Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

One could ask whether comments that contain such subjective words as dumb, infantile, immature, uneducated, and contain deliberate ridicule of belief, when addressed to a known religious person on the site, constitutes sneering, even criticism of that person. I have even seen it implied that believers are mentally ill. Further when such type remarks/words are used obliquely in a clear attempt to sting a person due to their religious belief why that would be let through, when such is not acceptable if referring to race, sexuality, ethnicity etc? (Your editorial policy, which I note includes religion in that clause.)

As probably one of the few believers on the site whenever I enter a discusssion on religion these are the tactics used by some when responding to me. Now as a pretty together sort of person and comfortable in my beliefs, it is not something I want to make an issue over, but you might like to consider whether such tactics would drive others from the site or turn them off it. I actually see those who need to do this as having some sort of personal problem themselves but many believers would take it personally, particularly those who come to belief through some crisis in their life, and who have a desperate need to believe irrespective as to whether that is seen by some as irrational. They can be very vulnerable people. For them to come to this site and have that sort of stuff directed at them if they entered the discussion, would not make it a safe site for them.

There is not a person in my wide circle who has ridiculed my beliefs even though I know some are not believers themselves. And I do not ridicule their atheism. That is the mark of tolerance in a civilised society. Is tolerance not one of our agreed values?

An objective discussion of religion and religious belief should be possible without oblique or implied criticism/questioning of a believer's intellect or sanity.

I am not sure that ridiculing a believer, even obliquely by means of ridiculing their beliefs, is not as bad as ridiculing a person on the basis of their race, sexuality etc which is why I guess it is included in your editorial guidelines.

I suspect most moderators by their own comments are not particularly religious folk, so maybe this is just something you never really thought much about.  

Food for thought as I said. Maybe Margo has an opinion.

Margo: Jenny, as I wrote last month, let's be nice to each other this year. For something completely different. Especially on this one, eh?

Here is some of the listener feedback regarding Virginia Triolli’s Middle East forum last Friday.

“Congratulations on your Middle East Forum. Seldom have I heard such a well balanced, informative session on Radio. If only we could all learn to listen to each other and foster understanding, the world would have to become a better place!” “The effort Virginia went to [to] maintain respectful dialogue between guests, and audience members, of widely differing viewpoints was obvious, and the work she did to forcefully, but respectfully, nip inflammatory rhetoric in the bud was masterful”.

To hear the forum go here.

What is clearly demonstrated is that debate does not require abuse and insult, and other forms of personal attack, to be robust. The problem with unrelenting personal attack is that it disrupts the exploration and spread of ideas. Roslyn, I disagree with you about ignoring personal attack. By ignoring it, it will not stop. If there is no response the personal attack will often escalate until the recipient is worn down or responds in a way they would have preferred not to. And Jenny, I agree with you about the futility of tit-for-tat. But that doesn’t mean not responding. Personal attack needs to be responded to. To expose it, explain the damage it causes and to argue for an end to it. Why is the exploration and spread of ideas important? We live in a democracy. Now, I don’t have a great deal of respect for democracy but it’s the best of a bunch of even worse alternatives. It is the tyranny of the majority. But if I’m going to be tyrannized I would prefer it to be by the collective citizenry than by gods, kings/queens, dictators or groups of elite.

So, I figure that if the collective citizenry is going to make decisions that majorly impact on my life, then the least I can expect, and demand, is that they are adequately informed. So, I make the case for an environment that is conducive to the exploration and spread of ideas.

Angela Ryan, “Hi James.I understand your concern. You want to be treated with repect by persons replying or discussing what you have written even if they disagree?”

Hi Angela. No, not exactly. See next response.

AR, “You feel that name calling, words/terms paragraphs that insult or denigrate either you or you views are not respectful,no matter how humourous or witty, or how much clever cover there was for the real meaning. Is that an accurate summary?”.

Not quite. Wit, satire, parody etc. can, and should, be effectively used to make very important points. But its the endless name calling and other forms of intentional, gratuitous, personal attacks and provocations that I think are not helpful to the exploration and spread of ideas. In fact, I have little doubt that such behaviour is often a response to the fear that a particular idea will take hold or spread.

AR, “... I do think that was the original intention for all by Margo and Hamish.This encourages people to speak their true views without fear”.

This is an excellent point you make, Angela. And the question for the moderators is what kind of environment will make people feel safe to speak their true views without fear.

I happened to listen to Virginia Triolli’s morning program on the ABC last Friday. She devoted the entire 2.5 hrs. to a discussion of the current situation in the middle east. She moderated the discussion very well, kept the grandstanders and loud-mouths under control and protected her guests from abuse. One young-sounding girl started off by laughingly saying that she’ll probably get abused for her views. I can’t remember Virginia’s response exactly but it was something like, “Not on my program you won’t!”. And good on her. She invites guests onto her program and she takes responsibility for protecting them. I think this is something the moderators of webdiary should think more seriously about. They invite guests onto their forum and I think they should actively ensure that their guests are not the victims of abuse or unrelenting, gratuitous, personal attack.

AR, “Having been on the receiving end of some rather nasty personal attacks here,I can understand what James is on about”.

I’m sorry that happened to you. It’s kind of cowardly to insult people from the safety of behind one’s computer.

AR, “I think James ,that what made me immune...”..

Maybe it’s not so good that you have become immune. Remember, the world is what we make it. And public discourse can be what we expect it to be and what we demand it to be.

And if enough contributors to webdiary start demanding an end to abuse and unrelenting, gratuitous, personal attack then that’s exactly what we may get.

AR, “An attack by one whom I respect would be hard to take and something that would make me really take note and rethink the opinion I had”.

Then you’ll be allowing yourself to be swayed by a variant of the fallacious argument known as “The Appeal to Authority”. See here for other fallacious arguments.

There were some excellent “verbalists” (as you say) on webdiary over the year or so that I was contributing (till towards the end of last year). Many have gone. Perhaps they were just tired of the mean-spirited atmosphere one not infrequently finds here.

I liked this page. It says so much really. James you might like to read this and see if it makes you laugh a little.

Richard, “ My grandmother would've used a straw broom or a bucket of water on both of you two.. grown men and all ... Sigh”

I’m sorry Malcolm B. Duncan referred to your head as “dicky”, especially after you gave him a winking smiley, but what’s that got to do with me?

Malcolm B. Duncan, “As for elitism, I'm from the Leonie Kramer School - all for it -..."

From dictionary.com, Elitism: “ The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources”.

Do you believe you deserve favoured treatment? If so, based on which criteria?

On webdiary, what form would you like to see that favoured treatment toward you take?

You didn’t answer these questions earlier. Why don’t you tell us your answer to these questions?

Richard:  Gran ran a bar full of wharfies and meatworkers, who would stop squabbling when the broom came out.  How do we get you to to shake hands and "be friends" ?  

As for my "dicky head", well, when you have a name like mine you hear that joke every now and again, year after year after year... 

Malcolm B. Duncan, “Oooooh, yes please. Rules and lots of them. Rules are so much easier to subvert than guidelines - do it for a living and I've never been averse to mixing work and pleasure (ask anyone I've cross-examined)”.

The rules i am specifically referring to are those against personal insult/abuse towards other contributors on Webdiary.
Why do you want to personally insult/abuse others? What purpose does it serve a) to the argument at hand and b) to yourself personally?

Malcolm B. Duncan, “Well, that would make for lively debate wouldn't it? Possibly we could be polite by all agreeing to disagree and not post anything: Riveting”.

When the arguments have all been made and there is still disagreement, what else is left to do? Abuse/insult the others for disagreeing, in the hope they will be shamed/ humiliated/
intimidated/pressured into agreeing or leaving the forum? It’s a common enough technique in the public arena, as on webdiary, but I see no point or value in it.

Considering the grand mystery of it all it seems to me that what the elites know is equivalent to infinitely less than a piss in the atlantic. But there are very powerful psychological mechanisms in place that compel them to believe otherwise, and that manipulate and convince others into trusting them.

Richard:  My grandmother would've used a straw broom or a bucket of water on both of you two..  grown men and all ... sigh. 

Moderators, David Roffey said, "Following specific complaints, comments that refer to other Webdiarists by nickname or any other name than that which they use themselves will also not be published".

Malcolm B. Duncan has twice referred to me as "The Govett Person". Why is this being allowed? It occurred on this thread at July 10, 2006 - 5:37pm and at July 5, 2006 - 1:22pm.

Richard:  My fault, I'm afraid, as I'd considered the expression borderline and let it through.  However now that you've raised your objection no doubt it won't be used again.   Apologies, James !
 

Thank you for sharing human moments with us, Malcolm. That was a nice counterpoint to the thrust and parry of the political journey.

David R, “don't see any meaningful distinction [between rules and guidelines]...”

If you call them rules it demonstrates how much you value them. And people are more likely to adhere to rules than guidelines (isn’t that what you want?-otherwise why have either rules or guidelines). And if they do, this provides greater safety for your guests.

David R, “- the problems are always caused by the comments that skirt the edge of the rules/guidelines.......”.

I think the problems are caused by a very few contributors who, for reasons that elude me, want to continually incorporate personal insults into their contributions and are constantly testing the guidelines so that they can do so.

David R, “we hope for courtesy, but cannot enforce it and still keep robust debate.....”

What is robust debate anyway?

David R, “..let's face it, most of the criticism we get is for the comments we don't allow, not for the ones we do ...”.

So, how long does it take to cut and paste a standard response that...”your contribution was not published because of unprovoked, unrelenting discourtesy and personal insult”?

David R, “if we went to lengths of DNPing sarcasm, as you suggested elsewhere, I'm not sure we'd be publishing much at all ...”.

I have not at all suggested that sarcasm not be published. Please quote back to me where i have suggested that.

David R, “Following specific complaints, comments that refer to other Webdiarists by nickname or any other name than that which they use themselves will also not be published”.

So, why are you publishing comments referring to me as “the Govett person”?

Jenny Hume, “... I'd better let this thread get back to its point of putting us all to rights! Hard job, controlling this mob I would think. Cheers”.

Maybe not so hard. Where there’s a will etc. I wondered whether the ABC would be up to the challenge of providing a a popular, quality, intelligent forum in a friendly, safe environment for those who value the civil exploration of ideas. And though it doesn’t run an overall forum like this one, it runs and moderates many smaller, individual forums.

Looking at the mediawatch guestbook they have rules not guidelines and here are their conditions of use, part of which states, “While encouraging vigorous debate, we expect all participants to treat each other with respect and courtesy”, and “ Your contribution may be edited, removed or not published if the ABC considers it to be: of nuisance value, inappropriate, off topic or vexatious. For example the ABC reserves the right to reject contributions that have been widely canvassed in the forum. It also reserves the right to reject contributions from participants who seek to dominate the discussion”.

Some questions for the moderators (and anyone else interested):

1. Why don’t you change (at least some of) the guidelines into rules? What do you see as the disadvantages of doing so?

David R: don't see any meaningful distinction - the problems are always caused by the comments that skirt the edge of the rules/guidelines, and if it's stated as a firm rule and what is written does not technically quite breach it, there are the same arguments (if not even less useful ones).

2. Why don’t you expect, and ensure, that all participants treat each other with respect and courtesy? What do you see as the disadvantages of doing so?

David R: we hope for courtesy, but cannot enforce it and still keep robust debate - let's face it, most of the criticism we get is for the comments we don't allow, not for the ones we do ...

3. Why do you publish contributions that you consider to be vexatious or of nuisance value or from participants who seek to dominate the forum? What do you see as the disadvantages of not doing so?

David R: see all previous debates on moderation ad nauseam: our preference is to publish as much as possible: if we went to lengths of DNPing sarcasm, as you suggested elsewhere, I'm not sure we'd be publishing much at all ...

At risk (what the hell – this thread is already way off topic – in certain respects, that is – in others, given that it has to do with people responding to people; and of breaching every editorial guideline (hey, does this mean that I get demobbed?)), I shall respond in approximately reverse date order, with apologies for not having responded earlier (please forgive me – a stint in the NT, plus trying to catch up with everything once back home).

Chris Shaw: What better guide to life – and Eng Lit – than PL Travers? Besides, I’m sure that Mary Poppins taught you a whole lot about how to be truly civilized.

Trevor Kerr: Thank you for the reference to Going binocular. Fascinating. However, I’m not convinced yet that giving up my status of permanent double vision (which, actually, does allow depth vision with considerable accuracy) unless I’m guaranteed something better. Meanwhile, here’s looking at you twice.

Angela Ryan: Thank you for your kind words (re wit and erudition). I just wish I had your passion and energy.

Jenny Hume, “James Govett: I think written debate will always have a lot of shortcomings and it would be hard to strike a balance on any site that would keep everyone happy, and at the same time keep debate alive, interesting and spirited”.

Jenny, I have only argued that personal abuse and unrelenting insult, discourtesy and dishonest debating should be done away with. Unless i’m misreading you, are you suggesting that a forum can’t be alive, interesting and spirited without them?

JH, “While some threads do get off the track, that is not always a bad thing as new areas of discussion open up, as in any conversation between people”.

I was referring more specifically to threads getting side-tracked and deteriorating into endless days of exchanges of personal insult. However, there are certain subjects that seem to pop up just about anywhere e.g. asylum seekers, Howard/Bush bashing. And i suppose that might be OK if at least something new was said but its the same old rhetoric.

JH, “The personalities behind the writing can never truly be known but they will be as varied and complex as life itself. Some people you will feel comfortable engaging with, others not, as is true in life generally”.

Quite right. And in those circumstances, if a point needs to be made, i find it preferable to not engage with the person, just their argument.

JH, “But that is life. We all have our idiosyncracies, but that does not make us idiots”.

Just look around at this aching, broken world we live in. For all the rhetoric of the elites who run it wisdom constantly eludes them.

Richard, “Maybe another editor will try to make more sense of this than randomly whacking in some paragraph breaks. James, you could make life a little easier in other aspects than in semantics. No offence meant,but pleeeease ?”

Sorry Richard, i’m not following you. What offence? I don’t understand your specific concern/criticism.

David R, “The extent to which we've tightened up is essentially to simply not publish a post if contains anything abusive, rather than editing it .....”

David, this seems like a good idea and had it been implemented way back maybe Margo might still be around.

David R, “...this being, as it were, the nuclear option, I'm not inclined to apply it to expressions such as 'old chap', which isn't quite in the same category as 'dickhead' ... “

No, it’s not, but the unrelenting use of minor discourtesies can be successfully used to the same effect as abuse. To provoke the recipient into a personal tit-for-tat, thus often derailing the discussion at hand.  The internet equivalent of standing in front of someone you are talking to and poking him in the ribs every 5 minutes.

I think to focus only on what’s clearly abusive, remove that, and leave the rest is inadequate. If you look at the many threads that have gone off the rails in the last few weeks I think you will find there are many, many techniques, some subtle, some not so subtle, individuals use to try and steer a discussion (sometimes consciously, sometimes not) into chaos.

I think what needs to be asked is what is the major focus, because if it’s the civil, full exploration of the topic at hand, then I think more needs to be done than just not publishing posts containing abusive comment. 

At times, there will need to be constant intervention in a discussion, actively steering the discussion back on track when needed and ensuring that none of the guidelines (including those to do with honest debating-see Jenny Humes’ post) are being repeatedly violated.

Gareth Eastwood, “ James Govett, are you really incapable of defending yourself?”

Yes, I am. Only the moderators, who determine what gets published and what doesn’t, can defend one contributor from another’s insult/abuse. But if you mean am I incapable of retaliating, then no, I am not.

But that’s not why I’m here. I have no interest in retaliating and largely consider it a waste of time. Not to mention disruptive to the discussion and, as such, an insult to the many who clearly spend a good deal of time producing intelligent, well researched contributions.

GE, “Do you always rely on third party intervention for even the most minor perceived injustice?”

No, not always. But if the “minor perceived injustice” is part of a systematic attempt to provoke myself, or other contributors, and thus disrupt discussion, then yes.

GE, “Surely WD moderator time should not be tied up vetting every single post for any possible hint of offence or insult”.

See previous comment. I think it would be time well spent.

GE, “If we can’t call someone ‘old chap’, does this mean ‘mate’ should be banned as well? What about ‘buddy’, ‘dude’, ‘cobber’, ‘pal’ and so on?”.

If you are on good terms with another contributor and the reference to “buddy” or “chap” is understood by both to be good natured humour then it’s not a problem and is none of my business.

Otherwise, I think it is inappropriate to refer to someone by other than their name. And I think this should be one of the guidelines on webdiary ( I don’t seem to see it there) and one that the moderators should most rigorously enforce.

Jenny Hume, “James Govett: I for one, actually take you seriously.......”

Jenny, thanks for that. I clearly seem to take this issue more seriously than most and hopefully my responses to some of your comments might help to further explain why.

JH, “We do not want to be like those other sites............”

No, I think that would be such an insult to margo, to those who run webdiary and its many courteous, articulate and well-informed contributors.

JH, “WD is by far the best in terms of content and level of intellectual engagement.....”

Yes, it seems to be. But it could be so much better. I guess it can be anything the owners want it to be.

Most of the internet fora are poorly moderated (if at all) and are merely (and often worse than) the written/internet equivalent of commercial talkback, i.e. rubbish.

Webdiary has some very good content and has great potential but I find it ultimately unsatisfying because there has consistently been (at least since I started contributing back in early ‘05) inadequate control of those who like to try and intimidate, insult, provoke and dominate the forum, thus derailing the discussion.

JH, “While you may think I was joking, my U rules do in fact contain all of the basic rules as laid out in the guidelines and now enforced, with a few added just for fun, but generally most of them are serious if you read them closely!”.

No, I didn’t think you were joking. And you clearly adhere to them yourself. As do many, perhaps even most.

JH, “Can I suggest you just engage on the issues that interest you with others on the site, (as you may have a lot to say that is worthwhile for others to hear) and don't let Malcom B Duncan get to you!”.

I probably won’t be hanging around for 2 reasons, 1. Why would i want to remain in a situation where I will not be fully protected from unrelenting insult and contempt etc.? and 2. What I value most, the civil exploration and spread of ideas, can not occur (and clearly does not occur, see how many discussions are derailed) in the current atmosphere on webdiary.

JH, “But while I swipe back a bit, it does not really bother me what they all think. Nor do I see it as a reflection of my intellect, though the responses I got might suggest otherwise! I know how smart, or dumb I am”.

Of course, but unlike you, many get suckered into the psychological mind games, tit-for-tats and banging together of hairy chests and, after days (sometimes weeks) of this the ultimate victim is usually, and sadly, the subject at hand.

JH, “......The former has led some to say I sound fun. I am not fun in my view. That is a mask. My life has in fact been anything but fun, but I believe in.......etc., etc”

I really enjoyed those last few paragraphs Jenny. Thanks for that and I appreciate the valuable philosophy contained in them. And I don’t disagree with you.

But don’t forget that the world is what we make it. Webdiary can be whatever the owners want it to be and I am arguing for what it can be. I hope there will eventually be a popular, quality, intelligent forum in a friendly, safe environment for those who value the civil exploration of ideas. Webdiary is well positioned to become that forum. But maybe the ABC will get in first!

Richard: Maybe another editor will try to make more sense of this than randomly whacking in some paragraph breaks.   James, you could make life a little easier in other aspects than in  semantics.  No offence meant,but pleeeease ?

Jenny: Pleased to hear from another Goulburnian - my ancestors (the McKerrell's) moved there from Campbelltown in Scotland sometime in the early 1800's, with my family finally breaking the bond for the bright lights of Canberra in 1975.  I'd always thought that if Australia was a living organism then Goulburn is a perfect representation of the waste clearing end of the digestive system.

I've closed the circle by moving to Scotland and after making a visit to Campbelltown I understand why they thought Goulburn would be a fine place to settle.  Scots are proud as can be of their stoic resistance to crap weather and Campbelltoonians have the crappiest weather of all.  Anyone who has ever been to Goulburn can imagine the attraction for a dour Scot!

Malcolm B Duncan: Slag you, old chap? Never! Though some ores do reduce to produce some precious stuff you know. Slag as in its other meaning? I'm too much of a lady. Old chap OK? Not really. More a man's expression, really. So let it just be Malcolm.

Now. My point to James Govett was really, if he felt put down or whatever, it would be better to just move on. He seems to have got himself a bit worked up over you, and his sense of being offended by you seems to have rather set in. Now that's a term you never hear these days, do you? But anyway, he'll survive, and the rules as I say have got us all pretty trussed up, so all feelings well protected now!

But I find it silly for anyone to get worked up about such things as elitism. If one's own self image and esteem are healthy, what matter what other people are, or might think they are, or what they might think you are, or are not. Who cares really?

As for IQ, idiots and morons. of course IQ tests have validity. I know that. But back in our juvenile days we did treat them as a bit of a joke, so I doubt they measured very accurately as a result. And I would think testing has come on quite a bit since the 50s. I would not have a clue what my IQ was back then (and I am sure it is declining now!) but I do not think I was anything out of the ordinary. Hard to say as my childhood was so stuffed up and we were so poor I was more concerned about bigger issues than that damned English poet they tried to ram down my neck. I was just happy if I could matriculate and I did.

But Uni was out of the question. At 24, I finally borrowed the dough from the bank for first year, and then worked like hell to get a National Undergrad scholarship for the remaining three years. I achieved very highly in the end, but I suspect more from hard work than any underlying above average intellect. I had friends who were very bright, but never worked and they just scraped through.

Academic achievement is one thing. I studied several languages but never used them much. What I found most useful in life was the skill of being able to research available information, no matter how technical or complex, gets one's mind around it, and then argue a case. That skill I started developing from around 14, and it was developed out of sheer necessity as there was never the money to pay experts. Eg. When the RTA wanted to put the Hume Highway through our property without proper compensation; or arguing with the economists in the Rural Reconstruction Board over debt reconstruction proposals; or writing an 18 page summary for a former Chief Justice of a complex legal case involving a deceased estate. I guess I was the family trouble shooter for thirty years, and I never failed to get the outcome I sought. Yet I think I am probably only average IQ. So IQ is not everything in my view.

As you say motivation is important. But so also is the emotional balance/health of the person/child. I read extensively some years ago about the suicide rates amongst gifted children and it is quite high. The kid in our family with the IQ 160 is very finely balanced and that is a real worry.

I would be interested to know the level of IQ in artistically gifted people such as musicians. I must do a bit of research on this sometime.

Yes. have met and had to work with many people in my life who would no doubt, if measured, be found to have quite low IQs, though these days so many kids cook their brains with dope, who knows what their true mental capacities really are? Farmhands we had over the years, sent to us by the dole office, were totally useless in most cases. One persevered with them, but they did the most stupid things, and rarely lasted more than a few weeks. But workers out here, dumb or otherwise are just not to be found any more. That is one of the reasons so many are selling out and the greatest drift of rural population to urban areas is from the NSW and Victorian sheep wheat belts and that process is accelerating. The Government, I suspect, does not care.

Moron and idiot. Yes. That defined people of low intellect, usually those born with intellectual dysfunction/disability, and they are generally unemployable other than in shelter workshops. But as you know the terms are loosely used, and context is everything. We all know they can and do offend when inappropriately used.

Anyway, another day gone, too dog tired tonight to swat a fly, let alone you, and no dinner on. But I've done more than my bit for the environment today. Upgraded the lodgings of at least three goannas. I told them it's all about location location. No need to slum it under a gall burr plant.

Water on the agenda? About time. But see the kerfuffle in Qld?

I think the NSW State Government should look closely at those big turkey nest dams the cotton growers have built and irrigation licences generally. The river systems are far too stressed to sustain the current level of extraction IMHO.

Another issue I am very concerned about and I might put up for discussion here sometime relates to the NSW Office of the Protective Commissioner. My advice to anyone thinking of putting a relative's financial affairs under the management of that Office is: Don't. But that is for another day.

Cheers Malcolm B D. At a stretch MBD could also be Malcolm: Bachelor of Divinity.

Jenny Hume, the young lady, laid out the old one about “cry and you cry alone.” But there was a wise woman last century who often rhymed: “if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride; and if turnips were watches, I’d wear one by my side.” It had the burnt, crackly salt-mutton, busted meter flavour about it of Queensland’s Famine refugee pioneer Micks and their many hardships, but it was good for Bib and Bub Menzies’ fifties, too.

She also reckoned, in another, choppier, sassier meter: “Love many, trust few, always paddle ya own canoe.” That one probably came straight out of Cloudland Ballroom, circa 1946, and most definitely has the tang of the Curtin-Chifley era Yanks about it. They rhymed verything, and did it with Swing.

The Yanks were very popular in those days, when they had freshly fought against fascism and won. Their subs were in the Kangaroo Point reach, upstream from the Story Bridge, just near Water Transport and Small Ships Coy, and just by South Brisbane’s Jim Crow pubs. Mustangs and other fighter aircraft were in the skies. Occasionally they playfully zipped under and over the big bridges, even the highly dangerous, low and jungled Indooroopilly, then downstream to the William Jolly (Grey Street), and then the Victoria with its toastracks scuttling over to Queen Street at North Quay. Finally the pilots might roll like the game little rats they were, and do the big steel bugger linking the Pineapple in Main Street to the Royal George and the Empire in The Valley.

Australians, too, were allowed to fight fascism in those days. And they were even allowed to organise, and go on strike if a lumpy boss was too crook. It’s all different now, in Big Brother’s sludgy decade spanning the poisonous turn of the century. We are all fascists now. But don’t cry about it. It only encourages the swarms of money hungry turd-headed little bludger rodents to redouble their efforts. Just keep paddling that canoe, and pull that turnip out of the fob from time to time.

Jack Woodforde is a Kazakh irregular cavalryman, a full colonel in the KGB andf ighting the neoConga line of fascist militarism on many windswept fronts, and using the mandatory Daikyo-Koizumi occupation currency to assist with field ablutions behind many a burning Bushi-Bushi. The latter act should be considered one of terrorism by those “acting in the best interest of the Australian People,” ie, “the neoConga line of fascist, etc."

 

James Govett, are you really incapable of defending yourself? Do you always rely on third party intervention for even the most minor perceived injustice? Surely WD moderator time should not be tied up vetting every single post for any possible hint of offence or insult. If we can’t call someone ‘old chap’, does this mean ‘mate’ should be banned as well? What about ‘buddy’, ‘dude’, ‘cobber’, ‘pal’ and so on?

Malcolm B. Duncan, “ Sorry, James Govett, old chap.......”.

Well, this insult/sarcasm is about as tedious and pedestrian as the rest but you have come a long way from the days of idiots and dickheads.

Moderators, perhaps it’s time for some feedback from you as to what we can expect in future. Will discourtesies like “old chap” be entertained? Will you be publishing endless offerings of smart-arse comments/replies?

Personally, I (and I suspect others) would not wish to participate in a forum where I am subjected to an endless stream of insult and sarcasm. The guidelines are, I think, probably clear enough but I’d like to know your intentions as to how rigorously you will ensure they are adhered to.

David R: The extent to which we've tightened up is essentially to simply not publish a post if contains anything abusive, rather than editing it ... this being, as it were, the nuclear option, I'm not inclined to apply it to expressions such as 'old chap', which isn't quite in the same category as 'dickhead' ... I'm also disinclined to make firm rulings on what is and isn't OK, because that way lies casuistry: we may not always be able to describe it, but we know it when we see it ...

G'day WD moderators.

Firstly, thanks for your efforts.

Secondly, can I have a few definitive rulings, please?

1. Highlighting. I like to emphasize selected words, to direct attention to what I consider to be key aspects.

So, which if any of these are allowed, and can a consistent ruling be made? I ask because it is tiresome to build in highlighting mark-ups, only to have them eliminated, as happened more than once recently. Doubles the work (mine *and* yours), decreases incentive - and info gets lost.

Sample: 'text'.

Possible highlights:

*text*
text
text
text
text

2. Links:

There's a difference between links, as in this:
"Quoted text"
[no-where]

In the [latter] case, one can more easily *see* where the link comes from (i.e. 'no-where'), as distinct from the anonymous 'this'.

3. The 'blockquote' construct. A bit tiresome; I've been using 'simple' italics. Do you wish to comment, or make a ruling?

-=*=-

I respect your right to edit as you please, but I disagree (strongly!) with destroying information or wasting effort. Consistency would be nice.

Thanks in advance.

David R: we tend to only use <em> for highlighting - which mostly translates to italic, but underlining is also OK, and <strong> for names - which mostly translates to bold. Indenting paras as quotes automatically gets them italicised in the WD stylesheet. If you have a look at "How to Comment", there are some other guides there.

On a more specifc point, we generally don't bother to remove most style marks of the sort you quote, with the following extremely important (and common) exception: if you generated your text in Word - particularly the most recent versions - and copied it into the comment box, it may well have been filled up with complex HTML that overrides all the WD style sheet - eg "<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt -63pt; text-indent: 135pt; FONT-FAMILY: "TimesNewRoman"">" - if it has, sometimes the only straightforward way to start the edit is to press the handy eraser button at the right to remove all the formatting, then start again ...