For the last six to eight weeks I've seen a total absence of contributions emanating from three of our best advocates and exponents of good quality debating. I refer to; (i) FOXY (ii) POIROT and (iii) SUSEONLINE. You will of course recognise this trio are of the fairer sex, and each of them are formidable debaters in their precise and specific way ?

Being an old copper I'm concerned if this absence is precipitated by people like me and one or two others hereon ? Who've lowered the intellectual 'bar' if you will, by employing less savoury and churlish language of a type, these ladies are far from used too in polite debating and courteous discussion ? And who frequently engage in 'ad hominen' styled conduct, whenever I've ardently disagreed with another contributor, which I'm sure becomes quite irritating after awhile ?

Accordingly, being one of the worst offenders by far, I've endeavoured to tidy up my own vocabulary and behaviour whenever I'm participating on OLO and the Forum per se. I would respectfully urge any other like minded subscriber to do the same, in an effort we can lure some of our very best 'debaters' to return, and once more enrich the discussion whatever the topic my be. Thank you.

osw,

I don't think it was the language so much as the fact that there were too many people not agreeing with their opinions or points of view. That does seem to be a problem for the left. Foxy, for whom I had a soft spot because of her usually lady-like manner, said that she was advised by her doctor that it wasn't good for her health. I will say nothing about the other two.

Dear o sung wu,

You are quite correct in stating things got out of hand on the forum and I am perfectly happy to accept the role I may have played in that. Provocation is certainly no excuse. But as a long time poster I have to say that things have gotten pretty willing, and there have been some pretty caustic posters, in the past but we managed to sail through those periods without too much difficulty. Nippers like ttbn and runner were par for the course.

What we didn't have was the wilfully toxic types most encapsulated in the likes of OTB. His first real victim was Belly, someone I certainly had my run ins with but hardly a quitting type. Then to read post after post from Foxy asking him time and time again to leave her alone underscored how relentless he was. Suseonline and Poirot were also part of his fixation.

He is someone I had chosen to ignore but perhaps if we had been a bit more supportive of the three of them in tackling OTB they may have still been around. But I think I can say with a fair degree of confidence you played no real part in them leaving.

I certainly miss the contributions from all three but perfectly understand their reasons for leaving.

"this trio are of the fairer sex" - that should not itself matter in an adult site where opinions and views are expressed and challenged. I don't think any of the 3 mentioned were delicate flowers unable to mix it (other than Foxy's health issues).

I'd not noticed anything in particular recently but have not been following OLO the way I once did, in my case a view that too much of OLO has become bogged down in partisan approaches to issues rather than thoughtful to and fro. That goes for a variety of viewpoints including those nominally on the same side of the political spectrum as myself.

I'll admit to a soft spot for Foxy although at the same time a frustration with what all to often appear to be parroting of the "progressive" media rather than a willingness to engage in the issues.

The other two played hard ball when it suited and I think ttbn nailed it. Not coping well with an environment where dissenting voices would be shut down by the moderator or shouted down by force of numbers.

One of the best things about OLO is that dissenting voices don't get shut down through the use of power, they may be made very uncomfortable by having their arguments challenged, they may be insulted (and sometimes unfortunately it's more insults than rebuttal) but accounts don't get closed, comments don't get deleted for contrary views provided a fairly small set of rules are abided by. Some just do not cope well with that.

R0bert

Good evening to you - TTBN & STEELEREDUX...

Thank you both for your response to this somewhat unusual Topic, I am aware that FOXY was copping a fair amount of criticism from one or two folk from the 'Right' of which I am one of them, and it did tend to get her down. Like you TTBN I found FOXY to be really delightful lady, and though I didn't agree with much of what she said, what she did say, was said with considerably eloquence and with great panache. Moreover she is a very well travelled and an educated lady, as is POIROT who can state her case with considerable adroitness, coupled with a penetrating wit when she considers it called for !

POIROT is somewhat of a mystery to me, other than she's from Western Australia, and has recently suffered a bereavement of either her Mum or some other close family member. Poirot like her 'name-sake' is a smart and quick as a whip, with a great command of the English language, as well as a formidable debater.

Whereas SUSEONLINE is in the nursing profession, and she comes to a particular topic, always with a great deal of sensitivity and compassion, and that compassion can often be mistaken as an individual from the far 'Left'. She's also seems to be a very well educated lady. I suppose she'd need to be as a Registered Nurse ! And if your argument is both persuasive and accompanied with sound logic, she's not so entrenched or perverse in her opinion, that she'll sometimes repudiate her original argument, and end up agreeing with you ? That takes a lot of class to admit your argument is flawed - another virtue I've never had !

Thank you both for your contribution, I do appreciate it.

Dear R0bert,

It looks like we may have different views on how things transpired which is fine.

I do think the following post from Foxy was pretty indicative of how she felt about the rather unwelcome and toxic attentions of OTB;

“otb, I usually go to great lengths to avoid responding
to you. This is under my doctor's advice
because you always make it personal and cause me so
much stress. However sometimes one has to be prepared to
respond especially when false references and accusations
are being made.”

This was not a matter of difference in opinions. Foxy was probably the most prepared of all of us to acknowledge and respect differing points of view. This however was unrelenting personal attacks, misrepresentations, lies, and slander.

That isn't to say she didn't try on multiple occasions to lift his attentions above the personal;

“OTB,

I would like to respond to you in more depth.
All you need to do is cut the abuse, use logic,
and reasoning, and I shall be happy to respond.
Give it a go. It may surprise you. And me.”
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 11 February 2016 5:25:28 PM

Cont..

Cont..

I don't ever remember any of OTB's posts to her being pinged for abuse which usually means Foxy didn't flag them. I've had a few of mine flagged and deleted which were far tamer than what was being dished out by OTB but then the right tend to be sensitive souls when it comes to this kind of thing.

Here is one of the many little gems from the lad implying Suseonline and Foxy were white male hating lesbians;

“Suseonline, Your post and Fox's say a lot about your and her biases. Neither of you is particularly enamoured with 'Whites'(sic), especially 'White' men. You are not so keen on seniors which is expected for social rule-breakers who for example, want to trash the Marriage Act because it represents a cultural tradition and morality you despise. You yourself are the forum's expert on gays and posted often on anal sex, even where no-one else had mentioned it(?!). Strangely though it is only recently that you have started to refer to lesbians. Odd that is, but hey, whatever comes out in the wash. Your propensities, like Fox's, are your own affair and freedom of speech is the single most distinguishing feature and most important, that separates democratic, tolerant Australia from many other nations in the UN.”

So mate I'm going to challenge any notion that this was a case of “Not coping well with an environment where dissenting voices would be shut down by the moderator or shouted down by force of numbers.”

So I'm going to call it for what it was, a hounding of the specific type of people OTB has issues with, women who disagree with him. However if you have evidence to put a contrary view i'm happy to entertain it.

Hi there ROBERT...

Thank you for your timely response, and I've carefully noted your comments herein. While it's true this is an adult Site, and be that as it may, often the argument(s) would degenerate into a slinging match with accusations, and mild invective going to 'n fro and sometime it can have a pretty deleterious effect on some folk. People who's only wish it is, to quietly argue their position without getting into a wholesale 'stink'.

You also mentioned inter alia '...the other two played hard ball when it suited...' I wouldn't agree with that so much, no doubt POIROT could 'blue-on' with the best of 'em but not SUSEONLINE, a gentler soul in my humble opinion ?

I not sure ROBERT, I have this sense that some of the attrition could be attributed entirely to the confrontational style of a few and that's driven some really good folk out of OLO altogether ? I'm afraid to say I've been somewhat confrontational myself, for that I must apologise.

STEELEREDUX had mentioned herein, that a really good bloke by the epithet of 'BELLY', was so exhausted and annoyed by these constant attacks that had been unrelentingly levelled at him, he decided to 'pull the pin' and leave OLO but not before lodging a complaint with Mr Graham YOUNG, our founder and chief moderator.

It wasn't as though BELLY was a gentle wilting flower, in fact he was a very pragmatic, ex-Council employee, who tended to wear his heart on his sleeve. It's just that he got so very tired of this confrontational style of debating and character assassination from one of the regular contributors, he simply left !

We cannot afford to lose people of this calibre, who bring much colour and diversity to the Site, it is therefore incumbent upon us all, to try to be more respectful to other contributors, in our debating styles, in order we try and slow this erosion of contributors, for the sake of OLO.

Hi O Sung Wu,

Yes, OLO has been much the poorer without the contributions from the three that you mentioned. I certainly miss Foxy (I confess that I think I was in love with her) and Suze - alright, and Poirot too.

Actually there have been quite a few contributors from years past who don't get involved any more, at least not under the same Noms de Plume. What ever happened to Pericles, as an obvious example ? I really enjoyed his perceptive comments, his wit and his deep wisdom.

Maybe people just get exhausted trying to make the same points over and over, and having to put up with the same ad hominems and banalities over and over. Maybe we need to try to make a point of inventively saying what we want to say but without any personal attacks or cheap slurs or easy shots, of which I think I've been guilty at least once. [Yeah, right.]

Nobody can hurt us on OLO: it's cyberspace, not a front bar. If we have a point to make, we should make it fully but with forbearance and some courtesy. It doesn't hurt. [Yeah, he should talk.]

Please come back, Foxy and Suze. And Poirot too. We need some sugar and spice, not just snails and puppy dog's tails. No offense, guys.

Joe

SteeleRedux, in regard to Foxy I didn't include her in the not coping with contrary views group. I didn't see the interactions with OTB to be as one sided as you did perhaps (but mostly have switched off to that for a long time so don't have a recent sense of how that was playing out).

R0bert

Well, I'm pretty sure I made at least one comment to Foxy and a couple to Suseonline in the months before they left that may have crossed the line from 'opinionated' to 'flame'.

Many will know I can be opinionated, yet at the same time I've tried to also convey that I don't mean any harm or offense to anyone when putting forward said opinions.

Some people have slightly thicker skins than others, so I've tried to have a little more discretion; also after it became apparent that the girls may have been feeling pushed into a corner with their leftist views and some of the blokes being a little hard on them and especially Foxy's health, I altered my behavior accordingly.

I saw the writing on the wall that they might leave and I didn't want to be in any way responsible as this was their place first.
I felt like they thought they were being outnumbered and outgunned by the 'rabid right' to quote Alan B.

I've got to say that even though I did not always agree with them I most certainly do think that we're worse off for their leaving.
We need the lefties (god forbid) because we need balanced points of views within our arguments and discussions.
I hope they're doing ok, wherever they are.

A good thread, o sung wu. I haven't spent much time on OLO in recent years, so I'm not sure what precipitated the decision of Foxy, et al to stop posting, but I can certainly agree that the presence of some obviously disturbed people can't have helped.

Here's a suggestion for everyone: if you don't like the way someone is behaving, call them out on it. Identify them as the grubby little trolls they are and if they won't change, simply don't respond.

They don't contribute to discussion, they poison it with their attention-seeking, childish behaviour.

Send them to the time-out corner.

o sung wu,

It’s very admirable of you (and unheard of on OLO) to engage in a bit of self-reflection like that. But rest assured, as nasty as you are I think it was more those who are consistently horrid people that were more of a turn-off for them (and a cause of too much stress for someone in Foxy’s condition).

OLO was more interesting 10 years ago when there seemed to be a fairly even ratio of people on both sides of the political spectrum. But now that it’s just a place filled with conservative, old, retired men, it's become little more than one big jerking circle that can result in bullying from the ol’ boys club with the power they wield in sheer numbers. Whenever I feel like leaving, I just remind myself of how many thoroughly vile people that would please.

If everyone were polite to each other then there would be no problem, regardless of how many there were on either side of the political spectrum.

Hi AJ,

Even as a consistently horrid and thoroughly vile person, I would certainly miss your contributions, as I miss those of our sisters-in-dialogue. Those of us who are prone to insult and abuse others for little reason, forget that politeness is often the mark of a reasonable argument while abuse and insults are sure signs that someone has little or nothing to contribute.

We all (except Foxy, of course) get angry and frustrated sometimes, especially when someone else is just too block-headed to see the sense of our position, but maybe instead, we should click off OLO, go away and do something else, then come back and reply or rebut in a calm and polite manner.

That's been my rule, anyway. [Yeah, right, says Poirot].

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

You certainly weren't one of the ones I had in mind when I spoke of vile and horrid people. Far from it! No, I had chosen to use those adjectives after careful consideration to describe a small portion of contributors that I feel truly fit the description, not just anyone with whom I would usually disagree.

Joe, I'll second AJ Phillips' remarks. My only real issue with your approach is that you tend to rely too heavily on trying to twist others' words to suit your purposes when you're quite capable of holding a high quality conversation. It's frustrating for those who would like to engage with you on that level.

There is no shame in admitting when we've misspoken or made a mistake of judgement or have realised that an position being defended is ill-founded, but it can feel like there is, which is why we all sometimes go too far in defending our point of view; certainly I have done so at times. I would like to do better at sincerely trying to understand the other person's argument in good faith; it's the only possible road to a meeting of minds.

I will say O sung Wu that the views of the women you mention regarding Islam will not be missed. Our grandchildren will be very grateful if we can get people who will face truth and do something about it. The same people who deny the raping, child brides, subjection of women, knifing all in Western countries bang on about the gw fanstasy. The 3 ladies narratives are blasted in our faces every day on the abc/sbs. They might be lovely people however had very flawed narratives which they hated being exposed. They, like the abc preferred sarcasism and mocking of anyone exposing their narratives. Susie and Poirot were as nasty as any other posters.

Hi O sung. As one of the most gentlemanly & kind posters here I find your including yourself among the nasty as going a bit far.

I do miss FOXY. I never noticed any worthwhile contribution from SUSEONLINE, but she did only get nasty occasionally. I had stopped bothering to read the posts of POIROT quite some time back. I found they usually did not address the subject & were the most extremely personal & caustic of all.

I also find a number of those of the left persuasion can't help themselves adding a personal nasty jibe to their posts. [See it's contagious].

I have like many, tired of repeating the same thing over & over, each time a new left recruit starts with the same old argument.

Was it better years ago, or was it just new to me. I certainly felt I was learning something from the posters back then, [even if only how misguided some folk can be]. Sorry mate, I couldn't help myself there.

I do find myself spending a lot less time here, & have an increasing number of posters whose contribution I can not bother reading. Roll on Alzheimer's so I don't remember they said the same thing every month or 2 for years.

Many just won't learn from their betters will they.

Come back - FOXY - POIROT and - SUSEONLINE all is forgiven.

yep Hasbeen their is nothing new under the sun. That is what makes it laughable, sick, frustrated when the left have the dishonesty to call themselves progressive rather than regressive. The young getup clowns are the most pitiful. I know I was ignorant as a young fellow but these guys/girls are pathetic. Most of their dogma is right at home at Sodom and Gomorrah.

We are all puppets in one sense and who pulls your strings will determine very much your worldview. For the gw alarmist it is usually the purse strings.

Hi there HASBEEN...

You described me as being a 'gentlemanly and kind poster' on OLO ? Mate if it were only true ! I can get into the gutter with the best of 'em and produce some of the vilest, nasty and penetrating language you can imagine, as evidenced by some of the 'blues' I've had with STEELEREDUX, and occasionally, A J PHILIPS (an individual I dislike and lack respect) nevertheless I've no right nor any special licence to denigrate or belittle anyone. It took STEELEREDUX again, to give me a boot right up my proverbial arse to give me a real wake-up on an issue where I was utterly wrong !

With the presence of our perfumed trio, I believe they exercised a steadying influence on most of the more aggressive boofheads like me on OLO. That can only be for the amelioration of everyone who regularly contributes to the Site. Furthermore much of what FOXY and Poirot opined, I was essentially diametrically opposed, coming from the Left as it were. That said, they all expressed themselves exceptionally well and with considerable flair, in a way that I could only wish for myself.

While it's true, to conceal our true feelings, both for an individual contributor, and what precisely that individual writes, can be difficult. Especially in my case, when someone continually casts aspersions on the police force, I tend to 'arc up' and become overly protective to the industry I gave over thirty two years of my life !

Is this style of behaviour acceptable and reasonably ? It can be, provided that response is both fair and wholly reasonable as well. But moi, I tend to over react in any defence I may choose to mount, and it is then my argument is lost. Lost in all that dust and noisy clamour of repetitive invective and dreary insults flying about in cyberspace, thus making myself and my argument appear unreasonable. Therefore I must accept a substantial proportion of blame for the inevitable decline of the overall 'tone' of OLO.

As an extremely sensitive soul, I often cry myself to sleep at night after a bit of a verbal thumping from Beach, runner, Butch, Shadow, Is Mise ttbn and Hassy, sorry if I missed anyone out, and I know I certainly have.
I miss the trio who I could rely upon to put up the sensible opinion, when needed from our side of the political fence. I started a couple of female threads recently, one hope was that they might have fired up Poirot and Suse in particular to throw in, knowing Foxy had said she was giving it away, but to no avail. As I told Belly at the time, and Foxy once or twice, try to invoke the 'Armadillo Principle', develop a tough hide, but not everyone can do that, and I suppose like for Belly, others comments got a bit to much for them.

Hi LOUDMOUTH...

I agree in principle with much of what you say Joe. I can't find fault with either your conduct or politeness on OLO. Generally, you're circumspect with most of your remarks and opinions. whether negative or otherwise ?

I've noticed ONTHEBEACH has come in for an inordinate amount of criticism? While it's true he does occasionally remove the gloves with some, but generally speaking I find he's relatively polite but can play 'hardball' if others choose to attack him or his argument. He can express his point quite forcefully if necessary, but that doesn't mean he's deliberately offensive or cruel, rather he can evoke a combative strategy if he deems it necessary and he perceives his opposite number as being derogatory towards him. I personally appreciate his style.

Another thing that Joe and many others had observed, the standards on OLO have declined which seems a shame. As if we've lost a lot of true intellectual talent recently; and if true, that's sad really sad for the sake of OLO ?

Yet with the likes of ROBERT ; ARMCHAIR CRITIC; CRAIG MINNS; A J PHILIPS; LOUDMOUTH; PAUL1405; and an assortment of others herein, each of these individuals do tend to mount well argued propositions, and have the ability to enrich any discussion and are obviously well educated. And lets not forget the 'peoples champion STEELEREDUX, who can usually lay bear any crap emanating from just about any contributor herein.

Then we have HASBEEN; and if truth be known, probably the most pragmatic of us all. He possess the analytical skill of reducing just about any argument right down to its constituent parts with consummate ease. A very smart fellow and former Navy Aviator !

RUNNER; SHADOW MINISTER; TTBN; and many many others on OLO, can easily prosecute an argument, but their only flaw, they do tend to wear their hearts on their sleeves, therefore they expose a sensitive part of themselves, that enables them to be attacked. Space, strict limitation on words have got me.

But by acting as you now are O SUNG WU not only are you to be commended, but you are also adding impetus to "reverse the polarity" so to speak and thus, for want of a better term, redeem yourself and assist in the elevation of those around you. .. And I think that that is rewarding.

..

I think there are a quite a few people who GHOST about here at OLO, and have a bit of a look to see if anything entertaining or interesting is on offer and only bother to drop in and contribute if there is.

..

Sticky Threads, as used on other forums, would be one way to capture the best of debates so far to provide people with an informed entry point .. but the software here at OLO is long since antiquated. Cool Features such as blocking those people that you do not wish to read etc are common on other sites.

I think I annoyed Poirot a number of times in referring to her as a
labour party computer.
She was so one eyed it was hard not to make fun of her.
Foxy was a different matter, she tried hard to steer a middle course.

I think many have been turned off from putting down posts on this page due to the following reasons:

1. If you provide links to support your argument, then you’re link-bombing;

2. If you provide no l links to support your argument, then you’re asserting;

3. If you’re asked what your qualifications are and you mention them, then you’re big-noting yourself;

4. If the other side has no rational arguments and you mention that before you get to demonstrate it, then you’re displaying hubris;

5. If you pursue a point because there are continual flaws in your opponent’s every response, then you’re an ideologue;

6. If your reasoning is solid and others are uncomfortable with it, then you’re smart and are deliberately making a point of it;

7. If your opponent has defended their position from multiple angles and you’ve successfully countered them all, then you’re point-scoring;

8. You just can’t win.

But posting on this page shouldn't be just be about winning. That is why this webpage address is: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/. For too many, they feel a need for an award or gold medal at the Olympics, to keep their adrenaline going, when posting what they decide to on this website.

You missed one.
If you worry about all those things then you're worrying too much.

Dear Nathan,

«I think many have been turned off from putting down posts on this page due to the following reasons:»

I have not posted lately due to being too busy.
While I am glad to have a place where I can express my views. I find that I have no time for protracted arguments which make me compromise on my other duties. If I want to be able to manage my time responsibly, I need to be very selective about where and when to post.

Hi there BAZZ, NATHANJ, ARMCHAIR CRITIC & YUYUTSU...

Thank you gentlemen for your thoughts on this matter. All I wish to add is I don't believe it's any individual contributor (other than perhaps mea culpa) who's played a major role in causing our perfumed colleagues to seek more agreeable Sites.

It's more of a general decline in both the quality and constituent elements of the Topics, as well as some unsavoury behaviour emanating from one or two contributors, that's essentially to blame ? Some of you may have other ideas of which I'd be most grateful if you'd appraise me of any thoughts or suggestions you may have.

Hello Yuyutsu,

What I put down, was nearly 95% (of exact wordings) from a online poster on this page (on another topic), thrown in my face, about lodging comments on this page.

It's a very clever debating technique used by these "deniers" of an issue, that being to stay within the limits of a discussion topic and will try and exhaust people out of a discussion - and it does work.

It also shows how much they are willing to write (in terms of their own benefit) and their desire to essentially win the argument (in their own way) rather than allow people to put down opinions or viewpoints of their own.

I'd questioned this person's use of constant words (for their own benefit) and this was proven (to some level), by the large level of listings that were put, towards the end of the discussion (about eight).

I had no more to say after that. My point was (somewhat), if not was proven, by the large level of writing put and I really didn't need or want to say any more.

I miss the Pied Piper and Antiseptic more than the other three. Foxy seemed genuinely hurt by some people's lack of basic courtesy. Suze just couldn't cope with others disagreeing with her. I don't remember Poirot.

@NathanJ, that was excellent! Kudos to you.

“He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.” ― Brigham Young.

( Yes, he founded the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). So what? He probably got the phrase from someone who wasn't - that's how it goes. No matter what is said either it stands on it's own or it doesn't. )

What Nathan said stands on it's own. Thanks for that Nathan.

NathanJ,

I thought that was rather bizarre of you to paraphrase a previous post of mine like that. There appeared to be no concrete reason for you doing so.

<<But posting on this page shouldn't be just be about winning.>>

By ‘winning’, I meant that one cannot do anything right. I think you know that. Taking a word that I used and addressing it in a different sense to what was meant at the time is equivocation and dishonest.

It is also cowardly to use a different discussion thread to challenge, or attack even, what I have said on another thread, as if to hope that I don’t notice.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what I did in our last discussion. I was simply being thorough in my responses and you turned that against me for no apparent reason other than the fact that you didn't like what was being said.

What you’re essentially saying now is that my only option, to keep you satisfied and offence-free, was to let you have the last word, regardless of whether or not I had more to add, or to post less-thorough responses that would have inevitably resulted in an unnecessarily long back-and-forth.

None of us are obliged to limit the number of thoughts we express, or let others have the last word when there is clearly more to be said, just because some of us are sensitive souls.

What a cheap shot your last two posts were.

AJ Philips,

The title of this topic clearly says: "Apparent Loss of some of OLO's & 'the Forums' best advocates"

So I don't (and didn't) want to go into dictionary definitions or someone's personal interpretations about winning.

I clearly want to stay to the discussion topic.

The fact, that I did not mention your name, was out of basic respect and that other people did not need to know (a particular name) re this topic.

That particular posting (which you refer to) - which was a lot of wording (very specifically in regards to eight points, towards the end of the discussion) were not about the topic, they were about personal attitudes towards posting on this website. This can easily show why the headline refers to an: "Apparent Loss of some of OLO's & 'the Forums' best advocates."

To put this in perspective, a lot of people are busy and they don't always want to be going onto pages 35....36....37.... on this website. A person may only be willing to do that if they feel very strongly about a topic.

The fact I posted the information, also is not a one off issue. I've had other people question my comments previously, via searches on this website. I did not consider this offensive at all, as after all I made the comments and posted them on this website, but talking people down (as some have mentioned as part of this discussion topic) does turn some people off commenting on this page and that is why, as I said before) I left your name off, in regards to this topic.

It's no different than all forms of other social media, like Facebook. If I place something on facebook, I have to be fully responsible for that. Now you've mentioned your name, with the text (I included), when I didn't mention your name at all (and had no intention of doing that), that's unfixable.

NathanJ,

So are you saying, then, that you have also used the different topic of this thread as a way of committing the equivocation fallacy?

<<The title of this topic clearly says … So I don't (and didn't) want to go into dictionary definitions or someone's personal interpretations about winning.>>

Personal or not, my interpretation of my own words is everything. You don’t get to use my words to make a point that strays from what I had said. I was willing to let it go too, until you attacked me in your post to Yuyutsu.

<<The fact, that I did not mention your name, was out of basic respect and that other people did not need to know (a particular name) re this topic.>>

Which, again, is why I was willing to let it slide until your post to Yuyutsu. Either way, though, you still don’t get to use someone else’s words like that. Nor do I believe you would have unless you had an ulterior motive.

If, in your next paragraph, you are saying that you used my points to highlight why some may feel like leaving through sheer exacerbation, then fine. Again, up until your post to Yuyutsu, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt there. It's flattering to be that quotable, but you overstepped the mark with your equivocation and your post to Yuyutsu.

<<… a lot of people are busy and they don't always want to be going onto pages 35....36....37.... on this website. A person may only be willing to do that if they feel very strongly about a topic.>>

So why were you not willing to grant that I felt strongly about the topic? I only ever post when I feel strongly about a topic.

<<I've had other people question my comments previously, via searches on this website. I did not consider this offensive at all, as after all I made the comments and posted them on this website …>>

Did they skew the meaning of what you said had and then slag off at you afterwards?

Continued…

…Continued

<<It's no different than all forms of other social media … If I place something on facebook, I have to be fully responsible for that.>>

Yes, you have to take responsibility for what you say, but never for a misconstrual of what you have said. What you did was wrong. Own it.

<<Now you've mentioned your name, with the text (I included), when I didn't mention your name at all (and had no intention of doing that), that's unfixable.>>

Oh, phooey. You just wanted to hit back at me with the immunity that you thought omitting my name would provide. That's cowardly.

You say this as though I should be ashamed too. There is nothing that is unfixable here, and I am quite happy to own what you had accurately quoted. It was a good point, after all. The only thing that needed fixing was your equivocation and misrepresentation, but that’s been fixed now.

None of the accusations in your post to Yuyutsu were in any way accurate, or at least relevant to me, so there is nothing for me to feel embarrassed about or ashamed of now that I have 'blown' the anonymity that you halfheartedly provided me with.

By the way, NathanJ, attempting to shame people out of providing lengthy responses, or using another’s lengthy responses to imply an insincerity on their behalf, is a form of censorship.

Here’s a discussion between Yuyutsu and myself where our responses grew to three posts at a time:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0

Are you going to accuse Yuyutsu of writing for "his own benefit" in a "desire to essentially win the argument rather than allow people to put down opinions or viewpoints of their own" now? Are you going to question Yuyutsu's "use of constant words" (whatever that means)?

No, you're not. Why? Because your accusations were an improvised attempt to hit back at someone whose arguments you could not counter and made you feel uncomfortable.

Nothing more.

@AJ Philips "None of us are obliged to limit the number of thoughts we express, or let others have the last word when there is clearly more to be said, just because some of us are sensitive souls."

Yep. True. I'd say, very true.

The other aspect is some things are worth being nsaid more than others.

The most important thing people also neglect is that while everyone may have equal rights including the right to express their opinions, the reality is that not all opinions are equal.

All opinions are qualitatively different. No, don;t get your noses out of joint, an example is the opinion of someone about the benefits of being a pet owner who has no pet and never had a pet is of far less value than one who owns a dog.

Take that from having a dog to rocket science it covers a lot of ground.

re "until you attacked me in your post to Yuyutsu."

Being on the outside, I didn't know what that was all about or get it. Now I do. The 'points' just made sense because I know they are from experience. I call things like that 'truisms' that do constantly arise.

But yeah AJ you were 'attacked' (anonymously) but an attack from the back it was. There is no real link between the usefulness of the 'points' being laid down and that, imo. So I hear what you're saying and exactly why.

That being said I have no idea about what caused it and frankly don't want to know, so won't be searching for it. The discussion about the after-taste though, does fits well within the 'on-topic' quotient. :-)
-

So back to 'o sung wu' fwiw. Your name sounds familiar. Did you ever know a an old traveler named Hu Flung Dung? He may have come from a village near you. :-)

I suspected he could be posting under a number of different Nyms on this forum, and in this thread, lol.

The issue raise is a valid one, it happens. I doubt it's fixable even if the 'players' change there is a set 'dynamic' that plays out in 'internet forums'. A bit like a school yard, the students change progressively but it's still always school yard. In every school there are bullies and leaders and followers and the shy.

The good thing about 'forums' is that the shy and sensitive can build up their strength and skills like someone doing weights in a gym, but wit some privacy and protection. It's just life playing itself out. Life cannot be controlled the more one tries the more Kaos ensues. (Max Smart was a Philosopher not a secret agent)

This place is child's play compared to the original which was Usenet/Newsgroups that began in the mid-1990s when the internet finally got some legs. Being on alt.politics in the early 2000s for the Bush election and the Iraq war lead up was something to behold.

Those Americans are seriously bat shite crazy. A couple of things I learned along the way which was confirmed first hand with a year in the States. The original Puritan mindset and total distrust of 'government' (due to the monarchy etc) was transported to the US from the UK is in all their 'DNA' today.

They have this 'town hall meeting' concept that runs deep and supports free speech and all opinions being heard. Yet if there is a really serious issue at hand for the town, it's counterproductive to let all the lunatics out of the asylum so they can also attend to have their 'rights' fulfilled.

Freedom can't stand on one leg, it needs responsibility (maturity/ethics) as the other leg or it'll fall over in the slighest breeze.
-

Freedom alone cannot ever lead to true sustained freedom. (not on this planet at least)

An absence of a benevolent responsible govt 'of the people' won't get you freedom either, it'll get you the law of the jungle instead and a shoot out at the OK Coral.

The third pillar of entrenched American norms is that the fastest draw decided whose 'opinion' was right. Go down the American path and there will be loads of unnecessary 'trouble at the mill'.

@o sung wu, I spent a bit of time on alt.philosophy way back. It was a great venue for discussions and sharing ideas and knowledge.

Everyday folks mixing with academics and specialists and it was just terrific. Like alt.politics it was un-moderated so every now and then things would go off the rails and then come good after a massive 'flame war' by weight of numbers would eject the waanker/troll (anti-social personality disorder)

As time went it though, as more and more places introduced "moderation" the anti-social lunatics in the asylum so to speak (new to the internet mainly) found places like alt.politics and alt.philosophy - they basically destroyed the place and every bit of 'good' that used to be there by default in very short order.

Great thread btw, good idea to bring the issue into the light. Every schoolyard/forum has their resident groupies and their bullies, leaders and followers and their visitors from the asylum on day leave.

I'm sure the three ladies being spoken of behind their backs are far better off where they are now, and likely partly due to the experience. But who knows?

People's 'opinions' about their pov now really is irrelevant to what is. I seriously doubt (based again on experience) if they ever think about the ones who speak of them now and who it seems have never let go of their venom. :-)

Anyways, fwiw, I hope that little campfire tale is useful to at least one other person one day.
-

Firstly, if a persons comments relate to a topic (like this one), I can put those down. There were no motives of any nature, or to get back at any particular person. Such a belief is simply speculation and not based on fact.

<<I've had other people question my comments previously, via searches on this website. I did not consider this offensive at all, as after all I made the comments and posted them on this website …>>

Did they skew the meaning of what you said had and then slag off at you afterwards?

Yes and I responded to these people - very precisely.

The points that (AJ Phillips) put down in the particular post, were very pointed (and very well put). Particularly in terms of how people should post (in regards to his own personal interpretations). If AJ Phillips wishes to reverse these, this can happen, but I wouldn't support that - that to me is simply not fair or democratic.

What was written clearly (in my view) set a framework (for some to feel they must accept re posting) and therefore links to this title topic which clearly is about the: "Apparent Loss of some of OLO's & 'the Forums' best advocates." and may discourage them from posting.

That is why I put these down. I had never seen anyone post anything so descriptive (re posting), since signing up to this website. I also didn't wan't to stray into lengthy debates about...... If there are some who want a grand title or award, they can have it, but there are many others on this site who don't and they simply want a nice and healthy discussion on various topics on this website.

@NathanJ re "Particularly in terms of how people \\should// post"

Um, hang about. I need another look, that's not what saw in that list.

Yes, I did see what I saw before .... a list of how people do post and the typical/common flippant responses they get from 'some others' as a result of doing that.

Please explain where you get this "how people should post" idea from Nathan.

Hi there THOMAS O'REILLY...

A fine Irish moniker if I ever heard one, shades of Oscar WILDE who once opined '...style is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to change it every six months...' whether Oscar was referring to 'fashion - dress sense' per se, or 'style' in our writing or the manner in which we verbally express ourselves, I've really no idea.

So I've chosen to tidy up my own writing 'style' and divest myself from engaging in any further instances of ad hominen that I may have unwittingly deployed occasionally with one or two others herein. Save for one, an individual I happen to dislike.

Thank you Thomas for adding you intuitive and astute commentary and opinions to this topic, I do appreciate your wide ranging views and opinions expressed herein as well. By the sound of it you've been around for quite some time, longer than I by all accounts, so your insights and views are well appreciated and contemporary to say the least.

The loss of our three ladies is not good, as I believe their intellectual presence was like a breath of fresh air, and had a much of a mollifying or conciliatory effect on some of the more 'ferae naturae' correspondents, who delighted in stalking their prey on Graham's Y's delightful Site ? I can only hope they see fit to return and give us all the benefit of their wise and thoughtful counsel before this entire Site wreaks havoc on itself, with a fusillade of testosterone laden missiles.

@o sung wu, well thank you kind sir. I feel like I look like a ripe plum. High praise indeed coming from your good self.

It is said s--t floats m'lord, though on this occasion you have proven that Cream doth also riseth to the surface at will, such with your excellent thread topic.

I have only had the luxurious blessings of partaking these here hallowed halls of opined excellence a short 2 months, however have had the benefit of being sent twice to the sin over this short sojourn.

It must have been something I said. What exactly that was I have not been duly informed despite proper and numerous inquiry with the powers that be. Such are the travesties of dictatorship and appearing as a mushroom to my fellows. :-)

It's a case of 'deja vu' the subject matter under consideration by your esteemed forum devotees and was most coincidental indeed thereby quickly catching my eye and purveying the content of what great minds our Aussie soil hath produced. :-)

If I may be so bold, you good self may wish to parlay College Binaries channel (below) when free time appears or the mood strikes thee, should OLO be quiet calm and still. He's a Brisbane lad and quite a wit I must say.

Philosophically speaking fwiw, I am torn between being a Hobbesian and being a Kant (apparently). lol

Immanuel Kant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw

John Locke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-buzVjYQvY

Jimmy Voltaire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8SGxLHu7M

How to Reduce Weirdest Beliefs - buy this book
aka OCCAM'S NIGHTMARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OeUINoYWsg

Good day to you sir o sung wu,

Wherest thou shalt travel, may good fortune and good health greet thee and thy beloved ones on the path.

<smile>
-

I think the question should go beyond why Foxy, Poirot and Susie have stopped. There are at least 5000 people, possibly 10,000 on the user list yet only a handful of people are active. Why?
I think it's because I - and probably many others - find the forum unwelcoming. I would like to have a genuine exchange of views; I don't think I know everything, I like hearing what other people think, and I'm prepared to change my opinion given a cogent argument. I'd like to discuss issues with people who take the same approach, that they might not know everything and might be prepared to change their opinion too, even if they hold different views to me.
But there seems to be a strong 'party line'. Say something that goes against that, and you don't get serious engagement and discussion, you're just labelled negatively (usually left-wing, even if you're not!) Some of the comments here about Foxy et al are doing this exact same thing, even in their absence!

(cont.)
I tend to post only when I can say something concrete about matters I have personal knowledge or experience of. I am regularly discouraged when the response is a label, a sneer, or straight denial of my experience.
One old example: I engaged oneundergod (well, it was a while ago) on the question of the definition of species v genera - I'm a biologist originally, and this was something I actually know about. OUG wouldn't discuss or consider my information: he'd (mis)read Wikipedia and I was WRONG!
Another example: On a discussion on Aboriginal issues, I told some personal experiences of being followed by the police etc when visiting Aboriginal communities, and noted that while this came as a shock to me, my Aboriginal contacts just took it for granted as a normal occurrence and were amused at my surprise.
The response here? I must have done something to provoke the police. I hadn't. The point of my comment was that this was a norm, I'd just accidentally come across it. But it could not be taken at face value as an example of why Aboriginal people might have problems with mainstream society and vice versa, and contribute to a discussion of how things might be improved, no, I had to be personally blamed. (I'm really non-confrontational, and have a lot of experience in mediation - people have said to me 'how can you just stay calm when people are going nuts around you?)
This is not about unpleasant language per se, but about an underlying attitude by many posters here, of personal put-downs. Genuine debate would be nice and could be productive. But if your response to people who hold different opinions to you is just to label them and put them down, rather than engage with the issues they raise, well, how secure is your opinion anyway?

Hi there COSSOMBY...

Thank you for your most comprehensive thoughts and conclusions as to why it is, (in your opinion) that so many contributors are choosing to leave OLO and the Forum ? Again I think you're absolutely correct, because of this combative climate that seems to prevail here and now. Which has been suggested by so many other contributors herein, as the fundamental reason why people absent themselves from this Site altogether ?

Moreover COSSOMBY, as a recidivist offender myself, who's manifestly assisted in creating this antagonistic and truculent environment, I can only apologise profusely, in an effort to create a more harmonious and amiable domain for others, in an attempt to eradicate (for my part) any remaining animosity and rancour that might still linger with some posters.

With contributors of yours, and THOMAS O'REILLY'S intellectual standing, I have great hope, this august Site can only develop exponentially, and benefit all who choose to add their cogent and well presented commentary herein, either to this Forum, OLO, or both, provided that is, those ( me particularly) who choose to engage in ad hominen behaviour, are held to account by the moderators.

Thank you, o sung wu.

Interesting commentary on people who have stopped posting. There do seem to be some duologues that are more boring than insulting, like the endless ping pong bout in which AJ Phillips sought to use the language of Enlightenment rationality to engage with Yuyutsu's non-rational word salads (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0). His patient good manners were exemplary

I probably haven't been enough engaged in OLO to receive insults from anyone except for the astounding "Jew hater" from a fanatical and exceedingly boring racist. It was easy to recognise the term as referring to my total rejection of his defence of racism, and I shared the "Jew hater" insult with other correspondents. Not a bother to be insulted by a racist - a lot better than being praised by one.

I don't think there is anything common between the three female writers' withdrawal (for now) - maybe they were bored long and repetitious strings of posts, and maybe (hopefully) it's not a withdrawal but merely a pause.

One person for whom I am lost in admiration is Graham Young, who hosts this lively discussion platform and throughout the year finds thought-provoking articles, along with posting careful analyses of public political opinion.

Hi there EMPEROR JULIAN...

Many thanks for your insightful observations of many of the correspondents who like to contribute their thoughts and opinions to their various Topics presented herein.

Of course we all have our own style of rebuttal or repartee when we deem it necessary, as well as the best use of language in order to clearly impress those who have a mind to read the material and the arguments we choose to add to the discussion. As you may have read, I'm clearly one of the worst offenders when it comes to 'putting in the boot' so to speak, and for that I really don't have a legitimate excuse to do so ?

You chose to distinguish a series of discussions that had apparently became quite robust between YUYUTSU and A J PHILIPS and commending the latter for his exemplary good manners, whereas you went on to describe the former as 'boring' ? Of course, we're all entitled to our opinion(s) E J, in relation to what's boring and language of 'enlightenment and rationality' ? Personally I find individuals who unrelentingly exhibit vain and egotistical features in the manner of their narrative, equally as peculiar, moreover banal to the point of intellectual exhaustion !

Anyway, your statement apropos Mr Graham YOUNG, under who's aegis we're all gratefully permitted to use this wonderful medium at all, is in reality a thorougher gentleman. In fact I was seeking to have another long term contributor return, after aprotracted absence, and it was Graham Y. himself, that did everything possible to have this chap return to OLO and the Forum, the fact that we both failed, it most certainly wasn't for the fact we didn't try ?

Thank you EMPEROR JULIAN for your sage remarks and opinions.

Hi O Sung Wu,

I'll gladly second those remarks about Graham Young and his dedication. How does he put up with us ? Sometimes it must seem to him like he's managing a demented pre-school. He wouldn't be far wrong.

Cheers,

Joe

Thanks for your kind comment o sung wu. I must say I've never found you to be free with the boot, but rather to be always measured and informative.

Here is an amusing web site about the psychology of 'haters', those people who fill opinion sites with negative comments, using as a starting point haters of Pokémon Go. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/07/15/the-psychology-of-pokemon-go-haters/#.V-kfwMb_pD8.
What's particularly entertaining is that one of the posters in the discussion doesn't seem to have read the article very carefully, and proceeds to illustrate the point by over-the-top negativity!
Enjoy! But don't emulate!

Cossomby, that's an interesting perspective that Discover puts forward. I'm not sure that it covers all the ground though. As we see on this site so often, much of the negativity and "hating" is inspired by a pretty straightforward form of group identification.

Look at the serial offenders and there's precious little discussion of topics and much infantile ranting about group identities: "lefties" and "rightists"; "warmists" and "deniers" and so on. As someone who could be accused of iconoclasm, I don't notice much in those who tend to be the most vocally offensive. Indeed, the same slogans are trotted out over and over and as a result little new ground is covered in the rush to entrench positions. Insecurity is what drives that, just as it drives the teenager to reject good advice from adults while following a herd of "rebellious" mates into doing what all the other "rebellious" teens are doing.