Well, you could make the users take an IQ test before posting comments on your blog. IQ < 95 access denied. hah.”

_ should both major political parties insist on IQ testing of all voters before being issued with a voting document?
;) IQ testing the delegates of a particular major political party before allowing them to elect party officals may not be such a bad idea after all.
;)

(Daphne – Those are the lost causes. They are almost always determined to vote Labour.)

So how to you plan to remedy the situation? After all, Democracy also gives voting rights to all citizens over eighteen including those whose opinion really should not be considered. Everyone may have the vote but not everyone knows how to use it wisely.

Well, you could make the users take an IQ test before posting comments on your blog. IQ < 95 access denied. hah.

Yes, by all means, you have absolute control over your blog as long as the concept of a blog (to allow people to read and comment about your thoughts) is not warped. If cretins post, you can (in Maltese it sounds better) “twaqqahhom ghan-nejk”. I’m sure you enjoy that. I prefer to explain to them (I know it can be futile most of the time, but I still try) my point of view. Issa, if they still refuse to stop being cretins, they can go to hell.

P.S. No matter where you go you will always find undesirables (in some form or another).

[Daphne – Yes, exactly, and that’s why it’s important to avoid them wherever possible. The essential point you miss is that people congregate in groups, including on the Internet. It’s a virtual version of special interest groupings and social clubs. Lots of people with a low IQ are very interesting; lots of people with a high IQ are boring and unpleasant. It all depends on how you present yourself. That’s why rational thinking and the presentation of arguments are such an important (and sorely lacking) part of the school curriculum and university education. There are some who believe – as I do – that they are in fact the essential main purposes of education.]

Everybody has a right to speak his/her mind. Issa, if you don’t agree with them you do not try to stifle them, or make their life hell and try to lock them up in prison. It will never work. You’d rather counter them with an argument of your own. If you try to act against them, you’ll be seen as not having found a way to make a good argument against them. Thus they’ll win the argument automatically.

If a person writes thoughts that to you are ‘crazy’ or ‘nutcase’, it doesn’t mean that he or she is not right. Rather, you need to analyse what this person is REALLY saying (in between the lines) and verify is this person is REALLY crazy.

There are thousands of people which were considered crazy because they stated simple, plain, proven facts. Socrates, Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin, Jesus Christ, Francis of Assisi, William Wallace. Need I go on? Today these people’s ideas are preached and generally accepted. In their day, they have been mocked and vilified and sent to their death. People fear the unknown. People fear new ideas. Always has been, always will be (unfortunately).

[Daphne – At this late stage in the development of humanity, there are some people (lots, actually) who can distinguish between an incipient or nascent Galilei or Darwin and a perambulating cretin with a laptop. Nobody is talking about censorship – read my remarks again – but about quality control by the owners and managers of internet forums and discussion sites. If you own something you have every right to control it as you deem fit, in your own interests. Newspapers are not obliged to publish every bit of rubbish they get sent (though it seems they do publish rather a lot of it). The right to free speech applies TO YOUR OWN RIGHT TO PUBLISH WHAT YOU WANT AS LONG AS IT IS NOT LIBELLOUS, AND TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT AS LONG AS IT IS NOT SLANDEROUS. This means you are free to publish your own pamphlets, a very popular means of communication in the 18th and 19th century, and distribute them. It does not mean you have free access to other people’s publications and forums for the exposure of your views – a free ride on somebody else’s back. As you said, the internet is free. There is nothing to stop said cretin with a laptop from setting up his own blog and telling the world what he thinks – just as this particular cretin has done, not to put too fine a point on it. If he is incapable of setting up his own blog or forum, then he’s probably incapable of having an opinion worth telling us about. Internet forums work like bars: the minute the undesirables get in, the desirables buzz off. That is precisely what has happened already with the comments-boards in The Times. Another point is that this is my patch: if I think somebody is having a negative effect on the overall draw of the site, I can delete his comments and send him to hell. I am not going to have some twerp or idiot erode the results of something in which I have invested a good deal of time and even some money. Oh, and something else – it is not computer science students or graduates who are competent to discuss the principles of civil liberties and free speech, no more than the printer who works the machines down in the guts of newspaper offices is equipped to do so. There are other matters you should read about, beyond the workings of a computer, before you can speak with confidence about the subject. And I say that with kindness, knowing that you are young and probably will do so, as you have already shown interest, unlike some of the mentally fossilised middle-aged people blessing us with their archaic and inept views.]

There seems to be a sad legion of people who thrive on the internet`s unlimited potential for anonymously provoking all manner of bilious reaction in faceless strangers. Don`t feed the troll, as they say.

Either that or a.cassar is merely a nutcase. Whilst it is encouraging if patients at Mount Carmel hospital are allowed to use the internet as a form of therapeutic social interaction, I would hope that such use is closely monitored.

Whatever his true intentions, e.cassar does highlight two curiously contradictory strains of thinking common to a certain type of Times reader. The type who says NO to intrauterine devices because, as Maltese, we believe in the sanctity of human life in all its divine forms and YES to letting them drown because, as Maltese, it`s not our problem.

I blame the myth of “Web 2.0” and the theory that everyone’s voice should be allowed to be heard. This technology puts tools in the hands of people whose voice really should not be heard. Everyone may have an opinion, but not everyone knows how to express it and those who do may not have an opinion worth sharing.

[Daphne – It’s that old double-bind. ‘Not allowing’ certain people to be heard is neither desirable nor legally possible. What is both desirable and legally possible, though, is quality control. Poor comments, bad grammar and crazy thoughts bring down the general level of perceived quality and ‘scare’ off others who don’t want to be associated with that kind of thing. It’s perfectly acceptable to delete comments because they’re rubbish – that’s one of the reason they’re moderated, and not just because of libel, slander and bad language. I delete a of the rubbish that comes in here, unless there is a particular reason for not doing so.]

There seems to be a sad legion of people who thrive on the internet`s unlimited potential for anonymously provoking all manner of bilious reaction in faceless strangers. Don`t feed the troll, as they say.

Either that or a.cassar is merely a nutcase. Whilst it is encouraging if patients at Mount Carmel hospital are allowed to use the internet as a form of therapeutic social interaction, I would hope that such use is closely monitored.

Whatever his true intentions, e.cassar does highlight two curiously contradictory strains of thinking common to a certain type of Times reader. The type who says NO to intrauterine devices because, as Maltese, we believe in the sanctity of human life in all its divine forms and YES to letting them drown because, as Maltese, it`s not our problem.

There is a legion of sad people who thrive on the internet`s potential to anonymously provoke annoyance, anger, disgust and horror in others.

True, he may just be total nutjob. While I would applaud Mount Carmel patients being allowed a degree of internet use as a therapeutic form of non-contact, social interaction, I would hope that such use is closely monitored.

Whatever a.cassar`s true motives, he does highlight the fact that there seem to be two quite contradictory strains of thought to a certain type of Times correspondent. The type who say NO to contraception because we must respect the sanctity of human life in all its forms and YES to letting them drown at sea because they are not our problem.