Belly, thank you very much for your kind words earlier today.
I do appreciate the sentiments.

TZ, I agree we should have our say about anything at all on this site, as long as the subject or people involved are ok to be put out there on such a public site.

However, if an article was submitted and put up on this site, and then found to contain illegal comments such as slander etc, wouldn't the horse already have bolted?

The writer, and GY, would be in trouble surely

I've never had a thread rejected - and in
my dealings with Graham Y. I've always
found him to be fair. After all, he does
allow such a wide range of topics (from
all sides) - and that's part of the
attraction of this Forum for me.

I must confess however, that I have sometimes
had the occasional thought - "Why doesn't
Graham stop this (insulting language, and personal
attacks) that hinder a discussion?"

Then I realize that I've forgotten
that this is a Public Forum -
where you won't always get well-reasoned, and
balanced points of view, especially on emotive topics
such as religion, politics, gender, race, sport, and
so on. Not everyone has the same social graces, or
education, or skills necessary to not stoop to
name calling, petty insults, or bullying tactics.

Some people are simply trolls, bullies, or gauche
creeps - who get their jollies by using language
and tactics that - are purposely flaming
and baiting - in the hope of getting a reaction
rather than contributing anything worthwhile to
the discussion. It's then that I simply take
a break from the Forum.

My own impression is that Graham, Susan and any others involved in running the site do a very good job in trying to make the site a genuine discussion forum rather than a propaganda piece for particular view points.

They have come under fire for the proportion of articles representing particular viewpoints before, most notably in my memory the number of articles speaking in one way or other against the more established climate change/global warming models. The argument as I understand it is that the number of articles is not indicative of the level of scientific support for those viewpoints.

I've certainly never seen signs of editorial bias in regard to applying censure againstr those who seriously breach the sites rules. Those times when I've seen the cause of a suspension it's been a clear breach.

I've pondered at times if there is a viable way that the site could show what has been rejected without that becoming a trigger for discussion on other threads. At times it would be nice to read see what people have tried to put up as a discussion topic which has been rejected. I've seen times when posters have dropped a rejected thread topic into another thread and occasionally wondered why it was rejected. I've also wondered at times why some threads have been allowed, one former posters constrant stream of wack a mossie, wack an unbeliever, wack a teenage girl threads did not seem to do the site credit.

Most of will not agree with every editorial decision but I get the impression that it would be very difficult to find a site that covers the range of topic that this site does with the openness it has to different viewpoints. I also like that often people who strongly disagree on some topics are able to express agreement on others and that people who disagree on much can still respect one another.

R0bert

I think I have always been forthright in my views, and that those views could often be described as 'radical' or 'left wing' by people of Graham Young's political/religious persuasion. I have however, always tried to avoid personal abuse and name calling, and on several occasions have decried others for these offences.
I have never asked that another poster be censored, and as far as I am aware, have never had a post of my own rejected.
I can't complain.
Thank you, Graham, and Susan.

This thread reminds me of what Abe Lincoln is supposed to have said….

Something like “You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time but never all of the people all of the time”.

Pelican “Free speech is highly valued by both the Left and Right of politics as they exist in Australia.”

So that explains why the previous liberal government refused to censor internet sites and senator Conroy leapt on the opportunity to do so… and when I objected even sent me a letter telling me why he knew best…..

Or maybe it explains why freedom of speech in Victoria has been curbed by the socialist government using the excuse religious vilification.

I note it is always the “left” of politics who tend to demand to regulate our every action and our thoughts and the “right” of politics who tend to remove pointless regulation and support individual liberty, freedom of speech among them.

Your claim, that free speech is highly valued by both sides of politics, is at odds to the actions of most socialist government actions in Australia today……

including the school teaching socialists who, through their union, wanted to make “teaching socialism” part of a childs educational curriculum (brainwashing)… rather than leaving children to grow and make up their own mind.

Back to OLO… it is balanced.

Of course, those who feel their ‘valued contributions’ are being manipulated and subverted by “evil right wing influences” are perfectly also free to vent their objection by posting elsewhere.

With respect Col, I don't think your conspiracy perspective on the teaching profession is having much effect on the populace at large given that Australia has really lost any fragment of socialism. Where are all these soclialists you speak of?

Do you really think the ALP stands for socialism?

As for censorship, I did not see the Liberal/Coalition government install Muslim, Hindi or other religious 'chaplains' in schools, only Christians. Where is the secular society Howard boasted about in that decision?

Also, speak to many academics and public servants who advised Howard during that time and you will plainly see that any advice contrary to the government's agenda was met with derision and in some cases public humiliation and at worse sacking. Look at those that were removed from the CSIRO, grants once approved then not given to charity groups after making negative comments about Australia's dealings with the Timorese on natural resource deals. The list goes on.

Do you think Howard did not send letters to people telling them he knew best when met with opposition to any of his policies? That is what governments do.

Our biggest mistake as voters, in my view, is when we lose our ability to fault those on whom we would normally align - whether it be on the more conservative side or otherwise.

Do you agree with every decision made by the Liberal Governments or indeed every decision made by Maggie Thatcher?