420 The internet is supposed to be the great equalizer where ideas can be shared and discussed!

    Instead, it has simply become another tool for those who do not like change to spout that agenda, without actually understanding what they are saying. Safely they feel can always be found in uniformity and knowing what to expect. Life and how mankind deals with it is by its very nature always changing. I see so many types of people using the internet, but there are two very distinct types of people on the internet, those who are always looking for the next "New fad or way to be different from their parents". And those who try and justify the past as a better time and way of life. Both fail terribly, in seeing anyone else's point of view! Both types have giant blinders on limiting their views of anything not in their sphere of normal consciousness. To both groups, that is perfectly okay for them to see only what they want to see.

    But can we not use the internet as it has great potential for discussion. Instead, we only go to sites that spout our own views and if someone visits the site and that does not share our viewpoint and mentions something about another way of looking at something, it quickly turns into name-calling, mud-slinging, hate-speak, because there are people who can not have a discussion without going nuclear on anyone daring to express something that they have probably never even though about before. Was there ever a time that we actually had civil discourses where rancor was not allowed into the discussion. We all know about family get-togethers and the topics that should not be discussed because it will end in some type of shouting match or fight, religion, politics, or sometimes even money, or the endless love problems. Perhaps that should be one of the important issues that school should teach, how to discuss problems and differing points of views without every session turning into a shouting match. Maybe the solution would be for everyone to have a set of earphones, and the microphones would all have a maximum volume level, and only one mic would be on at a time. The United Nations because of the different languages that are spoken have much of the same solution in place, and the language translators are picked for both their knowledge of the language and the ability to remain calm when doing the translation. This solution would work extremely well in setting such as political debates, or forums where questions are asked and answers would not be interrupted by someone speaking out of turn for the viewers would only hear what the person address to is saying. I believe the phrase "free speech" means that everyone is allowed to both be heard and to hear what everyone else has to say, not to the most disrespectful and loudest only! Dan