I didn’t notice Poroit but it was perspective again. I had three tabs open and was messaging on three sites and being thoroughly abused on the two others so Blue’s message just didn’t register.

Forrest:”The post threatened to reveal the identities of children the subject of DOCS orders…”

Oh. And DoCS seem to not care if you do it they just want to catch you or they’d sit down and give a decent lecture on what you are allowed and not allowed to say to protect the privacy of children. But I was told I could talk about NGO’s, not that they would defend me from the NGO’s if I put a step wrong there either.

But thank you for those that spotted what was happening when I didn’t. He may have been using what I am to finally get something out that was a large issue for him/her?

I’m sure the mens group do the same. I think they love any female post and see us as no more than platforms from which to air their grievances in response.

UOG:”<<communicating is one long series..of thoughts..and edits.>
agree...but also its a path..that leads ourselves...and our...br-others..back into the light..or at least..towards..the right path..[for them]..we each have our own learnings/leanings..loves/hates”

I want five Cyberia peeps back. I know some already are and it seems silly to bother with another name to navigate being banned, or weirder still doing it when your name is not banned.

Squeers, I wasn’t sure if the commie in the corner was an insult or not. With Anti I first assume everything he says is then reply anyways.

With my change of mind there is a hope Graham will ease up, he said other things can be going on at the time he is requested to delete something. I get how annoying it is to debate endlessly if a moderation decision is right or wrong. Can posts be suspended until time is taken to have a good look at them in context or the person explain their position?

Squeers:"Thus what Squeers says is not judged merely on merit, but on preconception"

Or it may have just been a joke...

Of course TPP backs you up when she says:"I wasn’t sure if the commie in the corner was an insult or not. With Anti I first assume everything he says is"

Ooh, hooo, the skins are getting thinner, yeah.

Anti:"Of course TPP backs you up when she says:"I wasn’t sure if the commie in the corner was an insult or not. With Anti I first assume everything he says is"

Ooh, hooo, the skins are getting thinner, yeah."

Cheers for the example babe.

Dear Anti,
I assure you I wasn't the least bit offended, and knew it wasn't intended to offend. It was just a good example of what I was saying. Whoever we read we have a preconceived notion of their stance on the topic. We already have a "database" on the poster which allows us to infer their latest effort rather than read it with fresh eyes. Of course in most cases this is sufficient since the bias overrules all argument or contrary evidence. Thus, OUG is unlikely to pronounce himself an atheist any time soon; AGIR is never going to come out in favour of action on climate change, and it's probably safe to gloss their posts. A critic once said that the polemic for liberation of the surfs is watermarked on every page of Tolstoy's novels.
The question that fascinates me is, can any of us be genuinely impartial, or harbour contradictory prejudices simultaneously?
But this is all too distracting.
..Shall encounter you all elsewhere.

The Pied Piper, "I want five Cyberia peeps back"

Are we to understand that was your underlying purpose in getting this thread approved and your frequent protestations of ignorance of the rules, flaming and so on and of who had been suspended was just an act?

You have put a lot of effort into keeping the thread moving in that direction it would seem and you also seem to know who is back and active on the site under a different name despite being suspended or whatever.

Forget the personalities and the wolf in sheep's clothing routine, what practical recommendations do you have to improve the rules to enhance the contributions and experience of the broad cross-section of people using the site?

cornflower..<<what practical recommendations..do you have to improve the rules..to enhance the contributions..and experience of the broad cross-section..of people using the site?>>

ok it..{the question]..should be here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11090&page=0

but i would simply suggest blanking out the offending bits
[and allowing privledged people to scroll accross it to read the origonal...obscured bit]...or allow the complainer to rewite it

or offer a suggestion of how the ORIGONAL poster could rewrite it..AGAIN...[but i allready suggested these there...so repeat them here]

i resent piper getting all the blame
i want some too

even if people skip my posts
WER'E ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

not..TO-get-her