Cornflower,

I was referring to this "issue". You are no doubt aware that this is also being debated in the articles section.

My reference about "jumping the divide" was merely acknowledging Forrest's contribution prior to mine in that it was not only the publication of Muehlenberg's article that raised the ire of some, but also comments that were allowed to stand in various threads - several of those being Shintaro's.
I did note that you were one who encouraged Shintaro to expand upon his haikus early in the piece.

Poirot posts:

"... someone parachuting into the conversation
and cherry picking Shintaro's comments, in their
brief form and without reference to his line of
argument, would have taken them at face value and
made a judgment solely according to the words of
the haiku and not the intended message."

Agreed, precisely.

The problem is that it was this haiku, by necessary inference, that was effectively attributed by the writer of the SX news item as being the basis upon which both IBM and ANZ withdrew their advertising from the OLO website. Brendan Bolger must have had a source that informed him that it was this post that had been the basis for that withdrawal.

It is to be noted that Shintaro's haiku was posted on Wednesday 2 February 2011 at 11:25:29 AM AEST, and not to the Muehlenberg article thread, which had been last posted to on Thursday, 30 December 2010 at 2:55:55 PM, 34 days previously, and likely closed to comment. Christopher Pearson's article that broke this story in The Australian was published on Saturday 5 February 2011. Pearson claims in that article that he spoke with Graham Young on Wednesday 2 February 2011. With respect to that conversation Pearson said:

"On account of the Muehlenberg piece,
Young told me two major advertisers had
just pulled out: the ANZ Bank and IBM."

Graham Young already had been told by the time on Wednesday that he spoke with Pearson that ANZ and IBM had pulled out, and that it was because of the Muehlenberg piece, that they had done so. Between that conversation with Young and Pearson's deadline sometime before midnight Friday 4 February, the ANZ's Stephen Ries got back to Pearson saying:

"... our advertising was placed through an automatic
advertising placement service and once we were alerted
to the content we removed our advertising."

It begins to look to me that a decision-maker within ANZ was assessed as needing 'something more concrete' than just the Muehlenberg article as a basis for withdrawal of advertising. Was this haiku that 'something concrete'?

Forrest,
With that bit of detective work I think you have out Poiroted Poirot.

Did Shintaro --unwittingly-- play the role of an agent provocateur?
Were the advertisers spooked by shadows?

Hmmmm...curiouser and curiouser!

I await you next instalment.

I am going to be in trouble here.
Let me say so be it.
First without reserve I am a supporter of OLO and Graham Young.
Have no issues with moderation.
But we do not all know every thing that takes place here, a thread title is inactive.
The title leads to some idea why,can we know why or at least can it be deleted.
Please let no one use my post as a stone to throw at any one.

Hi people. This is quite fascinating, isn't it? ( Yes, I've dropped the haiku format for the next couple of posts)

Context is everything. While I'm indebted to Forrest's sleuthing efforts, I think he's got the actual situation arse-up, so to speak.

With respect to my obviously offensive (if taken out of context) post in that other thread, it should be read in context with not only my other clearly anti-homophobic comments, but more immediately with the clearly hateful comments from ‘diver dan’ that preceded and followed it.  The clear implication in dan’s posts is that gays shouldn’t advertise their sexuality publicly, lest they be subject to violence from those who engage in “gay bashing” or worse.  My post hyperbolically extended his sick logic.

I now regret having made that comment. It didn't occur to me that anybody could be dumb or obtuse enough to take it at face value, let alone someone who purports to be some kind of journalist. I am indebted to Chrys Stephenson for pointing out the journo's gross misapprehension of my comment.

Having said that, I'm quite certain that my comment was not the cause of any complaint to advertisers, and evidently not to the moderator, since it's still there. My intention in starting this thread was to explore whether the good Brigadier's assertion that anti- Gay sentiment had been effectively silenced at OLO was correct

Continued....

Continued...

Quite evidently, from this thread and others, it isn't. What seems to be the case is that several significant sponsors no longer want to pay for it. That to me seems quite reasonable.

Also, my haiku format is simply a way to force myself to be economical with text, and to stick to the point. I endeavor to be polite and to stay within the forum rules as I understand them. Soon after I joined, I was moderated quite reasonably for an ad hominem comment about an article author, from which I learnt. I have received several favorable comments from others here about my haiku. I mean no offence to anyone.

I hope this helps.