rob...lol...
its civil...because
all are posting with the same mind

all yes men
your comments...there
should be noted

QUOTE..<<Before reading this piece..I suspect that I would have shared John Stone's views about the referendum,..that comment leaves me looking a bit harder.>>

so lets look at that comment
funny enough..the same i rebutted..[as reading confusingly...with john INSERTIONS..assertions..mixed throughout]

he makes this read///LIKE a conclusion
of the bringing them home report

but note how HE ..and THEE
use it

quoting..thee..<<..' The "violence-racked, female-oppressive, sexually predatory cultures" are examples of what goes wrong when people loose hope and respect for themselves and their communities..>>..recalling..your other quote<<that comment leaves me looking a bit harder.>>

i will hold thyat your of the same mind
as you were before reading/quoting..your favourite line
ie john was feeding you..stuff you loved..confirming a thing you allready believe

that was my main point
he wrote that specificly..
for the majority of yes men..who relied..

*affirming..your own..preconcieved bias

its the lowest form of reporting
hardly deserving of reply..because its..SO obvious
so obvious i couldnt bother replying yesterday...as many others wont either

but lETS leave..THAT TOPIC..*FOR THAT PAGE...eh?
ie..keep it in the ORIGONAL-context..[on the ONE page]

OUG you raised that page here with accusations of racism against others.

I've pointed out in the context of your posts on this thread that the most racist comment in the discussion seemed to be by yourself. I'm guessing you don't see it that way.

You now chose to interpret my acknowledging a previous agreement with the general thrust of what the piece is about as accepting a portion of the piece which I'd singled out for criticism.

Is that deliberate misrepresentation of what I'm saying or do you really not get it?

R0bert

an egosample of how things might work better

my attempt to return..this..robs..destraction
BACK TO..ITS PROPER PAGE

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11273#190155

all further comment
on this*..topic
shall ONLY be..*at this..[page]

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11273#190155

no further comment enterd into
on this moderration topic

please correct my sumation
where you find it errant

then make your point..there
and i will REPLY..you there

[subject to posting limits]..there

now back to the 'moderation TOPIC'
have a nice day folks

and the topic IS
Moderation, Flaming, Off-Topic, Rules

[this is my suggestion
on how we can redirect..those...ok me too..
from going off topic]..

egsample being worth a thousand words

in my defence..i was giving an egsample
and a goodbye..

in case somone complained

Graham:” Part of that may of course be due to some of the intense discussions going on here, but perhaps part of it is due to the commenters having become more civil and spending more time discussing articles rather than dissing each other.”

I thought last week we were dissing each other and getting posts deleted and peeps banned all over the show. I reckon the lurkers secretly love a good slap fest.

Ludwig I’m on this other site where I am much more polite than here (shocking but true) as it’s really a group of foster parents talking about a variety of stuff.

One member keeps posting how she wont post because I am there and she doesn’t like my criticism of NGO’s and doesn’t like the way I shoot down in flames any argument about them being in the system.

She honestly has never been shot down in flames by my definition of the phrase.

Ludwig:”One of the main reasons that he doesn’t post is because he is loathe to cop a load of abuse and name-calling. Maybe t last he’ll start posting.”

Hope he does but we wont know what is abusive to him or even name-calling until it has probably happened. But my first few months on OLO did me a world of good, hardened me up for the next place online that was full of sometimes very angry people and when they got abusive the screen starts to melt.

R0bert to OUG: “Is that deliberate misrepresentation of what I'm saying or do you really not get it?”

OUG could take that one sentence all sorts of ways depending on his disposition at the time of reading it.

Danielle:” oug suggested that offensive lines could be blanked out. This would certainly be some guide for OLO writers. Examples in context can be invaluable in demonstrating what is/not permitted.”

Yep had that done to me and told why it was done… found it all very acceptable and avoided repeating what I had done. Other sites have Moderation Threads that give a person somewhere to air moderation grievances..?

Pied Piper "R0bert to OUG: “Is that deliberate misrepresentation of what I'm saying or do you really not get it?”

OUG could take that one sentence all sorts of ways depending on his disposition at the time of reading it. "

And that's a point I tried to make in my earlier response to OUG. My perception is that OUG calling aboriginals retarded is somewhat racist but possibly OUG meant something different to what I took it to be. I'm struggling to find a decent intepretation.

I think I'd made my dislike of the highlighted portion of John Stone's comments quite clear yet if OUG is to be taken at face value OUG takes that as an endorsement of those same comments.

Our perceptions will very much impact on how we read other peoples posts.

R0bert

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the forum be sanitized to the extent that the life goes out of it. And I very much doubt if this will ever happen here because of the diversity of its strong-minded posters. What is being stated is that when posting grows into a series of angry letters between two (or more) people directed at each other (not the topic) it can dominate the tone and destroy the comaraderie of a discussion group. That's when the moderator steps in
because posts that are clearly designed to disrupt the forum require that action be taken. While personal abuse and insults (flaming) can initially be amusing they get boring very quickly to people who aren't involved in them and they are an unfair monopolization of the forum. And, as Graham has pointed out - others reading the threads are turned off from contributing for fear of being abused and authors may also think twice before participating in forums where moderation
is non-existant.