Paul,

You still don't get it. There is a difference between an implied insult and direct abuse. The first is witty banter, the second is simply boorish.

For example if I said that the green's support of gay marriage is probably for their own consumption. That would be an implied insult. If I said Paul you are a faggot. That would be abuse. Especially as I have no knowledge of you personal status, which is exactly the way you behaved.

I will accept your apology, and look forward to more carefully crafted insults rather than a hissy fit.

Yes, Paul,

As the well-mannered, Shadow Minister has so carefully pointed out in his template "middle-class faux gentility", one must strive around here to insult others in a covert and sophisticated manner.

As Oscar Wilde wrote: "A gentleman is one who never hurt's anyone's feelings unintentionally."

(A little more wit wouldn't go astray - but you can't have everything)

Dear Shadow Minister,

I disagree. An implied insult may be witty banter or it may also be simply abuse. It also depends how witty it is, who is saying it, who it is said to and the spirit in which it is said.

We have in Australia anti-vilification legislation. Such legislation forbids crude racist sentiments but allows the more polite racist to spout his or her sentiments. I oppose such legislation as I think it is an unreasonable restriction on speech. That does not mean that I find the expression of crude or polite racism acceptable merely that it should not be a legal matter.

I am confident that you can tell when an implied insult is not merely witty banter. If you have a case an implied or overt insult is unnecessary. If you don't have a case an implied or overt insult won't make it for you.

Pollyanna.

Davidf,

Firstly, Belly and I don't agree that there should be no alternative to the two main parties, just that the greens aren't one.

Secondly, on OLO, name calling and direct accusations are considered abuse, but implied or oblique insults are not. Going outside this forum, the definition of abuse can be calibrated anywhere from physical beating to an unintended interpretation of an otherwise innocent comment.

As for the AVL, I agree that it runs counter to the principle of free speech and also abhor overt or less overt racism.

Dear SM,

I can try not to make implied, oblique or open insults myself although it is easy to succumb to that. I am sure I have done it but will try to do it no more. As far as you are concerned you can and will do what you like. Just wanted to post how I felt about the matter.

Semantics provides a impermeable mask of identity and a impenetrable shield of indifference and you lot are the craft masters of it all.