i have long avoided commenting on these 4000
because i detest the articles format..[post limits]
and i know that they have their reason..but

i been waituing 23 hours to post a reply
because the reply demanded of me is lengthy
[to refute the deciets of evolution..that takes a few pages]

to explain..a poster has demanded that i put forward how god done it
to do this i need to explain to her that dna..isnt alive

i need to explain laboriously..to her that even her simplistic sarcasm 7 word reply..over simplifies dna replicating rna
that all replication needs a cell...[and thats the bit i was comming to next]

meanwhile a vacous poster has diverted the thflow of the rerply..with some creationist myths..[linking me to them]..when that is only more i need to correct...in 4 post limits per day

i should know better than to even get into reading the 'articles'
but the new general post section gets so few new topic of late

seems most like me have given up
trying to make new general topics..[cause they simply disappear into the aether..never to be seen again]..so why the heck bother..

lets face it every poster has an adgenda
wether its in the form of a leading question
or simply an opposing statement..to get theirs in

i often wonder if helper's have other adgendas..than owners
but heck then again i often wander too much thus often left wondering

anyhow..i thought i could post that opionion here
as i cant post it there..and any other option is limited..or expired

yea 4000 authers
how many replied to their starter topic?
or even read the opposing replies

Speaking of authors, bloggers, and the provision of literary space on the LSS Palindromic Enterprise, this morning I came across a comment by OLO userID 'skeptic' which was the only comment to the article 'Old media dog turns new media trick' by Richard Stanton published on 21/10/2011 and now archived and closed to comment. I was reading it as background to Richard Stanton's current article, published just today, 'Middleground' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12918 , which as yet has not attracted a comment.

The comment by 'skeptic' was:

`

"Richard Stanton

All the machinations you describe are due
to the necessity of keeping all information
under the control of magnates.

Yesterday, for the first time, OLO had to
withhold some comments to conform to such
controls.

So long and thanks for all the smelly fish."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12773#220593

`

I'm just wondering to what 'skeptic' was referring in saying "OLO had to withhold some comments to conform to such controls". Given that there are intimations that the Australian government wishes to bring bloggers under some form of 'control', was there substance to skeptic's comment, and if so can we discuss it?

Forrest Gumpp,

I believe skeptic may have been referring to this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12766

Poirot,

Thanks, I hadn't seen that. The Eatock vs Bolt reference is more or less self-explanatory. GrahamY acting pre-emptively in protection of the Forum, presumably.