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...