Posted by Cornflower, on the day of the Great Deletion:

"[Question]: How many narcissists does it take to change a light bulb?

[Answer 2]: None at all, he hires menials for work that's beneath him."

Or above him, might I deign to suggest?

[Forrest retires, polishing his halo assiduously as he goes, preparing all the while for how he will deal with the sounds of silence. It had all really been quite Mikado-esque, what with the Lord Dymo losing his head, and all that. "My object all sublime, which I'll acheive in time, to make the punishment fit, the punishment fit the crime ..."]

But you have to admit, Cornflower, that the Old Embittered Geezers Party does have a ring to it.

This is a 'to the fallen' post.

It is in honour of OLO UserID 'Ludwig', who started this thread, but unfortunately became a casualty as seemingly 'collateral damage' in the Great Deletion that took place upon the 'Racist government, racist opposition, racist debate' article comments thread yesterday. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10669#177163 . I say 'seemingly collateral damage' not as any oblique criticism of the moderation decision that resulted in his suspension for abuse, but rather by way of recognition that abusiveness has never normally been something that Ludwig has displayed on the Forum.

Viewers can check this for themselves by going to his user history, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=22800&show=history , and looking at any of his 3466 comments posted to the Forum, except maybe two.

I can only think Ludwig must have been provoked, unless his suspension really was collateral damage, a mis-hit of the deletion/suspension button, so to speak.

Anyway, as he is at present unable to shepherd his thread, I shall endeavour to do it for him to some extent, without actually trying to put words in his mouth, in order to keep it up on the default display until he returns.

BTW, the Lord Dymo copped it too in the Great Deletion, as my earlier remark about him 'losing his head' may have revealed. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10669#177082 . He had eight of the 27 deleted posts down to him.

Ludwig only had two posts deleted. Just to introduce a sense of proportion.



"Everybody's lookin' for somethin'
Somebody wants to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused ..."



Everything is OK at the corral, Wyatt. Don't you worry about that!

Forrest Gumpp and Poirot,

Heh, heh, good ones and my keyboard needs another careful sponging to remove the coffee.

On the day after the Great Deletion, I would like to thank you Forrest for your comments.

I was very very unimpressed with my 24 hour suspension and I have let Graham know about it.

I’ll maintain that my posts were not abusive and were intended to be humorous and that I was indeed collateral damage.

Nearly five years on this forum without a suspension or a warning, then no warning, just a suspension, over something that I could never have dreamed could have led to it.

I am as familiar with the forum rules as they actually apply, which is somewhat to how they are written, and with the OLO culture as anyone could be. And I was of the impression that any poster who infringed the rules, even really blatantly, would get a warning first before the big stick was whacked across their backside.

I’ve always had a very good relationship with Graham, up until this point. It has certainly been damaged.

.

.
Um… so how do I join the Old Embittered Geezers Party?

----
Now, back to Wyatt Roy. As I said in my first post, I question some of his principles (http://www.wyattroy.com.au/principles/):

<< We believe in small government. >>

I don’t. I believe in efficient government that is large enough to properly undertake the enormous variety of duties that we depend on it for.

<< We believe taxes must be as low, as fair, and as simple as possible >>

Fair and simple, yes, but taxes have got to be high enough to properly cover steady improvements in all the areas that need it, which are many.

continued

<< We support sustainable economic growth >>

This should be; we support a sustainable economy, which would be one that is not based on continuous growth.

<< We believe fostering strong growth in productivity >>

We’ve got to get off the continuous growth spiral. We can’t keep on growing the economy and the population for very much longer. We need strong growth in productivity just to keep up the same sort of lifestyle for the rapidly growing population. So the obvious answer is not to forever foster increasing productivity, but to reduce population growth and then stop it altogether so that we can have a stable population. We then would not need strong economic growth. A small steady increase in economic growth or even a no-growth economy would be possible and very practical.

There are many more on Wyatt’s website, but that’ll do for now.

It is not Wyatt's age or inexperience that matters, it is his and his party's principles and policies.