In a recent article a poster came up with an interesting thought.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9652&page=0#154888
That the editors of OLO manipulate the topics to further their own political (party's views) one could assume religious purposes as well.
Given the editors are Liberal Party and Christian. Do you see evidence of this? and do you think it affects the potency of your views?
Do you think OLO has a bias?
Do you thing it is a true discussion site or simply two sides battling without an outcome?
Why? explain.

You can get away with calling them Liberal and Christian and not suffer a torrent of abuse and name calling and no calls for censorship either. Now that says something.

Try even getting a thread like this up on most sites, for example those with a green left or AL bent and you would be out on your ear together with your post.

"Do you think OLO has a bias?"

I did twelve odd days ago when the site went offline. I'd been fairly outspoken on my loyalty to QE II in one thread, as well as pointing out that Swan River Colony of WA wasn't settled as a penal colony, as some of the other states were, another post in the Ending It thread that may have possibly resulted in some sort of ban, without notification.

With great relief I read that quite a few others had similar problems with a few posts missing after what seems to have been a backup restoration.

Considering the complexities of my opinons, some rather eccentric right-wing and left-wing views, the strong patriotism I have for this land I was born, at the same time desperate to get away from the very society that is killing me, and how I have been free to post my honest opinions, though I expect very few might see the integrity that melds such a range into one thought pattern, (Seano must be mad), I appreciate the tact that the moderators seem to tolerate people like me.

I' sure that no matter which side of politics or religion this forum might be biased towards, at least half of the stuff I post must go against it.

All I'd like is that those like myself who spend 12 hours a day here, we might have the postal quotas based on quarter-day periods, so I'd not have to be so selective where I rant. 500 word limits would also help improve my style, but there will always be someone who wants more of one thing or another.

Nah, it's very unbiased IMHO, and the limitations help contributors think a little more carefully before hitting the New Post button. I don't have any other Australian-based forums to compare with this one.

I will never be a pocket piddler.
Till I die say it like I see it.
About three times I have been refused publication of a thread.
Only once did I not agree.
Once, maybe more? a post has been removed.
And once I was challenged for slagging a poster , not the one I was charged with.
Early on I must admit I doubted I was in GY,s good books.
But this site is fair, no concerns at his politics, or religion, I question evidence to say he is overly Christian.
I may be wrong but Australian politics is part of this threads title.
We once had a forum by that name.
It was owned By and ALP member, no bias was evident there.
Show me a better forum in this country.
It however would be good to know all deleted posts and threads that never got a start, only as information.
I doubt both would give any evidence of bias.

Being relatively new to this site, I will say that I have never felt any bias in the choice of articles or comments allowed.

Graham seems to be a fair person. One of the criticisms I have would be that some posters seem allowed to SHOUT a little too often. I see no point in allowing that, as it is very rude.

I also wonder at allowing a few very 'passionate' posters to rant and rave for exceedingly long posts, with scores of links we are supposed to click on, that seem as though the confused poster has some sort of psychiatric disorder!

I do really enjoy the site though, even though I am now heartily sick of climate change as a subject.

Hi, before this thread goes too long I should spell out a few things. I was State Vice-President of the Queensland Liberal Party between 1994 and 1997. I was expelled from the party two years ago and I am not currently a member of any party. I generally vote Liberal, but not always. And I am a practicing Anglican. I play the organ weekly at church and I take religion very seriously, but you are not likely to see me introduce it into a debate that is not about religion in the first place.

As Chief Editor I do not make most of the day-to-day editorial decisions, nor do I see most articles before they are published. That is the job of editor Susan Prior. As far as I know Susan does not profess any religious faith, although I understand that she was baptised a Roman Catholic. Again, as far as I know she has never been a member of any political party.

I moderate the forum.

When I established this site I involved as wide a range of organisations in it as I could. Over the years they have included NGOs from both the left and the right, as well as one trade union and four universities. The Catholic Church has also been involved, and the Rationalist Society is also currently a supporter.

I do have a classical liberal philosophical point of view, and part of that point of view is that free expression is a good thing. So yes, I do have a bias. It is a bias that is a necessary prerequisite for a site like this to exist in the first place. It is also consistent with my religious point of view which puts a lot of emphasis on free will and personal responsibility.