Ginx, "So you seize an opportunity to come into this current discussion to criticise me."

Horses' apples, I am making a very reasonable appeal for you to moderate your responses.

Ginx, "It is none of your business."

You have that quite wrong, I quite enjoy this forum and would like to see it continued.

Remainder of my post was on file. Now adding to it:-

".......reasonable appeal to moderate my responses".

You seem obsessed with moderation!-,however don't try to take over the role! And don't patronise me. That is about as stupid as the er, horses apples thing.

And Cornflower?? In your zeal to show your OLO patriotism, you failed to understand that my 'mind your own business' comment was in reference to private emails..

YOU raised that. I repeat;-mind your own business.
_________________________________________________________________

"'Members demean, ignore or question the integrity of moderators on the forum should expect to see their posting privileges withdrawn.'

That is how it is on every other site and it works to free up, rather than limit, discussion."

Emphatically it is NOT how it is 'on other forums'!!

1)I have NEVER seen such a clause, EVER in forum regulations-and I would suggest that if it were to be introduced to this one it would destroy the credibility of the 'ethos' of OLO.

2)There is another and far more important obvious point that you have selectively missed. I have NOT been critical of a moderator! I am critical of aspects of an article written by someone who as it happens owns the site!

I will NOT treat him any differently from any other article writer.

Is that clear?

Graham Young is not a fool,- (and btw., I bloody well HATE having a conversation about someone who is here present. Unfortunately these somewhat bizarre twists have made that necessary)- I doubt that as a writer,- he would want to be treated differently!

IF that is the case, he would have little respect from other writers who routinely engender bouquets and brickbats.

Just bouquets for GY eh? Don't be absurd.
_____________________

A 'small fee'? Why put that in unless you see it as a way to 'weed out undesirables'.

Not a good look for an 'open and tolerant' forum eh?
______________________________

An irresistible opportunity for a cheap shot Cornflower? You just couldn't help yourself could you?

NOW: which one of us is going to concentrate on "killing the thread"?!?

Ginx and Severin are putting in a pretty good effort in cyber bullying. Ginx more than Severin. Ginx's latest posts have veered away from the subject to the extent that if she continues this I will suspend her and delete any offending posts. There is a Forum Rule that posts be on topic and her posts are not on topic.

She and Severin appear to take exception to anything that I write. As long as they confine themselves to what I have written that's fine. But now Ginx is going on about a range of issues which really have to do with moderation, including a nonsensical argument that when I answer their criticisms I am using my position as Chief Editor (she calls it "owner" but I am not the owner) to "dress them down". I'm not.

But if she continues to divert this thread she will have her posts removed and there will be consequences in terms of posting privileges.

GY

>> She (Ginx) and Severin appear to take exception to anything that I write. <<

Not true. I only take exception to deliberate bias, I am not at all concerned whether the author is the CEO of OLO or other contributor. I have have stated my critique of GY's article clearly and provided solid evidence for my point of view.

I would also like to point out that GY has accused Ginx and myself of cyberbullying, if that is at all true then GY should take action. However he appears to have missed Cornflower's off-topic provocation completely - I am sure this is an accidental oversight. Therefore, if any action is to be taking concerning behaviour on this thread, it would be most remiss to exclude Cornflower.

BTW - I agree with GY that refugees will be an election issue, if I had not made this point clear earlier, I apologise. As I stated in my first post to this topic I believe there are far more important issues facing Australia than a handful of people seeking asylum. Boat people are not a crisis for Australia.

I can do no better than what you have written Severin.

I know full well that asylum seekers will be an election issue.

They are a handy little tool after all...by BOTH majors.

Other than that? I have no issue with any matter that I have raised - I would/will do it again under the same circumstances.

I have said that these 'developments' have surprised me,-frankly, they haven't. Spin is everywhere-it is not just the domain of politicians.

With the exception of one prominent forum, this type of thing is quite common. Given that there is a life outside of forums for us all,-things like this are not life changing. They are par for the forum/s 'profile' course..
______________________________________

If this post is now construed as 'off-topic', then it will be removed, and I will be suspended.

So be it.

I'm sorry Graham, but I found a couple of your lines to be a little peculiar. I did rather enjoy your contention that people with more Liberal views on immigration tend to be Labor and Greens, whereas Liberals and Nationals tend to be less Liberal...
The other statement I found a little peculiar was:
"And as equality of opportunity is more associated with the Coalition, and is more favoured by Australians in general..."
This is why the Coalition is currently dominating Australian politics, albeit in a rather stealthy way, is it?
Personally, I can't recall ever associating the Coalition more with 'equality of opportunity', I'm afraid.