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.