Well Graham, for many years certain political interests persecuted Erin Pizzey because she did not support their biased dogma.

As a previous poster once said, when men try to explore counter agruements to feminist propaganda they are labelled as being mysogynists.

Similar threats have been made against researchers who do not conduct research that supports feminist dogma.

Hope this site keeps going and all the best.

Yes Graham, hang in there, don't let the bastards grind you down, keep up the good work, and keep us posted.

Email to Storer, cc Rodney Croome,

Dear Mr Storer,
I wrote a piece that Graham Young published, titled "The perfection of heterosexual marriage?" in which I directly challenged Muehlenberg's article.

In November 2010, I wrote "Reclaiming marriage from the great big Christian hijack" in which I challenged opposition to gay marriage

I am a supporter of gay marriage for those who want it. I'm not gay. I am one of the mainstream advocates who have lobbied to bring this issue into public consciousness.

While the views of many commenters on all three articles are far from my own, and while I find many of them offensive and discriminatory, I am appalled that you and others have taken actions against Opinion On Line that have resulted in the pulling of the advertising that is it's life blood, and thus bringing about the very real possibility of it's closure.

As well, in the comments sections of all three articles, any anti gay marriage and anti gay opinions are robustly and vigorously addressed and challenged, and invariably revealed for the prejudiced and ill informed comments they usually are.

This is debate. This democracy. This is free speech. This is what you are attempting to prevent.

If you imagine silencing those who dissent will eradicate that dissent, you are very much mistaken.

Better the devil you know, than the one you drive underground.

Those against gay marriage have the right to express their position. If they do not do that to your liking then it is your responsibility to challenge them, not to shut down the publication.

It is not your right to take action that will close down a journal that offers a great deal to a great number of citizens, and addresses a great many issues other than the ones specifically concerning yourselves.

I will not support a cause that uses these tactics to silence and eradicate a publication that offers so much to so many.

I do not support censorship no matter where it comes from.

This is a very slippery slope you are on.
Yours sincerely,
Jennifer Wilson.

I can think of no other site or institution that encourages fair dinkum debate better than On Line Opinion.

Come on sponsors, support free and extensive debate. There are enough propaganda forums and institutions already.

Systems such as Google's AdSense try to place advertisements on web pages which match the subject matter of web pages and the interests of the readers. Perhaps Online Opinion needs a version of this which takes into account the political views of the author, reader and the advertiser. So advertisers who only wanted to be associated with left (or right) wing articles could choose those that bias for placement of advertisements. ;-)

More on how such advertising systems work at: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/adsense.shtml

Dear Graham

I sympathise and this needs to be fought but I reckon this sort of thing is happening all the time so it is no surprise. It is not always as blatant but in the end in a society where corporations rule, then corporations rule. (Mining tax debacle?)

The power exercised by these corporations is vast. They 'sponsor' the arts and various other good works but only to the extent that they are maximising company profits. That is not a cynical comment; that is the law.

The more basic issue is why do we have to rely on these sources of funds for 'good works'? Answer in part at least - we are a low taxed country.

Gavin Mooney

Graham,

What a surprise, corporations are not prepared to support free speech.
I'd certainly support reader subscriptions as a means of independent income,

New Matilda has apparently survived a similar financial crisis. Good luck.

All very well put.
But what has Bill Muehlenberg got to do with the values and presumed tolerance of the Enlightenment? The point of view that he promotes would, if it gained effective power in the world altogether, take us back to the medieval dogmas and superstitions that ruled the Western world prior to the Enlightenment.
It is a mirror image of the pre-Enlightenment world-view that mis-informs medieval Islamic fundamentalism - two sides of the same regressive toxic coin.

In my opinion his Culture Watch website is one of the most toxic websites in Australia. He also gets to broadcast his point of view quite widely too, including on the Quadrant website and via many book reviews on Amazon.

There is very little tolerance of other points of view or perspectives on any and every topic to be found there. The politics of binary exclusions. Bill and his clones are always right and everyone else who disagrees with his/their binary ideology is by self-definition wrong. They therefore need to be "re-educated" by Bill and his right-thinking comrades.

Dear Graham,
The news is bad: you are being blackmailed.
Wars were fought over this sort thing the two best known might be WW1 and WW2 and although this might not be quite accurate I am appalled to find gross intolerance raising its head once more.
Not being a man of great wisdom nor yet great erudition "On Line Opinion" is a valuable source of information for me, and I hope many more. At 76 years of age I do not wonder that "big end of town" raises its head like this.
"Nil desperandum carburundum".
With good wishes,
Mick Bright

The concept of OLO is a good one. In the hands of the current editorial board, it is rotten.

It gets and publishes lots of good articles - most of them, in my view. However there is apparently no way an article can be bad enough, or the views implicit in it vile enough, for you to reject it.

As I recall your answer to Clive Hamilton was that you aim to publish things written from any point of view. (Really ? Let's see an article explaining why we should believe that the earth is flat). Even if you make it a rule to never reject anything, all you need to do is read the article first, ask the hard questions of the author, and insist they be answered in the published version of the article.

http://www.anz.com/common/forms/default.asp?intID=174

This will take you straight to an ANZ complaint form if you want to protest - you don't have to be a customer.

I got it off Bill Muehlenberg's website. Bill's not happy either.

Strange bedfellows ....

What funny things paradoxia are. I find myself simultaneously agreeing with Jeremy's sentiments whilst rejecting his solution.
I agree with most thing Phillip Adams says too. But on this issue of banning or censoring out variant view points is a nasty one when it is thought of from the viewpoint of watching someone like Mitchell of the OZ censoring out enviro journalism.
I'd probably rofl at a David Irving lecture, but the idea of denying him immigration papers or at least a reply seems to cut at the very substance of civil discourse and rationality. If you can deny Irving you offer ideological opponents later the precedent that allows them to hold out, say, a Hannan Ashrawi.
Let them stand up and let people makeup their own minds. The alternative, sometimes, is to martyr a crank.

I agree with Ho-Hum. I would add that there would appear to be a fine line between 'informed opinion' and out and out propaganda. I do not regard Herr Bill's article as 'informed' - so I don't see how it made the cut in the first place. One has to ask...if we replaced the word 'gay' with 'jew' or 'black' in Herr Bill's diatribe...would you still have published it? If the answer to that question is 'no'...then...I can only shrug. I was grossly offended by the article in the same way as I would have been if it had been laden with racist generalisations.

I consider you a friend and I admire your hard work and dedication to OLO, and the beautiful part of you publishing your letter is that I know you would welcome ALL feedback, negative or positive. As the saying goes, I don't believe in your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to express it.

It's hard to stick your head up above the parapet...but in publishing this article, I feel you may have jumped right out of the foxhole, and run the gauntlet, arms outstretched, Kevin Costner/Dances with Wolves-style. Herr Bill's article distressed me greatly. Last year was declared an International Year of Action on the subject of gay marriage. I believe the Mardi Gras sponsors did what they had to do - on principal. You feel it could only be for 'the pink dollar'. We both want to believe in the greater good - but somehow our views are vastly different on this - and possibly they are equally naive.

To me, the word 'sponsorship' is coupled with 'endorsement' and regardless of your ideals, one always has to compromise one's principals as an artist, when money is involved. You need to seek sponsors who have no vested interests in anything other than open debate. I truly wish you luck with that. I so admire your your spirit Graham. I hope this upheaval heralds the beginning a new and better deal for OLO

Jeremy, I reject plenty of pieces. Our criteria depend on who you are and the quality of the piece. To explain, if you are the Prime Minister of Australia, we would publish whatever you sent us - you have earned that right. If you are a budding freelance journalist without a single published article, then we will look very closely at what you have written. You haven't earned the right and you don't have presumed standing in the debate.

Bill Muhlenbergh has standing in the debate. The piece is well-enough written and it represents opinions held by a lot of people. It therefore has a right to be published.

Of course I'm not going to publish an article saying the world is flat. As a matter of fact it isn't. But it is an opinion site, not a fact site and there are rarely clear cut right and wrong answers when it comes to opinions.

I'm also not going to publish a piece disputing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Because it is a fact that it is. But I will publish pieces that argue about the consequences, or the non-settled facts about how it operates.

Clive Hamilton hasn't even done the work to understand those issues and criticises me because I have and can make intelligent judgements about what to publish. Hamilton's not a good example of intellectual probity in this area.

Dear Graham,
I am delighted that you have brought this situation out into the public arena. I have already put in my penny's worth with the ANZ for what it is worth. To me it stinks that, in effect, large corporations can stifle free speech on the whim of a member of their public relations or communications staff who have been scared into political correctness. I have seen how much you have invested personally into this site as well as financially and I would be very dismayed to see it have to fold. I love the concept and what the site stands for. ANZ and IBM should collectively hang their heads in shame.
I also know that it is run on probably the tightest financial model of any site in this genre. What we managed to achieve for the outlay is truly remarkable. There is certainly no wasted resources at OLO. I would encourage readers to donate - they will certainly be getting value for money!
Regards
Susan Prior
Former editor of OLO

Graham, these days the word tolerance seems to demand affirmation and agreement of the 'other' viewpoint, not just the right of another to hold their opinion. That's not tolerance at all.
Keep up the good work.

Just because I'm not like some of the commenters on the post does not give them the right to refer to me, my partner, my life as a perversion.

It's not acceptable to use derogatory language about people. In everyday interactions and on online blogs.

As Young has rightly pointed out, I don't have a problem with Muehlenberg having his opinion, and actively encourage the debate. The comments in question added nothing to the debate, and I asked that they be removed under the policy for comments. i.e. Vulgar, obscene and profane, may harass or cause distress, may incite hatred.

I asked that Young play by his own rules, and had several email exchanges with him.

Targeting advertisers is a legitimate form of protest. I've seen it plenty of times with people of Christian persuasion black-banning TV shows and talking with the advertisers. It clearly does have an impact.

The solution was always within Young's own ability. I made a formal complaint, based on the rules of the site and he failed to take my complaint seriously and dismissed me out of hand.

Language that is offensive, hateful and potentially harmful should be moderated, Young should have moderated them, and he did not. This isn't about free speech, this is about acceptable behaviour by the commenters on the site.

Companies that have active polices about diversity, acceptance and tolerance are able to specify where their advertising money is spent. If the publication of an article goes against their policy, then sure, they should withdraw the funding.

I wrote to every advertiser I could find on the site, and in true fashion, most didn’t bother to respond, some responded and dismissed my complaint, others said the editorial decision was up to the site, and some withdrew their funding.

I'm not an 'activist' I'm a citizen of Australia, and I don't like being considered a second class citizen. I am respectful of others, I do my best to play by the rules and refute any notion that this is my fault, Young needs to accept the responsibility for his inaction.

Dear Graham,

Corporations are not interested in free speech. I was thinking of writing an article putting forth the case that legal persons such as corporations should not have all the rights that living human people have. If you printed it, it could possibly hurt you. However, the actions you mention is another reason that corporations should not have the same rights as a real person.

Have you approached overseas advertisers who want to get into the Australian market?

I would be happy to:

1. Distribute brochures about olo and tell people about olo in places I go to.

2. Pay for a membership in olo.

Olo means a great deal to me.

And I'm happy to say that gp_ is Gregory Storer.

Gregory Storer -
On Line Opinion is a publication that covers a wide range of interests. It is one of Australia's most popular online sources. It addresses very many political and sociological concerns, other than those that specifically concern you. These concerns matter , Mr Storer, just as much as yours. You have no right to deny them a voice by destroying their outlet.

OLO has also published more pro gay articles than anti, including two by me.
In all of the forums connected with these articles you will find that anti gay commentary is challenged and refuted by very many commenters.

Instead of this method of dealing with anti gay sentiment, you want to shut down the entire publication, and to hell with every other concern raised here.

I don't like some of the anti gay things that are said anymore than you do.

But more than I dislike those comments, which can be and are refuted, I hate what you and other gay acitvists have attempted to do in lobbying to have financial support withdrawn from OLO, and bringing this publication to its knees.

Now you have demonstrated that you are no longer marginalised, but have arrived at the centre to the degree that you can wield the hegemonic tool of economic censorship, just like those who have oppressed you, are you content?

Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!

Sad that an open forum that celebrates free speech by supporting authors across a broad spectrum of views is targeted on the basis of one article.

Have those at IBM and ANZ forgotten the number of articles supporting same-sex marriage. Muhlenberg's article attracted many comments in support of same-sex marriage which is the beauty of an open forum. These comments were also freely published. This decision was badly advised and won't be popular with consumers.

The ANZ is able to sponsor the Gay Mardi Gras and support free speech at the same time - the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact gay rights would still be sitting somewhere in the back cupboard if it were not for those freedoms.

Worthy causes can be damaged by efforts to stifle free speech. Look how much flak the Christian Lobby cops when doing same; why try to emulate what clearly does not work?

Those who discriminate on the basis of sexuality are revealed in the written word. That does more for the cause than stifling free speech.

Good on you for adhering to those principles Graham. All the best.

Reader subs ok with me, but for those who can not contribute?
OLO is far better than these two and just maybe the monster has another home.
I support OLO and Graham,we should show our support with a contribution.

Reading the responses makes me wonder what is the original argument. I'll take it to be that advertising $'s have been lost because of the publication of a controversial article about gay marriage. Hon-est-ly!! I am old, a woman (straight) and a universtiy student and I am still being Enlightened. I may not agree with all I hear BUT I have to listen or I will not learn! Goodness me you guys, where the hell do you come from! LISTEN and learn. You don't have to side with all you hear but it will allow you to make an informed judgement. We have the freedom to make informed decisions .. don't waste this. This comes from understanding with an open mind. I would have thought the ANZ Bank was above worrying about the effect of being associated with a controversial topic such as gay marriages. Doesn't the ANZ Bank have gay clients?? I fail to see how the ANZ Bank is affiliated with gay marriage because of one article.

I'm a uni student and it stands to reason I am broke, but if I could I would donate a BIG amount of $'s. All for the sake of free speach and the right to read other opinions.

Get a life, people in the ANZ advertising Dept :)

in writing my previous post, I was advised to 'remove the profanity' before it would post. the profanity in question was changed to bulldust. Three letters difference. I have to agree that homosexuality being referred to as a 'perversion' also qualifies as a profanity, regardless of how many people agree with it. A popular opinion should not make it more worthy of the right to free speech.

My definitive, but relatively adjective was censored...but the highly insulting word 'perversion' was not.

Curious anomaly.

I didn't see the original article but now understand the writer’s background. I think Mr. Muehlenberg was wrong and has displayed a level of arrogance commenting on the Sunday Age’s “marriage is a good thing, so it should be available for homosexuals as well”, his comment being “He (the author) is wrong big time here”.

I would have thought that the sponsors who saw fit to remove their support from such a worthwhile source of fresh ideas have misjudged so many people who felt moved enough to comment. It certainly did not reflect on the sponsors in any way at all and I seriously doubt if any of the people who took the time to comment would have associated either of the sponsors with the article.
So their actions have been somewhat childish and petulant.

From what other subjects would such organisations choose to withhold their advertising support? This is a Forum for ideas and as such, any opinion expressed is no better or no worse than any other. There were 130 comments and I venture to say, none would have considered cancelling their subscription had the article been written in a periodical. The next week, they would have thought, someone may write an article expressing our feelings, or, alternatively, I will make a comment, which 130 people chose to do.

It was worth running such a piece just for the comment it was always going to generate in this enlightened age when SSM is about to get a run in the Parliament. Will both the ANZ and IBM show their pleasure at this development. Does sponsoring a Forum mean that you agree with everything that is written? I don't think so and nor should it.

It would be a sad day for the country if the content of articles were required to be placed before the sponsors to receive their prior approval.

Be outrageous, Graham and continue to use a broad brush and let people read what others are thinking, rightly or wrongly, to agree or disagree, to comment or ignore.

But keep it coming.

Biar Rose:

I am not an activist. I'm a regular Australian citizen.

Language is important, when this website will not apply it's own rules then it needs to be challenged, the ramifications are because Young would not remove comments that added nothing to the debate and used offensive and derogatory language. The ball has always been in his court.

I don't want to shut down this site, and it's not within my power to do so. I do think that respectful dialogue is important and that can be achieved without resorting to derogatory generalised statements of a section of citizens of this very diverse nation.

I'll give it to you all straight from the HIP..with both barrels.

The debacle of intolerance and unjust discrimination you are witnessing from the Gay lobby (and some of it's 'progressive' entourage) is EXACTLY what Catch the Fire ministries experienced from the Islamic Council of Victoria...

It is what the Islamic/Gay/progressive elements will DO without even blinking.. to destroy opposing voices.

It's also why I speak so adamantly against all of them. Our church has been a victim of their brutality and lack of tolerance.. $5000 (appealed) in fines and who knows what legal costs. But.. the answer is.. COMING.

And part of it is found in an email from the newly elected Attourney General (and I assure you.. this OLO situation will not be escaping their notice as well)

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm the Coalition intend to legislate to amend the Equal Opportunity Act as we committed to do, by
- removing the "inherent requirements" test for employment by faith based bodies
- reversing the powers given to the Commission by Labor to conduct investigations without even receiving a complaint
- restoring an independent chair of the Commission.

We intend to have those amendments in place before the new Act comes into operation, which the Labor government scheduled for August this year.
Regards
Robert Clark.

They'll hate that news I know...too bad.

Bottom line... it's WAR..and anyone who doesn't get that.. is, to use a recent phrase.. in a coma or dead.
They are malicious, vindictive and determined, so.. there will be battles. This is but one of them. *wake up*

Hallelulja!
Someone, Susan P, finally hit the nail the head as to what the thread is actually about.
Nothing to do with gay and whether some aspect of it is right or wrong, or whatever.
It's about the effect of lobbying and the threat of advertising withdrawal as a mean to impose defacto suppression of variant viewpoints.
Could just as easily be the zionist lobby in the US lobbying to get Mearsheimer and Walts barred in a McCarthyite display a couple of years ago for a telling book of theirs on Israel and Palestine. You can't stop it, but you can draw attention to it and ask if its fair or not.

Gregory Storer

You were also a political candidate in the 2010 election. You are a public figure.

You took action to persuade sponsers to withdraw advertising from this site, therefore you are an activist.

Many of us have our own opinions about what is the best way to deal with derogatory comments. For many of us that does not include lobbying for withdrawal of financial support so a site ceases to exist, and thus denying voice to many other causes and concerns.

How do you like the language selfish, tunnel visioned, self centred, self absorbed, irresponsibly unconcerned about every cause in the universe other than your own, and blind to the immense support your cause has in fact received on this site, including from myself?

The garbage I've personally copped for supporting gay marriage - and I'm not gay -
I'm about to get ad hominem I have to go.

Gp

I have consistently supported gay rights and gay marriage in these forums, but I have to say I disagree with you. Freedom of speech means nothing if it is not freedom to be offensive. However much I disagree with those who oppose gay marriage, they are entitled to hold and express their opinions. Pressing corporations to use their advertising dollars to silence opinions you disagree with is reprehensible.

Anyway, I believe the best way to defeat bigotry is to expose and challenge it. Try to suppress it and you’ll reinforce the perverse victimology it thrives on

Rose C.... describing homosexual BEHAVIOR as a 'perversion' is to quote the Bible.. it uses VERY harsh language to describe such behavior.
Romans 1:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.

Now..in CANADA to do what I just did is illegal. (quote the Bible publicly in a way which is offensive to gays)
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=ceebc006-06cc-4aa8-ad1a-5e3f7f5c8229

It is VERY offensive to homosexuals. Tough biccies! It could be argued to the VHREOC that in so publicly quoting it..I am 'vilifying' gays.. I'm not..I'm showing what a holy document says about that subject. The Bible is vilifying gays.. GOD is vilifying Gay behavior. If you wish to argue with Him... be my guest.

Perhaps now at least you all know what the stakes are. To remove any and all vilification of homosexual behavior.. you would HAVE to ban the Bible and the Quran.. I can't see that happening any time soon.
But this pernicious lobby will do as much as it can to silence even the possiblity of criticism. Seen it, felt it, know it.

As I surmised

It seems that the article

Was not the problem

I've just complained to ANZ... pls do the same

algorisrich:

My argument is not with God, it is with the folks who wrote the bible....and all whom have since translated and interpreted it as law. I'm not entering into a bible debate...but I am interested in the debate that defines what does and does not qualify as 'profanity'.

Surely context is everything.

: )

AGIR the topic is not about homosexuality - please for once do not try to derail topic. The topic is about freedom of speech, in this I agree with Jeremy, GP and Shintaro.

It is not the articles - diversity is stimulating and I agree with Graham with the range even though many articles may be demeaning to various people.

The issue is the comments - those that are requested for deletion when highly offensive and those people who have been dismissed for merely disagreeing with the moderator - and no choice to express themselves freely.

At least the advertisers are able to use their freedom of choice.

Jennifer once again well put.

Gregory the thing which is most likely to lose support for gay's on this issues is demonstrations of intollerance. Briar Rose has summed up pretty well my views regarding your actions.

I do understand that there is a lot of pain involved for many homosexuals with the villification they recieve from some sections of the community. As has been pointed out many of us here strongly believe that is best countered by bringing it into the light and exposing it for what it is.

Take a step back, read through some of the articles and posts by straight people supporting equal rights for gay's and ask yourself if you see any value in that. There is plenty of hateful junk around but there is also plenty of really good stuff.

R0bert

Gregory Storer:

Don't try to disguise yourself! Your action against OLO has confirmed you as an activist. Australia needs many more political or social activists to invigorate our democracy, but your course of action is anti-democratic and that is anathema.

Your action will do nothing to help your cause: when the general community sees someone working towards repression of democratic debate (no matter how uninformed or hate-filled some of the utterances may be) they see that as an attack on the democracy that sustains us all.

As a writer of articles for OLO and as a frequent commenter in the forum, I have taken considerable pains to support the cause you purport to fight for. I am only one of many -- the majority of writers/commenters on the topic on this site. Your action makes me sad and angry because it has undermined the work we have done in trying to change attitudes of those who oppose equality for homosexuals.

Graham:
I am happy to pay an annual fee of $50. Fight on!

Stephen Crabbe

R0bert,

It's not for me to tell you how to counter vilification. And I'm not questioning the values of the articles, I too enjoy reading Online Opinion.

Rather than make me the focus here, it's time to call Graham Young to account for his policy of allowing outrageous, intolerant, homophobic and vilifying commenters on this site.

You can call them to light as much as you like, however, the comments policy is quite clear, Young will not enforce his own rules. (or he interprets them differently).

Hang in there Graham.

And to those who want to complain about the comments and ask for increased censorship... as someone who runs a blog I know first hand how difficult it can be to know when and how to draw the line... indeed what a sensitive gay guy might consider offensive, others may consider worth consideration and sharing.

I personally believe there needs to be much more open and honest discussion about what it means to be gay, what it means to be a lesbian, what it means to be a woman, what it means to be a man who has to pay child support.... interestingly only about 10% of those who pay child support are women

There are real differences between men and women and real differences between straight women and lesbians and straight guys and gay guys...

Let us start discussing these issues rather than pretending they don't exist.

Also, lets start discussing the institution called 'marriage' and what is wrong and right about it... for different types of people.

Perhaps OLO should reward those advertisers that have, rather than oversee their corporate policies in relation to advertising themselves, abdicated such oversight to self-serving battening-on organisations in the form of the Internet Advertising Sales Houses Australia and its agent the Audit Bureau of Circulations, organisations seemingly having their own agenda of suppressing the competition for the corporate advertising dollar posed by sites like OLO. http://bit.ly/e62i1I

OLO could perhaps display photographs of the corporate logos of the erstwhile paying advertisers for no fee, together with descriptions as to how, despite the notoriously high remuneration of senior executives thereof, the outsourcing of their oversight obligations was effected and the consequences of this abdication. The free advertisments could link to the respective corporate complaints departments, perhaps even to the appropriate section of the ACCC dealing with Trade Practices matters.

One never knows, ANZ and IBM might be more than happy, after having been able to rigorously audit for themselves the effectiveness of the OLO site in raising their corporate image free of charge, to pay lump sums of the order of $50,000 each per annum for OLO to NOT carry their advertising. That way everyone could be happy! ANZ and IBM would be 'not advertising' on OLO, and, whilst ever the IASH Australia standover merchant's 'code of conduct' remained in place, ANZ and IBM would know EXACTLY the extent of their costs of having affiliated with that parasitic organisation.

FWIW, the twelve founding apostles of IASH Australia are, according to marketingmag.com.au (See: http://bit.ly/eVh2Jk )

AD2ONE Group
Adconion Media Group
Digital Network Sales
Full Circle
Gorilla Nation Media
MaX Interactive
Multi Channel Network Pty Ltd (MCN)
PostClick
Response Directive
3D interactive (3Di)
Tribal Fusion
Valued Interactive Media

As to what the beneficial ownerships of these claimed entities are, is, on the face of it, about as clear as mud. What does seem to be clear is that those entities are in the standover business. They appear to think they own the internet advertising market, IMO. I reckon OLO viewers could help test that claim.

i used the link
http://www.anz.com/common/forms/default.asp?intID=174

with these things its a numbers game
[if you really care...complain]

here is how i put it
[as a suggestion]
they hold higher weight than complaints

details of your suggestion

recently anz made a decision that is likely to have ongoing negative affect..in suspending sponcership of an online opinion site.

it seems ibm and anz were both targeted to affect certain outcomes/adgenda's.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11583&page=0

it is my suggestion that reactive decision was shortsighted..that fiends dont do this sort of stuff to friends...that either your for EVERYONE having freespeech..or not.

lets face it banking shall shortly need all the goodwilll it can get..[if you dont realise this yet..ask your higher up's]

good will is a thing you can bank on..friends is the only true money ..in any bank

what is the outcome you seek
restore.. the sponsership to online opinion..and offer extra to help it grow

put up a few articles explaining the concepts ..values..held by your bank

I have written an article criticising the religious rights influence in the gay marriage debate , it also cast aspersions on the motives for the religious rights oppositions to gambling as an aside, imagine if everytime Graham received an article such as that, he had to consider whether it would inflame a lobby group to instigate a secondary boycott that would financially cripple OLO. No doubt many would be offended by my comments, no doubt Graham does not necessarily agree with my opinion, but he had the courage to publish my comments without deleting them. I have regularly had debates with others on this site with diametrically opposing views. that is healthy and those that are too immature need to answer one question was it right for visa and the like to shut off the funds to wikileaks.
Graham expect a donation in a few days.

Find the situation incredible and also find I am intolerant of intolerance. Will have to rethink using ANZ for new corporation. How difficult/consequential would it be for you to shift allegiance from ANZ.

Sent $50 contribution and hope all others do likewise (or more - according to means). Annual sub OK for me but I'd let newcomers in free for first year - it's hard to read some rude, disrespectful and plain ignorant crap that a few commentators submit - but - that's our people.

Don't let the bastards beat you!

It is VERY offensive to homosexuals. Tough biccies! It could be argued to the VHREOC that in so publicly quoting it..I am 'vilifying' gays.. I'm not..I'm showing what a holy document says about that subject. The Bible is vilifying gays..

"GOD is vilifying Gay behavior. If you wish to argue with Him... be my guest."

Yeah....well go get him...AL....I'll wait right here:)

You can be Gay, but not in Melbourne where this bigot lives.

Hiding behind your bible........well isn't that convenient.

YAWN!

BLUE

Beef's suggestion is a good one - it means we'll still get people with passing interest in single issues issues contributing to forums, and bring in fresh debaters, while the regulars pay their way.

BTW I made a donation through the website a few hours ago but have not received an e-mail acknowledgement - are others experiencing delays?

OLO had full right to publish an article in opposition to gay marriage.

There have been plenty of articles on OLO in support of gay marriage.

There have also been plenty of writers (mainly academic) without one good thing to say about heterosexual males, and apart from Bill Muehlenberg, I have yet to see an article written by an academic with one good thing to say about heterosexual marriage.

I couldn’t care whether Bill Muehlenberg is religious or not, he is one of few writers in Australia prepared to say something positive about heterosexual men and heterosexual marriage.

[Deleted. The writer makes untrue claims about payment for articles as well as wanting to argue about previous moderation decisions. No-one gets paid to publish on this site.]

Dear Rose C... thank you for the smiley :)

We don't have to debate "The Bible" but we DO have to debate the issue of free expression.

The Bible is believed by many and not by many others. Irrespective of one's opinion on how it came to be.. the much BIGGER issue is whether, in arriving at such an opinion, you are thereafter allowed to express that opinion as a matter of personal conviction...'that' is what I take enourmous issue with. Here is an example from the link I gave before.

Good old Canadian (Alberta) inHuman Riech Commissars.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=ceebc006-06cc-4aa8-ad1a-5e3f7f5c8229#ixzz1DGTS4Xbo

//It is not specified what the AHRCC might consider "disparaging," but simply reading in public -- as in a sermon -- the Biblical admonitions against homosexual acts is not precluded. Indeed, the scope of the AHRCC order is so wide that it effectively says that Rev. Boissoin may not speak publicly on homosexuality ever again, unless he changes his opinion.//

See that last bit ? That is how FAR the gay lobby wants to take this.. it is bare faced MIND CONTROL or at least a damn good go at it.

*Unless he changes his opinion*

That is so diabolical as to be utterly evil.

The overlay of so called "Human Rights" and it's "Commissions" are exactly as I've always said they are.. nothing more than a socialist overlay (cancer) on free society.

We could arrive at the point where influence of the HRC's etc will be such that the Bible (remember.. we open parliament with the Lords Prayer) is regarded as 'evil' because of what it declares about gay behavior.

mikk - You put it very well, and it explains my extended absence from the site. There is only so much intolerance dressed up as "free speech" and pretense at victimization that I can stomach.

Even so, I am fine with some really tough arguing as long as all gets published. However, my observations have been that moderation policy has acted in such a way as to protect some of the worst offenders, while deleting responses to nasty comments. I figured it wasn't worth the energy of making posts if comments were going to be deleted or I was going to be warned of suspension for upsetting the sensibilities of one of the dainty petals.

Someone once pointed out to me that it's understandable that any owner/moderator is going to make decisions that reflect that person's bias to some extent - that's human (I reminded myself often), but the comment section deteriorated to the point that any non-extreme-right commentators and authors became just targets for the entertainment of a bunch of bigots.

I would actually prefer that there be almost no moderation, bar extreme profanity and hate speech, but the site has a policy and that's ok. It's Graham's site and so ultimately the site is or will become whatever he chooses to make of it. Whatever OLO is, it reflects Graham's preferences and choices and not the actions of any other person or group.

I favour two membership fees in olo. One double the other. For everyone who pays the double somebody else will get a free membership.

gp_: if you had participated on OLO comprehensively at any stage, it should be evident to you that most participants have been slandered or degraded in the heat of the moment, myself no exception.

Assumptions, abuse/bullying, a wide range of negatives occur on every public forum and if people find it too much at times; do not log in and participate until stronger or avoid the same abusive discriminatory posters comments.

Most participants take false or discriminatory comments with a grain of salt knowing full well that abusive or negative comments are generated from a person's fear, phobia or past personal abuse.

Now this is the point I wish to make gp-

The gays and gay movement have shot themselves in the foot so to speak and ruined a fantastic educational tool to support future respect and acceptance of married gays and their children.

I am also sad for people who are gay wanting to marry and/or are hoping that more of our Australian society will fully accept and educate our next generation into treating gay parents and their offspring, with respect and kindness.

This is my concern and its a damn shame that a few gay people who may be non-gay parents did not think or take into account, that there are gay people who have given their lives to adopt and raise children in Australia [and in so doing, educate these adopted children beautifully, who qualify as our future doctors, specialists, paramedics, nurses, teachers and tradespeople].

OLO is one of the perfect vehicles of education pg-.

A forum that has a huge readership, most of whom are not commenting at the same time, yet reading and educating themselves on gay issues, including gay people raising our Australian children contributing to society, gay people lobbying for society's acceptance, eradicating remnants of discrimination for the children of gay parents within our beautiful nation.

For those people who did complain, next time think outside of your own personal selfish squares for a moment prior to charging ahead like bulls at a gate with someone holding a red flag taunting you.

Pynchme, you're running pretty close to the line there. It is impossible for me to defend a moderation decision without revisiting the whole of the comment that was moderated. That's why we have a policy against arguing modersation decisions on the forum.

I have never moderated people on the basis of their political views and the site has never been full of bigots with reasonable people marginalised, and that is pretty easily demonstrated by the breadth of comment that we are getting at the moment.

I have had to deal with some people who from time to time, like Greg Storer, believe that they should run the site and that if something happens that they don't like they have the right to try and break it. On that basis it is hard to see how I could allow them to remain on the site as they tried to subvert rules by setting up their own parallel site to complain about moderation, as well as revisiting this site using sock puppets.

Donation made, too easy.

seems this is a global issue

from my fav source of news
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH Thanks to all who helped us out over the weekend. We are past the current crisis. As you know, these are dark times.

The money-addicts working against freedom and democracy are in a panic, and trying to shut down all opposition to their plans.

Every day more and more honest blogs are vanishing, to be replaced with well-funded "Flogs";*

*fake blogs designed to wrap the same old lies in new high-tech wrappings in the hopes that the people will fall for it.

WRH will continue its mission of throwing cold water on government mendacity as long as we are able to.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!

"A US attack on the Egypt Democracy Movement is a US attack on Democracy itself!" -- Michael Rivero

I started out with a good deal of sympathy for OLO but this dwindled over time as I came to realise that the editorial bar for publication was set much lower for religious apologists and AGW alarmists than for their opponents. If OLO is prepared to play fair and apply the same standards to all its articles -- which may mean increasing the size and diversity of its editorial board -- then I would be happy to see it go on; otherwise it seems to me it has outlived its usefulness.

GrahamY

I agree that the details of disagreements with the moderator should be kept off forum. However, simply banning or suspending someone who merely states they "disagree with the moderator" IS as much an infringement of free speech as that for which you are claiming victim status.

As I stated previously, I do not have any objection with the diversity of opinion of either articles or comments presented. I do take issue when comments are nothing more than hate filled rages - these comments are not always deleted when requested, and it takes courage for a complainant to discuss with the moderator why a comment should be deleted as they risk suspension or worse merely for disagreeing.

The premise of this forum is excellent.

And it in not possible to remove bias from any moderator.

However, said moderator has responsibilities and is obliged to treat all with respect and courtesy whether s/he agrees with the request for deletion or not.

The comments about minority groups such as gays have crossed the line from robust to abuse.

Time for some reflection by all.

PS

GrahamY

As an example of overreaction to opinion is your comment to Pynchme above. She was not abusive, merely presenting her view - the so called line you claim she crossed was a criticism of your moderating style, if you cannot tolerate any form of criticism, please consider handing the difficult responsibility of moderation to someone who is less personally sensitive.

I too would hate to see OLO fold it has been a terrific forum. OLO has degenerated over recent months.

im allways one needing to know why

and im not about to comment on moderating ..[but more about immoderation]...by others not officially ..supposed to be ..moderating

i noted user http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6699
[who has 5 posts]..thus who is i suspect a sock puppet..[but im only guessing]..and remember when we presume..we make an ass out of u and me..[ooops that was assume..i presumed wrong]

but such is the fruits of presumption
in lue of fact

anyhow

i was attracted to visit his/her.. post pages
because i read this ...rather obvious comment..[at this topic]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583#197512

so i visited the link to the article
then visited the article

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268&page=0

to make this comment there

[and also to read some of the comments
the user thought should have been censored]but may not have

[ps was he diss-cussing a moderating decision?

anyhow....as i dont know ..if ..that id complained..or wether another id complained..but its clear someone complained ..to ibm and anz

[it would be useless to speculate
if my having been attendant on the..[posted topic] ..could have chasnged the course of events....[going by the lost mail principle..]

;to explain

for want of a moderate poster ..bringing down the tone of the topic posted..[ie a nail..the horseshoe was lost..for want of a horseshoe the horse was lost...for want of a horse the gun-carrage never made it into battle..and the battle was lost..thus was the war lost..for want of a nail]

continues

we are each important
each but nails holding this opinion voicing-line together]

but there are those ...who feel their voices are more important
those ..who can make wars ..over nothing..who see everything as a must*win battle

some who pretend to be nails
or think they are horses..or even those fools[like me]...who think anything they say..could have changed things..[or else why bother posting]

while on my forced sabbaticle...because of annon complaint
wierd karmic events happend...

but im not happy that they did

its grayhams call
not those ..who think they know how to get the nails deleted

or take horse-shoes from horses..
or get horses canned

[if its a flight they be wanting..
its fight they shall beget]...

this isnt about bankers..[lest we forget]
its simply about paying the bills...and freespeach be allowed to be heard..[and corrected]..

let what happend on the field..
stay on the field..

[at the to-pick]..
but the topic ...is closed

darn...

This will be my last post to OLO. The reason is expressed pretty well by Jon J and J Parker above.

I've been a supporter of the site for some time, including making a substantial donation well before any of this current kerfuffle came up. I saw that donation as an investment in a worthy experiment that aims to provide am outlet for expression that is not readily available elsewhere. However, I have become increasingly concerned about the moderation, finding myself disagreeing with it more than I agree.

I'm not concerned that Graham has a bias. He makes no secret of his own religious affiliations or his political views, so it is not unexpected to see articles expresing views aligned with his own getting traction, if only because he knows more people who may be inclined one way than another. I am concerned, however, when exponents of one view are held to a higher standard than others expressing an opposing view, which I feel has become more prevalent of late.

I suspect Graham is finding it difficult to maintain his objectivity under the pressures, both financial and personal that he is facing at the moment. I can sympathise with that, but I can't condone it in the face of the ideals that OLO aspires to promote.

"Soft" power is not just the preserve of the pink lobby - religious groups are also astute in using it. The fact that Graham has little complaint about their exercise of such power does not change the reality of its existence.

I've done some research on Pynchme's complaints. In reading her comments you should bear in mind that Pynchme has never been suspended and only once had a comment deleted. That comment was abusive of Antiseptic who has just posted on this thread to say that he is taking his bat and ball home because I suspended him for an abusive comment. Antiseptic is one of the "petals" that Pynchme has accused me of protecting.

Pynchme has only ever once recommended a comment for deletion in the four and a half years that she has been on the site. That comment was deleted.

Jon J, I think you should reveal that you are a pro-atheist campaigner before you criticise me for publishing people who have religious views. I think you will find that they are published on this site in smaller numbers than their proportion in the total population, and it's reasonable they get a say. I published two pro-AGW pieces this morning, both from academics. There's one from a priest on euthanasia which is in response to accusations about Christians and their views on euthanasia.

No-one will get suspended for making a general comment about moderation, but if, like Pynchme they start referring to specific decisions then they may well run into trouble. The reason for the suspension is that if you have rules and they are to mean anything there have to be penalties for breaking them. I also don't have unlimited time to keep removing posts - easier to remove posters for a time until they cool down.

There are some fine lines. I hope pynchme, J Parker, mikk and Antiseptic don't leave OLO. They make great contributions.

I agree the religious agendas are very influential on this site as are the AGW opponents but the opportunities are there for others to put their view. I had hoped Clive Hamilton might submit another article (not necessarily about Climate Change) but that does not appear to be on the cards. One way to offset the Conservative lean to the site is to submit articles. GY publishes a wide variety.

Sometimes as humans are apt, we see the harshness of moderation according to where we sit on the ideological spectrum, if those with similar worldviews are moderated it is emphasised whereas those with opposing views may not hit the personal radar. In the same way that the ABC is criticised for being left wing and right wing by various people depending if their fave politician has just been grilled by Kerry O'Brien.

Many of the articles with a religious agenda invite strong comment and I find it is usually the religious author that cops most of the flak. As for AGW - well that is the usual minefield.

Not every moderating decision will be on the mark, nor will everyone ever agree, so ultimately someone has to take responsibility. That is the moderator's job.

GY is human like the rest of us, and perhaps some of the feedback made on this thread will give pause for thought.

I do wonder at some comments that remain at times, like calling homosexuals perverts or pedophiles but admittedley I have not pressed the report button mainly due to a commitment not to oppress free speech, but that can go too far if criticism becomes villification. There is a difference. But maybe those comments were moderated and I missed it.

J Parker - Facts - to the contrary, OLO has significantly progressed in leaps and bounds during 2010, with an influx of both new members signing up and contributing coupled with participants commenting for the first time on issues after years not actively participating.

Every Australian viewpoint is valuable, whether or not we agree or disagree.

In regards to moderation, one needs to respect the fact that OLO has given every Australian magnificent opportunities to learn from other people and to be heard.

If critics do not understand the time energy and personal sacrifices Moderators and OLO Staff have made in order for OLO to exist, you put your hands up and volunteer to become moderators and experience the obviously complex and difficult task.

Graham gave people the opportunity for feedback re; moderation and the golden opportunity seeking nominees for moderators a while back. I noted that the long term regular contributors provided feeback. Did you provide feedback at the time J Parker?

It is often the critics who sit back, fire shots and yet not bother about sacrificing their own time to assist vehicles they have used for years.

Reflect upon the many hours OLO staff have sacrificed for YOU

Antiseptic, are you claiming Graham Young has not had the other side of the story in thread form up, too?
Not so, by my recollection, it's one of these issues that's perennial to these sites over long times.
Why pick on him because he allowed more than one take on the subject?
Agree with your last point tho, both groups are energetic activists in seeking attention to their views on life and that's ok, so long as one view or other isn't arbitrarily snuffed for another, without even the politeness of consideration for it, let alone substantial reason for its ignoring.
We'd probably agree that Meulenberg's tome was naive, to say the least.
I thought people did well enough dealing with it for themselves in the thread comments, although the more hillbilly stuff I could have done without.

Graham,

I have just read your article and I am absolutely appalled that a democratic country such as Australia can allow such a thing to happen. I strongly believe in the freedom of speech it is a fundamental right and it amazes me how many people parrot my words but when they read something unpalatable to them, freedom of speech suddenly becomes selective.

I am a strong proponent of gay rights though I'm not gay myself. I had a problem some years back when I opened a gay dating agency. I didn't realise that my landlord was a police union and they attempted (and succeeded) in closing me down though nothing untoward occurred on my premises.

One of my members complained to A Current Affair and told them there might be an interesting story in it. I was interviewed and appeared on ACA defending my rights to conduct any type of legal business that I deemed fit. I don't know anybody at channel 9 today as I don't watch TV anymore but if you like I will approach them and suggest there may be a story there for them.

What ANZ and IBM are doing to ONO is plain and simple censorship and should not be tolerated by anyone. I don't think that ANZ or IBM would want to appear on ACA to defend their actions and at least ONO would receive substantial free advertising and support from concerned citizens.

Hang in there Graham, by fighting for what is right you are not only fighting for ONO but for any free thinking organizations that depend on advertising dollars for their survival. What kind of society are we when organizations that encourage free and open debate feel it necessary to tip toe around controversial and important issues?

graham why is the account with anz?

Because I've banked with the ANZ for 46 years. So many things to do that organising another bank hasn't been at the top of my list.

Graham you would be a good candidate for Q&A to discuss matters of freedom of speech.

What about it ABC? (With Graham's permission of course)

It's enlightening to ponder and compare the difference between the freedom of expression accorded to an individual when contributing to a forum like OLO, and the relative difficulty of having a "letter to the editor" chosen for publication in a major newspaper.
In that case, one is completely at the mercy of editorial agenda of the said publication, not to mention the minuscule amount of space given over to public opinion in the average newspaper.

Jon J

Graham has taken far more flak for giving a platform to greenhouse scepticism than proponents of AGW – remember the Clive Hamilton episode? I guess one form of evidence for impartiality is if both sides accuse you of bias in favour of their opponents.

If you don’t like what an author says you can disagree freely in the forums. If you don’t like the balance of authors, suggest another – the range of (sometimes off-the-wall) articles from a wide range of perspectives suggests to me Graham tries hard to include a broad spectrum of opinion here. Isn’t that what keeps us coming back?

As to a bias in deletions, in many years of vigorous debate I’ve never had a comment deleted (so far as I remember) and have never recommended deletion of any comments for ideology or abuse (only spammers etc).

The key question here is whether anyone should try to choke off the funding of a website for hosting – not even advocating – a position they disagree with. This is a fundamental attack on free speech

more to the point alternative media outlets should have a weighting bias in favour of the minority view ipso facto , otherwise why bother

The hard fact is that sexuality in living organisms is not but a condition undefined in the interval between masculinity and femininity.

One, whose genetic make-up happens to be placed close to the middle of such interval in a society of humans, is given the name of gay (homophile or lesbian).

Biologists know that these names approximate a position in the sexuality range.

On a platform totally unrelated to sexuality lies the social construction called ‘marriage’; to some the cell of a sane society to others the germ of a rotten one.

When such platform is dismantled the sanity and the rot will disappear and so will this debacle, which has its roots in possessions (money) and privilege.

What is sad in this debacle is that the contenders sit on top of rigid poles equally spaced and erected vertically.

However OLO deserves to be kept going even if the editorial management has the bias clearly disclosed at the start or its activity.

A suggestion; Mr. Young, please updates your picture.

I can't see that there is not a valid and legitimate reason of there being “gays” - many may be hermaphrodites, they do exist in nature, and any action by any person to damage their ability to live a natural life is not to be encouraged or allowed. According to medical reports, the determination of the difference of what sex a person is going to be, rests on two chromosomes and it has been a quirk of nature that this pops up in unexpected people. If this happens in nature where it can be explained with the belief that some portion of that particular chromosome (if this is possible) can exist in any other person, and care has to be taken, not to harm those people, they have no protection against such a condition. Is it natures way to see if we are really tolerant? Mariage between "gays" should possibly be a slightly different format to normal weddings, but I don't know how or why.

omg why does it need some sort of medical explanation? sexuality is complex - part nature, part nurture, part environment...and a very wide gamut of sexual preference exists. Within hetero relationships you have fetishes - can that be explained via biology? No.

There's no point in talking about 'how or why' people are gay, or(let's not forget we bisexuals who are not gender specific when it comes to sexual and emotional attraction towards minds as well bodies)we must instead just accept that it's a normal part of the spectrum of the human condition.

Adult people, regardless of sex, if they are keen to put their commitment in legal terms, why not let them. Seriously - where is the harm?

Being heterosexual does not guarantee fidelity or superior parenting skills. I can cite my own parents as two prime examples.

The topic of this discussion, was about free speech...and I guess while ever money is involved, there's no such thing. In order for this website to exist, it needs money...and the way to get money is to become popular. Sometimes popularily comes at the expense of controversy and controversy sometimes gets you in hot water.

We can't all agree, this is true, but we can always be kind and civil...and stick to the topic at hand.

We're clear thinking adults aren't we?

On the matter of advertisers, surely a good start would be a simple disclaimer, perhaps along the lines of:
"The advertisers on this site are happy and proud to support the fine Australian traditions of free speech and open, even vigorous debate. It should never be assumed however, that any particular advertiser endorses the views of any particular contributor on any particular subject."
On the matter of moderation (of comments) a simple answer I would suggest would be to inject a smidgen of Democracy. In the same way that x number of people can 'like' a comment, show how many people disliked a comment. when the number reaches a set amount, the comment is deleted and the commenter barred from further comments on that thread.
If you want an entity to grow and have a life of its own, you have to loosen the apron strings.

Isn’t that what keeps us coming back?

As to a bias in deletions, in many years of vigorous debate I’ve never had a comment deleted (so far as I remember) and have never recommended deletion of any comments for ideology or abuse (only spammers etc).

The key question here is whether anyone should try to choke off the funding of a website for hosting – not even advocating – a position they disagree with. This is a fundamental attack on free speech

Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 3:34:24 PM

Exactly Rhian.

"The key question here is whether anyone should try to choke off the funding of a website for hosting – not even advocating – a position they disagree with. This is a fundamental attack on free speech"

Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 3:34:24 PM

Agreed that is one of the problems. What are the effective remedies though?

Another serious problem is the ease with which trolls and sock puppets are able to exist on the site and argue with moderators. Arguing with mods, provoking fights with members and endlessly challenging rules are favoured modi operandi of the internet troll.

There are solutions that most sites employ to survive and provide an enjoyable experience for members. One of the proactive treatments I would like to see introduced ASAP is a requirement for all members to provide and maintain a real internet address with an ISP, not Hotmail, Gmail or similar.

Well I am a bit late finding out about this funding removal for OLO as I have been a week without electricity after cyclone Vasi vented it’s power up here in North Queensland. I have no objections to becoming a paying member and will send the same to-morrow. On Line Opinion is a wonderful website and full marks to Graham and whoever else helps to run it.

Suppressing the opinions of people doesn’t work, they just go on thinking the same thing but not saying so. Better to have their opinions out in the open where they can be debated or challenged.

I have had the occasional opinion deleted by Graham myself, and I knew he was right and I had gone too far. Sometimes If I modified the offending comment he would allow it to pass.

Being gay or not is just the luck of the draw, the way the genetic soup comes together. They had no idea about genetics back in biblical days the same way they had no idea that the earth wasn’t the centre of the Universe and had to change the biblical text. Would God have really condemned anybody because of their genetic coding?

lest we forget

this all started as a reply to a flame
[to quote..the intro of the article in question]

quote...''A so-called conservative writer..[flame]..
parroted some silly arguments[opinion]
for same-sex marriage in the Sunday Age recently.

He finishes by saying that marriage ..is a good thing (which it is),
so it should be available for homosexuals as well.

He is wrong big time here.''

end quote]
ok i havnt read further

but its clear he was pushed..into defending..the traditional vieuw..[hardly unique]..of a marrage being between one man....and one woman...

[im reasonably sure he would reply to any flame that made this classic duality ..into a trinity etc..[ie more than one wife/husband]

this poor guy
was only responding
he hasnt just decided to make this up ..out of nothing

much like all of us try to correct error whenever...
wherever we think to see it

i know i should be building to a point
but the whole thing is absurd

like this comment

quote jon j..'..sympathy for OLO
but this dwindled over time..as I came to realise that the editorial bar for publication..was set much lower for religious apologists and AGW alarmists than for their opponents''

as a religeous appoligist..
recently banned for one month ..i find this laughable

[as silly as abc/bbc/nbc.. [or any media being called leftwing]

the left is dead..its now only a lable..those of the extreemists right wing use to rebut arguments they cant refute...there is no proof of global warming...but plenty that economists ned a new tax

as for religeon..thats a matter of faith..not opinion

faith without works is faithlessness...
[i know there is a god who is only good]

what ..im expected to be quiet
while fools who think everyone should be godless
rule the roost by annon complaint?...and out and out lies/distorions?

what is it to allow the clever
to decieve the foolish or ignorant]

that evolution is fact
when its theory at best..

that any marrage is true faithfull till you die marrage

that the godless take on faith ..from sharlitons..[science..
that has sold out the people many times..that those in monogomous relations have their value poluted by those wanting it all..

..go ahead call me on any of that

you cant claim marrage..one to one
then go to the boys club and have hundreds of others

let those putting in the efforts to be faithfull
keep their sacred trust scared..or at least allow them to defend offence[to them]..he was..RESPONDING>..

[that anz overeacted to lawfull faithfullness
to ONE partner is a shame on them]

but lets egsamine the works of the sciebnce elites

bird flue sars swine flue ..cooling..warming...
everything from assuring us the earth is flat..
to going over 15 miles per hour..in a car should disolve the human body...or the moon was coverd in meteres of dust

science gets it wrong first time everytime..!

if you dont 'get ' the science..
its because its doing its game playing...again*

cure for cancer...allways next year
or the next ten years
been hearing that since 1928

stop flaming jon

the clever flames go unoticed
because those who complain..are the same group that flame
then hope to complain..again and again..what does the flame gain?

their godless..adgenda
shutting down dissent..[then getting their latest scam in]

fool me once shame on you
fool me twice shame on you..again
fool me again and again..shame on both of us

if we cant defend the things we believe in
who neds an opinion to be heard privledge/site

sham on anz
shame on ibm

they stand revealed
by their own works

hung on their own petard
by their deeds shall we know them
their values are obvious to all..for all to see

This comment from Ulis seems to sum up the general slant of the commentary so far:

'What ANZ and IBM are doing to ONO is plain and simple censorship and should not be tolerated by anyone.'

Frankly, I would call the last 5 words of that quote a form of censorship - i.e. blanket declarations of what should or should not be tolerated.

This is not 'plain and simple censorship', it's part of the overall checks and balances of how thought and opinion ebbs and flow through the culture. Withdrawing one's business as a form of protest or to take a stand on a moral or political issue is an age-old method of protest in all democratic cultures.

The website is not being shut down. The firms simply withdrew their advertising - as was their right. Some other websites affected, such as Larvatus Prodeo and En Passant, have either praised the firms' actions overall or are, at least, unconcerned by it.

Those who would, on the grounds of 'censorship', deny the right of people to take an active stand against behaviour or speech they find offensive, corrupting or dangerous are practising their own censorship - only they're too self-righteous see it.

I'd like to thank Graham for all he has done over the years.
He has always put forward balanced argument, even if I don't agree with some of his beliefs, I definitely respect his right to have his say.

As for the two banks that have pulled their advertising, they are doing so to punish Graham for not going far enough to shut down any discussion about this blight on our society that is Homosexuality.
This abhorrent form of human depravity is destroying our family structures and our society, just as Abortion is and worst still, as Feminism has.

We must all stand up and fight for free speech and free expression of our beliefs and not be frightened off by criminals who push their own evil agendas by threatening us, and who try to shut down anyone who criticises them.

I hope this site keeps going, it would be a tragedy if it closes!

>> This abhorrent form of human depravity is destroying our family structures and our society, just as Abortion is and worst still, as Feminism has.

We must all stand up and fight for free speech and free expression of our beliefs and not be frightened off by criminals who push their own evil agendas by threatening us, and who try to shut down anyone who criticises them.<<

Riiight, "we must all stand up and fight for free speech" so long as the speeches are not from gays, feminists, pro-choice and other apparent 'criminals'.

I geddit.

Killarney <" This is not 'plain and simple censorship', it's part of the overall checks and balances of how thought and opinion ebbs and flow through the culture. Withdrawing one's business as a form of protest or to take a stand on a moral or political issue is an age-old method of protest in all democratic cultures."

Well said Killarney, and absolutely true.
I would go further and say that some of those bleating about the 'censorship' of such an anti-homosexual article are not at all upset about the companies pulling out their business from OLO by taking a stand against such bigoted articles.

Many are actually upset that ANYONE does not agree with the rubbish the article advocates.
They look at this 'protest' as a stand against gay marriage and homosexuality in general.

OLO needs to just cut their losses, find other financial backers, and learn from this mistake. We can't be seen to be promoting such hate-inspiring articles.

There is nothing wrong with spirited debates on homosexuality, or any other divisive issue, but when it turns into something ugly and bigoted, like discussing homosexuality as an 'abomination' or a 'perversion' etc, then those comments need to be deleted.

I empathise Graham. Here is the reality: when one dances with the devil one will suffer singed eyebrows. While Australia takes great pride (before the fall?) in being an 'open' and 'fair' society that allows everyone a 'right' to have a say, the reality is that those of socialist and other bents harbour a very different belief The extremists amongst them - which includes a certain red-head - are happy to exploit what they see as a 'weakness' - which it is - in the feel-good wall of tolerance and openness. Which is why they will bide their time and strike when the opportunity presents - as, in your instance, did Bill Muhlenberg's article open up the opportunity. In parallel vein, increasing numbers are now rapidly realising that the 'open' and 'fairminded' idea of multiculturism is and has always been ideological and intellectual rubbish - something I have been saying for at least twenty years (and invariably receiving typical socialist abuse in response). Likewise, I say that the idea of allowing socialist thinking to be part of the 'debate' - to even allow it to exist, let alone promote itself within a society - will, as the Russian and German nations so unhappily found out, allow socialism the finger it needs to take control of the hand. Human nature being what it is, Australia's 'tolerance' and even embrace of socialism - or, in truth, of communism - has thus far caused at least the loss of both arms, with the rest of the body to soon follow - barring a miracle. As with my warnings on multiculturalism, feel free to hurl the epithets. I have survived many thrown by experts in the art. But don't say I didn't warn you, Australia.

PeterForde says:
"While Australia takes great pride (before the fall?) in being an 'open' and 'fair' society that allows everyone a 'right' to have a say, the reality is that those of socialist and other bents harbour a very different belief"
and then goes on to say:
"Likewise, I say that the idea of allowing socialist thinking to be part of the 'debate' - to even allow it to exist, let alone promote itself within a society - will, as the Russian and German nations so unhappily found out, allow socialism the finger it needs to take control of the hand."
So, only socialists are inclined to stifle debate... and for that their debate should be stifled.
Are you for real?

Graham, you say "there are rarely clear cut right and wrong answers when it comes to opinions." Only in a society that (a) is largely ignorant and (b)has lost its moral way - and the two are directly connected. When one has been born and - more importantly - bred (aka brainwashed) into a particular society, then one typicaly cannot see the wood for the trees, or more accurately in Australia's case, the brambles for the thorns. Paradigms rule and the paradigm ruling most of Australia's perspectives is its most certain Achilles Heel.

GP, you said, "Just because I'm not like some of the commenters on the post does not give them the right to refer to me, my partner, my life as a perversion." Properly informed people do not assume 'the right' to call you a perversion "just because" you are different. They describe you as such because the facts of millennia of human history and bitter experience prove that such behaviour/attitudes/"perversions" are destructive to the overall stability and wellness of a society when they get out of hand and out of control (note the word 'control') - as has happened in Australia. Let me emphasise, these are NOT our 'opinions' they are the FACTS of human history and experience. Don't argue with people like me - go argue with centuries of bitter human experience. That is, go argue with reality...

Grim, I certainly am 'for real.' The much respected expression, "the cost of civilisation is eternal vigilance" is a direct observation that evil needs to be stomped on as soon as it raises its...well...evil head. What's the point of being vigilant if you are going to sit with folded arms when that against which you are guarding manifests? Read my previous post about 'the Australian paradigm' and know that...et tu, Brute.

Are we all 100% Male or 100% Female, or are millions of us 80% to 20% male or female, or 70% to 30% male or female.
Think about what you observe and see, there is more truth in that than what you are told.

Some men are big blokey alpha males 100% down to their boot straps. Some men are more sensitive looking in build and personality but percentage wise they are still very much on the hetrosexual side of the male coin although obviously having more feminine traits.

Ditto for females.

I don’t think the mixing of male and femaleness is a perversion but is actually a normality of nature. The homosexuals are just more noticeable because they are right on the cross -the- line point.

I think this could actually be proven if studied enough. So to all those out there thinking the homosexuals are the only gender benders, consider what your own percentage of male and female combination may be as compared to the ultra sex pot female(Marilyn Munroe) or the ultra macho muscle man.
Fall a bit short of 100% do you?

Oh, well that's OK then.
Just so long as you aren't one of those evil socialists who think they have a right to stop other people from expressing an opinion...

It is a sad day in Australia when large companies see fit to bully and blackmail to prevent offense to the minority of their consumers. I found nothing wrong with this article that has caused ANZ and BMI to withdraw funds. We are a great country because of freedom of speech. People are coming here in droves because of our freedom of expression and free rights. It is totally unaustralian for these two financial institutions to do this.
Our country was founded by Godly men who built Australia up from nothing and used the Word of God as a guide for morality. That is why we are so great. People can argue all they like about homosexual vs heterosexual, but it will never change the original rule book (Bible) that states "Man was to marry woman and procreate (have children)". Man and man can't do this and woman and woman can't do this. Aids is the result of their ungodly unions. God says that His Words will never change, for they are the same yesterday, today and forever.
Yes you may choose homosexual lifestyle over the norm, this is your free choice, but please don't try to teach us it is normal & ask us to accept it. Go Bill and Chris.

Killarney
I have no problem with private business owners directing their business’s commercial activities according moral choices, but I do object to employees of public companies using shareholders’ money to further their personal ideological agendas.

I suspect this is not what’s happened in the case of ANZ, however. More likely is that the decision was made to withdraw advertising because it was feared that the organisation would suffer reputational damage by association with site hosting an article propounding a controversial position.

I think this was poor judgement because:

a) most grownups can clearly tell that the site is not propounding an anti-gay stance itself but is explicitly committed to giving voice to all sides of the argument on controversial issues, of which this was but one example;

b) it appears this attack on OLO is being done collusively, as more than one company has withdrawn advertising; and

c) the principle of free speech, which is a foundational value of OLO, is so important that even bigots like Muehlenberg should be allowed a platform, not least so that we who disagree with him can articulate why he’s wrong.

By bowing to pressure and withdrawing advertising, with its clear agenda of shutting down a platform for a view some people find offensive, the ANZ is attacking the principle that even the Muehlenbergs of this world should not be denied a platform.

This leads to Cornflower’s very legitimate question – what can we do about it. What we can do is to make clear to ANZ that its judgement is wrong and that it will suffer more reputational damage by attacking free speech than through a tenuous association with Muehlenberg that no reasonable person would interpret as endorsement.

I’m an ANZ customer and have already lodged a protest at the site Briar Rose so helpfully posted. I urge others to do the same:

http://www.anz.com/common/forms/default.asp?intID=174

YHWH4ME last I heard it was not compusory.

What's normal?
Reading your post I'd say your attitude to faith is outside the norm's. I can accept your freedoms to think like that except where it start's to impose on the freedoms of others to believe differently. I hold some personal views about what you believe that I generally choose not to voice except when it comes to imposing your beliefs on others.

Oddly enough I've found very little need to spend much time and effort thinking about the sex lives of homosexuals (or the grossly obese etc). It all does not end up being much of an issue unless you choose it to be.

R0bert

Perhaps OLO should chat with organisastions like Westpac, for
some advertising revenue. Gail Kelly heads that show and as
an ex South African, she would know from experience, what it is
like when free speech is denied to people by Govt legislation.

It seems that once we have actually experienced the opposite,
we realise even more, the value of these freedoms which we Aussies
take for granted at times.

I love Online Opinion. I think it does a good job of allowing different points of view to reach an audience. I think people should be able to say what they think. I think people should able to say homosexuality is wrong. I think they should be able to say Catholicism is evil. I think those who are offended by speech should be able to answer, but not to suppress.

That said, this matter can hardly be boxed up as a simple question of freedom of speech. There is simply no sound basis in a free (capitalist) society for demanding that a firm should place its advertising with a particular vehicle if it doesn't want to do so.

OLO has been presented with a question of whether it is more important to maintain its reputation as a journal which is unafraid to publish a range of views, regardless of their popularity in particular spheres, or limit its content so as to better its chances of obtaining advertising revenue.

I also want to say to those (eg, the good people at LP) who carp about hate speech dressed up as free speech, some of the most vituperative comments I have seen are levelled at people with whom the commenters at LP disagree. There is some attempt at justification of that practice over there by saying that the hateful comments are reserved for people whose opinions they despise rather than those whose lifestyles abominate. Stalinists always did feel more at home with suppression of opinion than the rest of us.

Mr Storer implores that we remember that this is about Graham Young, not him. He took offence and then took action, so I think this is really about him. His view is that people shouldn't be able to say things with which he strongly disagrees or by he is offended. The thing is, the regimes of the twentieth century which took that proposition seriously were uniformly cruel to gays. He should take that into account in wishing for a brave new world where offensive ideas are criminalised.

Is ad hominem the problem?

I thank Briar Rose for introducing this term into my vocabulary. Coming from the peer reviewed scientific arena, it is beyond my experience and my English teachers (late 40s) were remiss in not teaching it, particularly as debating was part of the curriculum. Anyhow, I don’t feel too bad; my B.A., B.Litt. daughter didn’t know the term either.

It can be defined as ‘appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think’, as well as ‘attacking an author rather than the argument’.

OLO strings are full of ad hominem comment, which detracts from their appeal. I certainly tend to ‘give up’ when there is too much of it, particularly when two ad hominem types attack each other and destroy objectivity and hurt the argument.

Which brings me to the point: Is the uselessness of ad hominem comment the real reason why commentators and sponsors give up?

If this is part of the explanation, the question then arises as to how administrators edit their blog and apply rules to discourage or prevent it – without exposing themselves to accusations of bias.

So Graham. you face a conundrum. I will be interested to see how you resolve it. Good luck, because OLO is too valuable to lose.

Hi Beef, I think it depends how the ad hom is applied. From a rhetorical point of view it can be reasonable to attack the credibility of the writer within the area being argued. So, if I'm arguing against a mining tax, for example, it could be relevant that I own mining shares.

The problem arises when your only argument is that I own mining shares. And then there is a further problem if the allegation makes strident accusations.

So I wouldn't have a problem with someone saying that they think someone is wrong, and here are the logical reasons, and aren't they letting their views be unduly influenced by something to do with their employment, for example. But to just dismiss what they say because of who they have earned money from or what organisation they belong to isn't really acceptable.

I took a comment down a while back that lambasted an author for being Catholic and suggested that she go out with her boyfriend and make babies rather than writing and said nothing else.

If the post had made some logical points, put those points in the context of her Catholicism and hadn't offensively suggested she go and get laid, then it might have survived.

Accusations of bad faith, such as lying, aren't allowed to stand, although you can make an accusation that what someone has said is wrong (intention to deceive being the distinguishing factor). And I generally view character assessments, such as that someone is a hypocrite or narcissist, as being better removed.

However, you have to bear in mind that the site works on complaint moderation. Sometimes I never know that something I would remove has been posted, which can look like inconsistency, but is really just ignorance.

Graham,
my sympathy for your predicament (and I shall see about a modest consideration). I'm bound to say at the outset however that, being a student of the Enlightenment, I don't believe you're one of its children--based on our admittedly slight acquaintance.
That doesn't alter the fact, though, that this situation is despicable and that the so-called freedom of the press is the same Romantic lie in the internet age as it's always been.
Unlike, I suspect, the majority of posters to this sight, I have no illusions about the ordered-artificiality of our culture, wherein so-called opinion is almost universally second-hand and stereotypical. This is of course what the advertisers want, especially corporate peace-keepers like banks who systematically fleece us, get bailed out and patronise us with equal insincerity.
But the internet is supposed to be the ultimate in free-market ideology, is it not? And a great many posters like nothing more than to poor scorn on the ABC, which is in fact a last bastion of journalistic integrity. Though populism rules and the constant campaign against Aunty (playing into the hands of government) will prevail in the end, and private interests will lower her hem.
For my part, there is nothing worth preserving about our decadent and self-righteously opinionated society, and I despise the self-infatuated gays just as much as the conservative preservers of our bogus traditions. Indeed I despise the Greens for betraying their constituents in the interests of a politically-correct beat-up and free-sex as consolation prize.

I think you should make a national issue of this, Graham. Publish this outrage far and wide and I suspect you'll get all the advertising dollars you need. Sink or swim.

I am not sure one could label the ANZ and IBM as Stalinists.

The publicity would also be a shot in the arm. You might find yourself knocking backers back!

Absolutely, Squeers.

Graham - the hallmark of "survivors" is that they have the facility to fashion opportunities out of setbacks.

And there is a principle at stake here!

The question I'd like to have answered is why Gregory Storer and whoever else engineered the economic boycott on OLO didn't make complaints under the Anti Discrimination legislation instead?

That's what it's there for. They would have received plenty of support. They wouldn't have copped any valid criticism for taking that action.

And had the anti discrimination board found in their favour, they would have had the opportunity to raise the bar for all on line comments and forums, something that is long overdue.

Then they would really have been gay activists, achieving something that would benefit everyone.

Instead they have used what can only look like revenge as a motive, and as their first port of call. In approaching ALL the advertisers on this site, they must have intended to cause it financial distress to the degree that it might close down.

This achieves nothing for the gay community. It does not address vilification, abuse or anything else. It merely satisfies the unsavoury need for personal revenge on the part of some people.

We have legislation in this country to prevent vilification. Try using it instead of immediately attempting to shut down an entire on line community, many of whom are strong supporters of gay rights.

What an opportunity missed!

As I am wont to do when considering posting upon a thread which IMNSHO has lost its way, I have just re-read the article.

Given that the article is by the principal of OLO, and that Graham Young stands accused by some of publishing the Muehlenberg article purely as link bait for his site, I paid particular attention this time to some of the links posted within his own article. One of them (this one, the text link words 'secondary boycott': http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/02/05/of-secondary-boycotts-free-speech-and-revenue/ ), claimed to have been the basis for Christopher Pearson's item in The Australian*, contains pure gold.

Helen Dale (aka Demidenko), the skeptic lawyer, says about one sixth of the way down that linked page:

"Do read Pearson’s piece*; it’s a good
and careful documentation of something
that this lawyer has long suspected was
coming: a straight-up, bald conflict between
the [Australian] Trade Practices Act and internally
developed hate speech and advertising codes."

It could be important for viewers to know that the words 'internally developed' have meaning especially with respect to an entity known as the 'Internet Advertising Sales Houses Australia' (IASH Australia), an entity not mentioned in Graham Young's article, but identified in Pearson's news item* as the proponent of the hate speech and advertising code in question.

IASH Australia, with a founding membership in 2009 of 12 predominantly trans-national internet advertising entities (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583#197541 ) seemingly has inherited its mantle of self-appointed authority from a US-based and apparently US government sponsored organisation, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

There is thus the added dimension of IASH Australia, and advertisers like IBM and ANZ that may have associated themselves with this hate speech and advertising code, of not only breaching the Trade Practices Act by promoting a secondary boycott, but of having done so collusively as agents of a foreign power in usurpation of the role of the Australian Parliament.

I am therefore proposing that supporters of OLO should mobilise in a way that will see the Australian banking industry, whether it likes it or not, fund the OLO revenue deficit.

TBC
* http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/oversensitivity-can-only-compromise-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1226000416817

Continued

In the second paragraph of her blog entry of 0550, 5 February 2011 ( http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/02/05/of-secondary-boycotts-free-speech-and-revenue/comment-page-2/#comment-108629 ), Skeptic Lawyer Helen Dale says:

"The revenue from the ads Graham brokered
paid off my Australian credit card .....
My application for a scholarship at the
Scottish Bar was held in high esteem thanks
to the quality of this site. I wouldn’t be
studying my Roman/Scots law conversion course
without it–it would otherwise cost me £8000.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t happen to
have £8000 just sitting around."

Ah, but that's where you may be wrong, Helen Dale, in suggesting many of the readership of OLO and the other participant sites of The Domain don't have, say, $10,000 'just sitting around'. Courtesy jointly of that part of the Australian finance industry that issues credit cards, and the National Australia Bank, very many of us may have thousands of dollars sitting around that we simply don't realize is there!

Have a look at this NAB web page: http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/campaigns/personal/39/1

The NAB are offering that if you successfully apply for an NAB Gold credit card before 18 March 2011, you will be charged no interest on balance transfers from other institutions' credit cards until 1 January 2012. That is a period of between nine and ten months interest free.

I happen to have an ANZ Visa credit card with at least $10,000 of unused credit limit available. Many others among OLO's viewers and users would have, or could get, similar credit limits approved that they would have no intention of actually exploiting in the normal course of events.

The prospect of OLO, and other sites, having to shut down because of unlawful interdiction of their revenue stream is not something to be classed as being in 'the normal course of events'.

Now if OLO was to be able to process a credit card transaction depositing, say, $10,000 into a trust account on my behalf, that transaction would become a transferable balance to my new NAB Gold card, wouldn't it?

TBC

Continued

Now if I could be sure of being able to recover my $10,000 that I surrendered into OLO's safekeeping just before 1 January 2012, I might be very pleased with the possibility of OLO earning interest on that principal over the upcoming nine or ten months, provided it was invested with absolutely rock solid institutions.

The NAB, for example, presently offer 6.00% on a seven month term deposit, and 3.15% on a 60 day term deposit. OLO could ostensibly earn $402.50 in interest on my $10,000 trust account over the nine months of the interest-free Gold card balance transfer offer.

Just prior to 1 January 2012 I recover my $10,000 principal from OLO and pay out the balance on my NAB Gold card. End of exercise.




Between March and December 2011, ANZ would have been deprived of earnings by way of interest and/or penalties that might have in the interim accrued to my ANZ Visa card, and that would only be just.

If 100 persons were similarly prepared to exploit unused credit limits available to them of like extent, then OLO could seemingly raise $40,000 over nine months. If 1000 could see their way clear to do it to the tune of $10,000 each, then around $400,000 could be raised. And so on, and so forth ....

The interest earned would, I presume be a gift, rather than income, in OLO's hands, and thus non-taxable.




The solidarity of the banks, expressed in the condition whereby card balances borrowed from the issuing bank are normally excluded from any interest-free balance transfer offer, would have been seen to have been broken in a manner about which little or nothing could be done, and the sector's credit used to make OLO immune to this type of standover tactic.

Surely OLO and The Domain between them could set up with due probity such an arrangement, advertise it, and report much as in a prospectus that enough supporters had pledged to make the exercise worthwhile before anyone has to deposit?

Jennifer as a hetrosexual person as you often state, you would not be aware of the stigmatisation Gay people experience daily. To be called publically and on OLO a Pervert, Abomination, Paedohile, and Disease carrier, plus other hate comments.
You being a hetrosexul would have no experience of these negative and hate comments, therefore you are really in no postion to comment on why Greg Storer took the action he did.
Your right to comment is respected,though live five minutes in the life of a gay person, before you dictate to us.

Kipp,

Jennifer appears not to have been passing judgment on the degree of offence taken, she was merely suggesting that the antidote to it might have been found in pursuing an alternative avenue of complaint.

Lodge formal complaint

Or make some telephone calls

Which is effective?

Lodge formal complaint

Or make some telephone calls

Which is vindictive?

Shintaro,

Crude attempt at a hijack. As if you hadn't read Poirot's comment above yours.

What about a return to the subject of the thread?

Jennifer qualifers herself as an academic person, with respect before you make comment against; at least have an understanding why that stance was taken. I stand by comments, sadly! Jennifers heart is in the right place, but she is stepping in areas she has no knowledge of.

Cornflower, with respect; until you have nearly had your head kicked in and had derogtory comments said to you, you can comment mate.
Enough is enough!

In the context of the last few comments I want to assure that what I said above had nothing to do with Gay-bashing; it was a) a compalint against the Greens for deflecting their real mandate into sexual politics and b) it was a shot against identity politics in general for legitimising its own marginal status by appealing to the powers that be. To me the system has to be changed, not fine-tuned or made politically correct.

FG,
I'd be willing to apply for a gold card.

Kipp,

It is off-thread, enough is enough.

Cornflower you obviously do not live in the real world, BTW the Earth it is not flat! Its Round!!

Kipp, for one thing it is rather presumptuous of you to claim knowledge of my life experiences.

Secondly, had Storer gone the anti discrimination road, and had the board found in his favour, (which is more than likely), OLO would have been fined.

This would have been a salutary lesson for all online comments and forums hosts,including those who don't carry advertising and so can't be attacked that way.

The bar for commentary would certainly have been raised across the board, because nobody wants to be hauled before the anti discrimination people, and made a public example of in these matters, therefore a stand would have been usefully and legally made against vilification and abuse.

As it is, Storer's actions have affected only ONE publication, will be forgotten next week by anyone other than those immediately affected, and the result is a passing notoriety for Storer, and no enforced change at all in the blogosphere.

Most of the places where offenses occur don't carry advertising, or don't carry the kind that is supportive of gay rights. So this method of dealing with it is entirely useless.

If you really want to make a change then you have to take the most effective action available to you. That's why we have anti discrimination legislation.

I also want to point out that I'm a vocal and unrelenting supporter of gay rights, and have written on these lines in this publication.

I've copped a fair bit of abuse for doing this.

While i haven't had my head kicked in for being gay, I have endured intolerable suffering in areas of my life. People don't have to endure exactly the same suffering to know what suffering is.

I think trying to create a hierarchy of suffering, that is, my kind is worse than your kind, is a fairly pointless thing to do. Hopefully, if we remain intact enough, people who suffer can use that experience to care about suffering across the board, instead of getting into some kind of competition about whose was worse than whose.

What I object to about Storey's actions is that he was concerned only about one kind of injustice, while OLO is a voice for many. Addressing that injustice through the specific legal avenues created for it, would not lead to the unjust silencing of other injustices people write about on this site.

Well said Briar Rose.

People know when they have been discriminated against, bullied or marginalised; one doesn't have to be gay, female, male, black or white to know the feelings of impotence when one is deliberately silenced for simply having a different point of view.

Difference of opinion can be presented civilly and does not the warrant punishment meted out by some who have the power to indulge themselves in their prejudices.

No respect for those who misuse power.

Shintaro, check this outhttp://sxnews.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/scare-tactics-008393.html

One of your haiku has been taken out of context and is described as advocating the murder of gays.

Someone in the comments has defended you.

Many thanks, briar

It seems misunderstanding

Has been corrected

Shintaro, I sent you an email asking you to contact me about that post. Can you send me a return email please?

Thanks,

Graham

Briar Rose, I'm not sure why you are so sure that the anti-discrimination board would have taken Storer's side. There is no contravention of any act in that post. Indeed, if any such action was successful against us then they'd have to fine a lot of Christian denominations, Jewish congregations and Islamic ones.

Graham,

Am away from home, but when I just checked both my mail Inbox and Spam
Folders no email from you. Weird, that's the second time, but email approving my General thread got through. Are you using the same email address?

Shintaro

I was referring to the Hellfire Harry post, Graham, not the one you quite rightly defended.

It's been singled out on another blog(s) as an example of OLO's transgressions, by someone who's gone through the whole thread. Sorry, can't remember which one. Might have been Club Troppo. Don't know if it would get by scrutiny.
Cheers.

Hi BR, if you think it offends legislation why hasn't someone drawn my attention to it? Would you, or someone, mind clicking on the "Recommend delete" button so I can see what people are talking about?

Shintaro I used the email address in the system, so should be the same one. Anyway, would you mind emailing me editor@onlineopinion.com.au?

Thanks.

Graham

hopefully the destractions are over now
lets add some support to forrests suggestion

ps im in agreement
with what squeers posted as well

also feel grayham..
should go public on this style of censorship
its beginning to look like an orchestrated attempt
to silence free speech and worse an attempt to bring down olo

i also agree with what someone else said
why no complaint to descrinmination people
and deliberatly tarketing our advertisers instead

it all sounds rather suss
and now the added destractions etc

ps what was it about an email/mailout mentioned at another topic calling for advertisers/doners..

i never got one of those either..
wondering if this just might be bigger than we may realise possable..
or just the powers that be trying to destract us from some other topics

yeah i know im paranoid
no use posting a post to just say that

anyhow back to topic
i have voiced enough wild opinions [theories]..for now

Sorry, OT

Graham, I emailed you but I haven't had a response in my Inbox or Spam mailbox.

I appear to be getting email from everybody else. Does OLO have a problem with AOL (or vice versa)?

Anyway, should be home Sunday pm, so can sort it then. May be away from 3G coverage.

S

With respect to the timing of the seemingly co-ordinated boycott of advertising placement with The Domain online sites, in association with reference to the private hate speech and advertising code of conduct claimed by ANZ to be a basis for its withdrawal of advertising, the reporting of the resignation, at the end of August 2010, of the head of both the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) and the Circulations Audit board (CAB) is interesting.

It appears both the ABC and CAB have a role in the policing within the advertising industry of this private code of conduct on behalf of the Internet Advertising Sales Houses Australia, to which I have referred in an earlier post to this thread.

That report by Celia Johnson on 6 August 2010 (see: http://www.bandt.com.au/news/audit-body-head-throws-in-the-towel ) said:

"The head of Australia’s two print audit bodies,
the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) and
Circulations Audit Board (CAB), Gordon Towell,
has resigned after two-years to return to private
enterprise."

It is interesting that Gordon Towell's resignation is described as a 'return to private enterprise'.

I'm just wondering whether, in addition to IASH Australia and its agencies' seeming status in some respects as an extension of US government interests, the Australian government also may be content to see a private code of conduct applied within the industry rather than being seen to legislate itself? It is not hard to see Australian governments having an interest in the suppression of public debate in relation to some subjects, although being seen to be doing so would be politically disastrous. So is the use of the expression 'return to private enterprise' a Freudian slip by the reporter revelatory of an unsavoury collusion between the Australian government and the enforcers of this private advertising placement 'code of conduct'?

Or can we expect to see some action taken against IASH Australia by the ACCC for its attempt to impose a private code of conduct that effectively operates in restraint of trade and establishes IASH Australia in monopoly of advertising placement?

Forrest Gumpp

Have other blogsites such as Quadrant, Crikey, Club Troppo, Larvatus Prodeo etc, similarly lost advertising?

There is a plethora of bigotry across the internet: OLO does not hold the monopoly on vilification and hate among its contributors and commentators.

Perhaps a better question would be to ask how those sites are moderated? Do people who raise complaints to the editor receive respect and consideration?

Hi J Parker, would you like to tell me what you mean by your last paragraph, particularly the last sentence?

Veiled threat, Graham?
Perhaps you should halt J Parker's 'advertising'.

Dear Graham

I believe the following link should adequately answer your question:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/02/11/larvatus-prodeo-statement-on-cessation-of-relationship-with-on-line-opinion-and-the-domian/

J Parker,

From the page you linked to on the LP site,
"LP intends to make no further public comment on these matters at this time, and the comments thread on a previous post about the advertising controversy has now been closed"

and below that again,

"Comments are closed."

Yet you can post on OLO at will and do.

Freedom of speech on the LP site? Nope, classic FAIL.

I am a bit shocked by what is going on, although it is indeed the right of any organisation to pull out of an existing arrangement.

For myself, and I know many others on OLO, extensive debate should never be feared, but be encouraged.

Look what happened to One Nation with extensive debate.

Whether it be gay, environmental or any other issue, we should have faith that debate will result in progressive policies
(albeit such a term may be subjective), and we should not ban any view.

The left should see OLO as a forum to be won. I do not agree with many respondents or articles, but that is the challenge of writing on a forum with such diverse views on a wide range of issues.

As far as I am concerned, OLO is as good as any site in Australia because it represents the greatest diversity of views, and good quality.

I just hope that we have enough passionate contributors and readers to keep OLO working, even if it is run on minimal resources.

Just thought I'd post this Feb 7th link to Larvatus Prodeo and their discussion of the controversy.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/02/07/on-line-opinion-and-the-advertising-and-free-speech-controversy/

J Parker, no-one who comments on this blog is treated with discourtesy when their comments are moderated or at any other time. Nothing in what you have linked to, or Poirot for that matter, gives any primary material to demonstrate that.

The complaints arise from people who could only be satisfied if I agreed with them. When I don't they assert I don't have a right to moderate. It would be pretty pointless to have moderation if you were obliged to agree with the complainant every time.

It is interesting that LP claim the letter was "leaked" to the ALP. I received it at 9:20 on Friday, yet by 11:19 the ABC asked me whether it was true, because they had a copy. This isn't exactly what I would call a "leak", it's more like "special delivery". Either LP did it themselves or they spread it so widely that leaking was bound to occur.

At that stage I had not forwarded the email to anyone, even my board, so it couldn't have been me.

So you should be very wary of relying on a party who is being adversarial to another as your sole source of information where they are at best a secondary source, and probably even further down the food chain as I don't think any of them has ever posted a comment on OLO, let alone had it moderated.

Poirot, Kim's piece is interesting, but she can't be taken too seriously. I engaged with her on Club Troppo where she evidenced no understanding of the liberal position on free speech. Take this quote from JS Mill and contrast it to her claims.

'If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind'

LP is full of hate speech, it is just about people they disapprove of, so they see that as OK.

Perhaps a better question would be to ask how those sites are moderated? J Parker.

I believe J Parker is directly referring to the other public forum sites he/she raised GY making the point that OLO accords respect to complainants and/or requests of elimination of posts if not in the public's best interests.

I wish to make a valid and relevant point regarding this issue to the gay community.

How many occasions [if you are not naval gazing]about your own hurts and reading other OLO or public forum threads, do you read the hurtful and sweeping generalisations made about young girls behaviour and female victims stories? Rarely, I have observed, do these female adult victims, or women, jump on a bandwagon and request abuser remarks to be removed, or revenge taken.

Most of these women victims and posters, on the most sensitive subjects close to their hearts, bravely deal with the stirrers, mysoginist commentators, and a wide range of posters, taking it all on the chin, rarely requesting for discriminatory or abusive remarks to be removed. Totally selfless,intelligent and giving human beings.

One of the reasons for this I believe, is that women victims are fully aware that some positive outcomes will follow on from those subjects [education and the site being one of the positives].

Kipp, people who are gay are not the only people on the planet who participate in forums that cop flak. Every person does at some stage regardless of their current station in life.

Some people who have copped flak are just selfless enough to endure the battering in order to promote a greater good for the community.

If women victims on public forums got together and read every thread on forums with the intent of complaining about gender and abuse issues, there would be an almighty stink!

Yet, most of these women are totally selfless in their natures, knowing they are commenting with the objective to assist other victims and educate the general public, particularly some males who have not been on the receiving end of abuse.

Graham

I have emails from you, written by you that are abusive and non-conciliatory in nature. I am not the only person who has been treated in this manner. You are well aware that a number of people disagree with your style of 'moderation'. You go so far as to ban people who have merely written that they disagree with your style of moderation.

I do not wish to allow myself to be baited any further by you. I do hope that OLO continues, as I have stated before, however, you really need to consider your manner in communicating with people who do not agree with you.

I defend your right to express your opinion, I expect to be treated with the same consideration.

J Parker, in a post on Saturday, 12 February 2011 at 7:26:02 AM to this thread, addresses several questions to me.

I can only answer them as an OLO user: I have no standing with OLO other than that, although I look forward to shortly participating in a funding campaign of the nature suggested in my posts of Thursday, 10 February 2011 11:47:08 AM, Thursday, 10 February 2011 11:54:12 AM, and Thursday, 10 February 2011 11:59:38 AM that may help immunise OLO against such standover tactics as have been mounted against its otherwise legitimate revenue, should OLO see its way clear to promote such a fundraising drive.

J Parker's question, if it is directed also at OLO, as to whether "people who raise complaints to the editor receive respect and consideration?" is effectively similar to that begged by 'gp_' (Gregory Storer), by his assertion in his post of Monday, 7 February 2011 at 4:15:51 PM, that "Young will not enforce his own rules.".

Those rules, under which all have contributed here for years, can be seen by clicking the 'Legals' button at the bottom of every page, which will take you here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal

Under the heading 'Monitoring site content', those rules say, in part:

"... [OLO does] not assume any obligation
to monitor or censor materials.

[OLO] reserve[s] the right to host moderated
or unmoderated forums or other web pages to
which site users can post materials ("Forums").
[OLO is] not responsible for:

* materials posted to Forums by third parties,
whether or not [OLO] moderate those Forums;

* materials altered by [OLO] in moderating Forums; or

* [OLO's] removal of, or failure to remove,
all or any part of those materials."

Moderation of the style seemingly desired to be imposed on OLO by outsiders, or by some users outside of the terms of use to which they all have had to agree to use OLO, costs money. Exploration of alternative means of getting it, without the making of any commitments as to change, is what, IMO, this thread should be about.

One of the points that sticks out in this is how blind most can be to abuse and villification when we have some sympathy for the viewpoint and how obvious it is when we don't.

I did not dig deep enough into LP's comments area to see the tone of comments there (Graham if you had some examples it might be useful) but I've seen enough evidence over time that people don't tend to be as keen to identify comments directed at opponents as hate speech as they do comments directed at themselves or friends.

R0bert

Graham,

I was just as interested in the comments that followed Kim's piece - especially in light of the latest developments.

The JS Mill quote says it all.

Graham Young, my theory is that you run some of the more primitive stuff (hellfire harry, eg) for a cross section of public opinion on a given issue, rather than a truncated or neutered sample useless to researchers or those interested in the complexities of an issue and people's responses, valid or otherwise, to it. In other words, would you really get the same grasp of opinion if your sample was watered down by over zealous moderation?
That is quite apart from whatever new info a given individual post may contain. I think the cross section approach is better.
If there are oddballs "out there", we also need to know about and we need adequate and varied responses to discover why some people feel in certain ways about some thing and there fore what can be done in light of that.
(s--t, probably get "moderated" here for not using capital letters for hellfire harry's name)

Paul, I actually deleted Hell Fire Harry's comment. We operate on complaint moderation. I hadn't noticed the post. It didn't add anything, and he's only ever posted once on the site, suggesting it was just trolling, maybe not even what he believed, just an attempt to stir things up.

I don't take a sociological approach to these threads. Whoever posts posts, and I rarely delete except for abuse of another poster or an author.

J Parker, that is a pretty serious allegation and I want you to justify it. That would mean taking the worst of the correspondence that you have and posting it here. I'm comfortable that I have never abused anyone, nor have I banned someone for contesting my style of moderation.

However I will ban someone who comes on these threads and makes unsubstantiated and defamatory claims about moderation. It is important that the moderator be able to moderate. If you don't make good your allegation with a concrete and genuine example within 12 hours I will apply a permanent suspension to you, irrespective of what other action I may take.

Paul:
<my theory is that you run some of the more primitive stuff (hellfire harry, eg) for a cross section of public opinion on a given issue, rather than a truncated or neutered sample useless to researchers or those interested in the complexities of an issue>

An interesting comment. It suggests there is a consensus view, on any issue, or at least one valid above the rest. I'd be interested to know the source of this validity. What are the "grounds" on any social issue, whether it be gay rights, climate change or whatever? Why do gays need the conservative cloak of conjugal rights? Is it because they want that middle-class respectability, or because they want to degrade it? I'm tempted to say that if it's the latter then I'm all for it, but others might construe this as a political attack, others of social engineering.
By saying that OLO runs "some of the more primitive stuff", the implication is that conformism and consensus structures opinion elsewhere..
I don't want to contribute to such sites if they cater for homogenous and politically-correct opinion. I prefer eccentricity.
Judging by your comment you agree, and yet you use the word "primitive" distastefully, as if the others are oh so superior.
And frankly, f--- the researchers, who are only the minions of the system anyway.
The problem with PC and social engineering is it's merely the creation of virtual society, where we all mind our P's and Q's in public and deal with our "irrationalities" in private.
I support Gay sex.
I love going to weddings and soaking up the naive crap they represent. And I long to go to a gay wedding so I can laugh at their expense as well, and at their hard-fought right to be recognised bunnies of the system.
I'm offended by the near ubiquitous flying of the flag in my neck of the woods, but I wouldn't support laws saying we have to fly the Aboriginal flag in tandem, which would merely mean co-option.
I respect marginal groups for their marginality. The gays are acting like poofters!

Graham as a journalist one can only assume you have an open mind, except when it comes to issues of emotion.
I do not believe in censorship and enjoy open debate, though when negative and appalling comments are made constantly towards a section of the Australian community; to complain to OLO the response is totally negative and indifferent.
This is the 21st century Graham and people are people, time that OLO remembered that, just people living their lives.

Weareunigue, I have worked in a DVU and are well aware of the broad diversity of abuse in the community. My comments on OLO are my personal and professional experience in supporting gay people. Like yourself I am angry that we call ourselves a civilised society, yet these issues continue.
My criticism of OLO is that they allow without moderation, postings that are just! Hatred comments, which affect many people, especially the young.

<when negative and appalling comments are made constantly towards a section of the Australian community>

Err Kipp,
this is simply nonsense.
I've worked in factories and universities and in my experience the Gay community has won! If "appalling comments" are made against any minority group they are quickly reproved, especially on OLO! Gays are a protected species and "do" enjoy equal right--though I can't vouche for their safety at the local any more than my own.
I defy anyone to show me one thread on OLO (that's been engaged with) where discrimination or abuse against minority groups has been maintained or gone unchallenged?
On the contrary, everyone knows who the dinosaurs are at this site and they are roundly reprimanded without Graham needing to be Big Brother!
Gays are now in the same class as feminists: hypersensitive!

Dear Graham,

I know that this is your site, built and promoted by you - wonderful work. It's your domain; your kingdom. Congratz on work well done.

Being here is, to me, like visiting someone's home. Whether the host is right or wrong, if I feel unwelcome I assume it's my responsibility to either accept the host's behaviour or stay away.

Being treated in a condescending way, and seeing others treated rudely too, tends to make it not much fun to bother visiting. As an example:

CJ has been suspended for abuse, and if some of you want to get suspended for trying to argue moderation decisions on the thread I'm prepared to oblige you. So that's the end of that discussion. If you don't have anything sensible to say about the thread don't post.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 12 August 2010 7:26:18 PM

Graham,
How long can a suspension be?
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 12 August 2010 8:23:12 PM

As long as it needs to be.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 12 August 2010 9:02:54 PM

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3848&page=0#95170

- and that wasn't arguing a moderation decision; it was a few of us wondering why CJ had been absent for so long and looking forward to his return. The topic of the thread was 'moderation'.

I'm sorry - your home (site) is lovely, but your like or dislike of some visitors (posters or their views) and high handed manner in punishing people makes me wary. Another example that I witnessed directly was treatment towards woulf whose post was cheeky, not aggressive.

As I have said before I would gladly pay to subscribe but not at the risk of being deleted or booted (as I probably will be now) on whim. Being widely read, you can't be sure that some of your visitors aren't influential in their own circles either. Maintaining an authoritarian attitude towards your public entails some risk in disenchanting some sectors.

Whatever happens, I wish OLO well, but what happens is in your hands - as it has always been.

Squeers, you may have lived in and and worked in many spheres, but I bet you have not had to live life as a Gay person, until you do your comments have no meaning!

You should put the whole context in Pynchme, not just the bits that suit you. You, Severin and some others were hijacking a thread to agitate for CJ Morgan to be allowed to come back early from a suspension. Anyone who wants to can click on the link Pynchme provides and search for "We want CJ".

I gave you a blunt warning because your behaviour didn't deserve any better.

There are a number of reasons for not arguing moderation decisions on the forum. One is that you almost invariably have to repeat the original offence, thus defeating the moderation.

Another practical reason is that the moderator shouldn't be at anyone's beck and call to have to keep coming back to justify their decision because that person wants to argue it until that person is argued to a standstill.

But the moderator has no option because if they leave an accusation like this one hanging people tend to believe it and believe that the moderator has acted unreasonably.

So yes, you've got this one shot, and that's it.

BTW I suspect J Parker won't be back because he/she has never sent me an email - I've checked.

If you really thought of it as my house you wouldn't have been trying to trash it.

Hi Kipp, with all respect due, I think your last post was rubbish.
I have never been able to watch horror movies, and have never understood why anyone would want to. Where's the enjoyment, in watching victims be terrorised?
I can't watch movies about the Nazis treatment of Jews, or of women getting raped and abused, or children being mistreated for the same reason.
I honestly can't understand why anyone would want to watch shows like "Law and Order, SVU".
I don't have to be a victim, to feel someone else's pain.
Why do you?

Kipp,
no I'm not gay, but I was a ten year old ten puond pom landed in Inala in 1970 and I know about discrimination.
But the circles you move in are everything. In university circles these days it's the macho types who are despised. I've worked and been friends with many gays (though I never identified them by their sexuality) and a very close gay friend of mine died of AIDS. I agree there's still discrimination, but you can't deny a lot of gays like getting up the noses of institutions, and good on them for that. But all this us and them stuff. I don't think any of us really fit the stereotypes anyway.

Grim,
I can relate to that. South American racism drives me out of a cinema.

[Deleted. Poster is a sock puppet.]

Just want to make the point regarding moderation of OLO, that it seems that complainants often have an "attitude" themselves when their posts are pulled up by Graham.
Not long after joining, I had a post deleted. It wasn't difficult to accept the decision as I had transgressed one of the rules. I emailed Graham and he treated me politely.
I was even involved in the "come back CJ" moment - although at the time I figured his suspension was over and that he was staying away of his own accord - was just letting him know that I missed his contributions.
Again, when Graham stepped in on that thread, I had no difficulty in letting it go. Pynchme surprised me by taking things still further with Graham...and I supposed it comes down to individual attitudes and what it is that you get out of contributing to site like OLO.
I prefer not to argue with the moderator, and if I came upon a site where I judged the moderator to be unfair, I would simply take my opinions elsewhere, not hang around to continually argue the point .

I'm starting to feel a little neglected; a bit like the -distressingly growing number of- healthy middle class white blokes who complain about not 'enjoying the benefits' of being a disabled black woman.
To the best of my recollection, I have never had a post deleted; nor can I remember ever receiving a personal email from the moderator.
And I thought I was radical. (sob).
Perhaps I should try harder.

Wackford, stop being mischeivous with Kipp. GLF's certainly are targets for bullying. But I understand the nonplussment of many, trying to communicate with angry, defensive people, no matter how justified their resentments, is not always easy.

paul walter,
I assure you I am not being "mischievous", in fact I resent the charge.
No "identity" (whether they cleave to it or not) is ever going to be free from discrimination or bullying, and I doubt very much that gays are exposed to more of it than the rest of us, depending of course on the circles they move in. I'm working on a soft (humanities) degree and am routinely dismissed as a "professional student", ergo "bludger on the system". I'm also, unlike advocates of Gay marriage, a genuine radical who refuses to acknowledge this corrupt society by craving its institutional patronage.
I think the most cruelly discriminated-against and bullied individuals (whose reviled identity has little to do with choice) are the obese of all ages. And gays, on average, are probably no less repulsed, or any more helpful than other identity-sectors of society obsessed with the body.
Children too are far more subject to harassment and bullying than gays, I would hazard, especially as they deviate from "normal". But Aboriginals, Muslims, "dole bludgers", indeed virtually anyone who dares to be or is unfortunate enough to be "different", will be subject to ridicule or gossip at the least. To a certain extent this is human nature. And yet I do think our society is more tolerant, indeed the real bullies form a minority who are themselves despised.
I absolutely think gays should have completely equal rights, but there are plenty much worse off in terms of social exclusion.
The whole gay marriage campaign kicked off by Bob Brown, worthy as it is in itself, was a patent evasion of the Green policies which, had he pursued them at the election, would have cost him votes.
I still say OLO's predicament is due to hypersensitivity over minority views which must be allowed to be aired if they're to be edified!

I just came back to read these posts after some time away from this thread. I can't believe what is happening here!

If we like reading and posting comments on OLO, then we had better deal with the rules and the moderator decisions with good grace, or we should go elsewhere for our 'fix'!

Graham has never been anything but polite to me, even when I did argue about some of his decisions by email.

Maybe if more people took the time to report some of the disgraceful comments I have witnessed on some threads, then Graham may well have deleted some of the offending responses to the Muehlenberg article that caused all the trouble with the site sponsors.

Just as women don't like being called sluts or slags or 'loose' or whatever, Gay people don't like being called 'abominations' or 'deviants' etc.

We can all post about our like or dislike about subjects such as rape, feminists, homosexuality, single mothers, abortion and Gay marriage without resorting to name-calling or general vile vilification of whole groups in society.

At the end of the day, it seems to me it wasn't the actual article that caused the most upset for the advertising sponsors, but the vile 'comments' made in support of the article and allowed to stay on the site, that caused the advertisers to pull out.

All those vindictive name-calling bigots who couldn't write their opinions without resorting to disgusting comments, should hang their heads in shame now.

We may lose this OLO site because of you. :

I am new to this forum all together and I have read what everyone has written and the offending article that people have a issue with. I can assure you that as someone who is involved in online advertising that there is no way any of the larger companies pulled out due to what they have stated. They have pulled out due to lack of money being generated to their businesses. There is no moral compass at all in business, it would also seem that since people have complained this has been a great opportunity for the large corporations to pull out and state it was due to this. It happens all the time in regular advertising and online generated income or advertisements or sponsorships are no different. Plain and simple Online Opinion has not generated enough money for them. There is better places out there to sponsor and get money from so that is where they headed. People are entitled to a view point and if people disagree with some of the things that have been said you report it. No need to blame contributers or the article. This also appears as a way to generate interest in a forum site, maybe there will be some backers after all.

A week after it was published, it is interesting to see this article topping all three of the displays on the main page: 'Today's most popular', 'This week's most popular', and 'This week's most discussed' displays. See: http://twitpic.com/3zhgk9 . It is closely followed by the Muehlenberg article in the first two displays, the comments thread to which is now 'read only'.

Welcome to OLO, unicornP. In the light of the public interest in this article, I find your statement that "[The larger companies] have pulled out due to lack of money being generated to their businesses" interesting in comparison with Graham Young's claim in the article that:

"The advertisers that we had were not
doing it from charity - On Line Opinion
actually gave them a better return than
most other sites."

Perhaps either you or GrahamY could amplify as to this.

OLO UserID 'Cornflower' mentioned, in a slightly different connection on another thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4263#108599 , the long-established ISP 'Internode'. I don't recall having seen Internode advertisments on OLO, but it strikes me that it could well be in their interests to advertise on this and other of 'The Domain' sites. Each of the around 70,000 unique viewers of this site every month is likely a decision-maker with respect as to which ISP they will use.

The thing is, that right at the moment Internode may have something to sell that is to the financial advantage of many OLO viewers. That product is their bundled landline and ADSL service.

I have just been advised by my present landline telephone service provider (not Internode) of a change to the method of charging for calls. I see this change as a form of 'chiselling' at my expense. It has provoked me to look at bundling my phone service with my existing Internode ADSL service, and I assess that I will save a minimum of $120 pa when I make the change to a bundled Internode service.

In my case, any prospective regular financial support for OLO has to come from economies in other outlays.

anyhow im mainly replying to this

quote.."Squeers,..I bet you have not had to live life
as a Gay person,..
until you do your comments have no meaning!
Posted by Kipp,>>

please explain what you mean kipp?

if you mean having public vilify you...
[which clearly gays cant claim collectivly]..
but i as a smoker can

i claim..even my own govt ..is trying to tax me to death..
then use MY tax moneys ..to make smokers look like idiots..

i can explain
how my id has been suspended
..RIGHT here at olo..

many times..[the last only one month]
[but in total going on 3 mths suspentions in total]

or maybe its jail your talking about
i been to jail 5 times for growing a plant

a plant govt declared war on..called a drug by legal trickery..and a thing called deeming..its only a drug ..because govt deems it a drug

and because its deemed a drug..im deemed a criminal
and locked up..and baned ..and fined punitivly

something gays dont face ..today

there are many other oppressions ..i daily get
you poor guy...you must be more lonely than me
[i been rejected by the best ..and worse of society]

dont be saying poor you..
you lot ..never had it so good

[you lot ..is a generic term
not meant to offend]

only highlight ..how some ..delusion oppressions
where no opression ..or insult is intended..or indeed present..
but because they are so good at getting it together..they are heard

where others cant be heard

has your govt declared war on you
well it has on me

and as a former prisoner..
i had to sign a release/form just to get out of jail

i cant legally ..even talk with others..
or be caght with others ..forced to sign the same form
simply..to be released ..from punitive jail

cant talk ..*to my own peers
who have had the same oppression..FROM THOSE
MEANT TO SERVE ..*ALL THE PEOPLE..!

not judge ..us worthy of the rules and methodolgy of..*war
and pass moralising laws
to silence our discent

poor blooming you!

Graham,

I've just listened to Counterpoint: http://tiny.cc/bxs1c
and am delighted you've followed my advice.
But I'm a bit disappointed you haven't acknowledged my good idea.
However, don't mention it..

A lot of people have jumped to conclusions on this topic without actually knowing the facts. I would encourage everyone to read this blog by Gregory Storer:

http://gregory.storer.com.au/?p=286

It contains the facts minus the hyperbole, spin and speculation.

Michael.

Thanks for the link Mikeybear.

Here's a paragraph that sums the article up I thought:

"It’s really quite simple – comments that vilify other people, whether its a group of people or an individual, should not be allowed to be published. Plenty of blogs actually do this moderation thing really well, but not On Line Opinion. Stupid, hateful comments are permitted so that the rest of the online community can pull them to shreds. That’s not changing anyone’s opinions, and for too long now this backward policy has allowed radical, fundamentalist Christians the right to vilify and hurt people without just cause."

I agree with everything Gregory Storer says.
I only hope the perpetrators of these offensive words used against gay people read it too.

It is not enough to simply hide behind a bible to give justification to words used thousands of years ago by people who did not know any better.

The average modern person would not feel the need to publicly vilify the sexuality of another group of people.

The link posted to the comments thread to the article on Monday, 14 February 2011 at 11:53:38 PM, by Mikeybear. delivers the viewer to this URL: http://gregory.storer.com.au/?p=286

Graham Young's text link,the blue text words 'Greg Storer', in paragraph 25 of the article 'Wanted: new financial backers', delivers the viewer here: http://gregory.storer.com.au/ . So far as I can tell, this is the link that is described by Gregory Storer in his own blog post of 14 February 2011 as being "my outdated election blog". It seems to be the only link in Graham Young's article to Gregory Storer's blog.


My perplexity is that Graham's text link, when clicked on around 6:30 AM AEDST this morning, Tuesday 15 February 2011, yielded exactly the same content as Mikeybear's link.


My suspicion is that Greg Storer's blog, if one arrives on the home page as Graham's text link would seemingly deliver one, automatically displays the latest blog post. Graham Young's article was published on Monday 7 February 2011, so it would appear that the link he published in the article would not have displayed, at publication, Greg Storer's post dated 10 February 2011, specifically identified by this URL: http://gregory.storer.com.au/?p=277

Given that in that 10 February post Greg Storer, with respect to this blog, states "I’ve not used it since the election", and that the next most recent post is dated August 21, 2010, are viewers to assume that what was on display when Graham Young posted his link to the home page of this blog was that brief post of 21 August 2010 and/or a preceeding one of 20 August, which the following links specifically target? http://gregory.storer.com.au/?p=270 http://gregory.storer.com.au/?p=238




What content on what Greg Storer describes as his 'outdated election blog' is it that we can no longer see, and yet to which Greg himself refers in his blog entry dated 14 February 2011?

What Greg Storer has instigated and is advocating is, effectively, censorship.
I don't think I ever read the "offending article" at the time, but I notice the first "disgusting" comment "was" deleted. The next comment, which set Storer's "teeth on edge" is right out of the fundamentalist handbook (the Bible/Koran etc.), and constitutes the ideological/ethical views of a very big percentage of the population of Australia and the world. Much bigger than that of the LGBT's. Secularism is supposed to be an "ecumenical church", ergo its members ostensibly tolerate, indeed celebrate, the whole range of defensible views at play in a given "society" (read "nation"; this is its greatest weakness: cultural cultism, which elides responsibility for "all" human rights. LGBT's are the spoiled brats of the West).
OLO has its share of rednecks too, who frequently air their disgusting racist hyperbole and are met in debate. It's meet to point out too that possibly the most popularly debated topics on OLO are between secularists (including myself) and theists, which includes all the ideological issues that divide these opposing world views. A study of these myriad threads would disclose just as much offensive material directed at the religious cohort as visa versa, though of course the self-righteous, from either camp, always feel vindicated. Just the other day the trope "atheist porn" was used repeatedly http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3814&page=0
but this was desperate rhetoric designed to compensate for want of argument, and should be construed a compliment.
Strict standards are enforced at this site, but thank God censorship and political correctness are not included.
Storer mentions the high suicide rates among gays. He should take heart from the fact that the vast majority defend gay rights. Silencing bigotry (in fact pushing it underground) will not make it go away.

If anyone wants to see how Lavartus Prodeo deal with disagreement have a look at what they said when I disagreed with them.

http://noplaceforsheep.com/2011/02/14/lavartus-prodeo-nights-2/

I also received this comment from Mikey Bear (Greg Storey's partner) when I asked why they didn't go to the anti discrimination board:

*Why must they go to via an anti-discrimination path? That’s ludicrous. A letter to the advertisers proved far simpler, effective and expedient.*

It was always their intention, by taking the path of lobbying ALL OLO's advertisers, to financially attack the site. The willingness of corporations to yield to activist demands, without investigating the site and finding rebuttals of Muehlenberg's stuff, is frightening.

This is corporate censorship, and it does not auger well for the blogosphere. Because the amounts of money involved are small in overall corporate advertising budgets, it isn't worth the corporates investigating, or arguing with the activists. They just pull the ads.

Mikey Bear continues to post self congratulatory comments on my blog, and continues to write that it isn't their fault and Graham had it coming.

While Gregory and Mikey have gone after the publisher (who also publishes articles that are very supportive, some written by me) the real problem is the churches in this country who are exempt from anti discrimination laws and are permitted to refuse employment to gays and lesbians, and they are permitted to fire GLs if their sexual orientation becomes known.

This isn't just the fundamentalists - this is mainstream Anglican and catholic.

In NSW the law allows church schools to expel gay and lesbian students if their sexual orientation becomes known.

Don't go after the publisher who is publishing what is legal here. Nothing in the article or the comments is illegal. Go after the churches and the governments who continue to allow them exemptions, and give them permission to be homophobic and discriminatory.

It's these major religious organisations that both create and foster a climate of anti gay hatred,millions of their followers subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is a "perversion." Shutting down a publisher because he or she exposes their attitudes isn't going to change anything. And that's what OLO did - exposed the attitudes I bet many people don't know are perfectly legal in Australia.

"While Gregory and Mikey have gone after the publisher" -- Briar Rose

You'll find the target has always been the deeply offensive comments that were posted on OLO. If the moderator had removed them via his complaint mechanism there would have been no reason for anyone to write letters to the advertisers, or take any other course of action.

Why are you defending OLO? If the comment was targeted at blacks, Jews or women it would have been removed immediately. You imply gays are fair game.

Michael.

Mikey Bear
It seems to have been my fate this week to be pursued across the blogosphere by you and Mistress Kimbrella.

Mikey, the problems arise not in a publisher exposing homophobic attitudes and contesting them (as does OLO, both in articles and comments threads) but in the religious institutions and organisations that promote and perpetuate those attitudes, and are permitted by law to do so.

Exemptions are not granted for the religious organisations to indulge in racial vilification or employment discrimination on racial or sexist grounds. Only in the case of homosexuals are they legally permitted to do this.

This is why people don't write vilifying comments about other groups anymore. It is no longer culturally acceptable to do so because influential institutions are not allowed to do it. It flows from the top down.

You won't change the culture by silencing OLO, who support you, for crying out loud.
You have to change it at the source. We don't live in a vacuum, If you have millions of religious followers legally allowed to call you a "pervert" then that's going to continue to be the cultural norm until they are prevented from describing you in such a way, by law. And are prosecuted and fined.

And your crowing over having caused OLO and Young's difficulties do you no credit. In my opinion. Apparently you didn't do it on your own either.

"And your crowing over having caused OLO and Young's difficulties do you no credit. In my opinion. Apparently you didn't do it on your own either." -- Briar Rose

OLO published deeply offensive material by allowing a comment appear on the site and then failed to remove it after being requested to do so politely.

I don't care what happens to this site. I really don't. I just don't want to be told my partner and I are perversions.

If On Line Opinion and Graham Young are so insensitive to us as humans, then I hope his site dies in a screaming bankrupt heap. A better one will no doubt pop up somewhere else.

I really don't care what you or anyone else wants us to do. You go fight our fight if you are so motivated to effect change. You aren't the target of the anti-gay haters. Are you?

Michael

briar rose and MikeyBear

While accepting that OLO is the reluctant target of your remarks, your content indicates this is mainly a dispute between your independent blogs including LP. I am at a complete loss as to why the circus should be taking place here.

So what about some respect to others by continuing your two-way or three-way on your own sites? Accepting of course that not all of those sites are particularly welcoming to anyone who is not in lockstep, which is probably why the contest is happening on OLO. However in so doing you are abusing OLO as the host and its policy of freedom of speech.

No wonder other posters appear to be giving the thread the swerve.

Pardon? Which site of mine do you want me to take this discussion, relevant to this topic, over to? This site caused the problem. This site seems to be the best place to have the discussion. If you're not interested in the conversation, you are welcome to unsubscribe from the topic.

there is a basic law ...in the cyber realm

'DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS'

there are those who are zealotts
they live to bait and debate

who glory in their own mires
feeling it validates their unwantom desires
if you should come upon one of these

PLEASE

dont feed the troll
well i guess thats all

say what you like here
im over hearing the plain complane
masticating their words ..as if wielding their swords

like little mothers
smothering their spite and bile
they want ..that they reject others to have
so ..that too ..they can despoil

you cant change that
they carved into stone

Cornflower,
It never ceases to amaze me how people apparently force themselves to read what they don't like, then complain about it. If you are exasperated by the content, do what you claim others have done and avoid it. Though some 169 comments doesn't sound like avoidance to me.

Others have referred to other sites, including GY, I have no idea why you have singled me and Mikey Bear out. I've actually been away from the thread for days and only commented again this morning.

My entire previous post was about homophobic attitudes in religious institutions. Pertinent.

Your inference that my blog doesn't permit opinions other than those I agree with is insulting and inaccurate. As I explained to LP's Mark Bahnisch when he dropped by, we run a blog that is based on the principles of radical hospitality, and all opinions are published and welcomed.

Mikey addressed comments to me on this thread, and I am perfectly entitled to address them on this thread.

As I have spent the last several days vigorously defending OLO, and copping much garbage for my trouble, I find your allegations of abuse against me quite remarkable.

Mikey, I think it's horrible that you and Gregory are described as "perverted." I've strongly argued against homophobia for a long time, and I'll continue to do so. I would like to see the laws changed so that religious institutions can no longer do this.

Sqeers,<"Silencing bigotry (in fact pushing it underground) will not make it go away."

No one is suggesting we silence bigotry, because we never could.

What we need to silence is the out and out nastiness that some posters indulge in when they discuss homosexuality (or racism, religion, women) on this site.

There is nothing wrong with putting forward your view that you don't believe in, don't approve of, are upset by etc, about subjects such as homosexuality.

What is wrong is labeling all homosexuals 'perverted', 'abominations', 'depraved', 'freaks' etc.

Can we not have some spirited discussions about subjects without resorting to vicious, personal name-calling?

"Mikey, I think it's horrible that you and Gregory are described as "perverted." I've strongly argued against homophobia for a long time, and I'll continue to do so. I would like to see the laws changed so that religious institutions can no longer do this." -- Briar Rose

We'd all like to see those laws changed. And in the meantime, any site that allows this offensive language to be published should not be tolerated.

You continue to defend this site, the very site that published this language, yet you are not speaking out about the hateful language that was not removed. Why not?

MikeyBear,

"This site seems to be the best place to have the discussion"

It seems that your idea of a "discussion" is limited only to those words that are sanctioned by the gay lobby. (and I'll add that I am a supporter of gay rights and opinion as an expression of freedom).

Salman Rushdie said:
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

briar rose, "Your inference that my blog doesn't permit opinions other than those I agree with is insulting and inaccurate."

I said "not all of those sites are particularly welcoming to anyone who is not in lockstep, which is probably why the contest is happening on OLO".

If you took that as referring to your site as you have stated I am sorry, it was not meant to be taken that way.

"It seems that your idea of a "discussion" is limited only to those words that are sanctioned by the gay lobby. (and I'll add that I am a supporter of gay rights and opinion as an expression of freedom)." -- Poirot

Do you endorse language that vilifies gay people? Do you think it's ok to call gay people perverse? Do you think that's acceptable, especially as Gregory Storer has pointed out, given that such language contributes to the alarming rates of youth suicide in this country. I suppose you're ok with young kids killing themselves, simply because people like you want to allow open slather on gay people.

Next you'll be telling me some of your best friends are gay.

Michael.

Hey Mikey, here's an idea; a wise man recently said:
"If you're not interested in the conversation, you are welcome to unsubscribe from the topic."
Herein lies the whole crux of the censorship debate. I am not the slightest bit interested in going to a Christian site and rubbishing Christianity. Ditto for Muslim sites, or Hindu sites...
Equally I have no time for the chap who spends 8 hours in a dark cinema, and then comes out demanding that pornography should be banned.
I didn't read the original article, nor did I join the ensuing debate, simply because what consenting adults choose to do is none of my business, and of no interest to me.
I would have thought reading half a page of that tripe would have convinced you that the rest wasn't worth reading, nor would the comments be.
And yet...
I suggest you follow your own advice.

"Do you endorse language that vilifies gay people? Do you think it's ok to call gay people perverse"

There are a lot of people on OLO who have supported equal rights for gay and lesbians over a long period. Some of us disagree strongly with silencing (or muting) public disent.

I'd provide the same level of endorsment to language that vilifies gay people as I do to the portrayal of the gay and lesbian community that is given in the media coverage of the Mardi-Gras. No endorsement for either but as long as contrary views are allowed it's better than the type of society which silences unwanted expression of views.

Both are I hope representations of the extreme and hopefully not represenative of broader views.

Trying to drive those comments underground won't stop them when no one can do anything to help, if anything it will reinforce views already held. Far better to have them in the open where they can be rebutted and exposed for what they are.

R0bert

"I suggest you follow your own advice." -- Grim

Hey Grim,

I have no complaint with this discussion. My complaint is with Graham Young's double standards in allowing vilifying comments to remain on this site. It demonstrates an inability to act impartially.

Michael.

I'm with Poirot:

Salman Rushdie said:
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

Mikey, if Graham allowed only comments which both you and he agreed were inoffensive, wouldn't that be an infringement on free speech ? Would you want to post comments on any site which allowed you only to say nice things, and which blocked anything offensive you might want to write ?

All of us enjoy saying and writing stuff which we expect others to find incredibly offensive, we usually get a real kick out of doing that. But as well, of course, we have to be able to take as well as give. We all have to grow a pair.

Yes, freedom of expression has limits - it should never include the right to incite violence or gratuitous denigration against anybody or any group. But freedom of expression is vital to tease out what we believe and support, and what we don't.

Joe

I don't think anyone should get too carried away with the idea that Greg and Mike caused the damage to OLO. They were never mentioned to us in any correspondence with the advertising agency. The credit apparently goes to an employee of IBM and an employee of another advertising agency (not ours).

Greg and Mkie have an interest in magnifying their role, and have been quite clearly looking for a fight from the beginning.

Greg sent an email to me complaining about the whole comments thread at 11:07 on Friday the 26th November. At 11:38 he sent an email to at least one of our sponsors complaining about the comments thread. This is hardly the action of someone wanting to mediate a problem. I'm not sure when I saw his email, but I responded to him at 12:01 asking him which particular comments he objected to. So before I had had a chance to clarify his concerns he was already agitating against the site.

I know I've been accused by some of being rude in my responses to complainants, so I'm going to reproduce my response to Greg:

"Thanks for your comments Gregory.



I’m happy to look at any complaint that you want to make, but I need to know what comments you object to. The site works on the basis of complaint moderation, and we make it easy for someone to bring a post to our attention by putting a red cross icon under each comment.



I’m happy to convey your comments to Bill about his participation. It is up to him what he does, but the vast majority of writers do not get involved in the comments thread to their article either. I think this is a pity, but I can understand that they don’t necessarily have the time available, especially after devoting some hours to writing the article in the first place.



Regards,"

TBC

Graham,

The full email conversation between you and Gregory is online here:

http://gregory.storer.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Email-Exhcange-Online-Opinion.pdf

This appears on the blog I posted earlier:

http://gregory.storer.com.au/?p=286

I can't comment on the email you are referring to that you claim Gregory sent to one of your sponsors as I don't believe I've been privy to it. However it's unfair to claim it was sent at a certain time without supplying the full mail header from the email so the exact GMT/UTC time it was sent, and then traversed the various mail servers, can be determined. It's possible there was a time-zone difference on someone's computer, and there may be an hour discrepancy, for example.

In my experience, Gregory doesn't act rashly or unfairly. You are trying to discredit him here by stating that he didn't give you a chance to respond before emailing your sponsor(s). You've also tried to discredit him in a variety of other comments you've posted and you don't seem to have the evidence to back up your allegations about him.

Michael.

Greg then used the red cross to complain, as did a Michael Barnett. Of course neither of them told me that they were partners. This gave the impression that there was more concern about the comments than there actually was.

The three comments that they complained about were:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/show-post-article.asp?comment=190311 (which I deleted)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/show-post-article.asp?comment=190365 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/show-post-article.asp?comment=190400 neither of which I deleted.

I stand by those moderation decisions. There is nothing wrong with calling homosexuality a perversion (comment 2). If is part of the teachings of the major monotheistic religions and reflects the views of a substantial group in society, religious and non-religious. It cannot be equated with racism or sexism as it is qualitatively a different judgement based on what is thought to be the intention of nature or God and is generally applied to homosexual practice not homosexuals per se. It is a judgement that is also generally applied to heterosexuals who use the same practices.

There is also nothing wrong with saying that the incidence of child abuse is higher in homosexual households with children (comment 3). Anymore than it is wrong to imply that Catcholic priests are more likely than not to be paedophiles. I think both judgements are wrong, but people make them, and they should be free to express them so that there can be debate about the matter, at the very least. And in the end, it is not a crime to have a fact wrong, or a matter that a moderator should have to buy into.

They were answered as politely as possible, although Michael's comments a little more sparingly than Greg's as it was obvious by this stage, given they complained about the exact same comments that they were in concert.

It is also obvious from the email chain that they had decided to agitate before they had discussed the matters with me. In fact, at no stage did they tell me that they were even dissatisfied with the moderation.

I think this was always a quest for publicity from the beginning.

Michael,

I am not going to reveal which advertiser sent me the email so you can then try and stand over them. But apart from the fact I have nothing to hide and value my reputation for honesty highly, I would have to be stupid to lie about it because Greg could easily discredit me.

To send emails to sponsors when he must have implies that he had researched who they were and their email addresses before, or at least at the same time, as he was emailing me.

He's been very quick to claim credit for this, even though, as I keep saying, there is actually no evidence that anyone took any notice of him. But it suits people in the blogosphere to think that they did, because then they can concentrate on the comments thread and pretend it wasn't Bill's article that was the problem, when in fact it was.

Mikey Bear,

I could claim "offence" by your your statement to me insinuating than I'm ok "...with young kids killing themselves." - or "...people like you want to allow open slather on gay people."

Can you explain to me how those statements directed personally to me are less offensive than generally referring to a sexual orientation as a perversion?

I realise you are promoting selective censorship from a standpoint of your own presumed superior morality - yet, as you can see, you yourself are more than capable of vilifying someone with the least provocation.

I wouldn't dream of asking Graham to delete your comments as I feel more than capable of addressing them myself.

It is unfortunate that the word 'perversion' has such negative connotations.
Technically, or at least historically, the word 'perversion' was coined to describe homosexuality (among other things).
"Psychological sense of "disorder of sexual behavior in which satisfaction is sought through channels other than those of normal heterosexual intercourse" is from 1892, originally including homosexuality."
"Such laws are interpretable only in accordance with the ancient tradition of the English common law which ... is committed to the doctrine that no sexual activity is justifiable unless its objective is procreation." [A.C. Kinsey, et.al., "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," 1948]
So by traditional definition, homosexuality is a perversion... but so is having sex with your wife, if you don't actually plan on having children.
I must confess, I have indulged in 'perverted' behaviour; once or twice.

According to traditional Christian hegemony, which still arguable holds sway in the West generally, homosexual practices are morally unacceptable, while anal intercourse can be and often is argued to be unnatural. Anal intercourse is not without precedent in nature, of course, but morality about it in nature is.
According to the tenets of identity politics, and queer theory in particular, both gendered and sexual behaviour and concomitant moralities are merely discursive social constructs, open to deconstruction like everything else. Our ethical/religious institutions are the semantic manacles that constrain us. Homosexuality is just another discursive construct--thus, optimally, adopted from a post-structural sense of free choice--no hang-ups and nothing essential. Preferring to be gay can amount to political action on a small scale (which, however, in my view reinforces the larger discursive and economic context). The political idea is ostensibly that hegemony can be eroded from within, though I believe the system's token morality is endlessly flexible, and of course many gays are probably as conservative about the establishment as anyone--I doubt Elton John wants to pull down capitalism. Indeed some gay weddings appear to be "straight"; I have no time for these "sincere" couples--who want to have their cake and eat it. Other gay couples of course long to make a sordid mockery of this solemn religious institution, and to parody and embellish every cliche already in operation (of course I sympathise with these latter couples).
The problems are a) constructivism is only a theory, and is looking decidedly dodgy these days. And b) not everybody wants to take the red pill--many people sincerely believe in their lives moralities, and want their institutions kept sacrosanct. So the militant gays, who want to pull the institution of marriage down by compromising and parodying it, can justly be considered a genuine threat (how else could "they" justify patronising the institution?), while the straight gays are just, well, a pain in the proverbial.
Why should gay church-weddings be tolerated when half the couples wouldn't take it seriously? Meanwhile the other half keep it alive!
I hope the protagonists aren't too prim for this..

Squeers mate 50% of hetrosexual marriages end in divorce, so whats your point!

Kipp,
My point is that philosophically-savvy GLBT's who buy into queer theory (putatively a sub-set of Marxist theory) cannot believe in the institution they wish to colonise. Even looking for a secular, judicially-legitimate pairing must amount to naivety or duplicitous interpellation: subscribing to an institution in order to white-ant it and perpetuate a gradualist revolution. Worthy as this motive is (in my view), I don't think it will ever succeed. The system and its institutions, cynically presided over by capitalist interests (money is the real god of our society but no one will own to it), will adapt (bend over backwards) as much as necessary to preserve the relations of production (keep all parties happy)--that is, the economic status quo, for which the institutions are a sincere sham.
So the politically-minded GLBT's are indeed would-be social engineers. The rest are just bleary-eyed brats and party animals with chips on shoulders or a FTW attitudes respectively.
Sorry I can't be more feely-cuddly about this, but it's the truth.
I can't believe Gregory Storey and partner fit into the latter category (though maybe they do..) and ergo they're disingenuous. Like the Greens, they dress their real political intent in seeming garb.
I'de vote for that, but like I say, I don't believe a) it will succeed, or b) that they'd follow through. Identity politics always ends up ideologically parochial.

But I'm wasting words, you blokes are either naive or you don't want to blow your cover.

Squeers have you spoken to anyone about your social thinking?

Hey Squeers, I think I agree with you, although in my lexicon 'wheelbarrow' rates pretty high. ("duplicitous interpellation"; bloody nearly need a wheelbarrow for that one.)
If it's a church 'marriage' the gays are talking about, I really don't understand why anyone would want to be part of a religion that wants no part of them. If it is only a civil union, then I agree with Peter Hume; it's none of the state's dam' business what people do in their free time.
Same as women wanting to be priests. It seems they're saying "I totally believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God, and I believe in the Bible... Once it changes just a little, to accommodate me, it'll be perfect."
Personally, I think they might be duplicitously interpellating.
But I could be wrong.

G'day Grim (and anyone else interested),

<<Same as women wanting to be priests. It seems they're saying "I totally believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God, and I believe in the Bible... Once it changes just a little, to accommodate me, it'll be perfect." Personally, I think they might be duplicitously interpellating.>>

Just for the record, the Anglican Church in various parts of the world, including much of Australia, has many female priests and female bishops. The Western Australian Province ordained the first ones a little over 20 years ago, and I think it started some years before that in a few parts of North America.

The acceptance of gay priests and bishops is taking longer to break through but there is significant progress -- not without considerable vociferous opposition and angst, of course.

And all of this is happening without one jot of the Bible being changed! The Bible is not a book of rules and a new image of God more in tune with contemporary human knowledge is steadily being accepted as part of the emergent Christian paradigm.

"Greg then used the red cross to complain, as did a Michael Barnett. Of course neither of them told me that they were partners. This gave the impression that there was more concern about the comments than there actually was." -- Graham Young

Graham, I didn't notice any requirement to declare my marital status when flagging a comment for deletion. Perhaps you could implement that feature if you feel it necessary.

You are effectively saying that because I am in a relationship with someone else who found some comments objectionable that we aren't both capable of independent thought. You might find there are couples in circles you mix in where one partner has limited mental capacity, but in the circles I mix in I find both partners tend to have full cognitive function. If Gregory posted a message to a mailing list that I am subscribed to, don't you feel it reasonable that I may have decided to act on that message independently of my being in a relationship with him?

Further, I assume that because I am in a relationship with someone who you have felt it necessary to discuss here that I have relinquished any privacy I have to my actions on this site.

You have raised doubts in my mind about your professional integrity.

Michael.

Kipp:
<Squeers have you spoken to anyone about your social thinking?>

Kipp,
my post outlines established (ironically, nearly institutional) queer theory, derived from feminism, indeed from the whole subaltern range. Believe it or not, there are a lot of thinking gays out there, though apparently not in this thread.

Grim,
I plead guilty; "duplicitous interpellation" is a pretty hefty phrase, but it is legit and I did offer a translation: "subscribing to an institution in order to white-ant it and perpetuate a gradualist revolution". This is the ostensible agenda of identity politics, a dismal failure alas; most feminists and gays have never heard of it and have long since gone mainstream. I also agree with Peter Hume that "it's none of the state's dam' business what people do in their free time".

But I shan't disrupt the exchange of banalities here further.

I feel sure OLO shall endure, and good luck to the gay folk with their wedding plans.

The first mention of Mikey Bear being Greg Storer's partner in this thread was in the post by briar rose, on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 at 8:10:52 AM.

The quotation Mikey Bear correctly attributes to GrahamY, "Greg then used the red cross to complain, as did a Michael Barnett. Of course neither of them told me that they were partners. This gave the impression that there was more concern about the comments than there actually was.", came from GrahamY's post of Tuesday, 15 February 2011 at 1:00:35 PM, and referred to events that took place on 26 November 2010.

It is thus probable that GrahamY first learned of the relationship between Greg Storer and Mikey Bear, as I did, earlier on the morning of 15 February, before posting the quoted text.

Just to put in context the significance of OLO receiving multiple reports via the red crossed-bats icon relating to the same post, this post, on 20 November 2010, by GrahamY to the General Discussion topic 'Moderation, Flaming, Off-Topic, Rules' in which he says "I don't remember the last time 4 people tipped me off to a problem post", could be helpful: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4109#102641

It is seemingly rare that there are multiple reports relating to any one post on OLO. Graham's observation as to being unaware, back in late November 2010, of the relationship between Greg Storer and Michael Barnett ( OLO userID 'Mikey Bear') is thus significant and relevant as to his assessment of how much concern there existed as to the propriety of the comments in question.

As can be seen by any interested in that archived General Discussion topic, it is possible to discuss moderation issues in generality on OLO, and have a bit of fun at the same time too, if one wishes. It is a pity that the exception being taken to moderation over the Muehlenberg thread has provided what IMO is a smokescreen as to the real sequence of events that now threaten the survival of this site.

Exactly Forrest. Michael Barnett would have flown under the radar if I hadn't seen on this thread that he is Greg Storer's partner. I was going through the emails to check the chronology when I came across his complaints, realised that they mirrored Greg's and realised that they'd started their campaigning on this site.

Further checking of times revealed that the campaign with sponsors and advertisers was probably premeditated and planned before they even emailed me.

In fact there was no indication in their responses to me that they didn't accept my moderation decisions either, so the tip-off from the sponsor was a complete surprise to me.

It's interesting how in Mike's post above he refuses to accept responsiblity for his own actions, as does Greg. They claim to be fans of the site, but if I make two decisions that they disagree with they then try to wreck it. But the problems we are experiencing are all of my doing, none of theirs, in their perverse universe.

I'd suggest that the claim that they are fans is disingenuous and that their actions indicate a deep antipathy to the site. They seem to have found the issue that strikes a chord with advertisers, assuming that it was the comments that caused the withdrawal of the ad, which of course is not what the advertisers say.

"In fact there was no indication in their responses to me that they didn't accept my moderation decisions either, so the tip-off from the sponsor was a complete surprise to me." -- Graham Young

Come on Graham, you're making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions about me. I requested you delete three comments. You deleted one of them and I sent you a message of thanks. The two comments you refused to delete I don't believe I sent a response to you. That was in no way an indication of my approval of your decision. I wasn't up for a hopeless fight.

It amazes me that you place more emphasis on the seriousness of a complaint if there are more independent complainants. You imply that the offense both Gregory and I took to one of more of the inappropriate comments is diminished because we are in a relationship with each other. I find it hard to take this seriously, and am wondering if it's some sorry joke that I haven't understood the punch-line to.

Either a comment is offensive and is in contravention with your posting policy or it's not. Whether you receive one complaint, two or many more complaints for a comment posted should not matter. If it's offensive and in breach of policy then the onus on you is to handle the situation professionally, as per your policy.

Allow me to refresh you on your policy, in case it has slipped your mind:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal

"General prohibitions

You must not up-load, post, transmit or otherwise make available through this site any material which:
...
is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy, vulgar, obscene, profane or which may harass or cause distress or inconvenience to, or incite hatred of, any person."

I don't recall I've ever said I'm a fan of this site. Please remind me where I wrote that. I do read this site because it exists, but from my dealings with you I find I tolerate this site more than I enjoy it.

You're not very good at abiding by the site policy, are you?

Michael.

Graham, really. You keep twisting this. In my very first email to you about this issue I said:

"It is my intention to make this issue known to your sponsors, I'll be expressing my dismay to them."

How can you claim:

"In fact there was no indication in their responses to me that they didn't accept my moderation decisions either, so the tip-off from the sponsor was a complete surprise to me."

And I think you'll agree that I responded to each of your emails with a thank you. I wasn't aware it was required of me to express my dissatisfaction with your decision.

Greg,

It does seem a little strange that you even bothered to contact Graham about the comments if you had already made up your mind to contact the sponsors.
Surely the object of emailing the moderator to request a deletion is part of the normal procedure in dealing with this type of complaint. If everyone went about contacting sponsors every time they came across comments they deemed offensive, there would be no opinion sites left.

I noted that you say on you blog that : "...I started writing to the advertisers within a couple of hours, there was little point in waiting really,..."
http://gregory.storer.com.au/?p=295

It's difficult to believe that you were seriously attempting to find satisfaction through your conversation with Graham in light of preparedness to go beyond normal procedure so early in proceedings

For the benefit of Poirot, Graham and anyone else trawling through the blogs and comment pages trying to find a fault in the timing of an email sent or some slip of logic, this point needs to be made.

Gregory's underlying concern was not that the offensive comment wasn't deleted. The concern is that it even appeared.

Due to the lack of moderation on comments posted on this site, any comment posted automatically appears and is only ever removed if it is flagged (or via some other manual behind-the-scenes system).

So it really is irrelevant whether Gregory gave Graham time to respond or not, the damage had been done.

Michael.

Michael,

In your reply to briar rose some pages back, regarding the comments, you said:
"...If the moderator had removed them via his complaint mechanism there would have been no reason for anyone to write letters to the advertisers, or take any course of action at all."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583&page=29

How do you reconcile that statement with the one you appear to adopting now?

Correction,

The quote from MikeyBear is:

" If the moderator had removed them via his complaint mechanism there would have been no reason for anyone to write letters to the advertisers, or take any other course of action."

(Of course, the meaning stands.)

Poirot, I believe my most recent posting is the more accurate one. In any case On Line Opinion has not done itself any favours by breaching it's own policy. You aren't pursuing that very hard, are you? Biased?

MikeyBear

If Graham Young’s partner posted pseudonymous comments on your website defending his actions, you would surely think their relationship was a material factor when evaluating that person’s argument.

You say that “Gregory's underlying concern was not that the offensive comment wasn't deleted. The concern is that it even appeared.”

Are you arguing that all comments should be censored before they are posted? That would not be possible if the site is to maintain its freewheeling discussions across a broad range of topics. In the past month alone it has posted about 150 articles that attracted over 2,500 comments. It would be virtually a full time job just to read every comment, as well as a 24/7 commitment. In short, censorship would kill the site

But! Rhian when vile and hatred comments are published and printed in the public domain, surely they should be accordingly moderated and removed.
What this issue is about is that OLO on receiving complaint, of the above, responded with " for gods sake, he was just being ironic".
If demeaning and deviling innocent persons in a public forum is "Ironic" comment; then OLO needs a lesson in social skills!

Hey Rhian, it seems that's the whole point.
This is about censorship, pure and simple. Just like the censor who spends all day watching porn before denouncing it, no one forced GP or Mikie to read the offending article, and no one forced them to read the comments. As I pointed out earlier, I didn't read the article (in the first instance) because I found it unappealing, and I'm not even gay.
On can only assume this couple is afraid of open debate; rather like the President of Iran, who supports freedom of debate in Egypt, -but not Iran.

Kipp

The website does have a process for removing comments that breach its policies, but it relies on readers to report offensive comments. It seems to me MikeyBear wants more than that, though. He wants to prevent offensive opinion appearing in the first place. That is not free speech.

One of the core aims of this website is to promote free discussion among people with diverse and conflicting opinions. It’s inevitable that some people are going to disagree vehemently with some of the articles, and to be offended by some of the contributions and comments. I disagree with Muehlenberg's article and with the aggressively homophobic comments it prompted from some forum contributors. (I didn’t read the article when it was published or participate in that forum, but I have consistently argued for gay rights in other forum discussions on OLO).

The solution to homophobia is not to silence the bigots but to engage with them and show why their arguments and “facts” are wrong. There is a fundamental contradiction in proposing zero tolerance of intolerance. A lack of “social skills” is a price worth paying for free and open debate.

Poirot,

Thank you for posting, in your post of Wednesday, 16 February 2011, at 3:30:38 PM, the link http://gregory.storer.com.au/?p=295 .

Indirectly, by surfing the highlighted text link words 'suggestion', and then 'article', in the seventh paragraph of Greg's post 'To be ignored' in the context of that paragraph itself, I was able to answer the question I had posed at the conclusion of my post of Tuesday, 15 February 2011, at 6:57:32 AM:

"What content on what Greg Storer describes as
his 'outdated election blog' is it that we can
no longer see, and yet to which Greg himself
refers in his blog entry dated 14 February 2011?"

Greg's text link word 'suggestion' is in fact to my post to this thread of Tuesday, 15 February 2011 at 6:57:32 AM. In that post I made no suggestion of anything having been removed from the blog to prevent any visitor fom landing on the article about Gillard and marriage equality. I was simply trying to clarify what would have been on display at the time when GrahamY linked to the blog site when compiling his article the way he did in paragraph 25 delivering a viewer to this URL: http://gregory.storer.com.au/ .

It seems, depending upon when the change to the 'landing page' set for Greg's blog was made, that GrahamY would have linked to either the 'about me' page content, or the combined content of the page http://gregory.storer.com.au/?p=270 and part of the content of the page http://gregory.storer.com.au/?p=238 (the Gillard and marriage equality blog entry). I guess only Graham knows which of these he saw at the time of compilation of his article.

What would there have been worthy of hiding with respect to the 'Gillard and marriage equality' post anyway, that anyone should have been taken as suggesting blog content had been removed to prevent visitors landing there? And, in any case, how would removing OTHER content aid in hiding what clearly remains on the blog?

I don't understand the sensitivity surrounding this.

Rhian, it's not what I want. It's what Gregory wants. Please check back on what I wrote. However I think his idea has merits, but that's a discussion for another topic.

Forrest Gumpp, is a conspiracy theory the best you can come up with? You are really convinced Gregory has something to hide. Don't you have better things to do with your time?

Michael.

Mikey Bear asks:

"Forrest Gumpp, is a conspiracy theory the best you
can come up with? You are really convinced Gregory
has something to hide. Don't you have better things
to do with your time?"

I see few better uses of my time than that of assisting OLO to survive as a significant and effectively un-edited voice for genuine public opinion in what is a predominantly MSM environment. Money, revenue for OLO, is clearly the most urgent requirement in the context of enabling that survival, and to that end I have made some suggestions as to how significant financing independent of advertising revenue may be obtained.

Beyond that, since 'time is money', I remain happy to devote time to asking what may prove to be some of the right questions as to revealing what may be the true nature of this evident attempt at denial of an erstwhile source of revenue to OLO. Clarifying the sequence of events in what may appear to be several concurrent lines of attack upon both OLO revenue and site moderation, I see as being potentially useful. Sorry if that process is boring, but attempting to denigrate it by labeling it as 'conspiracy theory' cuts the mustard less by the day, these days.

Greg's post on his blog told me what I wanted to know about how his site operated. Just a pity that that explanation wasn't given here where the question was asked.

GrahamY posted, on Tuesday, 15 February 2011, at 12:38:33 PM:

"I don't think anyone should get too carried away
with the idea that Greg and Mike caused the damage
to OLO. They were never mentioned to us in any
correspondence with the advertising agency. The credit
apparently goes to an employee of IBM and an employee
of another advertising agency (not ours)."

It just may be that GrahamY is right, and that a private agenda has been pursued from within an advertising agency perhaps affiliated with an organisation that has imposed a private advertising code of conduct upon its affiliates and their advertising clients.

Mikey Bear, this is Goldilocks -

I'm gonna repeat this comment you posted on my blog, because I think it says everything about your intentions right from the start.

I asked Mikey Bear had they thought about the anti discrimination path, instead of a financial attack on OLO as their first course of action. He wrote:

*Why must they go to via an anti-discrimination path? That’s ludicrous. A letter to the advertisers proved far simpler, effective and expedient.*

and there you have it.

There is no human right not to be offended. Everybody gets offended about something sometime. The list of what's offending me in the world at the moment is long. Being offended is what we tolerate and deal with, for the privilege of living in a democracy.

What Graham did in this case was publish a rebuttal of the Muehlenberg article just a few days later, and allowed the offensive comments to be ridiculed and challenged in the forum.

Democracy at work, Mikey.

You two, on the other hand, behave like agents of repression. In your rage at not getting what you wanted the instant you wanted it, you decided to try your hands at a bit of trashing and see if that would get you noticed.

Censorship did gays and lesbians a lot of damage - now you want revenge do you? Now you want to do the same thing to others that was done to you?

Very grown up, baby bear. Very mature. Very helpful to the world.

There's a great deal more I'd like to say, but I'd be deleted.

Pop over to my blog again sometime. I'm the moderator there.

At it's core, this is all about ego and power.

It's got FA to do with gay rights.

Like I said, briar rose, "spoiled brats".

In a world that is experiencing climate change, a financial crisis, a food shortage, wars created by the imperial U.S., the rapid disappearance of democracy and freedom, etc, who cares about Greg and Mike and their silly attempt to change the world to suit the internal workings of their particular relationship?

Certainly not me!

http://dangerouscreation.com

Kipp, the problem is, who decides what's "offensive"?
That is such a subjective thing. It becomes a definable problem when incitement rears its ugly head
THEN action must be taken.
What's "offensive" (taste/aesthetics) to me or to you is neither here nor there to someone else. I can call you a spangle footed drongo until the cows come home. You can be offended, or just laugh my stupidity off. The moment I turn around and add, "I think spangle footed drongos ought to be tarred nd feathered", then you have grounds for complaint and I'm likely in for a lesson, perhaps from the courts.

If the concern is about a comment causing *distress*, and the concern is reasonably and soundly justified by the distressed party, then the matter is not open to adjudication, without ramifications.

Paul, at least spangle-footed drongos don't go around the place trying to draw attention to themselves. They are modest creature who just get on with their lives without fanfare, worrying no one and minding their own business.

It's a shame their example isn't followed by other species.

MikeyBear

I assumed that you quoted Gregory’s preference for censorship because you share it– if not, why raise the issue?

Do you think Graham would be justified in deleting you comment that you "hope his site dies in a screaming bankrupt heap", if he finds it distressing?

It seems that Gregory's preference for censorship is selective.
In this blog with the title "A Free Press - The Australian Jewish News", he is critical of the newspaper, noting: "The Jewish News has shown its bias....they have deliberately chosen to censor anyone who they think will offend some readers..."
http://gregory.storer.com.au/?paged=2

Sounds like a double standard to me.

Poirot, what planet are you on? One issue is about a newspaper not giving balanced coverage to a legitimate and relevant political party, especially one that has policies directly benefiting the community that the newspaper targets, and the other issue is about calling gay people perverted. Hardly a fair comparison, and you know that.

Rhian, I raised the issue because there are a quantity of people on here who are hell bent on trying to discredit Gregory, and whilst I don't necessarily agree (or disagree) with anything he has to say, I feel an obligation to cut through the bulltoss on here when it's flying in from all directions.

What Graham Young does with my statement about the viability of his business is of little concern to me. It's a reasonable statement to make and it's not targeting people based on any personal characteristic. Again, comparing a person's sexual orientation with someone's business management skills is hardly a valid comparison. Is it?

Michael.

But David G, you also must consider the other "bustards from the bush" also. The mysterious giant oopoo bird, for one. Wedge tailed possums are another and who can forget, presiding over the lot, the Giant Liar-Bird?
sulphur crested wombats, you name it, I could go on forever..

Mikey Bear

Kindly stop stalking me round the blogosphere leaving comments wherever you paws, alleging that I have *vested interests* in OLO that make it impossible for me to be *impartial.*

I just found another of your leavings,like bear scats in the cyber forest.

You were also banging on about catholics there, here you're banging on about Jews.

The Jewish News wouldn't give coverage to Gregory's tilt as candidate for the Secular Party in the 2010 elections? Is that your complaint?

I'm not paid to write for OLO.

And I've never met Graham Young.

If I were to abuse and insult you, not that I never would, believe me when I say it would have absolutely nothing at all to do with your sexual orientation.

Michael,

You are representing Gregory as a man of principle.

The point is that Gregory is condemning the newspaper for the fact that it deliberately censors to avoid giving offence - he is complaining about that.

Yet that is exactly what he is asking OLO to do - to censor to avoid giving offence.

Jennifer, you're going in a number of directions, none of which lead to a logical conclusion. You'll find someone else on here referred to a blog of Gregory's that was about an issue he had with the Australian Jewish News, a newspaper, not a religion, choosing not to give him coverage. I didn't bring that into the conversation. Agreed?

As for Catholics, I simply pointed out on the ABC Counterpoint web site that a link that someone else had supplied referred to the same document on a Catholic web site. Again, it was something that someone else had brought up, not me. You have got a problem with factual representation.

Poirot, no one is asking to censor, simply moderate, and make an informed decision as to the suitability of posted content. That's pretty clear in my mind.

I don't understand how so many people can come to so many illogical, ill-informed, incorrect conclusions and assumptions, so often. I really don't understand what it is, but in my ordinary, everyday getting around I tend to encounter people who have a firm grip on reality. Here, it seems to be different.

Michael.

I'm with Poirot. I hope she isn't frightened by the sound of that.

That detective is the only one making sense.

Really, it all comes down to cricket. The umpire is there to make decisions, and the laws of the game are there for the umpire to enforce.

The umpire (Graham) cannot give a poster 'out' unless someone appeals to the umpire. I have asked Graham to change the icon to 'Howzat' rather than 'Recommend comment for deletion' as I think it would be less ambiguous.

Regardless, just because you appeal, doesn't men the umpire is obliged to give it out. The umpire interprets the rules. Something that guy who tried to sabotage CA and the ICC's sponsorship deals needs to learn.

The complexities of the Definitions of 'offensive' and 'a reasonable statement to make' pale in significance to the complexities of the LBW rule. Cricketers over the ages have managed to navigate these issues by abiding by a code of conduct...

'The umpire is always right'.

I would not hesitate to say it's 'Un-Australian' to dispute the umpires decision.

I dunno, Houellebecq, it's very "Australian" to challenge umpires and spit the dummy these days!

it saddens me that those who claim to be offended by certain views in society deal out the most vicious bile when anyone disagrees with them.they are characteristised by extreme arrogance. the reason that OLO was created was in part to enable wider diversity in our media, to enable views to be spread without regard to their relative economic power. unfortunately instigating a secondary boycott utilising the power of capital entrenches that power to the detriment of individuals, especially those wishing to express a view contrary to the interests of the capitalist dominant paradigm.the best way to beat an abhorent idea is to tackle it headon not use corporations to restrict freedom of expression, we all lose when we give faceless corporations that power over our media

It may well be that all this contention that presents as being about the quality of moderation of the site is a convenient smokescreen for a commercial play, by predominantly trans-national interests, aimed at cornering the Australian internet advertising placement market.

An important tool in such a play could well be an advertising 'code of conduct'. Those in a position to determine, interpret, and, finally, apply the provisions of the code would have the ability to effectively exclude selected advertising outlets from the placement of advertising, and thus, in due course, revenue.

In such a context, coupled with his on-record refusal to subscribe to that code of conduct, a post by Graham Young to the General Discussion topic 'Moderation, flaming, off-topic, rules' on 24 November 2010 may have helped precipitate this attack upon OLO's advertising revenue. He said:

"... we are audited by AC Nielsen as part of the
advertising arrangements on the site and as a
result we get weekly reports on our readership
numbers. Last week, for the first time ever,
the forum (which includes all comments on the
bottom of articles) had more page views than
the journal articles themselves."

See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4109#102919

In the context of the sincerity of its recent actions in having broken ranks with the rest of the banking industry with respect to competition having been called into question, might not the National Australia Bank see sponsoring of the OLO site as a very public demonstration of its sincerity in this respect? Especially so in the context of the ANZ having kowtowed to this privately trans-nationally sponsored code of conduct while masquerading under a banner of 'values'?

If it happens to be already a signatory to any advertising code of conduct, the NAB might see value in being seen to break ranks in that respect, too. After all, that code may well be operating in conflict with the Trade Practices Act.

Freedom to compete.

Freedom of speech.

The NAB. Supporting both.

I can see it all. What about it GrahamY? Is the NAB worth a call?

Forrest you're another national treasure.(runner being the first)
I always read your posts in the voice of Sir John Gielgud.

OUG is very close too. I think Graham could bring together the posting history of these three unique Australians and sell them in a hard cover boxed set, with a bonus CD interview where they relate their memoirs.

I'd pay big bucks for that, and I'm sure there would be a massive market. Perhaps I should ring Oprah...

Forrest Gumpp,

I think that's the best idea yet. Indeed Graham ought to consider writing up a defence of the allegations, substantially against him, and a manifesto of his vision of freedom of thought and expression.
Armed with this he should canvas support not just from the NAB but across the board via the media. Ecumenical sites like OLO have to be preserved inviolable against private, group, corporate and government interests, indeed even against largely compliant, sensationalising and PR-fed mainstream media. There's no social value in either a politically correct editorial bias or censorship, but in a debating forum that is not afraid to tackle the difficult topics evaded elsewhere.

Merci, Michel, for your compliment in your post of Friday, 18 February 2011 at 1:11:00 PM. Such comparison by way of textuphonic presence to Sir John Gielgud I find embarrassing almost to the point of wanting to do a runner, but that would be a sin. You have called me back to the thread by your raising of the spectre of the burning of assorted collective works of OLO posters onto CD.

There is, however, no little silver cloud that does not have a black lining. Reviewing my post of Friday, 18 February 2011 at 11:03:57 AM, I could kick myself for passing up the opportunity latent in the last line. I should have written it:

"I can see it all.
What about it GrahamY?
The NAB. Worth a call?"

Haiku* in the defence of free speech are all the rage these days, it appears.




Seriously (and since when have we not been serious?), there is another aspect to this current threat to OLO's continued survival: the prospect of the loss of public access to the entire OLO archive. OLO userID 'Bronwyn' raised one aspect of the prospective value of parts of that archive to family members upon the decease of a user, in a post that I can no longer find.

The promotion of a DVD set covering the entire archive might be a lead-in to the securing of more substantial sponsorships of the site, something perhaps more concrete in presentations than the benefits of advertising may appear to be.







*Just my little tribute to Shintaro-san, so reminiscent, in the OLO arena, with respect to the placement of his Haiku, of the character Buntaro, the archer, in James Clavell's novel, 'Shogun'. Buntaro could shoot three arrows in quick succession, blind, through a shoji screen with his head turned away, and get a double FitzSooth grouping** on a gatepost outside the house!

**FitzSooth grouping: an archery term; one arrow splitting the shaft of another on a target. Named after a famous mediaeval English archer, Robin FitzSooth, Earl of Locksley and Huntingdon.

Approaching the NAB to sponsor OLO will probably prove fruitless given their strong commitment to GLBT equality, acceptance and inclusion.

http://www.prideindiversity.com.au/list-of-members/

I'm sure they will also want to distance themselves from sites like OLO that tolerates homophobic attitudes, like ANZ and IBM sensibly did.

Michael.

MikeyBear,

if you had an ounce of integrity or credibility, after engaging in this thread, you would admit that OLO by and large "does" support GLBT rights, and you would be appealing to the sponsers you've helped to put off-side yourself and fighting to restore their support!
There might be a tiny minority of homophobic views among the diverse OLO cohort, sorry about that, but that's because OLO represents the broad community, warts and all.
I do not support discrimination of any kind and neither do the vast majority here.
This is not a sterile environment and, so far as I'm concerned, your complaints are vacuous and do a disservice to your cause. I'm terribly sorry you don't enjoy universal support, but then neither do any other minorities. Deal with it!

OLO might support positive GLBT attitudes but it also tolerates homophobic attitudes. It has shown this by allowing offensive and distressing homophobic comments to be posted and not subsequently removed after being requested to do so.

Clearly you've never been the victim of hateful intolerance, otherwise you might know how to show some empathy.

Michael.

MikeyBear:
<Clearly you've never been the victim of hateful intolerance, otherwise you might know how to show some empathy>

Err, yes I have.
And I can assure you I'm far from universally loved at OLO.

That's life.

Forrest may well be in a mood favourable to an approach as to OLO site sponsorship.

Andrew Forrest, that is.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/asic-wins-appeal-over-andrew-forrest-of-fortescue-metals-group/story-e6frg9df-1226008271494?from=public_rss

Whilst in no way do I seek to comment upon the court decision mentioned in the news item, I can obtain a sense of a latent injustice being done to Andrew Forrest as a result of that decision, from this paragraph of the item:

"The news won’t significantly affect the company,
which reported a sharp rise in half-year profits
today, but unless he chooses to appeal to the High
Court, it will see him removed from decision-making
at Fortescue Metals Group, the company he planned
and turned into a $21 billion operation."

To me it seems not impossible that the prospect of his removal from decision-making might be considered extremely fortuitous by some foreign interests. If the seat of my pants is giving me correct information in this respect, it is only if vehicles for free speech and informed public comment continue to exist that such possible injustices can be ventilated.

It is interesting to note the remark of Keane J., in raising questions over ASIC's pursuit of the case, reported in this news item: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/court-rules-andrew-forrest-misled-fortescue-investors/story-fn59niix-1226008434394?from=public_rss

"It is a curiosity of the case that
there was no evidence that any member
of the investing public was misled by,
or suffered loss as a result of,
FMG's contraventions of the Act"

Regulatory and/or competitor noses out of joint?




In Australia, OLO and blogs of the like associated with 'The Domain' advertising package are at the bleeding edge of the maintenance of a free press, and are perhaps the best prospect for holding governments to proper accountability in such matters. Jennifer Marohasy's OLO article 'Snowy Hydro derivatives play submerges farmers', http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11633 , ventilating that scandal, is a case in point.

Andrew Forrest, and his FMG Chairman Herb Elliot, may well see the value in helping sustain such vehicles very clearly at the moment.

Worth a call?

The following quote is the entirety of the post by GrahamY, on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 at 5:21:04 AM, (the day before the Muehlenberg article was published) to the General Discussion topic 'Moderation, Flaming, Off-Topic, Rules' which I earlier quoted from and to which I supplied a link, which link I now repost. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4109#102919

"Hi, just thought I would drop a couple
of tidbits of information into this thread
that might be of interest.

First thing is that we are audited by
AC Nielsen as part of the advertising
arrangements on the site and as a result
we get weekly reports on our readership
numbers. Last week, for the first time
ever, the forum (which includes all
comments on the bottom of articles) had
more page views than the journal articles
themselves.

Part of that may of course be due to some
of the intense discussions going on here,
but perhaps part of it is due to the
commenters having become more civil and
spending more time discussing articles
rather than dissing each other.

Second is that I had an author (not one
who has been party to any of these thread
discussions) send me an email saying how
they noticed that the quality of comments
had got better, as judged by the comments
on their article.

We've published 7 articles this morning
because there was just so much choice. I
think you will find authors are much more
willing to send us pieces if they feel like
they are getting some respect.

I think the same will be true of people who
read the comment threads and who think about
commenting."

There had, as of late November 2010, and before the Muehlenberg article was published, already been a tightening up on moderation on OLO upon which a number of users had commented favourably, with results as described in GrahamY's quoted post.

Given that the number of unique views of the site can be determined, I am wondering whether it may not be possible to introduce free, but limited, moderated unregistered guest posting to OLO?

TBC

Continued

I lurked on OLO for quite a while before first registering as a user. If my own reaction with respect to commenting on other sites is any guide as to how most viewers react, it would be that the bulk of potential commenters, who would otherwise spontaneously comment upon reading an article or post, will be put off by the requirement to give up information to complete the registration process and never participate.

I note that some online news sites have a comment pane for guest comments that requires no registration. The thing is that all such comments made are subject to moderation BEFORE they are posted. Such moderation is clearly beyond the present resources of OLO. However, if I am not mistaken, GrahamY himself floated the idea of volunteer moderators drawn from among the regular users of the site, as a means of lightening the moderation workload. (The consensus appeared to be, at the time, that a clear majority of regular users were quite happy with the way moderation was already being done.)

There may nevertheless be an opportunity for OLO to both increase its number of registered users, and effectively encourage voluntary subscription membership (usership?) via the introduction of unregistered moderated guest, or viewer, posting.

The idea is that guest posting would be free, but for a limited number of posts over some specified period and rate of posting, and subject of course to any delays in moderation and with no guarantees given. Such guests, if desiring (or getting sucked into the need) to post more frequently/widely on the site, could then secure that right by becoming a subscription user.

Volunteer regular OLO users could be given a guide to moderation of guest posts, teleworking access to an OLO journal of guest posts awaiting moderation before posting, and site authorization to approve posting. On the job training of moderators at little or no cost, with the existing user-complaint system still in place as back-up when posts do go up.

Ten guests converting to subscription users @ $2each/wk generates around $52,000 pa., ongoing.

Graham I have not read all posts. Why not sell coupons, say 10c / comment. You buy so manny dollars worth, then they get depleted at 10c / comment. Top up on line.

just thought it worth repeating this quote
from the bear

...''I'm gonna repeat this comment you posted on my blog, because I think it says everything about your intentions right from the start.

I asked Mikey Bear had they thought about the anti discrimination path, ...instead of a financial attack*.. on OLO
as their first course of action.

He wrote:

*Why must they go to via an anti-discrimination path? That’s ludicrous. A letter to the advertisers proved far simpler, effective and expedient.*

and there you have it.''...

yes there we have it..

seems suing* people
might better be a way of assuring income

as the theme ..appears to be clearly ..kick em in the purse

As at around 8:30 AM AEDST today, GrahamY's article 'Wanted: new financial backers' was again standing in third position on the 'Today's most popular' display on the OLO main page.

The article had dropped off that particular display by Tuesday 15 February 2011, after having topped the display on Tuesday 8 February, the day after publication, and remained on the display continuously up until Monday 14 February. It is interesting to see the article attracting continued views, given its importance.

These twitpics of screenshots confirm the displays at the respective dates given:

http://twitpic.com/4208pg
http://twitpic.com/420a0e
http://twitpic.com/420b08

I estimate that there are around 6,000 userIDs listed in the OLO users display. If as many as 1,000 of these could be contacted by email and persuaded to contribute at the rate of $1 per week/make a $50 donation, a revenue stream of around $50,000 pa would result. That might mean the site could do without advertising altogether, which might enhance the user/viewer experience. Could this be a source of new financial backers in a targeted email campaign?

That would leave OLO in a position from which it could not be stood over with respect to advertising placement as the price of survival. Indeed OLO might be independently able to market its advertising space to selected advertisers, ones whose advertising would not detract from the user experience, directly.

FWIW, I have never used my ANZ Visa card 'rewards' before. I now have. That card use reward scheme has now funded the basic donation of $50 that Graham has stated somewhere in a relevant link or post is the target ceiling donation requested on a voluntary basis for site usage. ANZ has begun to pay for its destructive little masquerade.

love your enthusiasm forrest

but a note of caution re the members is indicated
many may not be what they pretend to be

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/18/revealed-air-force-ordered-software-to-manage-army-of-fake-virtual-people/

seems they can even arrange divergent service providers etc
the thing is ..we may not know ..all the unknown knowns

but glad your doing what you do
its only when we [real people]..give up ..that we loose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrpfvHm1D78

anyhow the time of unknown knowns
is fast becomming known by re-nown

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wisconsin-gov-walker-ginned-up-budget-shortfall-to-undercut-worker-rights.php

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/18/koch-brothers-behind-wisconsin-effort-to-kill-public-unions/

http://rt.com/usa/news/jpmorgan-profiting-hungry-americans-usa/
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/bahrain-protesters-swarm-square-police.html

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/eu-farming-subsidies-for-royal-family.html

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/scientists-suns-approaching-grand.html

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/retired-usaf-pilot-col-guy-s-razer-says.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/treasonanddisloyalty.php

and still nothing changes
isnt the media serving the beast well

once we loose our blogs were dead
get behind grayham folks

for less than ..the cost of a cup of coffe a month
give till the pain ends

http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=4742
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=13996

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/the-cultural-boycott-either-youre-with-us-or-youre-not/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-best-protest-signs-at-the-wisconsin-capitol

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-20/iceland-president-blocks-bill-guaranteeing-5-billion-u-k-dutch-deposits.html

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=74

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/activists-around-the-world-are-way-ahead-of-the-u-s.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

could it really be
that were in hell
but dont know it yet?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gsv8vJ45hWNxvco5tgcPE_iHt6dQ?docId

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/20/william-cook-%E2%80%9Cwe-the-forgotten-people-of-the-united-states-%E2%80%9D/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358829/Obama-accused-double-standards-family-holiday-telling-Americans-to.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97jdftiLk4g

http://uruknet.com/?p=m75165&hd=&size=1&l=e

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11secretservice.html

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20110220-264477.html

http://toryardvaark.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/global-panic-as-green-sector-crashes-and-burns/

oh heck whats the use

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-usa-globalwarming-fraud-idUSTRE71H7Q020110218

its all a ponzi sceme..[ah'la berni/maddof and enron]
but why do we chose to forget?

http://dailybail.com/home/michael-crichton-annihilates-al-gore-and-global-warming.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/bbc-dead-water-attack-uss-liberty-1of7

Graham Young said, in the third-last paragraph of the article, speaking as to the background to the founding of OLO,:

"I believed that the Internet opened up
a huge opportunity for doing politics and
governance better than we used to. On Line
Opinion, and various blogs in the blogosphere,
are part of that better way, but they don’t
have a long-term future without financial support."

IMO an important part of 'doing politics and governance better' is the holding to public account of the merit of policies and the performance of public officials. To do that, there needs to exist a public record. With respect to a record of public opinion, GrahamY says:

"On Line Opinion is an open platform for ideas. We have
a larger audience than any other Australian opinion site
outside the mainstream media because we offer diversity
and quality, and because we treat our readers with respect,
promoting equality as a core value."

I have already touched, in my post of Friday, 18 February 2011 at 4:51:38 PM, upon the threat posed to continued public access to the record of public opinion constituted by the OLO archive of articles and posts made to date, by the loss of revenue that would keep OLO going in accordance with its founding principles.

An archive can be valuable not only from what it CONTAINS, but also, in the context of internet information access, for the standing record it may constitute as to REMOVAL from the public domain of potentially important evidence as to performance, or failure in performance, in relation to governance. One such instance of apparent removal from public view of referenced information is, for example, recorded in relation to flood mitigation and water storage in the Brisbane River catchment.

In Australian politics as it has been done up until the present, the suppression of 'inconvenient truths', or the public promotion of policies different from those favoured by the incredibly small number of persons having effective input into policy formation by political parties, has been all too easy.

OLO poses a threat to that.

Is this the start of some good news on the advertising front for OLO?

This is a twitpic of a screenshot taken this morning while reading the article 'Bias at the national broadcaster is as easy as ABC',
( http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11658 ):

http://twitpic.com/42ocvg

I think the Defence advertising budget is already getting bang for its buck from placement on OLO. I will be referring the content of the DSD ad to a hot prospect later today.




There is a most relevant article posted on OLO today that touches upon the subject of much of this thread, to which I have already given the link. Worth a read.

FG, by analogy with the ABC incident are you suggesting OLO took appropriate action regarding complaints about offensive comments posted, or that it didn't go far enough?

Michael.

MikeyBear,

The analogy I draw with the ABC publicly funded blog incident is twofold. The first aspect is to do with the range of viewpoints tolerated on The Drum contrasted with OLO. Marc Hendrickx has asserted that a bias exists on The Drum blog that is adverse to the presentation of views sceptical of AGW. This contrasts with the publication by OLO of articles both pro and con with respect to gay marriage, a discernible matter of fact to anyone perusing the OLO index pages.

The second aspect is as to the manner in which a comment which made assertions that erred seriously as to matters of fact was eventually removed from The Drum, contrasted with comments made on OLO which did not err as to matters of fact and/or were expressions (however unpalatable to some, or indeed many) of opinion, that were not removed.

The irony is that a comment was eventually able to be removed even from a site able to be seen as somewhat biased, that of The Drum, by procedures that did not immediately threaten the financial viability of that site. By contrast, on a site that displayed provable balance in the publication of both pro and con views on an issue, immediate action was taken against its financial viablity whilst pursuit of the removal of comments felt to be offensive was not followed up in a manner that would have allowed the OLO administration time to deal with those comments themselves, nor was recourse made to other legal remedies available.

In the light of the terms agreed under which persons use OLO (set out on the 'Legals' page, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal ), yes, OLO took appropriate action regarding allegedly offensive comments.

However, it should be born in mind that it was never the comments that were at the heart of this contention. It was, ostensibly, the very fact of publication of the Muehlenberg article. I say 'ostensibly' because it is my opinion that that article provided a convenient smokescreen for a commercial/corporate law enforcement play aimed at removing a competitor, OLO, from the advertising placement market.

You're stretching the truth FG:

"However, it should be born in mind that it was never the comments that were at the heart of this contention"

The complaint, as Gregory Storer has quite clearly stated:

http://gregory.storer.com.au/?p=286

"So, I sent a very upfront email to Graham Young, expressing my feelings and saying that I intended to raise awareness with the advertisers on his site about the sort of comments they were supporting. The full exchange can be found here.

After it was clear that Young was not interested in pulling the comments I then wrote to IBM and ANZ."

was about the presence of a *comment*:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/show-post-article.asp?comment=190365

and *not* about the article by Muehlenberg. That is irrefutable according to the email chain between Gregory Storer and Graham Young. Follow?

You can read the email exchange between Gregory and Graham here:

http://gregory.storer.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Email-Exhcange-Online-Opinion.pdf

As for the response from OLO, according to you:

"In the light of the terms agreed under which persons use OLO (set out on the 'Legals' page, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal ), yes, OLO took appropriate action regarding allegedly offensive comments."

That's highly subjective and given the tone of the comment posted and the potential for distress and vilification arising from it, which clearly isn't a matter that you're prepared to show an iota of empathy on, I would say that there has been no goodwill or professionalism shown on Graham Young's part here. He has left an extremely sour taste in many people's mouths, and tarnished the reputation of this site.

Arising out of this situation are the unsubstantiated and untrue claims that myself and Gregory Storer have had it in for On Line Opinion from the outset (or at any subsequent stage), and that we have orchestrated a campaign to destroy the site and it's financial income.

It's unfortunate that so many want to judge without evidence on this matter and are prepared to believe lies and mistruths propagated on this site and elsewhere about myself and Gregory Storer.

Michael.

If Graham Young featured some of the articles on ICH, he would get lots of backers!

OLO is often too parochial. It doesn't really deal with world issues that well, same as many Australian sites.

Do yourself a favour and check out http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ and escape from the mediocrity of Mikey Bear and his tiny, limited, self-centered world.

You can say I told you!

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

Michael,

What other site would let you post your false accusations after you tried to destroy it.

Let's get a couple of things straight. While you might like to think that the advertisers took the same offence as you and Greg that is not what they have told us. They have told us, via our advertising agency, that the article was the problem.

And please, no pretence that you weren't part of this, as you were the employee at IBM who put pressure on the company to take their ads off the site. This was despite the fact that they had previously requested to be on this site. Why did they want to be here? Because we got better results than other sites, and this would be because the people who they are targeting are more likely to be at OLO than elsewhere.

IBM doesn't appear to understand that their clients actually value open and honest debate. Not only have you damaged our commercial interest, but you have damaged the commercial interest of your employer by convincing them to withdraw. Two for the price of one.

Come on David, anyone who knows me would say I'm far from mediocre. You clearly don't know me well enough. Want to meet for a drink? ;)

I really don’t think that the anti-discrimination laws in this country change people’s mind set. If they want to hire a pretty young girl instead of an older woman they still continue to do so. As long as they make no comment as to the reason for their choice. They still hire fit young workers whilst older men try and try and can’t get a job in their qualified field. What has happened since the discrimination laws came into being is they just keep their reasons for hiring a particular applicant out of 50 or more, to themselves.

Their ageist, sexist attitudes are still the same, just not stated in public.

Probably in the area of sexual harrassment and the sacking of pregnant women the discrimination laws have helped to rein in a lot of this behaviour not because the attitude has changed but out of fear of monetary litigation. Still a lot of these cases go on happening.

You can force a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. You can ban the public airing of thoughts but you can’t stop the private thoughts of people. Better have those thoughts out in the open and challenged if you wish to change anything at the fundamentalist human level.

Nice to see ANZ advertisements have returned.

[Deleted. Off topic.]

has anyone ever heard of the term..[phrase?]..PINKWASHING
i came across it today at my favourite site
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

A ZIONIST VICTORY
IN NEW YORK’S GAY COMMUNITY

Taking Pinkwashing to a whole new level, one of Israel’s very very good friends– gay male pornographer Michael Lucas– is boasting that he single-handedly

got NY’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Trans Community Center to not only cancel a “Party to End Apartheid” fundraiser to cover costs for Israel Awareness Week, but to ban the group from ever renting there again.

How?
You know, the usual calls
from supporters and threats to withhold major donations*
(according to Lucas)...''

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/a-zionist-victory-in-new-yorks-gay-community/

but it seemed to ring a bell
cant think why?

all i knew about it before
was when you put red socks
into the washing

then wash with hot water

still its a funny name..
why would people ...any people..
want to wash the dirty socks
[blood stains...on the socks?]

so much other real news
so im going back in

if we need to know
whats REALLY happening
we need to find sites that tell us whats really going down

and the first few articles are more revealing..[on a different topic]
to whats really happening...
that somehow
the media forgets ..to tell us..about

Thank you, ANZ for coming to your senses. Very pleased to see you here today. Things are looking brighter now.

It is interesting to see what regular OLO contributor Michael Lardelli (OLO userID Michael_in_Adelaide) has to say about the threat posed to OLO's viability by what is, presumably, the invocation of the Internet Advertising Sales Houses Australia (IASH Australia) 'code of conduct' in relation to advertising (non) placement on OLO.

Michael Lardelli, on the Energy Bulletin website, http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-02-07/australias-online-opinion-media-website-under-attack , makes the following important points:

"... Many essays from Energy Bulletin have
been reprinted on OLO where they reach
political leaders, their staff and other
journalists in Australia - people who
otherwise would not normally see this
material. ...

... As someone growing older and more cynical
every day, I cannot but wonder if the severing
of OLO's support might have something to do with
spreading concern among our elites about growing
public awareness of the environmental, energy
and other geopolitical issues. ...

... Let's not let this important internet site
be taken off-line just as the times we live in
become more "interesting" by the day!"

In the eight days since the last post to this thread, the ANZ advertising that had re-appeared on OLO has again disappeared. It is not hard to imagine that, with the clarifications as to the chronology of events that have surrounded this matter, and some perhaps ill-advised admissions made by others, a number of parties may have come to the realization that there may come to be legal consequences for the course embarked upon of attacking OLO's revenue. Has, for example, there been a retraction by SX News of the false claim made here, http://sxnews.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/scare-tactics-008393.html , that advertising was withdrawn because of a (misunderstood) after-the-event "call for homosexuals to be murdered" published in comments to the Wotherspoon article?

Be that all as it may, is it possible for viewers and users to be given some idea as to the extent to which donations or other sponsorships generated by the controversy, and this article, may be replacing the lost advertising revenue?