Toni,

"I believe dogs are better than cats."

But not to eat, or so says my Chinese takeaway.

//The rule is simple. You are only describing and defining your own views. This means no counter arguments or why you disagree with someone else.//

Sir, sir, AJ's being naughty! He's criticising my beliefs, sir. You said we wasn't allowed to do that. Make him stop criticising my beliefs, sir!

//Is there any reason why people who order their steak 'well done' can't instead just be required to order the chicken?//

Well, as long as the chicken comes with a side order of compulsory sterilisation I suppose that should be fine.

//Sorry, Toni. I didn't mean to "rubbish" you.//

I rather fail to see the point of OLO without people 'rubbishing' each other. It would get very dull if everybody just agreed with each other all the time. Still, doesn't hurt to mix things up in a while.

I believe that mischievous gnomes sometimes move my keys when I'm not looking.

Sir, sir, now Is Mise is criticising my beliefs! Make them stop, sir!

After all, it's only an online "opinion". So why is it that some here insist on references, peer reviewed data and a signed letter from the Pope before the comment (opinion) is valid on this site?

O Sung Wu, Hasbeeen, Joe, Foxy, Shadow Minister and many of the other usual suspects have been gracing the pages for years now and I wonder where Mr Young is taking this, if at all, for it has had a varied cast of posters (& imposters BTW) along the way. It has and continues to be, an interesting commentary on many subjects.

The trolls are on & off with different agendas, some morph into yet another User name and carry on.

Whoever you are, thank you for your "views", weird, twisted, out there and otherwise sane as they may be.

AMID.

Albie Manton,

It depends on whether something is voiced as a claim or as mere opinion, and, in the case of the former, how trivial or extraordinary the claim is.

<<… it's only an online "opinion". So why is it that some here insist on references, peer reviewed data and a signed letter from the Pope before the comment (opinion) is valid on this site?>>

When one makes a claim, one takes on a burden of proof. Whether one wants to fulfil that burden of proof is ultimately up to the individual, but there is nothing unreasonable about requesting evidence or reasoning for a given claim, and others are within their rights to do so without being accused of trolling or having others insist that they too be foolish enough to take on a burden of proof they may not be able to fulfil.

Some claims align more closely with the facts than others. There’s no harm in determining which ones they are, and doing so only becomes inappropriate when the individual voicing their opinion has already acknowledged that they have no evidence or sound reasoning for their opinion.

To Toni. Good Job on getting the point of the challenge. Write about something you believe in. Sorry not going to police any of this. (Even if you were serious). If anyone starts a fuss, but refuses to offer anything tangible that they believe or support, then their view is like a person who refuses to vote but complains about the results.

To Paul. You almost had it. But instead of saying what you believe in, you said what you don't believe in. Don't make it complicated, it's simple really. Say something you support. For instance saying you are against the labor party is misses the point, but saying you support the choice of abortion (or whatever else) says what you are for. It's that simple. The point is that people debate everything under the sun. But if they have nothing to offer that they support all they have is a ripping of other people's views, with nothing to offer on their own.

To Nathan. Good idea. Just have more people start discussions of their own. I like it.