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!