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