I recently posted an article at NationStates news. Essentially, it was an opinon piece based on the Middle Power Alliance I had bandied about a month or two ago.

A response was immediately posted which attacked my "home region", suggesting that it was an example of either this region being insecure about itself, or my feeling insecure about this region (it was either/or, depending on how one interprets the response).

My gut reaction was to resign immediately - I don't particularly feel the need to further damage this region's international standing - and in fact, I did already resign (though I may withdraw it, depending on regional reaction).

I'd like to hear the views of others on this one. I realize that in the first place, I am likely not the best person to be writing columns - I think it will only cause trouble for Canada. On the other hand, prior to officially abandoning the NS News ship, I'd like to gauge the regional response to this outcome.

Just a follow up - the letter to the editor was subsequently edited, removing references to my home region - so I guess while the immediate crisis is resolved, the greater issue remains. I still want to hear what everyone else thinks.

Got a link to where this is?

http://s6.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Times/in...php?showforum=7

I think you've come across well. You've explained and defended your viewpoint in a calm and rational tone against an opponent who clearly has an axe to grind. I don't think this is at all damaging to Canada, if anything quite the reverse.

Keep up the good work.

Thanks - but I'm still concerned about the greater issue.

I'm unfortunately not confident in my abilities to stay rational in heated discussions, in the future - hence my asking for a reality check as to whether I should just pull out of this venture before I do any damage.

One trick you might want to try is to put a 30-minute hold on your own posts. Go away and look at something else, then come back and look at your post in isolation. Try to look at it as a piece of writing by someone else, and decide if it is inflammatory or not.

When you review, you could try writing yourself a checklist. Things like...
* don't say 'you are x' , ever. Try your actions 'y' and 'z' seem 'x' to me.
* don't say 'that is wrong/rubbish', say 'I don't understand how you can justify...', etc.

I'm not going to try and produce a full list, I'm sure you get the idea. A good way to start might be to go pack to some of your past posts which have had a poor reception and look at your own style in those. You will hopefully be able to identify the personal markers which indicate you have gone off track.

Me, I tend to pull the "professor" gig a bit too much, so I'll stop now.

It's ok Professor, your words are welcome. I've long known that I shouldn't pull the trigger without first taking a time-out. Unfortunately, I don't heed my own advice some of the time - the Shoot first, ask questions later instinct is something I've always had. Then I get myself (and others) into hot water.

Hey, we've all been there. Don't let it put you off.

I'm amazed at the amount of time and effort people like yourself put into the more 'serious' side of the game. Although I don't get involved in the heavy debates much, I do enjoy reading them. Do, please, carry on (but remember to duck occasionally)!

Aww, still a killer at heart... :)

Wouldn't have it anyother way Comrade. More often than not, a 'hot-head' is a useful assett as it puts those being cross-examined on this spot and more likely to give honest anwers. As Almonaster mentioned, it may be more producitve, holistically, to turn down from boil to simmer. ;) :)

As I stated in my PM to you, bweezy, The Times needs your viewpoint. Personally, I think you came off quite well. If you crossed the line (it's debateable that you did) you were able to scale it back. The discussion later found a thoughtful balance. I think the exercise ultimately was of value.

As to the arguement that your words have the potential to be damaging to Canada, I disagree. You are not a member of the Canadian government and did not present yourself as one. There is a distinct separation between bweezy the columnist and bweezy the Canadian.

I hope you will reconsider and return to The Times.