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.