This thread is about the rights of free speech not the moral issue of homosexuality and the practice of pedophilia by men on boys.

However does a society have the right to identify that the issue is health? That excreta laden with bacteria must not enter the sterile areas of the urethra, womb or the prostate? Anal sex is the abomination condemned by a healthy society and not the emotional bond of brothers. The situation in Biblical times was the bisexual and adulterous practices of men, as it spread abominable diseases

diver dan:

I would prefer to discuss things on a mature intelligent level rather than an emotional one. We can always agree to disagree. I'm looking forward to your further input into this discussion.

Suze:

Thank You for your kind words - coming from you, (who I regard as one of the best posters on this forum) - that's quite a compliment.

I've posted a few articles over the 11 year lifespan of Onlineopinion but not really paid much attention to the forums elsewhere...I've had a good look at various posts lately and it seems most posters are wowsers, rabble-rousers, religious reactionaries and there's even a rather odd poet in there for good measure (I have no idea what he is saying, I think it's contrary to my beliefs, but I am intrigued by the composition)

Whether this sampling of humanity is a reflective microchosm, or merely the rantings of a bunch of self indulgent blow-hards with two much time on their hands, is anyone's guess. The Forum attached to graham's article regarding loss of sponsorship has degenerated, everyone's lost the plot completely. It seems that this site attracts person's who hold extreme views - like moths to a flame. Some have even have websites that promote their red-neck attitudes, and the are able to advertise their websites here. This has become a thriving hub of rat-bag activity. How is this a good thing?

It all leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

"This has become a thriving hub of rat-bag activity."

Really?....pray, don't hold back, Rose C.

It''s interesting that you would come to that conclusion.
I find OLO reasonably stimulating - and although it is host to a few "wowsers" and "red-necks", I don't, for the most part, regard these types as representative of the majority of contributors.

If I discerned that it was a thriving hub of rat-bag activity, I doubt very much if I could be bothered with it.

Btw, Graham started a thread some time ago in the general section, canvassing opinions of future moderation direction on OLO. He was seeking to address this issue because the load and responsibility of sole moderation was a trifle taxing for him.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3848.

I believe the majority of respondents at the time indicated that they were happy with the status quo.

Rose C:

Don't let things get to you. This is a public forum and as such it will attract a wide variety of opinions - some that do make us cringe - and perhaps should be ignored. However, I've learned from my time on OLO that a healthy, vital society is not one in which we all agree. It's more important that we renew dignified and respectful dialogue with those who don't agree with us than we keep congratulating those who have the wisdom to see things our way. Without personal commitment to the attributes of fair play and integrity, our society is in grave danger - malice and intolerance stalk our society, staking claims to our minds. Where people are not free to disagree, there can be no democracy. Our political conversation must shift away from the mass, infantile finger-pointing that now pervades it. It isn't people on both sides of politics who are ruining this country: it's the tendency on so many people's parts to think that their way is the right way and that people who disagree with them are "bad." It doesn't matter so much how we degenerated into such mass disrespect for the right of others to hold opinions different from our own. What does matter is we commit immediately to stop this tendency to condemn others.

Rose C posts, on Wednesday, 9 February 2011 at 11:30:36 AM:

"... The Forum attached to Graham's article
regarding loss of sponsorship has degenerated, everyone's
lost the plot completely. ..."



Absolutely spot-on, Rose C!



This is an observation that was absolutely crying out to be made, and how much better by a registered Forum user who has had a Forum presence since January 2005, and yet from then until now has made a total of only 27 posts to the articles area of the Forum, and one, this one, to the General Discussions area*. It can hardly be claimed that she has any personal axe to grind, or self-promotional agenda, in having made it.

Let me congratulate you on having made this overdue, and in the present dire circumstance for OLO, critically important observation in perhaps the one place on the Forum where it could be ON TOPIC!

Rose C's observation on the degeneration of the comments thread to GrahamY's article 'Wanted - new financial backers'
( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583&page=0 ) is critically important because such constructive responses as may have been made have been buried, and subsequently in all probability others have been deterred from even being posted, by the off-topic noise generated by those who have "lost the plot".

GrahamY, effectively alone, is engaged in a fight for the very survival of OLO in a turf war with factota of the MSM for a share of the internet advertising dollar. Concurrently, the MSM displays many characteristics betraying a desire to filter, or effectively censor, topics of public interest. Sites like OLO threaten that degree of desired control. The way to get rid of OLO is to interdict its revenue, and that is being attempted here.

The scheme, conducted by those masquerading under the banner of upholding values, depends upon the diversion of a contentious discussion upon which the short-sighted and self-absorbed in their own importance can be counted upon to focus. And to their shame, they have!

*Rose C is Rose Cooper, and has since October 2003 contributed 14 articles to OLO. See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=1349 .