Dipping into an article thread, I happened to note that the subject of anonymity had arisen.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12886&page=0#223293

Is there a change in the wind on OLO - and would it affect participation rates?

Unless you take elaborate steps, you are not unfindable in any case. electronic trails are too pervasive, permanent and never too much trouble to check.

Expect lots of false assent in the future.

Graham's logs can easily be seized by people with less conspicuous devotion to anonymity.

Rusty

It doesn't really matter in terms of our Govt.From my experince ASIO and the AFP know exactly who you are if your comments spike their interest.

Many sites are now useing facebook as the intermediary for comments.This negates their legal exposure and puts the onus back on the poster.

Poirot thanks for the link.
I went in to exile for a time in that section of the site.
I no longer go there,I found a few contributors, rabid in a seeming hate of any thing to do with unions and the ALP.
I think we deceive our selves if we do not understand we can be found with little difficulty.
I warn, strongly, of two intrusions in to my life, from contributors, both linked, and to some extent from metaly unstable folk.
I am Allan Bell, unafraid to tell the world.
But think with care,self defence is called for.
Here is my considered idea.
On coming to any forum, we should prove who we are,my long ago registration , is forgotten but I think I gave union Labor 4 wheel driving and fishing as my interests.
We should remember, honest contributors are not the problem.
But too a very bad one can damage us all.
We should take this debate further.
Again I warn someone can torpedo us all.
I was a member off an anti work choices forum.
Mainstream unionist was my name there.
Idiots forced me to both warn of site damage and leave.
Comments included a lunatic offering a reward for the capture of Americas VS President.
In time that forum lost its free flowing ways due to the minority's.

I invite my fellow posters to contribute to Poirot thread.
And to understand some basics.
This site is privately owned, free speech costs money to harbor hence the advertising.
Like Kyle Sanderlands our on line home must not bring unpleasant headlines.
No other site works this well, see the one most refugees go to ,it is not working.
Too much moderation kills it.
We do not want to be the cowards corner,in respect to GYs comments in that link I agree.
I am combative, but some never grew up are forever School yard Bully's.
They are no easy task for GY to control.
Nothing in his comments challenges free speech, nothing said is not well said in my view.
The reality's of life are some fences must be built, some will vandalize any thing.
Self praise is no recommendation but some think verbal slamming is a victory to them.
It proves only some are not capable of rational debate.
Again thanks for the thread remember the costs of free speech is never without costs and that we walk on others property here.
Yet we are a family warts and all we return,I think we are well served by the rules of the forum.

clearly we take things..in context
from link

grayman said..""Qanda,..when the person you are arguing with
resorts to abuse..you know you've won.""

so lets keep this in mind
[heck we can all claim abuse..as a win]


but then

""And I agree with John McRobert,""[is this certified his TRUE name?]

""I think that the anonymity..on the web has become a curse.
It gets in the way..of sensible and honest/conversation.""

to this..i would disagree
if we knew who really was..behind the id
many would refuse..to even look at their words

[we got lots of govt trolls...would they be forced
into the same honesty/reveal;..or would they..have cheat mechanisms

to wit..its like media inquiries
it only helps out..those with adgendas..wanting secracy

but more fear
from our lord grayman

""I think OLO..is going to have to change..the model in that regard.""

well i for one..dont care either way
it will be fun..seeing how the elites get arround it

heck there is no annonimity..
[i had to show id..fill in details
just to get online]

graymen knows..my true name..and where i live
i only ever use my given names..never my fanmily name
and have used..the one name for many many years..

[others include
[plays on johan
johannine

but im fine being johan hendrick]

but am willing..to go the name change route
and formalise becomming..*one
under the family name under...

under the auspiciousness
[grace]..of god

the first people..have a name change routeen
as they develop..and grow their name changes
so its not as if the last name goes away

but any change..on whim or wind
is a name change that risks many resisting

in the main those..paid to blog

how about suss posters
needing to confirm their true id..only to moderator

if/WHEN..they loose the debait
[ie resort to name calling
rather than truthing..

[if you lied..
THEN..reveal your true id]

One thing needs to be clarified here. We do not give out any personal details. As those of you who have occasionally wanted to contact another poster know, the most I will do is forward your email on.

However, if we were required by a court of law then we would hand our logs over. That doesn't mean that they will show who the person is - it all depends on their ISP.

All this is spelt out in the privacy statement.

But I do think there is a problem with anonymous posters on sites like these which don't happen on sites like Facebook.

So I think we are going to have to change. I know it will lose us a lot of page impressions, because those who are slacking at work, or who have a job which doesn't allow them public comment, will disappear.

That may not be such a problem in the future because the advertising model appears to be broken. Have a read of this article https://apps.facebook.com/wpsocialreader/me/channels/15982/content/XfkNG. And note that it is displayed in Facebook, not the newspaper's site, so is earning no advertising income for the paper at all.

So if advertising is broken, the only way sites like ours can survive is via subscriptions and patronage. In which case, page views become a lesser consideration.

Talk about timing, "Why online anonymity is an illusion".

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/why-online-anonymity-is-an-illusion-20111125-1nxnh.html

Poirot,

To answer the first barrel of your double-barrelled question, one would have to say that if one was to take GrahamY's statement, in the post to which you have linked, at face value, the answer would have to be 'yes'. GrahamY said:

"And I agree with John McRobert,
I think that the anonymity on the
web has become a curse. It gets in
the way of sensible and honest
conversation.

I think OLO is going to have to
change the model in that regard."

GrahamY's statement in that thread, the comments to Steven Meyer's article 'A challenge to climate sceptics', could partially explain the absence of response to a question I posed on the recent topic '4000 authors plus one - an OLO milestone', wherein I asked as to the prospects of articles being publishable on OLO under pseudonyms. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4829#128552 . It is worth noting that Steven Meyer is a registered OLO user that posts under the userID of 'stevenlmeyer', and that he is more well known as a poster (or OLO 'mini-author', or blogger) than as primarily an article author who then engages with users in comment threads. It is just that he does not post pseudonymously.

However, it must also be noted that OLO author Lao Zi would appear to be an example of an article author published pseudonymously. See: http://onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=6489 . It was this apparent precedent upon which my question to GrahamY was based.

It could be that GrahamY is trying to assess the effect upon the quality of discussion on OLO of permitting a wider use of pseudonymity in the articles area of the Forum, and perhaps being a bit of a devil's advocate in stating anonymity (not quite the same thing as pseudonimity) on the web has become a curse.

As to the second barrel of your question, the answer is also undoubtedly 'yes', but as to in which direction requires another post. Meanwhile, think on this: if voting was not by secret ballot, would you still be happy to vote?

People get caught doing illegal things under a false sense of anonymity all the time. Don't kid yourself, you are not anonymous on the net. If you take elaborate steps to ACTUALLY be anonymous just so you can avoid prosecution for whatever reason then you may need to reassess your moral compass.

Just like in the real world you need to be careful who you're dealing with. There are psycho's out there who Just. Don't. Care. There are people out there with serious mental disorders who seem to think they are 'something' on the net. In the end, how important REALLY is any argument online?

"If you take elaborate steps to ACTUALLY be anonymous just so you can avoid prosecution for whatever reason then you may need to reassess your moral compass."

You seem to have a spelling error, StG: the word is spelled PERSECUTION.

If you were walking in the jungle and took elaborate steps to ACTUALLY avoid snakes, tigers and alligators and not be detected by them, what does that say about your moral compass?

I post a lot of material that would be subject to action under the Family Law Act or the Child Support Acts if I was to identify myself. The action would not be brought because I have said anything that causes offence, but because identifying myself would also identify other parties to the matters discussed. GrahamY knows who I am and I use my own name in my email address used for correspondence to this site. I have twice been the subject of threats of legal action made to GY (by the same rather PALE group) and I have told him to pass my details on on both occasions.

If pseudonymity is to become a thing of the past on OLO then the topics of Family Law and child support will simply be unable to be discussed except in the most general terms. In fact, any kind of discussion of the welfare of children will be off limits for parents wishing to discuss their personal experiences. This creates an effective censorship which is simply unacceptable in a democratic society.

Given the rash of law designed to prevent properly informed discussion of Government decisions for "commercial in confidence" and other fatuous justifications, the last thing that we need is a caving-in to such pressures from one of the few broadly-based, thoughtful forums still extant.

I completely agree with the point Anti makes, some discussions would be very effectively censored for some participants without a level of anonymity.

I also agree with the point made earlier that most of us could be traced by someone determined to do so but primarily starting from the alias rather than a real name. I've little fear at this stage that a casual google search using my real name would turn up my Oever tactics they LO comments.

Some posters have left me the strong impression that they would be more than willing to use whatever tactics they could to make trouble in the real world for those who challenge their online views. While there may not be a valid legal cause for seek to involve them.
I don't want managers (or co-workers) who may hold different views on some topics to me to be able to make decisions based on a dislike of some views that I might express here but keep quite about in the workplace.

Others may have different lives and not consider that risk to be a concern.

I've seen some pretty vile comments at times from posters using real names, I'm not convinced that anonymity makes it much worse and strongly believe the benefits far outweigh the downsides.

R0bert

I'm inclined to agree with Anti and RObert. It's plain to see that most people contributing to OLO "prefer" to avail themselves of anonymity. They have the opportunity if they wish to register using their real name - most choose not to.

For the most part, this is a singular and reasonably civilised forum. I'm inclined to surmise that changing the model to such an extent would so radically alter OLO that the thriving level of participation would deteriorate.

I understand that Graham is looking ahead in terms of advertising revenue and such like - keeping OLO alive is important. However, it may be a wiser course to look solely at subscriptions while leaving the option of anonymity in place.

There seems to be a little bit of a problem with the link posted by GrahamY on Sunday 27 November 2011 at 6:22:04 AM.

The link given, https://apps.facebook.com/wpsocialreader/me/channels/15982/content/XfkNG , does not appear in the post as a clickable link, presumably because the OLO software does not recognise the secure site status denoted by the 's' appended to the 'http' as part of a valid URL. Working around this by copying the link and pasting it into the address bar in a new tab in my Mozilla Firefox browser, I get this: http://twitpic.com/7k9ds4 . It is the login page for facebook, with which I do not have an account, nor any wish to open one. Note that the address ultimately displayed in the twitpic is different to the one I copied and pasted.

It is thus impossible for me to see for myself that of which GrahamY, with seeming justification, complains. I accept that he is probably correct in claiming that the advertising model for sites like OLO may be broken. If so, I would suggest that that would be no accident.

I have not followed closely some of the goings-on around facebook with respect to exposure of users to privacy breaches arising out of some of its default settings, but I hold most jaundiced views with respect to any concern as to user privacy to which it may lay claim.

Blogging sites have enabled the circumvention of the erstwhile gatekeepers of public discussion. A perhaps unintended consequence of this enabling of viewers/readers has been the erosion of the commercial attractiveness of the MSM, be it online or off, for advertisers. Some blogging sites, perhaps particularly OLO, may be getting traction perceived as being even more threatening to those long accustomed to being the gatekeepers.

'Playing the man and not the ball' often seems to be the tactic to which such first resort when they see a competitor gaining traction.

Don't play into their hands by abandoning the pseudonymity policy of OLO.

GY has my only e mail address and my full name.
I went against union rules in naming my self while working.
Belly[Bell being my surname] is the only name used to talk to me.
It was a long time ago but my full name was put here, after a challenge, that I was gutless.
Now please know, I was both targeted, one poster claimed legal background, and recently visited.
At night, do not freely give your details.
However if GY wishes I will furnish my full details.
I haveing this understanding, I am ok to look after my self some are not, lunatics inhabit this world.
Say lets put our names in the files, keep them safe use our sign in tags.
But this will not address two problems.
I Have contributed to this forum, come to think of it GY has seen proof of who I am.
GY should get Banking in place, he did not have them last time,so we can contribute if we want to monthly.
I want to.
We must sort out fairness for those who can not.
How do we/GY handle bad behavior?
GY is a softy, he could swing the Axe daily but rarely does, he and not us must address the fools.
Those of us wanting to contribute should remember just maybe our only roll in bad behavior is to remember a basic ignore trolls
GY can we see the payment system start with those who want to help?
Say monthly, weekly is ok.

A few points to pick-up. Forrest, the reason I didn't respond is time - it's limited. We have a few authors on OLO who are anonymous for a variety of reasons. In Zi's case he works in China, and is only able to write about it pseudonymously. We have a couple of others in similar circumstances. Not something we encourage, but we allow it in certain circumstances. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

The main reason for looking at anonymous posting is not because reputation should matter to argument, but because if real people have to stand behind what they say then they may be more careful not to offend others and argue with them.

I understand the issues Antiseptic raises, and from time to time have had to erase posts which pertain to CSA or Family Court matters. If Anti's identity were to become known I'd probably have to remove a number of his as well.

Belly, the subscription system is more or less ready to roll. I just have to check it and get sign-off from the directors. Cashflow is going to be tough for the next two months, so it would be good if I could organise a Christmas present for OLO.

There's pros and cons to the question of
anonymity in cyberspace.

Anonymity serves some people well.
As one author on the
web remarked:

"The state of debate and personal
courtesy on the internet is fairly poor - at
times it's sometimes awful and this climate
puts off people with milder opinions and manners,
reinforcing bad behaviourism. Others fight fire-with-fire
again escalating poor manners. People would mostly not
behave this way if they were face-to-face with people
that they are debating or were legally identifiable."

However, I agree with Poirot, and others. - Making
people register would reduce the number of comments
significantly. There are various issues that could
not be discussed as freely as they are - for a variety
of reasons, if anonymity was not in place. Some of us
have had personal experiences in this area and therefore
prefer to maintain our anonymity.

As another author
pointed out - "Privacy is a right. You don't live in
a house with no curtains or blinds. Why should anyone
be made to do so online?"

Graham,

Most of us appreciate what you do. OLO requires a lot of work and money. I would like to second what Poirot and Forrest Gump have been saying, however, and would prefer a subscription system, perhaps where articles and comments can be viewed for free, but you would need to pay for membership to post. Limited time memberships could be offered for a small amount of money, so that it is affordable by all or most.

People need the option of anonymity, because they can be victimised in the real world for what they say online, even if their comments are backed up by evidence and expressed in a civil manner in their own time. Usually the people who call the loudest for real names to be used would never dream of saying anything politically incorrect or contrary to the opinions of the corporate gatekeepers in the mass media. They simply want to silence people with different views, especially if they can put up evidence that they might be correct.

You already have the tools to deal with those who abuse anonymity. Delete the comments. You can also suspend the posters and ban them if they are especially egregious or are repeat offenders.

Yuyutsu,

No, I meant prosecution - as in, illegal activity. I can't be bullied online so the persecution suggestion is redundant. Again, no discussion is so important that I can't walk away from it.

I think we the contributors should have a conversation about the privacy part and with nothing but respect Grahams reason for it.
First as a union official I waved the hat around for some very solid reasons, including the wife of a man not a unionist.
I do so now, it always will be true, the battlers give the most.
It is my view we should task our selves with giving enough so the ones unable to do not feel pressured.
I have just sent my first monthly gift in , not a fortune, but it will help.
I am considering a gift in my will.
But what about the dills?
Many would rather we find ways to control them, not us all.
How about letting us know every time one has to be talked to.
I will not take offense if I get the bottom smacked now and again.
We should consider deeply, if a lunatic hurt or killed one of us because we are named?
I remind some of far worse intrusion suffered by a woman who unwisely gave her e mail out.
Hit the kick girls and boys if you can and maybe one or two will give that little bit extra for those who can not.
News paper every day? $30.

StG,

Sorry, I believe that the source of my confusion was that you mentioned legality in the same breath with morality.

You did not mention morality again in your last post, only legality, which indeed clarifies why you wrote "prosecution" and not "persecution".

Despite being perfectly moral you can still be persecuted by the government for things you do on line (and off line) which are not to their liking. This may take the form of prosecution or perhaps of other forms of harassment.

Despite using my real name I am circumspect about how much further information I dole out. I have only been unwillingly contacted by OLOers on three occassions, one was seeking support on an issue, the second was to berate me and the third was to threaten me.

I am prepared to accept this as a price of having my moniker up on the net and knowing access was free with this site pretty tight financially I was no mood to take the matter any further.

I feel a subscription service to OLO is justified but would counsel against making payment a complete prerequisite to posting. Perhaps limiting the non-contributors to one post per day may result in the 'fringe dwellers' being more thoughtful about their contributions.

I would also counsel making the fee commensurate with the extra work per person that will surely result. If I am paying for a service then I am going to be more likely to request and expect actions be taken on threatening behavior for instance.

…I realise this is not a confessional thread, but to clarify a personal imperative, mine is towards anonymity. I have no bones with any Government authority, so hold no fear of exposure. But to maintain peace and harmony amongst friends, family and acquaintances, anonymity becomes the imperative: On religious and racial grounds! I have close family connections with Lebanese Muslims, and also close family connections with Jews.

…On the Jewish side, they have removed their child from a school in a capital city in Australia, for fear of terrorist attacks on the school by radical Muslim elements. On the Lebanese side, raising the subject of Jews is painful to them, (and to anyone insensitive enough to raise the subject). I also post from life experience, from a painful background I wish to keep to myself. Anonymity is the imperative for me personally, and will pay the dollars for the “Privilege”.

I fully agree with every word of Diver Dan. I am also happy to pay for privacy.

I would like to add that if our true identities were published here, then foreign governments could also dig it and take steps against us. I can definitely see how I could be affected.

Three very good posts all I agree with.
But csteele the one thing concerns me.
I totally support privacy.
And understand one who has no way of paying may well not come at all if it is clear by posting history this is true.
The pride of the poor is strong.
I am heartened that we seem on the way to funding the site.
Concerned, strongly, about others being intruded on , and quite concerned at what could happen by naming everyone.
I am not on face book, out o contact with mates and family.
Because I believe much grief is coming daily to some because of too much openness.

"If Anti's identity were to become known I'd probably have to remove a number of his as well."

Graham just to clarify, am I right in thinking that there is no intention of identifying existing posts by real names, rather the possibility that future posts may need to be done under a real name?

I assume that you are talking about a situation where someone's real name is associeted with an online alias by someone other than yourself.

I doubt that I could continue posting if required to do so under my real name, can't imagine that I could or would change my writing style, topics I comment on etc enough to avoid my real name being easily linked to past posts which could create tension elsewhere in my life for reasons already discussed.

R0bert

This post may be a little tangential to the topic, but since the subject of the funding of OLO has arisen in connection with the viability of pseudonymity, I hope Poirot will forgive this little diversion into a 'crescent' off the main road.

Back in February, at around the time when the advertising revenue of the OLO site was attacked by, ostensibly in the first instance, a small number of persons purporting to demand that OLO effectively censor both 'the Muehlenberg article' and some of the comments made thereto, I attempted to make a donation to OLO. From memory, the amount was to have been of $50.

I used the 'donate' button on the maroon bar at the top of the OLO page to commence the procedure. I then clicked on the text link 'click here', as I was obviously already logged into the Forum. The screen that displays lists a Visa credit card as one of the acceptible payment/donation vehicles. I have an ANZ Rewards VISA credit card, and entered all the relevant information required by the online form. This was the result: http://twitpic.com/7ku9pi

I had made no mistakes in entering details. The card used was and remains a valid working credit card. I use it all the time. I was intending to fund the donation from my up to then never-used Reward Points, but with the notification that the transaction had failed and that I would not be billed, I forgot all about the incident.

Some months after the attempt to donate I noticed on my ANZ Rewards VISA card statement that I had been charged $40.00 for the 'Rewards' facility related to that card that I had NEVER, EVER, before or since, attempted to use in claiming any reward. I just put this down, in quiet fury, to the chiselling greed of the banks that is seemingly so prevalent these days.

Today I saw this: http://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/status/140819176481763329 . I can't presently view the YouTube video, but it makes me wonder was/is more than just advertising revenue for OLO interdicted?

Happy to co-operate with any investigation.

gosh durn it forrest
i followed your twiiter link

and joined twitwitters
it seems to refuse all my names

so im now

oneunderstands
[i think]

its funny...im fighting post limitations..[of 35o words]
and only 4 posts a day here..yet now are chosing to be further limited to 140 characters...[yep its a lol]

i also moved back to
the world freeman society
as in limiting my words..i note they have become unreadable

so i started a new evolution topic there

in light of the massive error..in trying to reply..
[using the then 2 post limits..that then aplied here]

even with the four articles presents it needs the flow broken..and the delayed posting allowance...well add in the subscription thingy
and other matters we most recently noted here

im just taking precautions
[my twiiter leads them back here
cause here are the bulk of my posts]

but in time plan to edit them into some form of clarity
where im not time and space limited..[using the twitter to advice topics maybe]

dont know..but its just the vibe of it

just like i de-test facebook's vibe
and other paid sites

where the converted yap with others also so converted
moneyed elites..in their own misama..[like that ex olo posters forum]..the only agreement they have
is dislike of this one

i just dont need that
i need people who think
or dare to dream

its funny how we spend trillions to learn things
like mars or the hedron colliders..[ie info costs money

so sure..they pay
but it should never cost..to share a new thought

anyhow here is the link
to my first twitted wit link topic
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018

Forrest Gumpp I too can not go to tube yet but am interested in the contents of your link.
I have had no troubles donating.
Past two years and another further back.
I have committed to a monthly one urge others who can afford it to do so.
I support and understand ROberts view.
Two issues one I support second,haveing considered it, is not going to work.
*Stars in Bars* some will try to build a profile here if it bis known who they are.
Others like RObert of real value here will leave.
It should be known by Graham who each of us is, proving checked and known.
Problem children should not be rewarded by making us all suffer.

just wondering
does a twitter link
do the same as a face book link
[ie cut off the origonal site adverts abilities etc]

how would i check it
im reluctant to search their box
as i know it builds up their prophiles

also noted cause i went in via wiklink of yourn
i get all the wikileaking posts without doing anything else

[still leaving a trail
wondef how far they backtrack?]

oh well
the curse of no where to hide
we are watching...lol...you

stuff em
fear no evil

life fairly but live fearlessly

Dear OUG,

You certainly have good sense to avoid that evil. My router is programmed to block both sites.
If you really have to go there, disable all cookies and remove all the ones that are already set.

A blessing and a curse.

"...or who have a job which doesn't allow them public comment, will disappear."

Public servants who post on here would probably not participate if their username revealed identity. Or perhaps they might not be as open and honest with their comments and experiences. Public comment on various issues (even if not within one's portfolio) would be frowned upon even when participating in the privacy of one's home. There is already immense monitoring and security screening of today's public servant.

Also most importantly, there are nutjobs out there and exposing oneself to possible threats does not encourage participation.

What is to stop somebody giving Graham a false name and offering a generic hotmail contactor from using an internet cafe/library to avoid identification through ISP address? I should confess I am no IT expert or internet security aficionado.

If one is keen enough, I suspect there will always be ways to circumvent providing genuine information, even if the options are inconvenient. Personally I don't have the time or inclination to bother and I hope OLO continues to respect anonymity; ultimately the decision is OLO's as regard time and resources.

As for advertising, it might be argued that the robust nature of the site attracts more readers/participants.

Poirot,

In attempting to answer the second barrel of your double-barrelled question I would first highlight the observation made by 'Rusty Catheter' in the second post to this thread, that:

"Unless you take elaborate steps,
you are not unfindable in any case.
electronic trails are too pervasive,
permanent and never too much trouble
to check."

and;

"Graham's logs can easily be seized
by people with less conspicuous
devotion to anonymity."

It is important to note that whilst such 'findability' is relatively easy for those able to at least purport to have sufficient official cause to inquire as to online identities, they must at least appear to give lip-service to the various 'protections' with which legislation, when emplaced, is invariably surrounded.

The danger lies in making it easy for the ever-prevalent malicious busybody, or ubiquitous 'wingnut', to be able to claim that they themselves (shinily feigning in some cases) 'discovered' a pseudonymous poster's (in their opinion) real identity. Once that is done, the perfect cop-out exists for the malicious prosecutorial element that always seems to ensconce itself within officialdom to be able to claim that they had no role in revealing what has nevertheless 'come to light' and must now be 'acted upon'. That is one reason why 'evidence' obtained under improperly issued search warrants in off-line life cannot be used to obtain convictions.

One only has to look back not so far on OLO to see the vigour with which some posters were pursued by an element that wanted to shut down the views of its target posters using a substitute for 'real name' identification, that of labeling. Some of that all came to a head and betrayed indications of an actual attempt to shut down the OLO site around the time of the Greg Storer/Mikey Bear tag team effort. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4263#108867

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4263#108609

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583#198483

I tend to use OLO as a 'journal of record', not as a forum within which my 'anonymity' assists my 'winning' of online arguments. To deny availability of pseudonymity to posters would be, in my opinion, a huge mistake. I would leave.

I want to expand on what Forrest Gumpp has said.
Hoping I do not give idiots and idea.
How hard would it be,for any of us, to craft a false ID.
Even use an others name?
I know of a site killed by some with IQ in the lower range.
Few disagree we have a good site but I add my concerns it would bean over kill to force such openness.

Forrest, I think it's instructive that all those who've tried to suppress others' right to speak freely on this site have been of the Left. They'd all no doubt proudly identify as Feminists as well and they would be entirely supportive of "progressive debate framing" that involves censorship and repression.

It's sad that otherwise intelligent people are so unsure of their own views, yet so certain that whatever they are they're correct, that they can't stand to have them challenged in open discussion.

Antiseptic, while I mostly agree there are those on the right who use such a high level of vitreol in their posts that it looks like an attempt to silence disenting vioces. A different tactic to achieve the same end.

Those who were fond of threatening legal action against others tended to nominally right wing views on a lot of issues as well.

What is great about this side is that there are a variety of people with differing views who seem to be able to discuss issues without trying to shut down opposing views or playing gang up's.

R0bert

Fair comment R0bert, that particular group was very confused generally, though.

Dear RObert,

I think you may appreciate this joke...
I Googled it.

"Deductive reasoning is a lot simpler than many people
realize. Just see if it isn't.

Neighbour 1: "Hi there, new neighbour, it sure is a
mighty nice day to be moving."

New Neighbour: "Yes it is and people around here seem
extremely friendly."

Neighbour 1: "So what is it you do for a living?"

New Neighbour: "I'm a professor at the university. I teach
deductive reasoning."

Neighbour 1: " Deductive Reasoning, what is that?"

New Neighbour: "Let me give you an example. I see you have
a dog house out back. By that I deduce that you have a dog."

Neighbour 1: "That is right."

New Neighbour: "The fact that you have a dog leads me to
deduce that you have a family."

Neighbour 1: "Right again."

New Neighbour: "Since you have a family, I deduce that you
have a wife."

Neighbour 1: "Correct."

New Neighbour: "And since you have a wife, I can deduce that
you are heterosexual."

Neighbour 1: "Yup."

New Neighbour: "That is deductive reasoning."

Neighbour 1: "Cool."

Later that same day:

Neighbour 1: "Hey, I was talking to the new guy who
moved in next door."

Neighbour 2: "Is he a nece guy?"

Neighbour 1: "Yes and he has an interesting job."

Neighbour 2: "Oh yeah, what does he do?"

Neighbour 1: "He's a Professor of Deductive Reasoning at
the University."

Neighbour 2: "Deductive Reasoning, what's that?"

Neighbour 1: "Let me give you an example. Do you have a
dog house?"

Neighbour 2: "No."

Neighbour 1: "Fag."

The way many of the 'elistist left ' or new atheist would like it is to ban the bible and promote the porn industry even though it has been biblical belief that has enabled them to freely have their vile opinion.

Dear runner,

The Chinese philosopher Lao Tsu thought that life could
be seen and explained in terms of a circle. Nothing was
new, but nothing stayed the same. You always ended up in
the same place, although you could be further ahead than
when you started. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Like the
authors of astrology guides in the daily newspapers, Lao
wasn't taking any chances. But he had a point.

Your ideas
about "elitist lefts," and others, share a similar quality. They
contain nothing new. You say the same thing over and
over again and you end up back in the same position as you
began. Ah well, some people may be impressed by your myth
creation, and repetition while others may find your philosophy
rather difficult to swallow.

Lexi

your ideas about Abbott

'about Äbbott" and others, share a similar quality. They
contain nothing new. You say the same thing over and
over again and you end up back in the same position as you
began. Ah well, some people may be impressed by your dislike, and repetition while others may find your philosophy
rather difficult to swallow. '

you might say things a little nicer but underneath your rusted on views have not changed anymore than my views or philosophy.

L*O*L

TOO sssheh eh

lol

touche'

G,Day Runner hows it going bloke.
Any chance you can say something controversial so we can have an argument?
So Christ isa Liberal sure of that mate.
Was it him who said judge not less you be judged.
Thought, but I am getting old, he said we are all equal.
Just came to me! outstanding! that means you too!
Along with extra bigot DNA and introducing God in to your politics?
If I believed in him, I would just bet your miss use of that Bible to prop up bigotry would see you have an interesting meeting with him.
Get well mate, thanks too, no need for me to hand God a how to vote card, he lives near here told me so.

Dear runner,

It's not "my" ideas about Mr Abbott that is a
worry. It's his lack of ideas that is a concern.
And they're not "rusted on" at all. They would
gladly change if he would. The same goes for
you. It's all very well to talk about Christian
morality - but you should try actually putting
it into practice.

Robert, that comment about Anti was on the hypothesis that somehow his name became known, not that we changed our policy here. How could this happen? Well someone might work out who he is and post it on another blog over which I have no control, so I could not delete it. The veil would be broken and then I would potentially, and so would he, have problems with any comments he might have made about his children.

Hope that is clear. If not, I'll have another shot at explaining.

Graham that's what I was expecting but thanks for clarifying it up.

R0bert

Belly

You are the one who insist that I insist Christ would vote Liberal. You have lied about this before. You might not like it but we live in a democracy and Christians also have the right to an opinion and to vote not just trade unionist and those who have rejected the gospel.

Ah my dear runner,

I thought we had the discussion about whether you were a Christian before, it was decided you were far more Paulian than Christian and from memory it was something you embraced.

Which is interesting since those of us who think Bishop Spong was on the money when he postulated that there was a good case to be made that Paul, with his attitudes to women and his 'offending member', was more than likely struggling with his homosexuality.

It seems to be a hallmark of those most stridently denouncing the sins of the world. One only needs to remember Ted Haggard.

President of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represented 30 million evangelical Christians Mr Haggard, after being caught out doing drugs and employing a male prostitute for sex was forced to admit; “I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.”

Here he is with Richard Dawkins pre-exposure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6-twsrIDTE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

From Swaggart to Haggard they are all the same and very like you runner in their stridency.

So whenever you post I am drawn to reflect on what dark secret you might be hiding. We all have our weaknesses, I certainly have mine, but yours appear to be driving deep conflict in your life.

The problem with anonymity is that you will never be publicly held to account for your words here vs deeds. This is possibly to your detriment.

csteele, I think that last post is bordering on abuse. Certainly a bit tendentious to run the line that because Bishop Spong thinks something about Paul then that says something about Runner; or that because a couple of US televangelists are hypocrites every evangelical Christian is a hypocrite too.

Doing amateur psychological analysis of your opponents is not what OLO is supposed to be about. Can we stick to the arguments? Otherwise we will get mired in polite name calling.

Graham, I'm not sure that if my name was revealed somewhere else there would be any compulsion on you to edit what had already been published anonymously. The only way it could become an issue is if that data was then to become a matter of public record here on OLO, since there is no way of knowing whether a particular reader may have read the article situated elsewhere.

Each case would have to be analysed on its merits. Having said that, it seems likely that if anybody did discover my name they would be likely to disseminate the information fairly widely in an effort to shut down my commentary. I have been actively contributing to many blogs over many years on the subject of the misapplication of the family law and child support and seem to have accumulated some "enemies" on the topic.

As an aside, any such effort, should one ever be made, would be met with a very aggressive legal response.

i wel, recall
why i came here to olo in the first place
in the main it was because of adult conversations and adult moderating standards

that being said..im noting we are collectivly getting moe childish and petty..to each other as time goes by

it seems we are making snap judgnments
[lol]..formed over many years

i could list those who disappointed
but to what excuse...[its only [*snap]...opinion]

and opinion on an opinion forum if fine
but snapped opinion can alkso get to where its legaly a troll
that then esculates as we recall other dirt on each other

how much worse if we could sek out the dirt on those we cant beat
or hate..or whatever the heck...people get the inner urgings from demons to really hurt those who they fear...

anyhow where to find them adults
who know that adullitry is much like adulation
that adultry essentially is about that aspect of loyalty
and not adulterating standards or quality or quantity of product

when a spiritual work talks of watering down quality
ie adulterating the [goss-pill]..words that form the basis of connections to the subject matter enchrined into 'wholly holy text'

well i fel im flogging a dead horse
postying words in a haunted house

what am i trying to say
nothing just voicing my thoughts
via my dopple gangers written words

im as an adult not caring if you get that or not
but as an adult i had to say something

so having writ
the mind behind the pen us moves on

Dear Graham,

You are quite right and therefore more than happy for you to remove it. Perhaps flag it as "Deleted for poor judgement and general mean spiritedness".

My apologies to runner. I had been reflecting on a victim of the mindset you displayed and directed my anger at you personally, something I should not have done.

Forrest Gumpp,

"To deny availability of pseudonymity to posters would be, in my opinion, a huge mistake. I would leave."

Ditto

i came accros a new info site
i posted 4 question on it

http://iheard.com.au/?gclid=CJ_tspb13KwCFYSBpAodNF65JQ#

wanna bet it dont get censored

thats why i post here
and link back here

im not sure i would pay to post
im only posting cause i get online acces for $50 bucks from dodo

and they know all about me allready
why change and make more trails

why go to new forums
heck why bother

soon all we will get is things like that cancer site
that censors your posts..to help along their moneyed adgena

nice web site
http://iheard.com.au/?gclid=CJ_tspb13KwCFYSBpAodNF65JQ#
how much of my tax..?
did my ciggie taxes pay for that?

of course they did

what did i ask
the same as i asked here

woodsmoke is number 1 cause of cancer
diesal micro particulate number two
smoking ciggies 3

[used different wording]

next i asked re the social costs
and that smoking r5elatred is only 800 million
bot 30 billion

next re the pictures and proof that thats from smoking
ie not frost bite nor drinking softdrink..to make them black teeth

and the other ones...were one in 4 only can get cancer
and another one

but my point is they wont all appear..there
i just know they will fiddle with it
or drop them as irrelivant..
or not advancing their paid adgenda

never the less they will count my 6 visites as hits
to say look our idea works....lol

plus they got my details
clever aint it

to clever by half
thats why i post here

and if not elsewhere..linking back to here
or there]..[you know that other site i previously favoured
till the kids began their destractions..and the elites got on with their adgendas

just like the i heard site..lol

I too will leave runner alone,I however find much to be offended with in his/her judgmental posts.
I am concerned, do not want the threads issues buried in the mud.
GY did you get my details, are we near getting the donation thing rolling.
I am willing to explore openness, Even to put my full details.
But not willing to have uninvited drop in, uninvited e mails.
I have seen very real damage from such as the CB Radio boom of past years.
I again rattle the tin, not at those that can not afford it but those who can.
This site is the one we made home lets fund it.
If we got enough we could maybe install personal messaging, along with blocks for some.
Hope we do not find no advertisers GY and that we find more who contribute.
OUG it is human nature and hard for many me included but we prove nothing by being rude to each other.
my regards.

csteele

I take no offence at what you have said. Your mention of the horrible failures of Swaggart and Haggard should not surprise anyone. We all have an Adamic nature which can potentially commit any gross sin. At least you agree that what they did was hypocritical and wrong. Bishop Spong is well know as someone who denies the Resurrection of Christ. Any godless doctrine will flow from that heresy.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/facebook-a-cunning-litigators-best-friend-20111129-1o4zn.html
This link to this mornings Sydney Herald could not be more relevant to this thread.
Interesting and informative, it is very worth while haveing a look.
Some understanding of problems confronting GY and our selves can be seen here.

Tom Hodgkinson had a jolly good rant about facebook in 2008....food for thought.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook

Poirot,

I am flattered with your endorsment of my earlier posted statement that:

"To deny availability of pseudonymity
to posters would be, in my opinion, a
huge mistake. I would leave."

I feel obliged, however, to amplify a little, as to an extent the word limit operated to blunt my expression in a way I did not intend. Had I more space in the post I would have said something like "I would be forced to leave", or perhaps "I would have no other choice than to leave". As my post stands, the "I would leave" could be read as some sort of conceited attempt at standing over OLO, a threatening to withdraw some imagined valuable 'contribution', something that was not intended to be conveyed.

I would see myself as having little other choice than to leave, in the absence of pseudonymicity, because of both personal experience of the FIRST RESORT that is frequently taken to malicious exercise of administrative authority against those who speak up in matters of public interest in attempt to shut down discussion, and of being a first-hand witness in the cause of friends encountering similar tactics.

I contend that there is something deeply, seriously wrong with respect to public debate in Australia these days, and, I suspect, with respect to the selection of many of those who would be the 'peak participants' in those intended fora of public debate, our Parliaments. I choose to speak up about it where I see things in the public domain that I suspect may go toward explaining this seeming malaise, backing my claims where possible with publicly accessible official references. Using, as Allan Asher has described it, 'the gift' of the internet, http://twitter.com/#!/allanasher/status/128637967488139264 , and, more locally specifically, that of OLO, to do so.

GrahamY, only yesterday, as to his perception of the state of public debate: http://www.ambitgambit.com/2011/11/29/slippery-slopes-of-church-and-state/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I can only conclude there is fear of open public debate in some quarters because, not shut down, it might reveal political power having been being exercised over an extended period on an essentially false claim to a public mandate.

It does raise an interesting dichotomy. We certainly want to know the identity and a little of the background of the article authors yet are happy to sit behind pseudonyms while sending slings and arrows in their direction.

Before reading an article I more than often will check the author's bio. Anyone from the IPA for instance would have me reading the piece from a different perspective than if it were written by someone in the Wentworth Group.

Those authors do not have that luxury when replying to our posts challenging their message.

Living in a small communities in the past would have meant one was constantly judged on ones utterances and that the opportunities for anonymous offerings were severly limited and often deemed scurrilous by their very nature. Gossip, with all its obvious destructiveness, also served to a degree to keep people to account.

Perhaps the new social media signals a return to that framework. I do not have a Facebook page and look askance at the gay abandon with which my children and their generation fling personal details including opinions up on their 'walls' for all to see.

The other demographic that seems to have taken so readily to social media are the grandparents. I had often though it was just because they had the time, but perhaps they often came from small communities where anonimity was an unrealistic expectation.

Could the OLO demographic of identiphobes become an archaic blimp, caught between the era of small open communities of the past and the new world community which is social media?

csteele.

You make a good point that article authors are identifiable - and often those of us who respond do so anonymously.

My feeling is that conducting conversations online is a vastly different experience to conducting the same in physical reality/community in that it effectively lands us in a nebulous place where we are not afforded the coordinates and perspectives we enjoy in the real world.

It's a different paradigm for interaction.

I agree with Forrest. I'm stating my preference that if the option of pseudonymity was withdrawn, I would probably withdraw also....however, it's entirely Graham's call and I appreciate his position.

No halo over my head I need to contain myself often.
But are we best served by a forum rule not being enforced.
Already posted this else ware but some thread diverting is pure flaming.
Changing the subject to hurl hand grenades.
The last speaker, often,asked for rules during question time.
Less argument in both questions and answers.
Maybe we can Be trained to have our say keeping within the threads intended track ?
Just maybe too questioning a poster for having views other than ours is not doing much good.

Dear Poirot,

Indeed.

Further I suppose some acknowledgement should be given to what OLO is; “Australia's e-journal of Political and Social debate”.

For instance in the General Forum section Graham Young seeks opinion and discussion on political matters as evidenced by his last two topic promptings; 'Putting in the Slipper – Your say' and 'How important is Wayne Swan's surplus?'.

Our voting system quite rightly has at its core the secret ballot. At election time the ruling class asks we the people which among them are we be least offended by, and through perfectly anonymous means our political opinion determines a winner.

The same regard for our anonymity is expected from those organisations who conduct polling throughout the year.

Discussions of politics and sex have generally been regarded as tiresome in polite society.

Perhaps anonymity and a degree of animosity just come with the territory.

even though..i love you..mr bell...
would you be judged..by the same me-assure?
ie measured..by the same rule..the same yard-stick..the same measure

quote;;''But..are we best served
by a forum rule..not being enforced.""

that much depends ol mate
you recall..my 5 bannings..for my style..of writing
[not meeting word-counts]..

not what i say..but the way
i chose..to say it]

people..who cant refute..*what i say
but..complained about the format..*of HOW..i said it
not refuiting
the why/how...being reasond

[post limitations..that mean
i need to..wait 23 hours..to add-in
[the last few words]

mate..have you ever
exceeded the speed/limit?

""some thread diverting..is pure flaming.""

sure...and a flame is usually someone..TRYING TO PUSH..their adversary

out of the public forum[woth no right of reply]...
no debate enterd into..[no revieuw or correctiove mechanisms..no neutral umpire

""The last speaker,
often,asked for..rules..[rulings?].during question time.""

mate..this is
the third topic..in 7 lines

""Less argument..in both
questions and answers.""..?

but taking more words to refute t
hat state incorrectly
out of topic

""Maybe we can Be..trained""

i have changed..my writing style..3 times

till i just got over trying
to please complainers

""to have our say
keeping..within the threads..intended track ?""

and this topic..is about?..anonymiity..!

[unlike complainers..i get...[no right of reply
to correct the dispersions and influence..they got
with the moderator

WHY NOT COMPLAIN..*at the topic
allow right of reply..at topic

allowed wrngdoer..to explain..
at..the offending topics words

""Just maybe too
questioning..a poster
for having views..other than ours
is not doing much good.""

i agree ol mate
especially if their facts are wrong

like the topic i moved here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&start=10

i wish..forrest would join in

OUG no offense but please stop calling me Mister.
Spent a lot of my childhood around Bowral my dads birth place.
The term Mr is insulting to me I am Belly Allan or anything but a Mr.
My childhood,as the grandson of dads parents who had been servants to the very rich, was blackened by Australian rich snobs who still called England home.
And thought my father as the son of the above and me should address them as Sir or Mr.
Glad my dad was as prickly as me!
Yes csteele and I clash but I agree with most of that.
Look I truly do not think GY wants us to disrobe, he seems to want us to self regulate in part.
And the fact is this site needs us to make it self sustaining.
It will not stop those who can not help.
A site, sorry unsure but think it was Australian Politics, it was hight profile and good slammed the doors over night.
Threats of legal action and slanders killed it.
I know we all, most,know we can all improve our online behavior.
I am not referring to you OUG and its worth the effort.
And we know if we want to be honest of past posters with mental health issues and some awful personal matters posted by others about them.
Let us not build a mountain out of GY s concerns ,unless it is a cash one to keep us the best.
I invite every one to remind me if my posts are out of order.

one under god, on Thursday 1 December 2011 at 11:10:43 AM posts:

"i wish..forrest would join in"

`

I hadn't lost interest in the topic, OUG, I simply had to be away for the day attending upon one of the certainties of real life, and I don't mean taxes.

Your comment as to having had five suspensions for your style of writing "... [not meeting word counts] ..." was surprising. The OLO software polices the word limit, throwing up a red-text warning below the posting 'preview' pane if you have exceeded it, and prevents the post from going up until you have edited it to be within the word limit. Because the OLO software treats links differently from ordinary text for word-count purposes, it can appear that a post containing multiple links exceeds the word limit when a viewer copies a post into a text editor and uses a word count tool to check it. Those suspensions must have been for something else.

`

csteele, on Thursday 1 December 2011 at 9:51:40 AM posted:

"Discussions of politics and sex have
generally been regarded as tiresome
in polite society.

Perhaps anonymity and a degree of animosity
just come with the territory."

Yesterday, the upshot of a fairly mildly put and very generalised POV on CSG extraction and feared associated consequences for aquifers was a response that might easily have been understood as expressing agreement with the person that had opened the conversation. I happened to know the respondent held much more strong views on the subject that were not necessarily in agreement with those of the initiator. It was clearly judged to be neither the time nor place for a full and frank discussion. In real life conversation, be it face to face or by correspondence under real names, there seems amongst most to be an over-arching reluctance to give offence, and I suspect that this is extensively interpreted as agreement with leaders of public conversations when it in reality may be nothing of the sort.

Pseudonymity on OLO frequently assists in overcoming such inhibitions.

if only i did get banned for my sharp cutting wit
but no..it was what it was
[i told grayham he has got word count to sort it...
but no it escalated till my last suss pension was 1 month]

and if thats the price for free speach i gladly pay it
[lets face it i get a lot into a post...[cause if i dont its hardly worth posting..[wasting the post]

i love some of the page vieuws you put up
and how sharp your posting styl;e is...[i mean your not being at the other topic i put up the link for[another creation/evolution debate]

your an ecpurt at the genes thing...and im allsway having to explain simple things...like species/genus...and like genotype[looks like]..and genotype...[is genticly linked [related]

se the isue is stone fossils..got no dna
a link i put up says most fossile dead end[went extinct]

thus using them to make a picture[based on looks like phentype]..dont prove the linkage of mutation ONLY genotype can validate scientificly..

also the lack of...definitie names
of the first living 'thing'
plus what it evolved into

i know the THEORY of evolution just aint got that far

plus the huge gaps..between every species
then the distractions..and having to correct their error of fact or deliberated twisting..of things they claim i said

with your page vieuws
i could slam em

but they gone silent allready anyhow
its frustrating..its usually at this stage
'someone complains...about the word limit and im gone till the topic expires...lol

anyhow you at least know eucalypts
stezza claims to know bacteria
between us

we could actually get somewhere closer
to either or the other

i just want to know
in what order/how god done it
you guys need to know..as much as i do
but you cutys claim to have 'the science'..i know its only a theory

and yes mr bell..i use it the same way
i dislike mr as well..

so belly ol/brother..ol/mate..it is

or bob...[belly ol brother]

OUG at a guess it was your habit of posting many links in your posts.
Normally they do not count but some one said you had found away to increase your limit.
Forrest my wishes re your absence.
OUG bob? he is my brother.
Now 30 years after my dad died his home town folk call me by his name.
Belly anything, but Mr.

ok mate cause i do really luv ya
belly it is

but mate [bom bob]
might be my next choice to mr

if i use mr..bom bob
mr [best ol mate..belly my brother]
might be trying to take the joke too far

re forrest
my [good ol educated mate]
who agrees with the evolution..theory

it is unfair to ask you to help demolish the theory
[to embarris it into revealing more fact
cause they will never admit its only a theory]

as hard as it is to allow that god done it
harder is..watching all them decieved into thinking science dun it

ignorance of science terminology
is all im asking you to judge or clarify

im only using your language
using science words and science nomoculture

how else to get at the truth

the facts are clear

evolutions [of genus].,accorded to science ....none recorded
evolutions accorded to god created..'natural mechanisms...all*

the science stands mute
cause its a theory of evolution
many facts..but not one faulsifyable..*change of genus

all eucalypts are eucalypts
no half eucalypt half wattle
what geneticly is the nearest living relitive to a eucalypt

regardless i will continue the conversation
knowing their silence is cause they got nuthin

it being written
the foolish shall confound the wise

Posted by one under god, Saturday, 3 December 2011 7:02:35 AM:

"re forrest
my [good ol educated mate]
who agrees with the evolution
..theory

it is unfair to ask you to
help demolish the theory"

OUG, I don't think I have ever posted a single word in this Forum (or any other) on the topic of evolution, either directly or in passing reference. I would be most interested if you are able to quote any such comments by me and post links thereto. Given that, to my knowledge, I have never posted a single word on the topic, I am at a loss to understand how you could have claimed that I am one "... who agrees with the evolution .. theory". It is a subject on which I have chosen not to engage in discussion.

There is a fair bit of latitude given on OLO with respect to diversions from the topic, especially in the General Discussions area of the Forum, but to pursue this one here would be to disrespect both the opening poster, and OLO as a discussion forum in generality. It is a matter perhaps more for self-discipline of posters, than for moderation intervention, but it would be unwise to under-estimate the destructiveness of unrestrained posting off-topic to OLO as a site.

Deliberate posting off-topic appears to be a tactic used by some in attempts to shut down particular discussions that might appear to be making points, or eliciting points of view, of which some posters disapprove.

Returning to the question as to whether online anonymity is a blessing or a curse, I consider bonmot's post of Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 6:38:48 AM very relevant. I suspect OLO is gaining much more traction than perhaps for which it gives itself credit. From bonmot's linked news OPINION item:

"... But lately, as more popular websites
provide for public comments, the sheer amount
of negative content means that users are starting
to push back."

Traditional gatekeepers, or aspirant would-be-gatekeepers, feeling threatened, are resorting to bullying and threats.

http://twitter.com/#!/GrogsGamut/status/140658101446643712

http://twitter.com/#!/abcthedrum/status/141617283259838464

thank you Forrest Gumpp just had my first ever and second look at twitter because of your links.
I will continue to post here only.
But on subject,I doubt we need to do other than what we are in relation to names.
I listened to an ABC story about blogs and such and yes some are far worse than others.
I live well within my budget, go without nothing.
And am waiting for contributions to start, yes know I am getting to be a bore but things get done after people get active.
This site needs some to put a few minutes a side and think what is the right to be part of it worth.
Graham knows, I told him, if I need to be put in the sin bin so be it,site comes first.
I will go away but again with the tin rattling.
GY, I will still afford my market days and more let my donation start!

ok forrest it might have been ludwig
but heck that dont change the good things i said about you
[and i loved your movie]

id's are picked by us for what reasons..
yes it had its own topic...but we can chose our id's
just as the actor..that played you in the movie...its the vibe

its just the vibe
iots the name we chose to post under
and as one opinion is just as valid as any other
heck in the end its only opinion...and if we each have the same opinions..opinion sites could be of little use

it would all be just back patting
yes your right[again]..[fill in psudenumb]

you put what i believe...and have faith in the same things i have faith in[please note and affirm...preceeding used as egsamples only]

never the less annon is a curse
and a blessing..cause few things are black or white

and all of us can wander off topic
or get our imaginary friends name mixed up
with their..[or even not theirs] opinions

in the end its good
we can clear up where others got it wrong
and thats a good thing

ok im over all this opinion
im going in to watch the news..[fiction]..
[mixed with bias and commentary masking as opinion]

when its either adgenda or spin..
depending on if it supports..what we believe..or want to believe

"It's sad that otherwise intelligent people are so unsure of their own views, yet so certain that whatever they are they're correct, that they can't stand to have them challenged in open discussion."

The obvious outcome of being challenged does not mean everyone has to agree with your POV. When there is such negative comments or personal vitriole, it makes it more difficult to have an open discussion and that is true of many topics.

That would be true of most posters unaware of their own bias in many discussions particularly around gender. Part of that is never having the experience of walking in another person's shoes. Or reading what they want to read instead of what is being proposed no matter how egalitarian in approach.

Feminists have become the new 'reds' under the bed. Centrists the new Loony Left and the Loony Right has become the norm. The Occupy movement is testament to how far away from the Centre and from democracy our political systems has moved.