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!