Why is OLO such a blokey format? How can women feel less threatened making comment? Is it time for gentrafying comment?

DD,

The women we have had on in the past have been sanctimonious Lefties who've packed it in because there were 'too many Right wingers on OLO (men, of course) who wouldn't pander to their hysteria. They have all been like the infamous 'doctors' wives' of political lore. And, we certainly don't want the likes of the vile Cheryl (foul mouthing us on the Tauber/Channel 7 business). Women can come be here, but given that they have commandeered just about everything masculine, I'm happy for them to stay away. If you are looking for lurve, there are abundant sites for that.

diver dan,

I don’t think there’s anything particularly blokey about the actual format of the site, but the place certainly seems to have become more of an old, conservative, boys’ club compared to what it was about 10 years ago. Twelve years ago, Graham Young did an article on OLO’s readership statistics (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3901). I’d be fascinated to see what the difference is now.

I think, to some degree, a level of subtle bullying has occurred to bring OLO to where it is now (I’m male and even I’ve been told twice before that I wasn’t welcome here (or at least it was hinted at very strongly) and that I should find a forum more suited to me). Perhaps this occurs because it is mostly retirees here, and today’s retirees come from a generation where women bloody-well knew their place, dammit! ttbn’s comment suggests this may be the case.

I don’t know if there’s anything Graham could do about the imbalance. He says he only posts articles as they come to him (provided they’re up to standard, of course) and I believe him. I‘m not even sure if there is an imbalance in the overall political persuasion of the articles posted, though. Any imbalance I might perceive could just be a confirmation bias on my behalf.

Dear Diver Dan,

Just to set the record straight for you. There are quite
a few females on this Forum, - Cossomby, Big Nana, myself,
just to name a few. And I'm sure that most male posters
will agree that we hold our own in discussions.

As for the
reasons why others have left?

Well I doubt very much if
females like Poirot and others, left because they were
intimidated by some bloke. My guess would be that they simply
got bored by how far the bar had sunk in the level of the
discussions and they did not see the point in wasting their
time here any further. Also we should note that many left after
quite a few years on the Forum - and perhaps they moved on
to more interesting pastures, so to speak, because nothing new
was happening here - it was the same old, same old,
predictable stuff.

Speaking for myself - I'm still here because I enjoy robust
discussions and men like - SteeleRedux, AJ Philips, Toni Lavis,
Banjo Patterson, O Sung Wu, Paul (our resident Greens supporter),
Joe (Loudmouth), even conservative - Shadow Minister, make for
posts that are worth reading, and of course - Cossomby, and
Big Nana, and CHERFUL, to name a few more. I apologise if I've
left anyone out - but I feel that I can learn something from
everyone who posts here. And I do enjoy it. Yes, it can be
frustrating at times when the issues are emotive and things
get deep and personal. And yes, insults do tend to fly and are
upsetting - but - they usually come from a small minority on
this Forum - and these kind of people are very common to online
posting sites on the web because they can hide behind their
anonymity. The good posters far outweigh these guys and make
posting here quite enjoyable (and interesting and educational).

I've been here for over a decade, and I don't intend on going
away any time soon.

Good on yer, Foxy. xxx

Dear Is Mise,

Thanks.

And a big hug!

Sadly I think DIVER DAN is right. Sometimes we blokes' especially me, tend to become a little aggressive in order to drive our point home, and I must confess I do enjoy reading some of the adroit material emanating from ladies of POIROT'S calibre, many of whom tend to embrace the discussion with consummate subtlety and panache.

And our FOXY? Well politically, FOXY and I are probably diametrically opposed when it comes to our view of politics and many other things too I would suggest. That said, I've always been a strong fan of that lady, as she tends to, in her own ingenious way, subliminally I suppose, encourage me to moderate my tone, and my hitherto aggressive and combative approach to discussions herein. And for that, I'll always be indebted to her.

OLO is the only general interest chat room I frequent. My other sites are either scientific, or special interest in automotive or sailing.

When I first found OLO I was amazed at the overwhelming level of lefties on it. Lexi was more centre of the opinions expressed than is Foxy today. By far the majority of contributors were well left of centre, but many of those have disappeared.

Personally I think the site is pretty middle of the road today, & love the fact that no one gets cut, unless they become insulting.

I also have a different perspective to Foxy, but that does not prevent me enjoying her contributions, valuing them highly, & enjoying her on line company.

One great advantage of a chat room over a dinner party, you don't have to read contributions of those you know will be unpleasant, where as at a dinner party it is hard to sneak your ear plugs in unobtrusively.

diver dan,

The women in my acquaintance have been embarrassed for years by the access and choices available to them and most free of charge. Now, digital technology offers a broad and rapidly developing expanse, unlimited.

Think of the competition for the attention of women and young women especially are not behind in taking up those options. They have moved on too and are citizens of the world - I will leave it at that.

Cossomby is the fairer sex? That explains a lot.

Although I've vowed to leave Foxy alone, I couldn't resist having a look at what she had to say. No surprises. Foxy “... doubt (s)very much if females like Poirot and others, left because they were intimidated by some bloke.” Well, Foxy, Poirot did say that she couldn't cope with we dreadful Rightists. I don't remember if she brought gender into it, and she never seemed particularly feminine to me. Come to think of it, I don't believe that anyone has mentioned being “intimidated by some bloke”.

Foxy, perhaps doesn't remember telling us that her doctor suggested that she give OLO away, which she did for quite a period. Something to do with stress, I think.

Given that I had no idea cossomby and Poirot were females ( I always imagined Poirot as a bit of a rube (male) with a big mouth) I don't much care what other posters are, but if females are not going to reveal that they are female, they can't expect any allowances for their different takes on some subjects.

O sung wu,

Don't go all girly-man on us. You have nothing to apologise for.

Foxy.

I've always assumed you to be transgender, but you are actually a female. Maybe the misconception points to the dangers of forming conclusions based on scanty evidence.

Ttbn…

Cheryl's posts re your comment, were what prompted me to raise this question.
I don't think OLO is a format for love’n and affection, but obviously, she is hyper-sensitive to the issue under discussion. But personally, I've found Cheryl’s comments to be mostly interesting in the past. I was a bit saddened to watch her fall apart like that!

However, sometimes it's difficult to pick from a name, a gender, and an appropriate reaction to a comment. Maybe if female posters were to identify as such occasionally, life would be easier.

Treating women respectfully is a conservative trait, and the art needs to be practiced often, is my personal belief.

LeoJ

I'm not sure I agree entirely with your conclusion.
One of my daughters works in a corporate executive position. I need to compete with her husband and kids for visiting rights, time is so constricted in her life. That is not freedom.

DD,

Agreed. I think Cheryl is in a very dark place, which stop me getting very angry with her. She oozed bitterness that made me quite sad.

diver dan,

I agree with you on that. It isn't what I was talking about though.

Have a good one and see you on another thread

//And, we certainly don't want the likes of the vile Cheryl (foul mouthing us on the Tauber/Channel 7 business).//

Well speak for yourself, ttbn. I found her Glaswegian approach to public debate quite refreshing. She had charm, spirit, and healthy dose of punk. Apparently too healthy a dose for some of the more tumescentantly challenged old fellas amongst us... snowflakes.

But you can't go around disrespecting the Ancient & Enlightened Brotherhood of Men who have Tiny Roosters (No, Seriously, It's Not a Euphemism). Otherwise the AEBMTR(NSINAE) will censor you back to the stone age.

This is one of the problems with OLO... we're too close knit and tribal. We don't welcome outsiders 'round here. To our enormous detriment. Stagnant ponds breed do breed life, but they also stink.

I need to correct an erroneous statement made
about me. I did not give OLO away for a period
of time due to stress. I was away for approximately
six months from the Forum - but as I explained on
my return - this was due to the fact that I was
hospitalised as a result of a very bad fall and the
serious additional problems that followed.
Stress was not involved in my absence from the Forum
at that time.

As for Poirot? She would always argue in a logical
manner. Sound reasoning was her forte and she had the
knack of being able to conquer unreasonable generalisations
every time. She is greatly missed by all who knew her.
Her opinion was valued.

Cheryl?
a link to one of her posts, please.

I don't think this is a men/woman issue. Look at the user list, hundreds of people have signed up but only a handful ever post comments. Men and women have deserted this discussion forum in droves.

I flick through the topics and comment occasionally, but much more rarely than in the past. Why? Because it's rare now to find a genuine discussion. Someone posts a comment or poses a question. Others respond. I tend to limit my replies to topics where I have some factual knowledge or personal experience. I don't mind if the originator or others then challenge me, I enjoy a good debate, and learning from others' experiences or point of view. But that rarely happens anymore. Put up a different opinion and you can get targeted, labelled and put down, or your actual personal experience accused of being false. For some people here, anyone who has a different opinion to them is automatically a leftie. It doesn't matter if their own opinion is more extreme than Stalin, or that my opinion is middle of the road or even libertarian. Anything short of dutiful abeisance to their view means you are a leftie and worse. Maybe especially if you're a woman. This is not debate or discussion, it's intellectual laziness, and clearly I'm not the only one who has concluded that they have better things to do with their time.

PS Thank you, tbbn, for demonstrating my point so brilliantly.

//Cheryl?
a link to one of her posts, please.//

Proudly brought to you by OLO, the Home of Free Speech:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19338#343697

Out here in my real world (as opposed to the internet echo chambers), real discussion and debate still occurs, and amicably between men and women.

I'm currently at an engineering history conference. I'm not an engineer, but an historian. Understandably, men predominate, but there are a few women engineers here. It's been great. I got a lot of positive feedback on my talk, I understood more than I expected of some of the more technical papers, there has been robust discussion some of which I participated in (where we agreed to disagree), and I've had a beer or two with some fascinating guys with amazing experience, at a world-wide level.

It really is possible to have real robust discussion and debate without falling into the left/right labelling (mind-closing) game. I have no idea who the engineers I've met vote for, and it doesn't matter. And the conference is not at all airy-fairy, the history of technology/engineering is all about politics - mining, water, public works etc. Listening to some the talks about past engineering/development/political debacles - deju vu all over again. (The NBN has had some illustrious predecessors).

Absolutely spot on, Cossomby. Thanks for that.

I, too, tend only to comment on topics that I have some expertise in. Most of the time, at least. This often results in a lot of butthurt from people, like ttbn, when they’re just plain wrong, and the fact is made obvious to the world.

To be labelled a “Leftie” (or the more emotive and dogmatic-sounding version, “Leftist”), however, is to get off lightly around here. One regular to OLO (whom it looks like I may have FINALLY gotten rid of) once tried to portray me as a potential rapist, and all for discrediting his ridiculous position on marriage equality.

Righties - sorry, Rightists - are such a bunch of snowflakes.

I retreat to the serenity of this forum to engage in some equanimity of discussion with calm and most reasonable people who think like me, when things get too hot, abusive, insulting, vulgar and offensive on the only other forum I am a member of; 'Flower Arranging for Beginners'. You would be surprised with the philosophical differences to be found among the hard core fraternity of flower arrangers, me included!

My partner "T" (she is female and although I'm a Greenie I'm in a heterosexual relationship, how odd) will occasionally read some of the posts on here. She says "I'm not surprised by some of the comments." I say "Why?"..."Well. look at some of your posts!...I hope no one takes you seriously."

I enjoy the discourse with all the posters on OLO.

Cossomby,

As I had no idea that you are a woman, it cannot be claimed that anything I have ever said to you was sexist or scathing of women. Knowing, now, that you are a woman makes absolutely no difference to what I think of your opinions. The men/women thing is, after all, merely a political construct of the the extreme Left – the people who are clearly calling the tune these days: the same ones who feel the need to create separate groups to satisfy their agenda for the West. They are also doing it with homosexuals, ethnics, Muslims and all people that appear to have grievances. It is easier to control the population in identifiable groups, giving them privileges and freedoms because of their 'disadvantages'. Now, I can speak only for myself, but I would not be the least surprised to know that there are many people like me who, having had totalitarian dogma thrust down their throats for half a century now, have gradually hardened their attitudes to people and things that they once tolerated or were ambivalent about. I was once an easy going person. Now, I intend to defend what I believe in, something too many conservatives are not doing: they are merely whingeing about the 'enemy' without defending and promoting their own side of things.

As for your comments about 'discussion' – nope. OLO is about 'opinion', a place where you can express opinions without having your head kicked in. I have never known a single poster to change his or her opinion through discussion. We are gradually losing the ability to speak freely in this country, and OLO and its editor should be appreciated for providing a forum where we can say pretty much anything we need to say, without threat and without the sort of person infesting other social media.

Hi ttbn. Most other people here know I'm female, but thanks for the compliment that you didn't know I was. I do try to post as a person, not specifically as a woman. But that doesn't mean I will accept insults such as that women posting here are sanctimoneous lefties.

Yes, this is a place for opinion, but since it's public, it's for debating a variety of opinion, preferably in a civil manner. (I find it interesting that people who deplore or predict the downfall of western civilisation because of something or other they don't like, are rarely civil in their postings.)

I am free to post my opinion that your opinion is based on false premises, fake facts and bias, especially where I can point this out by evidence.
'You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.'

You want to hear only your own opinion? Start your own blog, and get thee hence from OLO.

Hi there TTBN...

Not a case of going all 'girly' on you ol' mate, instead I was a bit aggressive with some people on OLO and the Forum, which is clearly wrong of me! I offer no excuse other than to desist from that type of conduct in the future! Observing FOXY over time, gives one a chance to moderate their behaviour and language, other than employing conversation indicating you wish to remove their head and do something 'unrepeatable' down their neck.

Unfortunately for me, my written skills are somewhat limited, and when another is demolishing your argument you tend to resort to language which is more insulting and confrontational, that's when I lose all credibility and thus the debate.

But now TTBN, as time inexorable goes by, I believe I've again returned to that quiet, gentle and conciliatory soul, that I've always known to be there, with the epithet 'snowflake' again resting comfortably upon my head!

Cossomby,

Man or woman, you are certainly obtuse. There's another insult you probably won't “accept”, though I'm not sure how you accept or don't accept insults. Mind you, what you regard as an insult might very well be the truth, and I certainly never said that I didn't want to hear only my opinions.

Of course you are entitled to post what you want; you just don't seem all that keen on other people doing the same thing. And, your opinions, like mine, are just that. Don't kid yourself that yours are 'facts'.

O sung wu,

Your are a wise old bird, and OK by me. After writing that, I had the thought that not all posters might know that, to our generation, a 'bird' is not a sheila, as it is these days.

'Are women welcome on OLO..'

r we speaking about a biological born woman or a man who now thinks he is a woman?

Just a few thoughts:

"It would be quite unthinkable
If intelligent views were to go
Think of what it would do to this Forum
It would be quite a blow

We've already lost so many
Who are no longer here
Who've left out of frustration
Not out of stress or fear

They simply became tired
They didn't see the point
Of putting up with insults
So they up and left the joint

Presenting views that challenge
Should not be viewed as threats
Political agendas are not something
That should be met

Now let us look to the future
To see what it may hold
If we continue as we've done
Nothing will be solved

So let us make an effort
For everyone to see
Exactly the kind of place
This Forum can truly be".

runner,

The gender benders could already be among us. We would never know unless they told us. Going by the vehement flogging some of us get for expressing traditional opinions, it is most likely.

Some people believe more in love, compassion,
understanding, empathy, and in having
a good heart. That's much bigger to see than
being concerned about what someone else has between
their legs.

//Unfortunately for me, my written skills are somewhat limited//

I disagree, o sung wu. The point of language is for communication, not for having a big dick contest about who has the best spelling or grammar.

You have sufficient grasp of the language to communicate your ideas (ideas that I may not necessarily always agree with) in forthright & honest manner, and you are unfailingly polite. Your style may not be as polished as some, but your posts are always worth reading... unlike some I could mention.

Dear O Sung Wu,

As I've told you in the past - your spirit gives mine
wings. You have the knack of putting a smile on
people's faces, cheering them up with your generosity
and kindness. You are a loving, caring, feeling, human being.
And you add so much to this Forum. There is nothing
wrong with your skills in communicating your thoughts to
us. Your contributions are very, very, much appreciated.

Thank you TONI LAVIS & FOXY... for your undeserved praise. Nevertheless I've been somewhat thuggish in the past and have learned to be far more pacifying, than I have ever been. Otherwise there's no point in belonging to the Forum I guess.

Apropos the topic, I must admit I've not particularly noticed who the female contributors are, other than the more obvious among them. I guess in reality we should endeavour to treat everyone with respect regardless of their gender. There's no doubt, we all bleed when we're cut, so any remark we may level at one another, can cause emotional hurt, if aimed with maleficence?

Surely the intention of OLO and the Forum, is not to intentionally (vocally) hurt somebody, the result of that 'hurt' really couldn't be measured, purely because of a few weeks or months absence from the Site? Rather, it's to respectfully argue a point of view, right or wrong with others. And at the same time learn to better argue your case in writing.

I had an old Boss, whenever you entered his office, whatever you asked for, his response was always the same '...ah just give me a few lines, OK...'? Your entire family might've been killed by an axe murderer, and you sought compassionate leave '...ah just give me a few line, OK...'? He loved pieces of paper, consequently his desk was strewn all over with the stuff! It was you, FOXY who indicated many of our young are almost illiterate in the way they write and spell? And you're right! I know of one kid (girl 16+-) who cannot write cursively at all. She prints nicely and clearly but she simply cannot employ cursive writing when taking notes?

So OLO and/or the Forum are ideal Sites, and provide great opportunities for us to practice arguing our cases... on 'paper' as it were. Thus polishing up on old skills, or learning afresh?

TONI LAVIS my friend; I wish I possessed your quick wit and lightening rejoinders, your seem to have in spades! Thank you both. Great 'ode' to OLO there Foxy :-) !

Philips:

“One regular to OLO (whom it looks like I may have FINALLY gotten rid of) once tried to portray me as a potential rapist, and all for discrediting his ridiculous position on marriage equality.”

Maybe women are put off from contributing to OLO by the ‘snowflake’ sensitivity of those like yourself who need to cry for help about a situation that they are unable to emotionally come to grips with long after it has occurred.

Dear phanto,

Actually, you're quite wrong.

Cossomby summed things up rather well in two posts
(pages 3 and 4) of this discussion as to why not only
females, but so many have left in droves.
Read the reasons for yourself.
They are quite revealing.

Foxy:

Unless people tell us why they have left then we don't know who is right or wrong so I may not be 'quite wrong' at all and you and Cossomby could be 'quite wrong'.

We'll never know for sure but that does not mean we cannot speculate.

Toni,

Thanks for the link, I get the general picture even though the finer points have been rubbed out!!

Dear phanto,

Actually quite a few people have told us their
reasons for leaving over these past years -
so Cossomby and I are not
merely speculating. We've been told.
When you've been here as long as we have - you
also will know and understand.

Hello there COSSOMBY...

I must admit I wasn't sure of your gender. That said, I will admit to being quite aggressive in the past, and for that there's simply no excuse. Therefore I'm trying to tidy up my vocabulary as best I can both on the Forum and OLO. I've also noticed how convincing many of our more erudite contributors can be, with their reasoned arguments, sagacious rebuttals and their measured responses.

If in my past responses, I've not proved especially courteous to you COSSOMBY, I do apologise. Anyway notwithstanding a member's gender, everyone on the Forum and/or OLO are entitled to be treated and addressed with complete civility, whatever their gender, their political proclivities, or anything else, may be. To do otherwise, is just down right impertinent.

Anyway; our Proprietor; Chief Moderator; and overall 'heavy'; Mr Graham YOUNG - has one of the very best 'left hooks' in the business, moreover his close-in techniques, with short powerful 'body rips' will utterly drain the gas, from the best prepared 'pug's' in the business!

I hope you'll enjoy these two, excellent Sites COSSOMBY, for many years to come.

Foxy:

'Quite a few people" is not all people. There are obviously people who have left without giving their reasons so it is reasonable to speculate on what their reasons might have been. Unless you know for sure all of the reasons then you cannot logically rule out such possibilities as I have presented.

Dear phanto,

Could you kindly remind me of the time I requested help from from the women of OLO?

Thank you.

Dear phanto,

I can speak on behalf of the regular women contributors
who have left. They were my colleagues and friends and
we still keep in touch.

Philips:

I never said you did. I am just saying that you post was a general cry for help about a situation that seems beyond your capacity to deal with and such emotional fragility might make people wary of participating in a discussion with people such as your self. Since the topic is about the lack of womens' presence then I proffered a reason why that might be the case.

Foxy:

"I can speak on behalf of the regular women contributors
who have left."

But there are others who you cannot speak on behalf of so my point still stands.

Dear phanto,

I am pleased to inform you that my post was not a cry for help. I thank you for your concern anyway. It was very thoughtful of you.

Philips:

"I am pleased to inform you that my post was not a cry for help."

Well you would say that wouldn't you?

Dear phanto,

If you doubt the truthfulness of my words, then please state how an objective interpretation of my post can only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help. It would be quite illuminating for myself, I am sure.

Dear phanto,

I am not speaking on behalf of others
so my points still stand.

Philips:

"It would be quite illuminating for myself, I am sure."

That pre-supposes that you are open to being illuminated. That is not the case in my opinion so it would be a complete waste of time on my part.

A reading from the Sunday sermon:

Wherever two or more girls are gathered together, man will be troubled!

True or false?

Dear phanto,

It is indeed a shame that you will not be explaining how an objective interpretation of my post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help. If one were to be cynical, one may conclude that your decision to not elaborate were a little convenient, too, if you don't mind me saying.

Philips:

It is not a shame for me since I am not missing out on anything. I don’t think you are honest in stating that it is a shame for you since the only thing you would be missing out on is the opportunity to be enlightened and since in my opinion you are not open to being enlightened then you must be lying.

Dear phanto,

I think we may be closing in on a common theme and problem in your reasoning.

<<… since in my opinion you are not open to being enlightened then you must be lying.>>

You state, honestly, that your premise is only an opinion (i.e. subjective), but then you conclude by stating the my alleged telling of an untruth is the only possible conclusion (i.e. objective).

Do you see how that is a problem? You are confusing the subjective with the objective. One cannot come to an objective conclusion from a subjective premise.

Again, we make more progress than usual, and all it is taking is polite discourse.

I must say that I have always felt welcome in this group and my opinions given the same degree of respect as the men. I don't think the answer to the question is any more complicated than the simple fact that women tend to have less time for social media than men.
It's the same on Facebook groups, more males than females. Even retired women still have housework to do, plus the babysitting of grandkids generally falls more on the female of the family.
The other fact is also simple. This forum has very little publicity. I was directed here by Joe otherwise I would never have known of it's existence. Facebook debate groups are far more accessible and have functions not available here, that would appeal to the younger demographic, such as memes and emoji, neither of which appeal to me, but are standard for young people these days.
Those factors would account for the lack of new members, especially females.

Agreed.

As I said earlier there is enormous competition for women's attention and they are very well served by the plethora of options available via rapidly expanding digital technology.

You are right Big Nana, women choose social interaction, family, local community and the associated sites where the internet is concerned. Men can learn from that because a happy life is the meaningful life, one that is made worthwhile through contribution and and interacting socially is most important. Resilience is defined as our social connectnedness with others and many women are prudently attending to that.

Philips:

If in my opinion you are not open to being enlightened then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that when you say you want to be enlightened then you are lying. What other conclusion could I reach without changing my opinion that you are not capable of being enlightened? Any other conclusion would be totally illogical.

Dear phanto,

Not quite, as there were other possibilities that you had overlooked in your analysis.

<<If in my opinion you are not open to being enlightened then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that when you say you want to be enlightened then you are lying.>>

These are as follows:

1. That I am not open to being enlightened, but believe that I am.
2. That your opinion is false, and that I am indeed open to being enlightened.
3. That my intrapersonal skills are sufficient to know that my post was not a cry for help, and that I am now in the process of demonstrating the falsity of your claim by highlighting the fact that you are unable to state how an objective interpretation of the post in question could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that you had overlooked these other possibilities, though, I would point out that you presented your conclusion as more than merely your conclusion. Indeed, your use of the word ‘must’ suggested that your observation was objective and incontrovertible.

<<What other conclusion could I reach without changing my opinion that you are not capable of being enlightened?>>

I listed at least one above. I trust this will answer your question.

Philips:

“1. That I am not open to being enlightened, but believe that I am.”

But I don’t care what you believe about whether or not you are open. I only need to know what I believe. I act upon my beliefs not yours.

“2. That your opinion is false, and that I am indeed open to being enlightened.”

But I don’t care if you think my opinion is false. I only need to know what I think. I act on my opinions not yours.

“3. That my intrapersonal skills are sufficient to know that my post was not a cry for help”

But I don’t care what you think about your ‘intrapersonal skills’ or whether you agree that your post was a cry for help. I was not interested in your opinions about your behaviour. I was only interested in expressing my own opinions as a contribution to the discussion. Others may agree or disagree as they see fit.

You are the one going to such extraordinary lengths to defend yourself from a simple opinion. In fact you are demonstrating the very thing that I was talking about which is the fragile emotional stability of some people who contribute to the discussions on this forum. The intensity of your defensiveness is in my opinion streets ahead of anyone else here.

Dear phanto,

This may very well be the case.

<<But I don’t care what you believe about whether or not you are open.>>

But you had made a claim that I had told untruths, therefore, what I believe matters as the act of lying requires intent.

<<I only need to know what I believe.>>

Unfortunately this is not the case if we are to make claims about others.

<<I act upon my beliefs not yours.>>

Indeed that is the case. But what you act upon is not at issue here.

<<But I don’t care if you think my opinion is false.>>

I understand that. However, I was merely listing a possibility, not making an argument.

<<But I don’t care what you think about your ‘intrapersonal skills’ or whether you agree that your post was a cry for help.>>

I understand this, too. Again, however, I was merely listing a possibility, not making an argument.

<<You are the one going to such extraordinary lengths to defend yourself from a simple opinion.>>

I would not exactly call it extraordinary. These responses do not take much time or effort. One need only see how quickly I responded to that last post of yours to see this.

It could also be argued, if one was so inclined, that the length at which you will apparently go, in order to avoid explaining how an objective interpretation of my post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help, is extraordinary. With all the exchanges we have now engaged in, one would think that your good self could quite easily have explained this by now. You cited time wastage as a motivation for refusing my request, however, this looks less and less to be the case the further we converse.

<<… you are demonstrating the very thing that I was talking about which is the fragile emotional stability of some people ...>>

If I were emotionally fragile, then one would think I would be losing my composure. On the contrary, I think we are having a rather calm and enjoyable discussion.

Philips:

“ the length at which you will apparently go, in order to avoid explaining how an objective interpretation of my post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help, is extraordinary”

But I don’t need to explain it. Having no need can hardly be interpreted as avoidance. You are the one who seems to have the need for me to explain it. Rather than just dismiss it as untrue you seem to need to convince yourself that it is untrue by examining my arguments. You are obviously not confident that it is untrue or else you would not be so eager to hear my arguments.

“If I were emotionally fragile, then one would think I would be losing my composure.”

Not necessarily. Your fragility is evidenced by your call for my reasons as to describing your post as a cry for help. An emotionally secure person would simply examine their own conscience and dismiss my opinion as being wrong or else they would conclude that I was right. Their feelings of guilt would be their guide and not the reasons given by their accuser.

“On the contrary, I think we are having a rather calm and enjoyable discussion.”

You should not be so presumptuous as to pretend to know my feelings or are you trying to convince yourself of your own?

Dear phanto,

<<But I don’t need to explain [how an objective interpretation of your post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help].>>

Indeed. The lengths to which you will apparently go in order to avoid doing so, however, is rather telling. Especially when time wastage had been cited as your reason for refusal. I hope you can appreciate the apparent contradiction there.

<<Having no need can hardly be interpreted as avoidance.>>

Not by itself, no. That is correct.

<<You are the one who seems to have the need for me to explain it.>>

Indeed, I do. The reason for this is because I cannot see that which you also apparently cannot explain.

<<Rather than just dismiss it as untrue you seem to need to convince yourself that it is untrue by examining my arguments.>>

That would be one possibility, yes. Another possibility is that I am currently in the process of demonstrating that your claim was unfounded.

<<You are obviously not confident that it is untrue or else you would not be so eager to hear my arguments.>>

Obviously?

I hope you can appreciate now why such hasty assumptions can be problematic.

<<Your fragility is evidenced by your call for my reasons as to describing your post as a cry for help.>>

Not necessarily, my friend. As you can see above, your premise failed to account for all possibilities.

<<An emotionally secure person would simply examine their own conscience and dismiss my opinion as being wrong or else they would conclude that I was right.>>

An emotionally secure person may also want to demonstrate that an accusation was unfounded (perhaps as a caution to others?), because it is no trouble for them to do so.

<<You should not be so presumptuous as to pretend to know my feelings …>>

My intention was to convey the mood of the discussion as I perceived it, not to presume to know how you feel. It appears as though I may have hit a nerve. If so, then I apologise.

“The lengths to which you will apparently go in order to avoid doing so, however, is rather telling.”

What makes you think I am avoiding an explanation? Where is the evidence to suggest avoidance? Just because I do not give you what you want does not mean I cannot give you what you want. It means I see no good reason to give you what you want. Do you want me to act unreasonably just to satisfy your desires?

“The reason for this is because I cannot see that which you also apparently cannot explain.”

But you do not need to see it. You have given no good reason why you need to see it. You have a conscience and that is all you need. Either you feel guilty or you do not. That should be your only guide. There is no reason for any other guide than that. Why not simply trust your own human nature?

“ Not necessarily, my friend.”

Do not presume that I am interested in being your friend.

“An emotionally secure person may also want to demonstrate that an accusation was unfounded (perhaps as a caution to others?), because it is no trouble for them to do so.”

Why would you need to caution others? Surely they can see for themselves from your behaviour whether or not your post is a cry for help. Are you saying that they are too stupid to make such a determination based on the evidence before their own eyes? The fact that you are still whining about an event long after it happened is enough evidence in itself to deem it a cry for help. You have obviously not come to terms with the event and still have not found peace in regard to it.

“My intention .... If so, then I apologise.”

Why not say that you felt calm and enjoyment without presuming what I felt. If you hit a nerve then why are you apologising? My nerves are my responsibility – not yours.

Dear phanto,

<<What makes you think I am avoiding an explanation? Where is the evidence to suggest avoidance?>>

The evidence can be seen in the contradiction I noted earlier. I am sorry if I did not make this clearer the last time.

<<Just because I do not give you what you want does not mean I cannot give you what you want.>>

Indubitably.

<<Do you want me to act unreasonably just to satisfy your desires?>>

No, I do not.

<<You have given no good reason why you need to see [how an objective interpretation of your post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help].>>

“Another possibility is that I am currently in the process of demonstrating that your claim was unfounded.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7964#246715)

<<You have a conscience and that is all you need.>>

Intrapersonal reasoning would also be a useful skill.

<<There is no reason for any other guide than [conscience].>>

Indeed, there is. Intrapersonal reasoning is more objective than mere subjective feelings. People can feel guilt in instances where no guilt is warranted, and vice versa.

<<Why would you need to caution others?>>

I did not speak of needs.

<<Are you saying that they are too stupid to make such a determination based on the evidence before their own eyes?>>

“In no way [would it be] intended [as] a reflection on their intellectual capacities, but instead a means of ensuring clarity in the understanding that we all, as individuals, perceive things in different ways, irrespective of our intellectual capacities.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19267#342775)

<<The fact that you are still whining about an event long after it happened is enough evidence in itself to deem it a cry for help.>>

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/whine

Unfortunately, this is a non sequitur which relies on multiple flawed, incomplete, and hasty assumptions that I noted earlier.

<<Why not say that you felt calm and enjoyment without presuming what I felt.>>

“My intention was to convey the mood of the discussion as I perceived it, not to presume to know how you feel.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7964#246715)

Philips:

“The evidence can be seen in the contradiction I noted earlier.”

No, you took my claim that it would be a waste of time as literally meaning minutes and seconds when I meant that it would be futile. Just because you interpret my phrase to suit yourself does not alter my meaning. It is part of your dishonest and evasive methodology.

“People can feel guilt in instances where no guilt is warranted, and vice versa.”

But we are not talking about ‘people’ we are talking about you as an individual. Why do you not trust your own feelings in this particular instance? Why do you not trust your own feelings of guilt or otherwise in response to my claim that you were crying for help?

“My intention was to convey the mood of the discussion as I perceived it, not to presume to know how you feel.”

You didn’t answer my question as to why you did not simply say how you felt rather than presume that a ‘mood’ existed. A mood requires more than one similar response.

Dear phanto,

I thank you for the clarification. A contradiction still remains, however, and it is a contradiction which still serves as evidence that your refusal to fulfil my request is based on an inability to do so, rather than a lack of motivation.

<<No, you took my claim that it would be a waste of time as literally meaning minutes and seconds when I meant that it would be futile.>>

If explaining to me how an objective interpretation of my post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help were indeed futile, then surely explaining to me that it would be futile would also be futile.

Do you see the new contradiction?

At this point, you might as well have explained it, which would at least demonstrate that your suspicions about me were correct, if nothing else. Instead, you have spent much time engaging in what, according to your beliefs about me, should be futile while appearing evasive in the process and achieving nothing.

<<Just because you interpret my phrase to suit yourself does not alter my meaning.>>

Indubitably. However, I would ask that in future you do not assume mischievous intent on my behalf without citing evidence. My initial interpretation was reasonable.

<<But we are not talking about ‘people’ we are talking about you as an individual.>>

Yes, and I am a person.

<<Why do you not trust your own feelings ...>>

I do. Neither my words nor my actions have suggested otherwise.

<<You didn’t answer my question as to why you did not simply say how you felt rather than presume that a ‘mood’ existed.>>

I am afraid that was not your question. Your question was:

“Why not say that you felt calm and enjoyment without presuming what I felt[?]” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7964#246717)

But to answer your new question: a mood always exists when two or more individuals communicate. I am not aware of any guidelines concerning discourse (formal or otherwise) which dictate that one must not comment on the mood, or must preference one's own feelings when determining which to comment on.

When a cat fight starts, your first instinct may be to yell, clap, or break out the water gun. But this could just make things worse, Sackman warns.

Instead, you should take a deep calming breath and insert an object like a large piece of cardboard between the cats, McMillan suggests. This creates a gentle but impenetrable barrier between the two felines. If the cats are locked together, pick one up by the scruff, which will force him to release the other cat.

Keep the cats separated for a while to let them cool down. “Every time you have a fight, the relationship gets worse,” Sackman says. “The longer the fights have been going on, the harder it is to correct the relationship.”

Philips:

“If explaining to me how an objective interpretation of my post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help were indeed futile, then surely explaining to me that it would be futile would also be futile”

Futile to you perhaps but not necessarily futile to others who may be observing your responses. It is not futile to suggest that the reason for less women on OLO is the prevalence of emotional immaturity by posters such as yourself and to give an example of that immaturity. Others can judge for themselves whether it is a good example. Of course I would not expect you to agree that it is a good example since to do so would require a level of integrity which I do not think you possess.

“Neither my words nor my actions have suggested otherwise.”

Yes they do. If you did not feel guilty then you would have quickly dismissed my claims without needing to know my reasons. It is your reasons that are the subject of guilt or otherwise. If your intent was to cry for help then it is an abuse of these forums for which you should feel legitimate guilt. If you did not intend to cry for help then you simply would not feel guilty and that should be all the information you need.

“a mood always exists when two or more individuals communicate”

There are good moods and bad moods. You based your description of the mood as calm and enjoyable on your feelings but not on mine. Since I have given you no indication of how I feel you can only be presuming and that is why I called it presumptuous. Telling me what you felt would be a much more honest contribution than presuming to know what I felt.

Dear phanto,

<<Futile to you perhaps but not necessarily futile to others who may be observing your responses.>>

But still the contradiction remains, suggesting that you cannot fulfil my request.

<<It is not futile to suggest that the reason for less women on OLO is the prevalence of emotional immaturity by posters such as yourself and to give an example of that immaturity.>>

Indeed. However, you have not yet provided any reason to believe that I am emotionally immature. Citing examples should not be too hard.

<<Of course I would not expect you to agree that it is a good example since to do so would require a level of integrity which I do not think you possess.>>

Would you be so kind as to provide some examples demonstrating this lack of integrity on my behalf?

<<If you did not feel guilty then you would have quickly dismissed my claims without needing to know my reasons.>>

I am afraid you are again making hasty assumptions which ignore the other possibilities I have listed. So, again, neither my words nor my actions have suggested that I do not trust my own feelings in this instance.

<<If your intent was to cry for help then it is an abuse of these forums for which you should feel legitimate guilt.>>

Presuming it is an abuse, that is likely, yes.

<<If you did not intend to cry for help then you simply would not feel guilty and that should be all the information you need.>>

This is likely the case, too. However, you have overlooked my point regarding misplaced guilt.

<<You based your description of the mood as calm and enjoyable on your feelings but not on mine.>>

On my perception, yes.

<<Since I have given you no indication of how I feel you can only be presuming and that is why I called it presumptuous.>>

I am sorry you disagreed.

<<Telling me what you felt would be a much more honest contribution than presuming to know what I felt.>>

Indeed, or ‘less-clumsy’. That you cite only the most unfavourable possibility is rather revealing.

//Instead, you should take a deep calming breath and insert an object like a large piece of cardboard between the cats//

Nah, I reckon we should just get phanto spayed. He's probably only acting up because he's on heat, because he has been quite good for quite a while now, and has only quite recently fallen back into his old, unfortunate habit of pretending he can read minds. So I'd say it's just that time of his cycle, which a quick neutering should fix. I've got a couple of spare bricks at my place.

Philips:

“But still the contradiction remains, suggesting that you cannot fulfil my request.”

Where exactly is the contradiction again? Why is it contradictory to not give you reasons if I think it would be futile to do so?

“Citing examples should not be too hard.”

I already cited the example of your behaviour where you have raised an issue that occurred to you some time ago which you should have dealt with at the time to your satisfaction or let it go. Wanting to bring it to the fore again is a cry for help. It is an immature response to an emotional situation of the past.

It was not necessary to raise such an incident in order to promote an argument for the absence of women on OLO. It is enough to generalise about the situation to get your point across. However, you used the opportunity to re-open a situation from which you are obviously still smarting. You were looking for sympathy rather than promoting an argument. If you wanted to use examples you could have used examples which did not occur to you thus avoiding any suggestion that you were crying for help.

When you have other possibilities to advance your argument but choose one that looks like you are trying to elicit sympathy then of course people will determine that you have some kind of axe to grind and need help in order to grind it. This is emotionally immature.

If you were not looking for sympathy then you will not feel guilty about your actions and that is all you need to go by. If you have done nothing wrong then you will not need to explain your actions nor will you need anyone to spell it out for you. Observers will also be able to make up their own minds irrespective of your protestations.

“I am sorry you disagreed. “

Why would you be sorry if it is beyond your control?

Presuming it is an abuse, that is likely, yes. This is likely the case, too. However, you have overlooked my point regarding misplaced guilt. You based your description of the mood as calm and enjoyable on your feelings but not on mine. Fur should be brushed smoothly . Your hand are rough and place me between a rock and a hard place. The contradiction is painful.

Dear phanto,

I should clarify that when I said, “But still the contradiction remains…”, I should have instead said, “But still a contradiction remains”.

<<Where exactly is the contradiction again?>>

The new contradiction exists between your insistence that others are smart enough to make up their own minds without our input, and your suggestion that you are communicating with me for the benefit of others:

“Are you saying that they are too stupid to make such a determination based on the evidence before their own eyes?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7964#246717)

“Futile to you perhaps but not necessarily futile to others who may be observing your responses.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7964#246724)

<<I already cited the example of your behaviour where you have raised an issue that occurred to you some time ago which you should have dealt with at the time to your satisfaction or let it go.>>

Yes. Again, though, you omitted other possibilities in your assessment. Therefore, your example is dubious at best.

<<Wanting to bring it to the fore again is a cry for help.>>

How do you know that it was not frustration? Or that I simply felt that it was relevant at the time? Once again, you have overlooked other possibilities.

<<It was not necessary to raise such an incident …>>

Perhaps. It was, however, relevant to bullying - which I proposed as a reason for the departure of some.

<<However, you used the opportunity to re-open a situation from which you are obviously still smarting.>>

Yes, either that or I felt it had relevance.

<<You were looking for sympathy rather than promoting an argument.>>

Could you please cite your evidence for this claim? Remember to rule out all other possibilities.

<<If you wanted to use examples you could have used examples which did not occur to you ...>>

Indeed, I could have. However, personal experiences are always preferable. Had I used someone else’s experience, you could then have asked how I could have known how that individual perceived what had happened to them.

<<Why would you be sorry if it is beyond your control?>>

Because I feel sympathy.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sorry

Yes a contradiction now does exist which did not exist before my last post. Contradictions in argument are hardly likely to drive women away from the forums but emotional immaturity is.

You say I have ignored other possibilities other than an attempt by you to gain sympathy.

Here are some that you seem to think are possibilities –

“How do you know that it was not frustration? Or that I simply felt that it was relevant at the time?”

Frustration and simply feeling something are both feelings and the forum is not the place to sort out your feelings. It is a place to present arguments in regard to topics of discussion. You could have presented an argument as to why women do not post on OLO without bringing your own personal feelings into the argument. Your feelings are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

“Perhaps. It was, however, relevant to bullying - which I proposed as a reason for the departure of some.”

But we all know what bullying is. There is no need to establish that bullying is a bad thing by giving examples of what bullying is. Even if there was why would you choose personal examples when you run the risk of looking like you are trawling for sympathy? Surely you would want to avoid any ambiguity of purpose.

“Could you please cite your evidence for this claim? Remember to rule out all other possibilities.”

I have just ruled out two possibilities that you have offered. I can’t think of any other possibilities except a cry for help. Perhaps you can tell me some of the other possibilities you have in mind or indeed just tell me why you did what you did?

“However, personal experiences are always preferable.”

Why are they preferable? If they are good examples that illustrate the point and advance the argument then it does not matter that they are not personal. Personal examples always run the risk of being perceived as attempts to gain sympathy.

“Because I feel sympathy.”

I think you are lying.

No I'm not . apologise

Dear phanto,

The contradictions have always been there, unfortunately. I noted two others earlier.

<<Yes a contradiction now does exist which did not exist before my last post.>>

You can shift the focus of your words (between myself and others) or you can alter the meanings of your words/phrases (from time wastage to futility), but no matter which way you frame this, your actions remain contradictory in some way or another because an evasiveness is what is really occurring here.

<<Contradictions in argument are hardly likely to drive women away from the forums but emotional immaturity is.>>

Indubitably.

<<Frustration and simply feeling something are both feelings and the forum is not the place to sort out your feelings.>>

You may have a point with regards to frustration. However, much of our actions are guided by feelings. This cannot be outlawed. The standard you have set here is unreasonable.

<<You could have presented an argument as to why women do not post on OLO without bringing your own personal feelings into the argument.>>

Indeed, I did: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7964#246453

<<Your feelings are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.>>

Indubitably.

<<But we all know what bullying is.>>

Indeed, we do.

<<There is no need to establish that bullying is a bad thing by giving examples of what bullying is.>>

Indeed. However, examples of it on OLO were relevant.

<<Surely you would want to avoid any ambiguity of purpose.>>

That is a good point.

<<I have just ruled out two possibilities that you have offered.>>

Unfortunately, as you should now be able to see, you did not.

<<… or indeed just tell me why you did what you did?>>

To provide examples of bullying on OLO.

<<Personal examples always run the risk of being perceived as attempts to gain sympathy.>>

This is a good point. I shall note it for the future. Thank you.

<<I think you are lying.>>

Why do you communicate with me if you think I am always lying? Perhaps it is only your good self telling untruths here?

//I think you are lying.//

Tuppence! Tuppence to see the Amazing Phanto, the only lie detector in the world worse than polygraphs!

Philips:

“However, much of our actions are guided by feelings. This cannot be outlawed. The standard you have set here is unreasonable.”

Nobody is outlawing anything. Feelings do guide our actions but they should not be substitutes for arguments. You should present an argument why women are not on OLO and not a presentation of your feelings.

“Indeed. However, examples of it on OLO were relevant.”

So you agree with me that bullying is readily understood but you say that examples are relevant. This is a contradiction.

“Unfortunately, as you should now be able to see, you did not.”

No I cannot see.

“To provide examples of bullying on OLO.”

But why provide examples that are open to being interpreted as a cry for help? It would be extremely careless. I do not believe you were so careless and so I can only conclude you were looking for sympathy.

“Why do you communicate with me if you think I am always lying? “

I do not think that you are always lying but I think you tell lies quite often and I am going to say when I think you are lying.

You have not convinced me that you were not looking for sympathy and I think it is unlikely that you will be able to do so. There is no point in this discussion for me any longer. Others can draw their own conclusions.

Dear phanto,

That was a figure of speech.

<<Nobody is outlawing anything.>>

Nobody has to be.

<<Feelings do guide our actions but they should not be substitutes for arguments.>>

Absolutely.

<<You should present an argument why women are not on OLO and not a presentation of your feelings.>>

Indubitably. That is precisely what I did.

<<So you agree with me that bullying is readily understood but you say that examples are relevant.>>

Correct.

<<This is a contradiction.>>

Not at all. Examples can help bring clarity to a situation.

<<No I cannot see.>>

Please re-read my last post then. I will be happy to clarify anything that you are not sure about.

<<But why provide examples that are open to being interpreted as a cry for help?>>

Because not all are so obtuse.

<<I do not believe you were so careless and so I can only conclude you were looking for sympathy.>>

Thank you, but my points bore relevance, so any carelessness was inconsequential.

<<You have not convinced me that you were not looking for sympathy and I think it is unlikely that you will be able to do so.>>

Unfortunately for your good self, it is not I who bares the burden of proof on that one. The burden of proof still rests with yourself.

<<There is no point in this discussion for me any longer.>>

That is a shame. Thank you for the discussion. As usual, it was thoroughly enjoyable, and I look forward to our next.