Turnrightleft

As you are the only one to ask instead of trying to bully we will repond.
Firstly because we paid a membership as a "group' to join OLO.
However there are several other reasons turnrightleft.
Last year there was a Government threat made to RSPCA and other NFP Organisations to gag them from protesting Animal Welfare just before elections. They have been threatend that they will loose their tax deductions.

Also a few weeks Peter Costello has introduced a new law to gag Animal Welfare groups from having freedom of speech. It has mmuch further implications of course andis the begining of the end of free speeech in Australia.

Pale is dissapointed the others have headed for the hills. However we stand for a fair go for Animals and wont be bullied by a union bloke Howard Costello or other posters who are on an agenda to get the name pale off OLO.
You can sue us Mr Costello Mr Howard Szults Ebbet thats ok.

We dont mind loosing our NFP tag because we are not about money.
In fact we would welcome the publicty for the animals.

Also turnrighleft in the begining it was put to a vote if pale should join OLO as members. It was a yes from some anothers said they could not afford it.
So some kind people made up that difference.

Members would come in a usually had there own desk and computers and some of them had to share if extras turned up at the one time.

I am not saying they only came into the pale office to post on OLO -

I am saying OLO was important to them so they could post under pale and yes put up their names after comments.

The complaints about ID casued a great trouble.

There was also a mix up under the ID tag and thats all it was.
pale was banned from using OLO at that time.

It was compounded by the fact the OLO membership had just been paid.



Graham Young then said we could post again under pale.

We are!

Thank you for the explanation - it does clear things up somewhat.

I suppose it's a fairly vague situation. I can see the reasoning behind putting some posts under PALE, though from my perspective it would make more sense for posters to simply sign up for a free nickname to comment on various issues, then when an issue of live exports comes up, then to post under the name.

Of course the organisation is under no obligation to do so - nobody has called for anyone to be banned outright, and I don't see the point in attacking an organisation.
I'm as concerned about any legislation that gags organisations as the next poster, though the reason why I suggest the above format, is to avoid difficulties such as this.

R0Bert made the point in the other thread, that he felt as if he couldn't criticise posts made under PALE that were irrelevant to live exports because it would be construed as attacking the organisation.

I must admit - he has a point there. If it's an issue irrelevant to live exports, then the organisation risks copping unnecessary flak.

I see numerous solutions to this problem - it seems like it would be quite easy for PALE (the group) the develop an alternate posting policy that would still allow for maximum impact on the live export issue, without gagging free speech or causing arguments.

Taryn "Sure pale have members- Hundreds in fact. Do they post on OLO
No but they wanted to
You lot stopped them and I know because I was one of them!"

It seems to me that if we had tried to stop you posting (something I deny) that we have been particularly ineffective. As far as I can tell you can and do post so just how did you get stopped from posting?

I've just read the comment posted under the name PALE suggesting government attempts to silence PALE, if that is the context it may explain some of the unnecessary angst over requests for a different approach.

I'm not trying to have the organisation silenced or stop them posting. I am trying to promote a workable approach that lets other posters comment on posts which reflect private opinions without being accused of attacking the organisation PALE. I've also taken time to rebutt some of the regular false accusations made against myself.

Perhaps you could check the links I have provided in some of those rebuttals and then ask yourself how much of what you have been told about my actions and involvement regarding the organisation PALE is stuff you have discovered for yourself and how much is claims you have been told but that you have not actually checked or which would reasonable be made without some additional prompting.

A good place to start would be in regard to the claim that the original carpark was opened to attack PALE - one of the more easily disproven claims repeatedly posted by your friend. I've posted the link to the opening post of that thread a couple of times recently.

I've got no vendeta against the organisation PALE but do consider the behaviour of the individual who posts under that name on this site to be often extreme and worthy of challenge. I think that the work of the organisation PALE is placed at risk by the posting of views not associated with their work on animal welfare under their banner.

R0bert

Robert

There you go again! Telling people what do and how to do it and even what they can say and cant say under pale.
If pale is happy to leave a comment on other issues thats up to them- Not you!

You know it is really is none of your business.

Why is it Robert You cant mind your own business?

I remember you very well and I have nil interest in anything you say about any topic. I said it before and I say it Again. You can not control other peoples lives Robert- Or groups for that matter.

Turnrightleft
I see an attempt to be reasonable here.
What you suggest I am sure will be unexceptable because pale joined OLO as a group to stand up against political bullies gagging groups.

Graham Yung has ruled and I honestly think pale has grounds to complain to OLO for harresment
They will not take the pale tag off.
They dont have to and I suggest now everybody minds their own business.

However at least you can see the Gagging of Animal Welfare group issue so thanks for your comments
Taryn

No Robert NO
Thats the end of it.
I dont want to hear anymore of your going on and on like you did years ago.
I was one of the victims that contributed to have the honour of wearing the pale tag
You dont see me using it now do you?
Get A life!

TarynW - you say the group joined OLO to stand up to political bullies gagging groups, and is why they won't take the tag off.

I see some points that need to be considered though -

1) There needs to be a more concrete case made for the fact that the members would be gagged if they posted under a different tag.
For instance, each can pick a nickname they wish, and say in their posts that the organisation opposes this or that.
As it stands, I don't see any gagging here. There is nothing preventing them from commenting on whatever they wish - I suppose the crucial thing is that it means there is commentary on unrelated issues.

2) I was of the view that the foremost concern of the group was the live export issue. I say this because the other tangents are harming this message.

I can say with some experience in media, that the organisation is going to have a very difficult time getting spokespeople taken seriously with this additional carrying on.

What I suggest is the following - this would not gag the organisation in any way, and would actually improve the professionalism and the efficacy of their message.

1) Have members write articles for submission to OLO more often. A well thought out, carefully researched and written article carries much more punch than the commentary on these threads.

2) Have a member use the PALE nickname for commentary on issues relating to live exports only. Of course, this PALE person can start new threads on issues relating to live exports.

3) Request that this person be able to have another posting name. Given the situation, perhaps Mr Young will see the benefits to this practice and allow an exception, especially if the PALE person identifies themselves.
Use this name for posting on matters unrelated to live exports.

I believe this would clear up the situation, and allow everyone to comment on whatever they wish, while drastically improving the image and lobbying capacity of the group.

Turnrightleft and other posters

Thank you for your interest in how we run our organisation.
However PALE have made it clear in this forum they have no intention of changing their posting tag on OLO.
It is in fact why the paid a full membership unlike most of the other posters who use the service.

We suggest as everybody on this thread and others seem to have a interest it might be a good idea if you all formed your own group to help the Animals who very much need it.

Perhaps turnrightleft you could be some sort of spokes person for your own group and pale would very much encourage yourself and others to do so.

Any further attempt to disrupt our work with complaints as to how we run our 'own group' will be forwared to Graham young under a complaint of harrasment.

WE have made it clear a number of times we are not letting other posters change the structure of our group. In particular posters who have shown little interst in assisting animals or topics of Animal Welfare.

If Graham Young has allowed us to post under pale it really is nothing to do with anyboby else.

This subject is now closed and pale will not respond.
If you wish to lodge[ yet another complaint] to Graham Young regarding "his forum rules that is up to yourselves.
I think your also being very unfair to OLO staff taking time needed else where.