I think the time limits after which comments are not allowed are too short.

It takes time to think about and compose a post to some of these discussions and I don't always find the time before the three week limit has passed. So, as a consequence, on a number of occasions I have not been able to post to discussions. (I certainly wanted to say something about Peter Saunders' latest piece of welfare bashing written from the UK, for example.)

---

Bronwyn, I noticed that the very last posts on all the discussions were omitted this morning. So, I formed the impression that my latest post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8485&page=#135117 to the discussion in response to my article "How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future"(1) at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8485&page=0 had not been posted. I assumed that rather than posting it, I must have only composed it and then failed to save it.

Also, for a while this morning, only the very first part of the home page at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au was shown, so the listings of the most popular articles, etc. referred to below, and everything below, were omitted.

=-=-=

1. BTW, I learnt the happy news that that article was the most discussed(2) article of last week and the second most popular of last week, at least as of this morning. Of course, I urge anyone here who has not read it already to do so without delay.)Possibly if the contributions of the author (8 in my case) had been omitted,

2. John Hepburn's "Is climate change serious enough yet Mr Rudd?" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8539&page=0 might have beaten mine, and, having been published on Thursday and not Monday, it still has nearly three and a half more days to claim that coveted status.

PALE, websites (except yours, which haven't been updated to reflect anything current in years) are updated continually, in order that they may reflect current issues and news. Previous content is usually "rolled over", but in mot cases, still able to be found by means of specific search criteria.
The AMIEU is no different. Just because PALE sees no reason to, and certainly doesn't, maintain a professional profile to the world doesn't mean that no-one else is, and doesn't. Your conspiracy theories are baseless as usual.

Nicky

Antiseptic,

Sorry for the delayed response, but I have only just realized that your reference to the 'time filter' being the reason for my paranoia meter having suddenly gone off the scale on Sunday wasn't quite correct. I well know, and regularly use, the 'show all topics one year back' display option, if only to keep in contact with Belly's 'Power without pride' topic upon which he kindly lets me sort of 'blog'.

My problem was that to me, what I now know to have in fact been a display in order of topic posting, I identified as being a display in order of post recency. The order of the topics in each of the display options was at that point coincidentally similar enough for me to deceive myself as to which one I was in. To make matters worse, I 'double checked', and actually took a screenshot at the time, just for reference. This only reinforced my conviction that the two threads, '9/11 Truth' and 'Power without pride', had been taken down.

What made me think twice, after first telling the world about this 'censorship', was the fact that I was able to bring up the '9/11 Truth' thread by clicking on the link given in daggett's earlier post in this very thread on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 9:09:18 AM. In that instant I knew GrahamY would soon be less than fully pleased. I reached for the 'recommend this post for deletion' button, but it gave no response. The ground was coming up, fast! Thud.

Being able to vary time filtration actually fulfils a useful function. If, for example, one tries to bring up the article index page in order of post recency while using the 'display all topics, one year back' option, the index page takes forever to load. Going to the article index using the default setting of 'one month back' and clicking 'last post' results in a relatively quick sort and load.

Perhaps I should use bookmarks to access these old threads? Wouldn't show posting activity, though.

(continued)

Perhaps this is a good place to atone for my seemingly churlish failure to apologise to Antiseptic after an exchange on the 'Violence against women and absolute statements' thread in October 2008. There had been a post taken down (a fact subsequently confirmed by GrahamY in a post), apparently at the request of the original poster, OLO userID 'JW'. Antiseptic had been castigated by poster SallyG in that thread first for making this post up, then subsequently, once it was confirmed the post had once existed, for altering the wording in his quotes from it so as to misrepresent what was originally said by JW.

Usual Suspect's comment, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153#47266 , "... some people ...... look[ing] through 100s of posts to attack someone.... shows a lot more about the searchers than anti.", seems to be borne out by the content of the opening lines of the most recent posts of SallyG, the last of which was made on 30/10/2008 11:50:42 AM, see here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=52481

Time has told as to SallyG's ongoing interest as a poster on OLO. I'd have to observe that anyone who felt the need to lay the boot into Antiseptic as much as she can be seen to have done, in claiming vindication, at the end in her User details page had to have been pursuing an agenda based more on a desire for vengeance than upon truth. It is highly probable Antiseptic was quoting accurately at the time: it is just a pity that the removal of the post in question made it impossible for anyone else to learn the truth for sure.

In hindsight, its enough to make one wonder whether SallyG was a sockpuppet!

Any apology at the time would only have been like throwing petrol on a fire. Except for commending checking as a general principle, I really was mainly a reader, rather than poster, on that thread.

Misquoting Jesse Owens, "[Antiseptic's] here, [s]he's not". QED.

Nicky Previous content is usually "rolled over", but in mot cases, still able to be found by means of specific search criteria.

No Nicky, wrong again: That`s not the reason it at all. And I did say

* I am sure it can be
found in arcives libaray but
thats hardely the point.*

As usual, your 18 months behind.
Too busy updating web sites I suppose.
Or posting on forums in working hours.
I say, I hope the boss isnt
paying for this is he.?

I suppose you could always request
a joint rally and see how you go.
Then again if they had been
going to do one - they would have marched
and rallied just last week in WA when
Harvey closed down- I 'suppose.

I just dont know what you
girls would do without me Nicky:)
you never seem to be able to keep
up with information.

You spend too so much energy
worrying about 'our web sites'
and what 'we are doing.'

FYI our web sites are taken
are of by RSPCA QLD
web master and "hes very busy"
as you can imagine.

I must say PAACT have done
some fantasic work.
What a great bunch of people.

BTW The never really
told us what 'you' do.?

Apart from worry about
what we do - that is.

And PALE, you know this how? Empty, vacuous, unfounded information again. And the RSPCA webmaster must be extraordinarily busy not to have touched yours in three years or so (and that's not the story you told some time ago in another thread either. Or was that the alter-ego TarynW?). Nor, clearly, do you have any idea about the operation of websites. You do not provide ANY information, just back-biting and venom about other people. If you want to be up to date with anything, I suggest you do what I recommended ages ago - subscribe to some newsfeeds, and read some newspapers (you might even learn written and spoken English and comprehension as a bonus).

I actually keep in touch with information from everyone, so nothing you provide is in any way noteworthy. In fact, you don't actually provide anything at all.

Thankfully, I am not at the "beck and call" of an employer, I make my own fortunes. But if I were, you would see that my posts are usually in the evening, unless I happen to have some time at home. Not that it's any of your business, of course.

Tragically, your material is so far behind the rest of the world that is pretty worthless, so I wonder how you justify the expense of web hosting. And for someone who claims to spent 24/7 "working for the animals" you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time posting on threads about which you know clearly nothing on matters totally unrelated to animals.

Nicky