Q&A,

The quick answer is "no necessarily cogent thoughts". I am a digital dinosaur. Which is not to say that I am utterly and totally out of touch with the 'new digital world of experience'.

I am on unsure ground here, but I think these multiple instances of the apparent presence of an OLO identity are nothing to be overly concerned about. I suspect it has to do with the opening of other tabs in a user's browser, in which they then log in (perhaps, but not necessarily, unknowingly) again to OLO in order to read and/or to post.

For example, within recent days, whilst observing the passing parade of OLO identities on the 'Users currently online' page, I saw "daggett, daggett, daggett", on the display. Now anybody who is anybody on OLO knows that James Sinnamon, who is OLO userID 'daggett', never attempts to cover his electronic tracks. He has no need. His presence on OLO is, and always has been, an open book: daggett's no sockpuppet.

These multiple instances of net presence are but the unhideable evidences of superior cyberspatial competence of some users. That this situation exists is not necessarily bad. It takes me back to a more mechanical age, when the newest and latest was not necessarily the best. A classic example occurred in Korea at the crossing of the Imjin River, I think, in or around 1950. The only (allied) weapons that reliably worked after the crossing were then 50 year-old bolt-action (Lee-Enfield) rifles and (Australian) Owen machine carbines. All were 'digitally' operated, even if not as we all now understand the term.

Buyut shoot, Ludwig (yeyuss, Mad Ludwig of Herbaria) hayass he-imself commented upon the inverse of this phenomenon: the situation wherein an OLO user is acknowledgedly online, but the 'Users online' display reveals not that user's own-volitionally unhidden presence. Now thayat iyuss perplexing. If only some truly digitally literate user could explain thayat to us all, we-all would really learn something.

Ah truely trust, Q&A, thayat you really need theyyus answers.

PALE, that is in fact YOUR garbage, and responses by others to it. I would have no objection to the people you name posting in their own identities, what I object to is you posting in their identities, then plaintively complaining about others breaking the rules, "defaming" your "organisation", then you threatening to bring "lawyers" (whose identities remain conspicuous by their absence despite the threats - I have offered to send them the material).

It is particularly obvious when these people HAVE posted under their identities. But where you have used their names, we see the same spelling errors" "discusting" (sic - disgusting), is one, the spelling of "responsibility", and numerous common errors which are also your trademark.

So far, there is Antje Struthman, TarynW, Macropod Whisperer, Benny_Sampson - the difference in the quality across various posts makes your involvement impossible to overlook.

There is also overwhelming evidence of YOU making the first allegations against all the other groups, then, when you are challenged, you threaten to bring on the "lawyers".

Where it gets especially tragic is when several of the "alter-egos" all line up the same rhetoric, with the same appalling spelling, formatting and grammar (therefore identifying the same poster), almost at the same time, similar to what Col has described.

And there is no reason why anyone, irrespective of their beliefs and philosophies, cannot stand for election to RSPCA State Councils (as old as PALE's references are). Part of doing business, I'm afraid, PALE. Get used to it. In SA, it could only be an improvement.

Nicky

PALE:"Yes thats right Taryn 'used to' PREPAIR the web sites.

She 'prepaired' material to send to the web master."

Oh, I'm quite "prepaired" to believe that, but it's not what you or she said earlier, is it?

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive"

Aaah, Forrest, OLO would be a sterile place without your verdant prose.

Subsequent posts would indicate the PALEIF has GELATO on its face.

"Lawyers" (whose identities remain conspicuous by their absence - material).*

As this matter is now in the hands of lawyers we are not responding to related matters.

GY if your reading this pls notes this is the ‘second lot’ of lawyers over the ‘same issue’. Interesting isn’t it. We shouldn’t be put to the same level of express and distress twice .
The judge might ask you why you didn’t stop it for the ‘second time’ on given you had previous correspondence from lawyers addressing the ‘same issue.’
We most certainly’ not after you’ but whatever the court decides will be the final outcome. I have no control over that . Given there was a history of the same matter -and you had been advised of our relationship with others by lawyers that olo should have acted on the request to take off the false information.IMO I am not sure if here is an act to cover forum owners duties. If notwe need one IMO

Either way this forum issue must be addressed by AT Generals both State and Federal so this can never happen again.

I have given you every chance to back off. Nicky
The forum was a way to inform people about our RSPCA QLD HKM Animal Welfare Programme with AFIC – But Nicky put a stop to that.
You might like to consider we also have others whom have been affected by your

Comments about our HKM Animal Welfare programme. Just because they have not entered to post a comment trust me when I say they are very far from being impressed.
Remember I asked you to apologise for saying we supported FGM?
*I also requested it was removed off a world wide net.*

. Do you have any idea how offensive that is .You have defamed and discredited all of us – over and over again on OLO for three years
The judge is going to love you!

Pity OLO staff didn’t nip this in the bud when it was reported.

Poor old PALE&IF doth complain too much methinks.

All these hollow threats of litigation. She does realise that her entire corpus of loopy and hateful comments at OLO would be evidence, doesn't she? Any lawyer who would take such a case would have to be at least as unhinged as she is.

One wonders why the silly goose just doesn't email Graham directly, rather than regaling us all with her spurious threats and associated babblings.