Criticism of Policy vs Flaming

Day 544, 23:32 • Published in Australia Ukraine • by Australian Warlord

This article is made because there's idiots who's brain activity is so pathetic that they're incapable of understanding the difference between criticism of policy & flaming. These people are dim minded creatures, should go home and not annoy anybody anymore because they're just hopeless failures.

That's flaming. You'll notice the personalised nature in the above paragraph, you'll notice the abusive terms in the paragraph, you'll notice the lack of actual assessment of the actual topic.

Suggesting that the handover timetable should be fasttracked isn't flaming. Suggesting that Medicare is a expensive white elephant & funds could be better utilised elsewhere isn't flaming.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

What we see is a situation where criticism of eAustralian governmental policy is responded to by flaming sessions. It should concern every single player in this game where there's attempts by eGovernmental officials to deny the right of any eCitizen to criticise governmental policies.

Every eCitizen has the right to question &/or criticise eGovernmental policies that the eCitizen believes should be questioned &/or is incorrect. Any person who attacks this right by flaming those who've criticised eGovernmental policies are simply people who want to rule in a virtual dictatorship. As such anybody who supports democratic values should be opposing those members of congress who attempt to establish a virtual dictatorship.

Major players of the ADSP responds to any criticism of eGovernmental policy by flaming sessions, in a attempt to silence &/or marginalise those critics & to prevent actual discussion of the topic in question. As such I'd suggest that the ADSP isn't fit for office in eAustralia whilst these attitudes exist by ADSP leaders.