Col Rouge: "..I think you would be safe to continue with your own anonymous name..)

Er, it's the name under which I trade and pay taxes, and also by which I'm well-known in my local community. I bet you can't say the same about "Col Rouge".

R0bert: "If we silence "B" we may also silence those who have a message that we need to hear but which others don't want us to hear. If we want the good we have to accept some of the bad."

As I've explained, I'm not advocating silencing anybody. But you have to admit that some people hide behind legitimate anonymity in order to post vituperous and egregiously hateful ideas that they wouldn't if they could be identified with them?

KGB: " hope that CJMorgan is not implying he is lilly-white here? "

Not for a second. However, unlike you, I'm identifiable with my comments here and I'm prepared to affirm them in real life.

CJ Morgan “Er, it's the name under which I trade and pay taxes, and also by which I'm well-known in my local community. I bet you can't say the same about "Col Rouge".”

I looked up “Morgan” in Victoria white pages. I found 94 listings.

I looked up my own surname,

Iisted for Victoria are

my ex-wife,
my brother,
my elder daughter and
myself.

As I said previously, “Morgan” affords you a degree of anonymity which I cannot rely upon.

As for “Col Rouge”, many of my friends know the non-de-plume I use and where I use it.

However, since I do not know you and since I doubt your motives, you will remain in that state of blissful ignorance which so becomes you.

The other point is purely commercial,

Just as I observe the small minded and petulant nature of some posters and can see how they would seek to weasel their way into the secure environs of so called “public service”, I can presume that the government sector is not free of such small minds who, by disagreeing with my identifiable political view, would take vindictive opportunity against me in my application for government contract work.

My individual view to freedom of speech would extend to supporting David Irvings (or Pol Pot for that matter) right to express their heart felt views on anything.

I know David Irving was denied entry to Australia because of his views. I think such denial was wrong.

David Irving, whilst his views are abhorrent to me, can best display the dangers of his holocaust revisionist thinking by speaking about it and being challenged about it.

Denying him entry elevates him to cult status and adds to his mystery. Permitting him to speak gives him opportunity to show himself up as a fool.

That is why, despite rainier insisting I be banned from posting, I have never ever proposed anyone be banned from expressing their view nor insisted they reveal their own name if they choose to use a non-de-plume.

Dear Taryn,
Glad we agree that it is a good idea to give people a choice and I can see your point about lawyers’ costs.
I’m not sure how to answer your question about why this should be GY’s problem.
Perhaps it should be part of his job, for which he gets paid, that he sometimes has to fill in a lawyers request form. If I was running a forum I would be happy to help reduce racism on my forum.
I don’t see a problem with a system where OLO contributors would have to provide verified IDs to GY which are kept confident except in cases where a lawyer requests them for a genuine case, such as assault charges.

Just about your comment, “… Pale is their membership name. If you dont like it ignore it just a I ignore some posts. Do not dicate to others.”
It’s not about not liking PALE as an animal organisation; I do admire the work PALE does as I am an animal lover also.
Neither am I trying to dictate; I either haven’t expressed myself clearly enough or you have misunderstood my point.

The point I tried to make is that although I don’t necessarily have issues with the opinions of the persons who post under PALE. My problem lies in the fact that when PALE members choose to post about unrelated topics and then feel offended by people who disagree with them (as frequently happens in a debate), PALE then accuses these people for attacking their organisation, or for creating potential problems with RSPCA QLD.

To be continued

PALE should not expect special consideration or special treatment just because certain criticism might harm this organisation. Other debaters are just being themselves, behaving in a way they would behave if they were debating anyone else.

If PALE members choose to post about unrelated topics, then PALE should accept criticism like all debaters should.
PALE has made the choice to put their org and RSPCA QLD at risk of criticism and must accept consequences for that choice.
If they do not want that risk, then they should either not make unrelated posts in PALE’s name, or write posts only about animal welfare related topics.

That’s about all I was trying to convey; and others ( like have said it also

Now that PALE members have most likely to come to understand what I (and several others) are saying, do you agree that posting about unrelated topics in PALE's name can cause problems?
Why or why not (I really want to understand) and do you see a solution?

CElivia
Yes Sir! GY told Robert there is "NO restrictions on his posts so why should there be ours?IYOP- As you Well know!
Who runs OLO?
END Of Topic.

Danielle said.

I don't know how this forum is monitored...
'Thanks' for speaking to Taryn.
GY ‘please inform the posters how we joined.

KGB If you’re interested in fairness check out the Animal Welfare threads going right back... ‘Look ' at the different names with the same comments mostly attacking pale.

We joined OLO in an effort ‘not to be involved with extreme people. They followed. Simply as that. Are you aware of the ABC Program on a while back? Probably not. Its was called a blind eye followed very shortly by a five page full spread in the Australian. Anti RSPCA.

For Years they have been enormous effort made by some to dismantle RSPCA and take over. You have no idea of the viciousness of these people. Calling us animal killers because we are trying to reopen plants to divert from live animal trade to chilled. Bad Stuff. – Threatening volunteer’s kids calling their mum etc animal’s killers. …

People like Morgan we respect although argue . It’s simply! the ID issue.
LOVE to to get my hands on many of the ID tags on Animal Welfare threads over the years.

Celivia mostly the problem is that people fail to see what live exports has to do with a thread out of ignorance like poor @@who was highly offended entered the Kevin Rudd , China thread.
(ER, trade- live exports.?)

Your next comment is interesting>

True; posting under the name of an organization puts “other people/organizations” involved at risk.”
Both sides of Federal Government are aware of this. RSPCA are ‘still’ the legal body...

- Tell err, ‘“others people organizations” If they want us to give evidence in court on behalf of Peter McGauran just keep it up!

Any libber attacks use your own thread please

We respect that many don’t wish to use their own iD... Please respect we prefer to.
Good night everybody.

Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 24 February 2008 4:57:40 PM

Macropod Whisperer “I believe that by using your real name you are more accountable for the information you provide to others. I am not saying that some information given might not be true,”

And I bet I will not find “Macropod Whisperer” listed in the white pages :-)
Sorry, I accidentally hit the post button.
Now you can find me in the phone book!

Antje Struthmann