Chek - link works fine for me.

Try Google - lots of refs for Graham & JHlies.

As for the Whale story - the more I read about it the more it appears that both Greenpeace and Japanese whalers have a lot of explaining to do. Not much honesty anywhere.

As I support the ideals of Greenpeace and am vehemently anti-whaling, I am disheartened by some of the tactics used by Greenpeace.

However, to return to the thrust of this article - given that there is so much blame on both sides, another topic could have been chosen to clearly define the role of media and honest reporting.

Chek, your articles were rejected because they weren't good enough. And as you seem to think it is significant that I am a Liberal Party member, can I ask whether you've maintained your Labor Party membership?

Scout, why don't you try reading the blog post about John Howard Lies rather than the Crikey mail. You'll find its about anonymous posting - the site didn't carry any authorisation whatsoever - not whether John Howard is a liar or not. In fact, the post says he is.

And the reason that I chose this example is because it is so unambiguous. The reactions of many on this thread, like yourself, indicate, that even when the evidence is clear, unequivocal and uncontrovertible the committed will still try to question and dismiss it. Imagine how well I would have done with an issue where the evidence really was complicated. You'd have had a field day if I disagreed with your position.

The fact stands that Greenpeace rammed the other ship and the evidence shows that. It should have been reported that way. Attempts to explain it away do not reflect well on anyone.

Indeed, you have missed something. I am not denying the tax concession exists.

The first thing to remember is that taxes are not for government; they are for the nation-state or community. Treasury is not a private bank account. The government is like a trustee.

Let's look at a trivial example -- a hospital. A donation to a hospital is like voluntarily paying tax, because its money that the government or community would or should otherwise need to spend. The tax system recognises this by not making individuals pay tax AGAIN on these amounts. Charities are defined in this manner under the common law, dating back hundreds of years. The income tax system came later.

No free society ever presupposes that only the government defines exactly what is good for the community. The government cannot say "the sick should get only this", "the poor should not get this". The tax system is so designed.

I am not making this up. This idea was established centuries ago. It's one of the bedrock pillars of a free society.

This is not to say government is unsupportive of charities and many charities do receive direct funding (from "our taxes"). I would also like to qualify that statutory law may have declared that some non-profit organisations should be given similar tax status as common-law charities.

I have a renewed respect for Magistrates and all the Constable Cares out there. "They say, we say, they say, we say, they say, we say, but we say" must really give 'em the [deleted for profanity]. I say: lock 'em all up for afray.

I think it was unfair of you, GY, to assert with such certainty that Greenpeace had lied given that the story has two sides. The whole situation from the footage and reading the blogs above is very ambiguous. Just because the media failed, according to you, GY, to tell both sides of the story doesn't mean Greenpeace have done the thing that you alleged.

GY's response to: Everyone else lies, so why shouldn’t Greenpeace? : "Lots of people and organisations lie, but I haven’t seen anything that I can remember as blatant as this."
GY I think you and the respondee are hanging with the wrong crowds.
Most people, I hope, aspire to honesty. Who are these people and what lies have they told?

While you are there. You also say: " If you want me to write up every lie that has ever happened..." I find this very disturbing that lying is such a dominant and accepted way in Australian culture.

When people lie, particularly those in high, influential positions, well the ideal of a fair go and a true democracy becomes as feckless as stating the obvious (bit of self criticism there to make all the Rancitas-haters happy). Having said all this, I think OLO is the best thing since - damn I can't think of anything. Anyhow, thanks to you GY and your helpers for all the effort you put into OLO. (Sliced bread)

My dear Graham,

So my articles were not good enough to publish. On which grounds?

Perhaps for the sake of demonstrating your integrity you should publish every week the articles rejected and those accepted, with brief reasons. Surely not too hard to do for an online enterprise? We will be convinced then of your even-handedness. (You could include a 25 word synopsis, stipulated as a condition of submission.)

It took two weeks to have my second article rejected, only after I enquired about it. It took just 4 days or so for David Flint’s last article to get published after its first appearance in a broadsheet. Even-handedness?

Garaham, I had no idea if you were still a member of the Liberal Party. It was your urging that Howard should sue for defamation that made me think that my criticism of Howard’s leadership might have caused you to reject my articles.

Your rambling article showed a man on a crusade – with noticeable boisterousness. Good enough to publish? Well you hold the gun, and you seem to be not averse to using it in this thread.

By the way I resigned from the Labor Party a good many years ago. It was not a place for a Chinaman who did not know his place – I have posted this elsewhere over the years. But you should not have asked this question. You should distinguish between your role as the Chief Editor of a supposedly independent and even-handed OLO, and your apparent need to score personal points.

I really admired your initiative in creating OLO, even though the debate it was to generate has transpired to be far from edifying or focused. But the way you have responded to criticism in this thread has taken away most of my initial admiration. You are right and that is it, and your automatic gun seems to be at the ready for the slightest rustle in the grass.

Cheers

Chek

Well we all know that the Japanese are lying when then take their scientific quota of whales which end up in their restaruants.It was not necessary for Green Peace to lower themselves to the incredibility of the Japs.

In the past honesty and trust was an integral part of our society.Now we are proccupied with political spin,smoke, mirrors and distortions of the truth to fit a politically correct idealogy.Green Peace taking the high moral ground does not entitle them to selectively alter the reality.

When we reach the point of total distrust,our society becomes consumed with seeking soft options and corruption.When this happens we will have achieved third world status whereby dishonesty becomes a substitute for productivity.A society cannot be productive without a tremendous degree of trust.People want more out of work than just a pay cheque at the end of the week.We are social beings and want recognition for our altruistic motives, as well our abilities in the work place.

There is no doubt that many like myself see our society in serious decline and Green Peace are just reflecting the deterioration in our ethical fibre that reduces us all to moral eqivocations,whereby the ends justifies the means.