Chris I don't know that I'd call it a hijacking but it's a clear attempt to circumvent the rules most of abide by. Just tried a little experiment with OUG's latest post and removed most of the cheats used to join words. I didn't get them all, I can still see some brackets used instead of spaces in whats left and am wondering about the placement of dashes. Current word count is 767 words in that one post ignoring those that I thought left some space writing style.

Its difficult to accept that as anything other than a blatent attempt to circumvent OLO's rules about the number of words in a post.

R0bert

R0bert,
From his wheelchair in the sun-room of his old peoples home he is having fun so we leave him be and suffer.

i know..not to..respond..to trolls
[or hazing]..and..even..if only word counting..
some..at least may sink-in..no..specific-rebuttal..is noted

thus..lets post yet another wasted post
some people have one line replies
have you..thought of tweeters?

some of us..have more to say..and seek
desperately for places..they..may relate..in this case
my words replied the...topic...[get it?]

sadly you..guys only could come up
with critique..of the means..chosen to..say..my opinion..
NOT*..what was said..you did/NOT..even attempt..to REFUTE ANYTHING else..

just the same..mindless..attack of..the man
but studiously..ignore trying to refute..his message

talk about playing
the man..not the ball

anyhow..thats all..
nuthin..to see..nor hear..here/

marry who..you like chris
why didnt..you raise it..at your own..thread?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5995&page=0

you didnt say much..there either?

they say..being ignored.,is the best thing..
try it with my post's..then resist..trolling off topic..
or better refute..what i said [so..laboriously]..only trying to..help..clarify..the question

what are your here..to do?..
COUNT WORDS..OR IGNORE..READING THEM?
or..just distract..others from..replying the topic

[clutter up..the thread with...useless troll babble..
opinion..is respected..but facts talk louder.
but..i see neither.

cheers guys..try posting..to..topic..next time?
try and stump/me..rather than..bump me
who knows maybe you have answers
or better questions

stuff ya suggestions

OUG, the topic does matter but your cheating on the rules of the site is in my view destructive. Far better for the rules to be followed in spirit than have them either policed strongly or become a meaningless thing ignored by whoever wants to. Your posting style looks like a deliberate attempt to get around the sites word count posting limits.

Its sometimes worth diverting from the topic to deal with the cheats in our midst.

R0bert

ANY..OPINION..on the topic?

*New Marriage laws..for the ACT*

if i left..i would be cheating you
im..not cheating..YOU..

you..lost not one post..
yet..you gained much..but never took..to..the..learning
and offered..no..opinion..nor ANY..rebuttal

but its ok..i..love being ignored..[please try-it]
replying trolls is a waste of posts..and any further thought

its clear you got no..fact..to refute my post
just endless trolls..

no..thanks needed
i..didnt realize we got so..many/upset homosexual/trolls
not wanting to..hear the truth..of what the word..actually says

i..think..i cant..be bothered explaining..romans

so allow you..lot
to figure it out..4..thyself

the issue..seems to stem..
from/miss-interpretation..of..romans..
miss-reading..the context..of..1;28..[context..is everything]
but first..[before explaining..full context..[romans..1;15-32]
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1

http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=45&c=1&com=mhc

I'm quite amused at some of the responses.

Feminists were in the forefront of support and recognition of gays. Feminists also damned marriage, which they saw as a male tool of oppression of woman. Feminists are noticeable by their deafening silence on the issue of gay marriage.

Originally, the marriage rite was not intended to be a romantic bonding, but a nailing down for pragmatic reasons.

Historically, only the aristocracy/royalty had marriage rites which were a confirmation of the union of lands/status/and dynastic houses - a political display.

Marriage between man and woman was a purely private affair with no need for witnesses.
However, the church found that there were too many men, "marrying" too many women in too many different places. The result was that parishes had to care for the children born, which was quite a burden.

In the 16th century, the Council of Trent issued the church's requirements for a valid marriage, one recognised by the church. Bans had to be posted some six weeks before the event so that those "in the know" could reveal an prior "marriage" to others by the couple. The marriage ceremony had to be conducted by a cleric (who again called, at the ceremony, for those knowing any impediment to the marriage, and finally there had to be witnesses. Marriage was hardly a romantic event, but somewhat cynical.

Personally, I have no problems with gays getting married. Fine. What I don't care for is all the mawkish promotion of it.