Foxy, I find your suggestion that I have been bribed to let Onthebeach post on this forum offensive in the extreme.

I not Belly's post.

I cannot see that OTB is doing anything that a whole load of other posters haven't done over the years.

There certainly seemed to be a few who popped-up and queried me everytime I posted. I found it tiresome, but I wasn't prepared to do anything about it, because I don't see how I legitimately can.

Unless someone wants to make out a case that OTB is being abusive.

I find his approach aggressive and unhelpful, but the whole point of free speech is that if you only allow things you like, then it's not free speech.

I think Banjo has a point. This thread has incrementally strayed from what it was originally about. Perhaps you should all go back there.

GY I have nothing but respect for you and the forum.
I however disagree with your view.
Few over the years use taunting as a sporting endeavor and my constant requests to be left alone have only raised the volume.
I however except your answer and predict OTB will raise the volume even more.
I weary of the battle.

Dear Graham,

I was merely questioning why someone
has not been suspended for repeated personal
attacks and innuendos of people across several threads,
when others have been suspended for less.

Seeing as your forum does rely on donations - Hence the
suggestions of donations. If that offends you then you have
to understand that this poster's behaviour is equally
offensive to others that he attacks. He's been given
time and time again various explanations and references which
he simply ignores. He's been asked not to
attack and make personal attributions that simply are not
true or correct and are insulting. He's been asked not
to address his posts to people who neither want nor respect
his opinion. He can address issues - but not people
personally who want nothing to do with him. He
ignores even that request - that is harrassment.

You've indicated - you've taken
offence for one minor sugestion. Try putting yourself
in others shoes - if there were multiple such suggestions
and they were persistent and followed you around on this
forum.

As for "freedom of speech?"
People who enjoy the rights of
free speech have a duty to respect other people's
rights. A person's freedom of speech is limited by the
rights of others - for example, the right to maintain their
good reputation.

Most democratic countries have four major restrictions on
free expression. Laws covering libel and slander, public
decency, and laws against the urging of violence and hate speech.

However, this is your forum and of course it's your call.
I agree that we should go back to the topic of this thread -
but let us try to keep it on a rational debate level.

Out of respect for the forum rules I have not defended myself and nor will I add to this sorry discussion. It would be grossly unfair if I couldn't offer one post to defend myself, since the two complainants have deliberately taken their allegations into the public arena of the forum in contravention of the rules that must have been explained many times before.

Just one quick search demonstrates that there is nothing I have done that hasn't been done before. Obviously the often repeated gratuitous insult directed at Australians has drawn challenges and 'please explains' similar to mine before. See here,

sonofgloin, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 1:15:05 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4197&page=6

I will leave it at that.

Foxy,
OTB is not the only one persistent.

I seem to recall challenging you on the legality of persons entering Aus without a valid visa, and have had to do so many times. I have provided links and extracts from the DIAC website in relation to this issue. Yet you still persist to claim their entry is quite legal. You consistently ignore the evidence provided, even though the entry illegality is the only grounds on which our officials can detain. Further, you have not, and cannot, provide any other reason as to why our governments, both Labor and LNP, can detain these persons without valid visas. You seem to infer that our governments are acting outside our own laws.

The point is that you do doggedly stick to your beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence, and will not accept factual evidence placed before you. Others have also given you the same evidence.

So I find it hypocritical for you to complain about OTB when you will not accept factual evidence, but carry on regardless.

Banjo, "This thread is about a couple of unsavoury girls....Like it or not we have these types in our society"

Agree.

What I wonder is two things:

- first, is that a fact that was previously hidden from view through the prevailing very strong positive stereotype that favoured girls - which (positive stereotype) could explain why relatively few women have been charged by authorities for (say) domestic violence; and,

- secondly, if violence and bad behaviour have increased, what are the contributing factors?

I remember at a dinner party where someone showed a videotape about Australia narrated by Barry Humphries that everyone nodded emphatically when Barry talked about everyone being so nice, polite and law-abiding back in the Fifties to Seventies. I cannot link to it unfortunately.

Where did things go wrong? What are the root causes?