Belly:
<I switch of at the first sign of a domineering female>

I, on the other hand, heartily approve of Amazons. If only there were more such women to tame the men and rouse the subservient sisterhood!

<I want to say it would be unAustralian not to stand by a mate>

'Tis a virtue to be "unAustralian"--all things considered.

<I will not provide you or squeers with fodder I can fight fights worth fighting, views worth expressing ,or rebutting..[and so on]>

Stirring stuff, Belly; but how about a Bush Ballard for Lexi, Foxy and Cottontail?

Poor Squeers is but an innocent in these proceedings beside Forrest Gump, the Barbed Bard, and Lilith the vexatious Queen Mab of OLO.

I too hope 'tis true, Lilith; there are many men in dire need of vexing at OLO. But Squeers is a feminist with a penis (prey excuse the profanity) and roused rather than vanquished by a dominatrix.

I think the problem was with Eve Squeers, but you know how it is when the second wife is a woose. The first wife is always made out to be some kind of demon.

I am interested in the males here, the ones that appear in the Article section; last I checked there was talk of pinning one of their own to the cross over some small jest. One I read and my first reaction was to laugh, briefly.

But I can see the women arrive here independent of each other while the men respond in a gang like manner. The same names appear over and over with the same bitter posts proclaiming how unfair the world has become to them and pointing all fingers at women as if they are one entity. It all occurs within the rules because no fair rule could really be put in place to stop them. I would like to see the women cease all conversation with them instead of allowing themselves to be a platforms. Perhaps then these authors might learn no fair forum has been made for them here.

Belly I have never once booted you in the ribs. I think what happens is not that you switch off when you perceive a woman as dominant but see any dominant person as someone to be challenged. Someone appears in your territory and you are worried about those you perceive as the weaker or sweeter.

I am not a bully, if I believe they are weak and or sweet I will withdraw. And if you ever defend me I will be horrified by the implication but already know that you misinterpret sweet words as weakness in another.

Being Australian is defending a mate, this is the same thing all nations claim. But how far would you go for someone you call “mate”?

Ahoy there, Lexi - glad you liked my little tribute to Houellie (who should be back any minute).

Never mind Lilith's rather astringent critique of your recent history. Lil ith apparently quite a bold personality, and was just letting us know that:
1. She is not weak.
2. She is not sweet.
3. She is not a bully.

It seems that although she was in somewhat of a quandary as to the rules and procedure on OLO, that she now has the gist of things.
Just what the doctor ordered - all the sons (and daughters) around here respond rather well to a little vexing.

Poirot you missed one.

Lilith also let us know that she will toe the party line in misrepresenting what other posters say and do.

R0bert

Oh dear, the Pomeranian border wall seems to be increasingly full of holes, all bored from the inside...

Fractelle/Lilith:"But I can see the women arrive here independent of each other while the men respond in a gang like manner"

You go grrrl. Sadly for you, the only dog your whistle works on is srill back in Pomerania, desperately looking for a leg.

[Deleted for flaming.]