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..