Liberals, and equally die hard Laborals. But I contend, these people are not the ones who decide the outcome of elections. I'm sure you'll agree that Gillard will never convince Abbott to leave the Libs and join the Labs.
It is inevitably the swinging voters who decide elections; the ones who silently watch and listen, and are persuaded by the arguments (or the hairstyles, or the suit, who knows?).
Out there, we get to find out who's arguments were more persuasive. We get a result. In OLO, there is no such satisfaction, since the ones who post regularly are, like Gillard and Abbott, unlikely to change their minds in any fundamental way.
In fact, it could be argued polling on OLO would be more democratic, as here there is only the argument; no suit, no hairstyle.
Hey Cornflower, I agree. Although I was less than impressed with most of One Nation's policies, Hanson's treatment was a blow against Democracy.

Grim, a very good post one I agree with, every word.
Foxy my friend you do me a disservice.
Never ever have I judged people by color, or nationality, and as for looking like me? no way poor buggers have enough to worry about.
I am sorry, my views have been made by a few who tell us our women are, well sl**ts, that we are racist, who demand death for cartoonists? who kill people with human bombs?
Often kids, killing in Gods name, tell me it is only a few but lets hear the voices of those who think it must stop, from within that group
See the PC monster is shouting at me now, do not say it is not, I question why not more voices from within that group shouting as Italians did, **this is our new country it is us who must learn not you ** directed at my efforts to learn their language]
We are a country that will continue to thrive on the input of people from EVERY country.
We should[ giving regard to our country's limits] bring even more refugees here, not however those who pay so much to break the law.
Who is standing of for the truly poor who wait endlessly to come.
When will we see the problem as it is 20 million, the world can not re House so many, and it may get worse very soon.
If we leave Afghanistan ,we may well do so soon, we will then know how very real this problem is.
Surely n one can think other than Gillards words matter?
It is a fact BOTH sides of politics have followed and won over voters by getting a start on controlling this issue, for that I am grateful and aware, not however racist.

"...............People should feel free to say what they feel............"

This is the OLO approach. But what really interests me is, after we have been practicing this approach for 11 years now, has it made a difference to how the OLO community approach this issue?

Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 9:37:01 AM
______________________

The quote above is but a small fragment of what the PM has said. The quotes in their entirety are used as an example of the right to freedom of speech.

"This is the OLO approach". "An open and tolerant forum"

I have criticised some terminology used by the writer of an article.
That in turn has resulted in his criticism of me.

This is normal. A few writers will join their discussion topic to defend their point of view. Most do not.

NONE of them can threaten those that disagree with them with suspension.

I have treated the owner of this site-AS AN ARTICLE WRITER-in the same manner as any other writer. In the same manner as ALL members do! There is positive and negative criticism for opinions expressed in articles/topics. That is what free and open discussion is all about!

Moderation 'attack' has now been mentioned by another poster today on that topic. I responded to that. (I have made ONE post in this 24 hour span...)

..yet I now unable to post/have been accused of interfering in moderation/and will be suspended if I continue...by the author of that article, and this thread!

One thing is clear: detractors will love my situation! That's OK.

What about you deep thinkers? Can you see anything wrong here or are you too going to secure your place in the OLO family by ignoring this appalling double standard?

I won't take bets.

Now do you finally get it? Freedom of Speech is a myth.

Perhaps I should add that If these two posts and/or I disappear from this "Open and Tolerant" forum, then I have been banned.

Pure and simple.

The issue was NEVER about criticising an article writer. The issue was that I criticised an article writer who owns-runs-supervises?? this site.............and who will not allow any disagreement with his conservative terminology.

OLO is Right Wing. The more Left view is simply tolerated to give the veneer of a balanced forum.

And every single one of you knows it!

Discuss/debate/ even verbally attack one another. But NEVER, EVER criticise the person who runs this site if he writes an article!

With other writers,-yes. Him?....NO!

That-AND ONLY THAT-is what I did.

Ginx you and I do not get on, we both know that.
But you have asked a question that deserves an answer.
I think free speech is worth supporting always.
But this is some one Else's paddock we picnic in, private property.
I have been warned and had posts deleted,yes it annoyed me, but just maybe the fact this is the country's number one is for a reason.
I can not take a stand with you, like me at times you sail close to the wind.
And just maybe it is the free speech of others GY protects with those actions.

Thanks for the measured response Belly. You put that very well!

However...! FoS IS selective. I've said that ad nauseum. FoS in THIS case has been used to shut down any questioning of that ONE article.

To suggest anything else is disingenuous, because there are some fairly hefty stoushes in this place by the Left/Right (for purposes of swift definition-I have defined L/R thus), whereby some stringent and very succinct opinions of each 'side' are...er, expressed.

One simple cannot support FoS selectively.

If this IS private property (and I DO take your point), then it suggests that one is free to post, within forum rules-but not in certain areas.

That is absurd.

Still: I thank you Belly. When this happens, most will avoid making comment in case they fall foul,-or yet others will use the opportunity to take a potshot.

You've done neither. Classy!

Waiting for Damocles....

Belly

Have you been following the OLO approach to debate on the "Refugees will be an election issue" thread?

Then you may understand why I now feel constrained from commenting further on this topic.

Apparently people can call each other names and far worse, but to criticise a genuinely perceived flaw in an article brings on risk of deletion or suspension.

Well, if anyone was in any doubt you can now see how dishonest Severin and Ginx are, and how they work in a pack. Compare this thread and the thread at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10680 and you can see that the claims here are nonsense. You can also see their one-two technique at work.

They have never ever been threatened with suspension for questioning anything that I wrote in an article. This is a complete and, given that both are obviously intelligent, what must be a deliberate fabrication. Ginx was threatened with suspension for trying to hijack a thread, a fact which can be easily confirmed by reading the thread.

This raises two questions. The first is why I persist in allowing malicious posters to post things which are obviously not true about me, and which appear aimed at depriving this forum, and therefore the views of all of us who post here, of legitimacy.

The second is why these two commenters continue to hang around if they believe that the forum is skewed against them.

This is bizarre!

Why would a Chief Editor be posting in this manner?

Are you alright Graham?

Ginx you pated me on the back far too early.
It was is and remains not my intention to support you on this theme.
I took my medicine, ate my humble pie and moved on.
This is the best forum, GY started it and is why it is the best.
I will now,for the first time, look at the posts that bought this bun fight to life.
Rules are the wire fence we must all stay with in that fence exists to help as well as control us all.
Can I ask this? why challenge the right of any poster to start a thread any thread that seems strange to me.

Ginx, your last question was uncalled for. Please, your input is valued - don't denigrate it.

OLO is a good “forum”, really. Nevertheless, I agree with you entirely when you say;

>> NONE of them (OLO article authors) can threaten those that disagree with them with suspension.

I have treated the owner of this site-AS AN ARTICLE WRITER-in the same manner as any other writer. In the same manner as ALL members do! There is positive and negative criticism for opinions expressed in articles/topics. That is what free and open discussion is all about! <<

Yes, I often have seen and experienced the double standards here too – but what else do you expect, seriously?

So, you’ve been threatened with suspension for “trying to hijack a thread” – LOL. Now, everybody and their dog knows most OLO articles drift off topic anyway, so "hijacking" - huh!. Sheesh, I was even threatened with suspension for being “provocative” for Pete's sake, ROFLMHO now!

Hey, if Graham Young (OLO Chief Editor and moderator) wants to post his articles/opinions here instead of on his Ambit Gambit blog, so be it ... at least there is a bigger audience, and more onlookers :)

My enemy’s enemy, eh Qanda!

Actually I think Graham has allowed great latitude.

Some of the posts that certain posters --who shall remain nameless –typical post have been little more than noise. Adding little or nothing to the debate.

I found myself wondering how they got through –and why,even, the poster would bother.

If nothing else Graham's stand may have forced them to polish up their act.

QANDA

My experiences here at OLO are in accord with yours. Therefore, to stop posting here would mean I have been successfully silenced.

Ginx

A few years ago, Graham Young told me he, as a Christian, preferred to turn the other cheek.

Graham

Mate, you are protesting a bit much. But then this is indeed the OLO approach - people are free to state their opinions.

Horus

I have never agreed with anything you have posted, not likely to change any time soon.

Of course the Prime Minister is right, political correctness should not be allowed to hinder debate, about any issue, be it asylum seekers, whatever. Indeed, asylum seekers are not ‘illegal immigrants’, or even 'boat people' that should be towed back, imho.

Anyway, it just seems to me that on OLO, when conservative ideologues are the brunt of the debate, ... you're not allowed to go there. Yup, they can dish it, but can’t take it.

Ginx is right (sorry Belly) – there are double standards here and a stench of hypocrisy (notwithstanding GY does allow a 'degree' of latitude, Horus). Graham is also right, commenters don’t have to “hang around”.

Graham does raise an interesting question though :)
Why do "I" persist in “hanging around” here when malicious commenters post things which are obviously not true about me, and which appear aimed at depriving this forum, and therefore the views of all of us who post here, of legitimacy?

Severin, you have answered that question for me, thanks. To stop posting here would mean I have been successfully silenced.
Sorta reminds me of this episode: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1646#31745

I have said that the public profile of any forum is at odds with what actually goes on. (Ref: 'this goes on everywhere').

However-irrespective of that I have NEVER seen an administrator involve themselves in a forum stoush,-denigrating two of their members-pointing to some sort of utterly erroneous modus operandii.

I find it bizarre. I said so. It is without precedent on a high profile website. Without precedent.

It prompted me to put that last line in my previous post. I would absolutely HATE to have that put to me; and to that end I apologise for that line ONLY.
I put in my defence that it was a genuine concern-I swear. I have never encountered this before.

I am ambivalent about responses here. (Belly: you were looking for what was not there: I thanked you for a 'measured response'. You alone have taken the decision to state 'publicly' that you were not supporting my view. I knew that. It's in my responding post. You need have no fear Belly that you could be seen to be supportive..).

Ambivalent because at last some of you are not daunted to pass an opinion. This is an open forum-that is how it should be.
It however makes this situation grow bigger.

Still, if it must be discussed;-and I believe it should be. This is the thread to do so!

At risk of the 'one-two' tag, I will now publicly applaud Severin for having the guts not to be daunted by these events;-not to be silenced-and for 'hanging around'.

You would expect that wouldn't you? And you would be right.

(DON'T thank me Frac's,-it will only inflame matters)

I cannot reiterate enough though:

1)This came about because of criticism of ASPECTS of an article.

2)That article was written by the Chief Editor.

3)Article writers are held to account on their views-segments of their articles are quoted.

4)Like minded posters will regularly support each others views on such matters. ( Horus?)

Yet....Surely it does not need spelling out??

Interesting isn't it?

TBC..
______________________________

2)

Rightly or wrongly it is a democratic right to ask questions. Look at the original post.
What is happening here highlights the cold hard reality of the way things REALLY are!

It is NOT the ideal thing now to support what Severin and I (or any other couple/group of posters!!) have been saying!

However: if you are 'against' us in what we are both trying to point out, then YOU know that you can prove your 'allegiance' by putting up a post criticising us.

Good hey?

The way it should be in an 'open and tolerant' forum.

BUT: while you exercise your right to free expression you deny me-us the same right. Because we 'dared' to question an article by one specific author-who must be treated differently.

In contravention of his own views in the original post here!

It is utterly beyond my comprehension that this entire matter arose. An article is an article, and WILL be agreed with or opposed in whole or part thereof, FGS!

Ok Ginx (or TBC?),
I'll come out and be a man.
I started composing a post on this thread the other day but discontinued for whatever unmanly reason.
I began thus:
"Dear Ginx,
my impression is also that OLO is conservative and possibly biased in the mediation process, though not in any overt way (to the thick-scinned). Petty, but I object to expletives being called "profanities" when one is "told" to remove them during the automated mediation process. On the occasion when I was banned, a few months back, I was offended when I was emailed by GY (for the first time) without any of the customary polite salutations that are, or should be, incumbent upon his office (indeed anyone). I was not extended the ordinary courtesy of being addressed by name, rather the abrupt communication was delivered in what I was only able to interpret as a spirit of contempt. I ignored both communications in the proper reciprocal form.
As it happens, I was deigned to have flamed against the high priest of denialism, Lord Moncton himself, a right-wing guru if ever there was one".

On the other hand, we have to weigh "possible bias" against the forum's bias in general; my impression is that the weight of opinion on OLO (in numbers if not substance) is decidedly conservative (read tramlines). I therefore deign my input (and other "thinkers") on OLO to be vital to its ostensible primary funtion: debate?
If I am after-all expendable, though I think the forum can ill-afford it, then by all means cut the silken thread and I shall mend my way as best I can. "Twould in fact be a blessing, as I'm time-poor.

In a thread within the last two weeks GY said he and I do not agree on much.
I am forever left of center he is not, my few deletions and warnings did not overly concern me.
Well no I spat the dummy truly came close to leaving, because a new poster went out of his way to be rude then reported me for a retaliation.
I respect the rules, often skirt around them.
Ginx however IF I knew the whole story ,still do not, I may not support you, no one is more unlikely to back away from confrontation if it is needed.
But our history is very long years ago you wrote an insulting post to foxy, she at that time faced a cancer operation , and posted to say good by just in case.
Foxy is a pillar that holds this forum together, I felt your post was dreadful.
Yet I value you and your posts, let us clear this up, that insult to foxy would have got me just as upset if it was to any poster even those I can find no common ground with.
I do however hope you continue to post, even putting the boot in to me at times.

Belly, please allow me to make this observation ... no matter which direction we come from, we have to decide which bridges to burn, and which bridges to cross - it is a personal choice. So, whatever those choices may be, and so long as others are better off for us making them, then they will be worthwhile. Then, and only then, can we move on. Warmest wishes.

To be honest, I've found the...er, latter part of this thread very interesting.

Belly: maintain the position you hold, because I regret not one stance that I've taken,-including the one to which you refer. (Which was not quite the as you have implied-and it is unfortunate that you have raised it). I hold the same view as I held then, and my view also remains that no one single poster 'holds a forum together', it is formed and held by all who form and hold it!

(Given that we are discussing yet another person/matter now Belly,-I won't make further comment).

Squeers: what can I say? OLO does indeed have a conservative focus-and I would be dishonest if I said that that was NOT at the root of the current matter.

I rate most Oz sites as conservative, with a few on the so-called Left. Perhaps two to one.
I don't care. No-one forces us to post on a site that leans away from our own political/personal philosophies,-we choose to post.

I don't like the denial of same though.

(Squeers: you do know that TBC means ''To Be Continued' don't you? Or were you paking the tis?).

It's good of you folks to discuss this, it really is.

I appreciate it.

(Btw: when I referred to 'look at the original post'. I meant the original post on THIS thread).

Squeers, Ginx, Belly, Qanda

I was 'rolled' on the Lord Monckton thread also and I do believe the curt manner of our CEO's emails is typical. I have pointed out that I find this very rude. I won't go any further, because I'll probably have this posted deleted and be suspended yet again.

Belly illustrates what one person finds offensive another feels it justified. I have been hard on Foxy too, I understand she strives hard for civility whereas I am more likely to 'cut to the chase'. I am also sure that Foxy herself would deny being the social glue here at OLO. As much as certain people would like to deny it, OLO is a collective and stands on the breadth and range of it diverse contributors. And is more a testament to all sincere contributors than it is to its founder.

Folks, I am presently in good health and do not anticipate NOT being around to post here in the coming weeks.

;P

BTW I hope PM Gillard is one who leads by example rather than one who leads by authority. I have worked for both types and I know which brought out my best.

I had a post deleted on the Lord Monckton thread as well. But being a "newie" to this sort of opinion forum, I contacted Graham and he replied very courteously to me. There were quite a few posts that were deleted on that occasion, but if memory serves me correctly, it was quite an inflammatory article that we were reacting to.

Poirot

Yes, the Lord Monckton thread did cause much controversy.

I am very pleased to know that Graham did correspond with you in a courteous fashion. Therefore, his rather 'curt' style with others is not just a typical mannerism.

Cruisin' for a bruisin'.

:D

Severin,

No doubt, I received the same formal notification as everyone else - it was the fact that I was new to this and unsure how I should react that prompted me to contact Graham.

I've been quite deliberately staying out of the stoush on the thread about Graham's article. However, I find it somewhat gratifying that I'm not alone in perceiving some bias and capriciousness in OLO's moderation on occasions. Certainly, that Monckton thread was a classic.

Having said that, in my various communications with Graham I've generally found him to be polite and reasonable, even when I've fallen foul of his standards. Obviously, we would disagree on many contentious issues, and I've been mostly impressed by his efforts to remain objective. Sometimes he gets it wrong in my opinion, but it is his site and he's human.

Overall, I think that Graham's moderation style is relatively light when compared to other moderated forums with which I'm familiar, which is one of the reasons that OLO is my favourite. It's also a brilliant place to find out what the enemy is thinking ;)

CJ Morgan & Poirot

I am pleased to hear that your communications with Graham have been pleasant ones.

I am comfortable with any communication that I have had with the Chief Editor.

Because I have returned fire.

Second that Severin.

Whilst I've never had an OLO suspension, the relatively few emails I've had from the moderator have derided me. I obviously offend his sensibilities. Eh, so what - I'm an anonymous commenter anyway.

Ginx

What gets up my nostrils is when the chief editor and moderator blatantly accuses me on his forum of being a fraud, of being dishonest, and goes on to slander my integrity as a professional scientist - without even knowing who I am for God's sake. Sheesh, he has even accused me of flaming, baiting and cyber-bullying?

Yeah, like I said ... stench of hypocrisy.

Otherwise, OLO is one of the best 'general' on-line forums I've come across, albeit I'm having to spend more time on more technical ones.

I fully understand quanda, I really do.

........given my stance on this (and I speak for myself ONLY here),-it might come as a surprise (and perhaps seen as high-handed? I don't know),..we need to put this thing to bed.

I am saddened by how this played out. It was not the first time this has happened as has has been shared here-and I am entirely at peace with the stand I took/take. In the same circumstances I would/will do it again.

There is an element now of flogging this to death.

Truly,-in expressing this I've no wish to offend those of you who have latterly posted. I am grateful.

OLO is quite easy to become addicted to. I never had any intent to come back as regular poster, as I have done.

This forum has always irritated me for precisely the sort of reasons that resulted in this contretemps. BUT:

It is here because others work at making it so. I'm not a fool;-I know that, and appreciate it.

I also think it has been pleasant for members to discuss this without interference/ criticism/ or threat by admin.

They have now done that.

I'm the last one to 'say let it go/ move on', but that's what I'm now saying, because I am only to crucially aware that-irrespective of our real/ or perceived view of censoring certain views (and personally I believe that HAS occurred)-the fact is: we HAVE this venue to have the conversation about the very people/person who have worked to give us the venue to have the conversation!!

I hope you understand what I'm stumbling to say. These are my thoughts; you may think differently

qanda: sorry!

Political correctness gone too far - the pesky 'u' after the pesky 'q'.

Ok, yeah ... I agree entirely, move'em up, move'em out, and movin on.

Ginxy

One last post before I “move on”.
Penultimate actually – I’m going to reply later to yet another ad hom on the “satellite” thread by Michael Lemonick, 15/7/2010. Besides, I will be busy with helping some country folk in our food bowl deal with their area’s changing rainfall patterns, you know ... the how’s and the why’s, what to do and how to manage it.

Anyway, the irony Ginxy is that in one fell swoop, I have been “silenced” by your response (which I wholly endorse) to some, er ... correspondence from “admin”, rather than receiving it myself. All I have ever asked of “admin” is that they apologise to me, or say sorry. They couldn’t or wouldn’t, much like a former politician I once knew.

Is NOT being able to say “sorry mate, I got it wrong – let bygones be bygones, let’s move on” a character flaw? Maybe, maybe not. That’s not really at issue. What is at issue is the subject of Graham Young’s initial post, including;

PM Gillard says “People should feel free to say what they feel ...” and Graham agreeing, saying “this is the OLO approach.”

All I did was agree with the PM, and called a spade a spade.

In answer to Graham’s question; “has it made a difference to how the OLO community approach this issue?”
Yes, Ginxy (and Belly) – I for one am burning the bridge (after one last post that is).

To all my supporters, and detractors ... sorry.

As you've addressed me,-I'll respond qanda.

It is a fairly precise response. Last night I went through 50-odd 'pages' of responses to the Monckton article.

I wasn't here during that period (TG!). I was curious as to the reference to it by yourself and CJ.

I said precise response:

You have absolutely NO NEED to apologise. For anything.

I still think that these matters should now be closed.

For now.

qanda: << I for one am burning the bridge (after one last post that is).

To all my supporters, and detractors ... sorry. >>

Well I for one will be sad to see you go. You've been a voice of light and reason, particularly in discussions about climate change. I do recall seeing some comments addressed to you from Graham that I thought were quite inappropriate at the time.

All the best, qanda.

QANDA

I am very upset to learn that you are indeed leaving. I have enjoyed your knowledgeable posts on climate change. I also felt validated to hear that you and others have had similar experiences to mine.

Of course, you may always return later. When I was very ill last year I thought I wasn't returning, as my energy levels were and remain poor.

So I will say, au revoir, mon ami.

hey Qanda, I too will miss your knowledgeable and well reasoned posts. Hurry back. Cheers, Grim.

You mean you're LEAVING leaving qanda??

I misunderstood that part.

DON'T YOU DAMN WELL DARE!

qanda,
I well recall some of the attacks you sustained from GY on AGW and don't blame you. Nevertheless, in order to forestall the conservative tide of ignorant opinion that threatens to swamp action on AGW, I urge you to continue to add your voice in future discussions oo that vitally important topic.
Burn your ships, by all means, but keep your bridges serviceable (a subtle distinction).

Um, what attacks were those Squeers? Link would be good. I generally cross swords with Qanda when he is patronising someone on the forum and holding himself out as an expert. I note he's asking for some sort of an apology from me but no hint of why. (I am the person who generally does the "admin").

He also accuses me of slandering him "without even knowing who I am for God's sake". Well, anonymous posters don't have a reputation apart from what they say on this forum, so can't be slandered. He claims to be a scientist, but has said a number of things on this forum which suggest he isn't. So he can be judged on those things. If he wants to vindicate his position he can come out. But I guess he won't, and if he won't you should ask why.

Qanda refers to a thread where he claimed he was threatened for his argument http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1646&page=0#31745. In fact he was warned because of his abuse of another poster. The post that was taken down had nothing in it about global warming at all. If these matters were not confidential I would be happy to post the comment to prove my point.

Severin sorry to hear how unwell you have been, forgive me for not noting it earlier.
It is very much true I wander about in my work and politics world and some times the important things slip past me.
I am aware Ginx has health issues too so hope life is fun for you both.
In my work life I try to settle disputes, no not bloody minded boots and all union action, it is yesterdays way.
If I need to be heard I am but consider this.
What outcome do you want from this bun fight?
What do you think the most likely outcome if it continues will be?
Now I once said while I live I learn and grow, my first year of posting here shows that to be true.
But I had 4000 posts in other much more combative forums.
Two sides both holding their ground will never see victory.
Look at the whole thing, our own inputs into it too.
I have adopted the view I should re read my posts before posting, and that I can live with hurts and such.
Throwing the pet dog over one another's fence will get no one any place.
Why not take it to the car park another thread better still why not do it via e mail?
In HIGHLIGHTING such a dispute we make possible outcomes much more likely to do harm to all.
After re reading if it must take place this is the thread for it but must it?

Dear Belly

We do not always see eye to eye, but you have always had my respect. I think that you would know enough of my history to know that I am no more aggressive than your good self. We both know which posters are bullies and given to derogatory comments to any they disagree with.

In addition I have not posted anything online anywhere on this forum or others, I would be embarrassed at reading on the front page of the newspaper.

In the past I have tried to negotiate via email. I cannot say anything further, I was informed that anything written in emails by the moderator cannot be repeated here. My post was deleted and I was suspended for a week.

Thank you for your concerns for my health - while this can effect the number of posts I make, no matter how well or not I may be feeling, my beliefs remain the same; that no-one is above critique, we all have the right to express our opinions here in this wonderful land.

Finally, I do not wish to continue this absurd "bun-fight". I am disappointed that QANDA has been silenced, I can only hope that it is temporary.

Qanda has not been "silenced". He has gone away. There was no pressure on him to do that. I wish you would stick to the facts Severin instead of making them up.

Dear Graham Young,
Sorry I don't have time to search through threads, but I don't think you'd deny your tone, particularly towards Q&A, has often been acerbic if not contemptuous. I'm merely empathising with him. Perhaps you don't fully appreciate that your privileged station gives you a lot more clout as a contributor. There's no denying that your contributions (the ones I've read) are as compelling as anyone's; on the other hand you typically enjoy a degree of immunity from the criticism of would-be detractors (default respect for authority is deeply ingrained in all of us) who are wont to be intimidated, or at least restrained. At the same time your supporters in debate enjoy the kudos that devolves to them merely by virtue of being on your side (though I'm sure stouter confederates are embarrassed by the same proximity and fear the charge of toadying that tacitly hangs over them).
Anonymity is a complex issue. On the one hand I tend to agree that if I'm going to represent myself as an expert I have to be able to defend that area of expertise, which is not easy on AGW because it involves such a broad spectrum of disciplines. Indeed I doubt there are any experts on AGW, per se, except for the self-appointed visionaries (dilettantes) on both sides, who tend to be passionate about the rightness of their respective global views. But I don't think qanda has represented himself as one of these broad-spectrum experts? Of course if one has an area of expertise in the sciences, however humble, it seems s/he may presume/assert a rational predisposition that commands and garners respect whether deserved or not. Scientists are the dodgy secular priests of modernity. But that's another topic.
I don't mean to intrude in your dispute with qanda beyond saying that your position gives you an unfair advantage that obliges you to be more circumspect than anyone, both by way of setting the right example, and not imposing your authority unduly in debates.

Geez Squeers, it would be nice to think that I commanded some respect, but you haven't been paying attention to these threads if you think that I do. Much of this thread has been a diatribe against my alleged interference in other threads and alleged silencing of people I disagree with, none of which is true.

Rather than getting respect I seem to attract more than my fair share of detractors. If people don't like being challenged and want to shut the debate down they pick on me and suggest that I'm biased and therefore the site must be biased and therefore they should be allowed to say what they want, whether they are in line with the site rules or not.

You shouldn't say things you're not prepared to back-up by references. If I made an allegation against you, as you've made against me, I'd be required by posters to justify it. Your refusal to find any evidence because you "don't have time" is pretty poor form.

If you did bother to do any research on the threads you'd find pretty quickly that QANDA does claim to pretty broad knowledge on AGW. He talks down to and harangues other posters using his asserted superior knowledge and expertise. I've just noticed him on this thread making http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10678 allegations against Antony Watts (this is in the area of temperature measurement).

I think I first came up against him when he was talking about the Walker Circulation http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7124.

We've also had discussions about the interaction between atmosphere and oceans where he demonstrated he didn't understand the second law of thermodynamics http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9484

And on another thread he was arguing about cloud formation and its effect on global warming, and getting it wrong. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3312

It's part of the way we hope that debate works on this site that commenters actually back their arguments up with facts and links.

Perhaps Julia Gillard's seeming call for a disregard of PC in public debate is intended to 'give permission' to her Parliamentary colleagues to start representing a public opinion with which it seems most representatives have lost touch, bigoted though such opinion may have been, and continue to be, labeled by a majority of the commentariat.

If this is substantially so, should not the general public be asking why and how it is that its representatives have come to be so subservient to the elitism that seemingly characterizes much of the commentariat, and, increasingly, Australian parliaments?

Somewhere earlier on the Forum, I think in this thread, I recall someone posting something to the effect of "anonymous posters not having any reputation apart from what they say on this forum, so therefore not being able to be slandered". I must go back and take a screenshot of that post, if I can find it, in case it gets deleted. I want to frame it, because it so reflects my own view: in fact I wish I had written it myself.

Closely related to the establishment of such OLO reputation, is the issue as to what has seemed to be the ease with which 'plausible deniability' can be claimed by politicians as to awareness of aspects of matters of public interest that may have been raised and/or debated on OLO by users posting under pseudonyms. The routine bridging of this gap, where genuine online reputation has been established, seems to be the next challenge faced by OLO in securing and enhancing its hold upon the claim to being Australia's premier e-journal of social and political debate.



@qanda

It is very mean and selfish of you not to grace this Forum with your presence. How 'Indian giving' of you to heap praise upon my efforts, and then depart the lists! It devalues the praise that I so treasure. You threaten to rob me - rob me I say! Go then! And may the grace of oug and his gamboge text go with you and infest whatever forum you may dwell upon.

Forest found me from information I posted over the years.
I once was goaded into saying who I was.
I do nothing because of fear, my job it is clear forces me not to put it out there.
But look if you wish it is there.
After I leave work and it is clear my thoughts are my own, I will put my full name out here,surname is Bell.
I question truly, the need to unmask, for century's even authors used other name and sex's to hide just who they are why not?
I find no weakness in those not wanting to put their names out, just maybe wiseness is what I see in them.
In truth to hide behind a name thinking you are then free to say what you want if that names is yours or not is gutless.
I think this bun fight can only end in trouble and is better left to die.
OLO is our common ground respect it if some see me as crawling they need glasses.

Forest "anonymous posters not having any reputation apart from what they say on this forum, so therefore not being able to be slandered"

Perhaps this http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3773#93384

True as long as we stay anonymous but for many who have posted here over a sustained period it's likely that we have revealed enough details that those who know us could identify us. Not just today but any time in the future, search technologies are improving along with the ability to map data from diverse sources. I assume that it's only a matter of time before someone will make a tool available which could work with a variety of criteria to put the pieces together.

Our writing style, favorite topics (and attitude to them), common grammar mistakes, mention of periods of ill health, family members passing, time away, occupation, marital history all give hints that in the right hands and with good search tools could identify many who post under an alias (a programmatic version of CJ perhaps).

Is it slander if it later becomes associated with a real name?

R0bert

It was I who said it Forrest. But Robert is right. Could be defamation if people were able to work out who the person was. There are even cases where people have been held to have been defamed even when the comments were not directed at them, but where people thought they were because of sharing a name with a fictional character - hence the disclaimers you see on movies etc.

So one would want to be very careful what you say about someone on OLO. However, I don't think the courts would necessarily look too kindly on someone who revealed their identity after posting anonymously and then claimed to be defamed, but I'm not aware of any cases on point, and wouldn't want to be the test case.

However, there are probably some defences to defamatory comments, such as the implied right of free speech in the constitution. And some of what posters think is defamatory is probably mere abuse. To be safe though, you should make sure that whatever you say of a factual nature about other posters is true and that your opinions are based on those facts. I'd also be careful of being malicious. If you make a mistake, you should also apologise as quickly as possible - that doesn't stop something being defamatory, but it does limit the quantum of damages.