Too cute Trev:-)

Google let me down but I knew there was some law against blacklisting a company.

I imagine old people are far less likely to organize a social media campaign, so we have all these young people who don't listen to the guy denying all these old people who do like to listen to the guy by their social media power. The poor old dears must wonder what's hit them.

So, Godo, while I don't agree with diver that it's really all that potent, this power over who is or isn't allowed to entertain us (or other people with different tastes as it were), ala big brother evictions, are you happy with it yielded in such a random trivial whimsical fashion?

ie Get enough people outraged enough to strenuously toil in the endeavor of one click of a mouse, and bring down the hard work of a company that employs, produces and tows the wholesome capitalist line.

I'm a bit unsure of the sense in the idea of the plebs, the unwashed, randomly, unthinkingly shooting off their brain farts and causing havoc, which could even hurt themselves, and can be harnessed and manipulated so easily.

It's just so easy to whip up and outrage these days I'm not sure the gravity of the outrage, how deeply or sincerely it is felt, is in line with the gravity of the power it has; That power of course being the power of deciding who is allowed to entertain us!

I mean what if Juilar confessed she likes meat pies, then it is found that one brand of meat pies contains kangaroos, a digger with a heart rendering war story is offended about the denigration of the National Emblem, Juliar attempts to apologize and makes things worse by mentioning John Howard's pathetic attempt at bowling an off-spinner (In cricketing parlance, a pie. It was a terrible joke, and The Don would be outraged), and then everyone decides to boycott buying anything, and the country slides into deep recession, The Australian Kangaroo Pie Crisis (AKPC).

It's more likely than you think.

It is unfortunate so many people side with the cyber bullies and Labor Party on this incident. Although the comments were regrettable, they are nothing compared with what the union thugs that run the Labor Party say frequently. Why the hypocrisy? What have the Labor Party done to stop hate comments by their supporters? Here are some quotes from an opinion piece in "the Australian" (2/10) by Hon, Greg Hunt, MP:

“the ALP has been consistently silent about the language of hate and abuse from various left-wing commentators.

Journalist Mungo MacCallum declared John Howard to be unflushable faecal material, only in blunter terms. No criticism from the ALP here.

ABC First Tuesday Book Club panellist Marieke Hardy went much further, however, and published of Brendan Nelson, "glass the c . . .'s wife and their children because they don't deserve to procreate and have any children themselves".

This was accompanied by a demand for the genital mutilation of Tony Abbott and a piece published on ABC's The Drum calling for Christopher Pyne to be raped by a dog. I am not sure the ALP or others who support them have spent much time denouncing these extraordinary comments.

After appearing on the ABC's Q&A, left-wing writer Catherine Deveny tweeted of a Coalition frontbencher and family man who appeared on the same panel, "he has the face of a rapist". About as offensive as it gets. But silence from the ALP.

At the second level, there are the comments from ALP frontbenchers themselves.
On March 11 last year, the Prime Minister's Cabinet Secretary, Mark Dreyfus, wrote an opinion piece for The Sydney Morning Herald comparing Abbott to a Nazi war criminal.”

Oh come on Pete, they were only joking.

Those conservatives had it coming anyway.

Is it just me or was the Brendan Nelson quote so hyperbolic-ally extreme that it was in fact comedy genius.

Fantastic stuff!

Dear Person of "above average intelligence"

Sorry, but I beg to differ.

I wonder whether you would feel the same way, if your professional ability had been denigrated or your ethic origins maligned by Alan Jones, the way that so many others have been over the years.

The issue is not of "free speech" on the one side, or "cyber-bullying" on the other. It's about having accountability for one's views, particularly when you have a microphone and a large audience.

This is not about Jones latest remark. This is about years of abuse, racist intolerance and darn right lies (witness the accusation he levelled at the Australian Federal Police while on his Canberra rampage last year.)

Advertisers are commercially backing his capacity to continue to spout his vileness ad infinitum. There is nothing wrong with 110,000 Australians telling them that this is unacceptable behaviour.

The article was well argued and cogent.
We live in a country which honours the concept of free speech, and even someone as abrasive as Dinosaur Jones, is entitled to put a view.
I played rugby as a young man. I occupied a position on the left wing. I and my right wing compatriot often combined and flew down the middle.
It worked a treat, with the big blokes running out of puff and leaving it up to the Fullback, to, hopefully, occasionally, stop us.
On one occasion, a particularly unpleasant individual tackled me on suspicion, using an elbow to the head.
Not long after I replied with a try and a returned compliment on the way to the line.
The Fullback appealed to the touchie, did you see the illegal head high stuff?
To which I replied, if you can dish it out you better be able to cop it sweet, all while spitting blood and teeth in the touchie's direction.
The touch judge duly noted the blood flecked spittle and teeth, and took off down the line to keep up with the play.
I and the other winger ran in several more unanswered tries right down the high diddle diddle, and each one was accompanied by a strong "shoulder charge" on the fullback.
Who finished his day stepping aside, as we ran in a plethora of tries, that looked more like a cricket score.
As for dinosaur Jones, this and other events has revealed, as advocated by moderate Malcolm Turnbull, we need not change the media laws very much, as the current raft of regulations has allowed the public to respond with feeling, over the, "Jones Boy".
Nor do I believe this will simply go away, but continue until Jones accepts the medicine, he is all too fond of dishing out, and simply steps aside, as graciously as he is able? [People power!]
Now the foregoing is a far more appropriate football analogy, than the one served up by a patently self pitying Jones, just a few days ago.
Rhrosty.

Couldn't agree with you more Runner. Isn;t it fun to watch!