>Ain't that so, you just showed us a perfect example of this.<

Uh .. okay...

Much like a complete story, every discussion is completed by many roots to feed the trunk - as created by the OP. I'm not disagreeing here. But off-topic IS off-topic. There's no justifying rambling.

The very recent "When is it okay to kill" discussion is a PERFECT example of the original poster's (OP) position isn't all as black and white as others came in and highlighted. It became interesting. I had my input but for various reasons - mostly work and being tired - I became a spectator. What I didn't do was come in and turn it into a refugee discussion. Thankfully others attempted ... and are currently attempting ... to point that boat - 'cuse the pun - back in the right direction.

Perhaps a little bit of self control is in order when it comes to points that will derail the vibe of the thread.

I have the strong desire for the law and rules to match accepted practice. I find it quite unfortunate when there is a mismatch, which happens a great deal across our society.

I have written about this on OLO in regard to road rules, Queensland’s nude beaches and codes of conduct in our workplaces.

Lots of road rules are just simply not policed at face value. Some are policed only very rarely or not at all and hence are just not observed, even by careful drivers, and with no negative consequences. Eg: speed limits in roadworks zones.

There are numerous nude beaches in Queensland, accepted by local communities, councils, police and the state government. But there is no such thing as a legal nude beach in this state. That’s an absurdly contradictory state of affairs.

A code of conduct is supposed to be the rule book governing behaviour in the workplace. But in my experience, over a period of several years, it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on!

So it is my desire to see the rules match accepted practice here on OLO as well.

A lot of off-topic posts are put up here, which appears to be perfectly acceptable to most if not all posters and to our administrator.

So I’d say that this rule needs to be redefined, if for no other reason than the principle of having rules matching accept practice as closely as possible... and that they really can be quite misleading if they don’t.

Lexi, you wrote:

<< It can be a bit frustrating for the initiators of the threads at times - but all things in moderation. It's only when things get dowright nasty (on emotive issues) and completely de-rail the thread that's when the OLO forum rule of keeping responses on topic should apply. Otherwise - we can learn more from various meanderings - then if we stuck strickly on topic >>

Fair enough.

Actually, rule No 2: ‘Do not flame’, covers the nastiness aspect.

So maybe the ‘keep posts on topic’ rule is actually completely redundant!?

Ludwig,from my observation there needs to be more debate and far less ad hominem.

Character assassination is all too common on many sites because many have not the capacity or truth/facts to back their assertions.

I have a one make classic car site that I frequent where I have not seen a nasty word in the 7 years I've used it. This is a great achievement when the folk on one side of the Atlantic think a hood covers the people part of a car, & those on the other side think it covers the engine part.

I have seen some very nasty exchanges on some sites over nothing more important than the best paint colour for something.

I think the folk on here, who are often discussing some very strongly held ideas, & opinions are remarkably civil. I admit it cam be frustrating when some can't see the obvious superiority of my arguments, but I try not to be nasty. That is with other posters.

I have no sympathy with the authors of opinion pieces, who have not done their homework, or are pushing a political line. They are, I believe, fair game.

Dear Ludwig,

Perhaps I didn't express myself well.
Nobody likes or supports an illogical
and abusive poster - and its to that
that I was referring when things strayed
off-topic.

The point that I was trying to make is
for instance if arguing over football
don't say, "All Collingwood players are
rough hoodlims." This makes you appear to
be arguing on an emotional level - not a
mature intelligent one. A more effective
approach would be a subtle hint that the
players often use physical force to overcome
the opposition. This response may be unlikely
in the heat of the moment, but it has more
chance of being acceptable. Sound reasoning
will conquer unreasonable generalisations
every time.

It is a good idea to re-read one's
postings before sending them. However, the art of
reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not
easily acquired. I'm still learning.
BTW: Does anyone know where Pelican is? We haven't
heard from her for sometime now. I hope she's allright.
I miss her contributions to this forum.