Severin
I thought I should add that caveat - probably not necessary in hindsight.

The reason was a knee jerk expectation that some posters detract from the point sometimes (we are all guilty) by pointing out affiliations as though somehow if one is affiliated with a particular group anything they may have to say loses merit - even if it has merit.

While I fail at times, I do try to take the point or message at face value. People's religious or political affiliations don't concern me unless the issue is about religion or politics. Heck I have even defended Mr Abbott at times. :)

Graham Y thanks for the reminder.

Graham
No-one is saying advertising should not be on OLO - that is your income and that is understood. This article is about inappropriate advertising not advertising as a rule.

Hi Pelican, Forkes (definitely) and Yuyutsu (probably) both seemed to have problems with advertising on OLO. BTW, it's income to the site, but it is not my income. I haven't derived one cent directly from On Line Opinion, in fact the reverse. It does go to keep the site running however.

I'm also wondering where this sign is. I've been past Brisbane Grammar (which isn't a religious school CJ) twice today and I can't see the offending billboard at all. I assumed it was the one onthe Railway land, but that was advertising a movie when I went past. The other sign was for Interflora Florists.

Perhaps Wendy has had her win on this one....

Wendy4senate,

Just looking through the papers I found the signs that so out raged your sensibilities:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/sexpo-billboard-too-close-to-school/2008/02/11/1202578664878.html

If I am right there are no semi naked women, and only the words sexpo and 1/2 price adult shop differentiate these signs from any other. Those advertising for resorts are more racy.

Moreover your website calls for ALL billboard advertising to be G rated, not just those near schools. This and other priggish calls from the religious right wing are too silly to be taken seriously.

Extrapolating this would make discussion of sex taboo, and lead to the sexual frustrations and unwanted pregnancies of the 1950s.

Ignorance is not bliss.

Just happens that the same people who criticize Wendy are the very ones that defend 'artists'(pornographers) asking young girls to strip so they can be photographed nude and displayed for every pervert to view. They critise Wendy for having some decency because it exposes their own inner corruption which they seem unwilling to deal with. Keep up the good work Wendy. Unfortunately these loud voices seem to get the most press especially with our National Broacasters. No doubt they are broken hearted that one of their high priestess's Deveny has had who rotten wings clipped.

GrahamY,

I was previously unaware of any advertising on OLO, so just because you mentioned it I searched and was surprised to see those little pics on the top-left margin, which were obviously not protruding. My brain is obviously trained by now to automatically ignore such things. I quickly blocked all images from this site, as I am here only for the text anyway. My firewall is quite successful at blocking most ads - I wouldn't be here otherwise (or on any other website).

I do believe however that advertising on web-pages is legitimate because it is a matter of choice and nobody is forced to navigate there against their will, or just because they need to get from point A to point B in the real world. Same for advertising in the media or in cinemas, etc.: I don't like it, but it is OK because nobody is obliged to go there. I simply don't watch TV and only listen to ABC radio.

Outdoor advertising is different because it hurts innocent and non-consenting passers-by.