[Deleted. Poster may be sock puppet. Investigating.]

What is the point of this poster giving out his email addresses to others and opening up the prospect of gathering other posters' working emails as well?

That it was posted at 10:58:17 PM on a Sunday is also a problem. What site would have moderation active at that time?

Why challenge the administrative staff to discuss his private account on the open forum anyhow? Forum rules,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp

It should be a requirement that posters always maintain a working email address with an ISP for example Internode, not with an anonymous free site such as hotmail, gmail and so on. Where a poster cannot be contacted, posting privileges should be withdrawn temporarily and suspended where it continues past a set deadline.

Graham Young, in his article 'Wanted: new financial backers' ( http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11583&page=0 ), also quotes the ANZ response that Pearson did. Part of that ANZ response was:

"The removal of our advertising should not be
viewed as a violation of free speech; it's simply
that we choose not to advertise on blogs that do
not align to our organisational values."

Graham then goes on in his article to observe, in relation to the ANZ:

"If they don’t advertise on any “opinion-type
websites that may cause offence or segregate
any individuals or groups” what were they doing
on New Matilda months after this decision was made?"

Indeed.

This is where a seeming inconsistency in the ANZ response to Pearson is revealed.

When first approached by Pearson, it seems the PR people at ANZ knew nothing of the exercise by ANZ of any policy in respect to advertising placement. Had any such policy existed, one would think PR would have known of it. Then, after further inquiry, ANZ PR came back to Pearson with the explanation that:

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

The inconsistency resides in the fact that, according to Graham Young, the decision to withdraw the ANZ advertising was conveyed to him months ago (around the time of publication of the Muehlenberg article in November 2010), whereas SX site editor Brendan Bolger's news item claims that withdrawal to have been consequent upon what was taken as an 'incitement to murder' comment published on 2 February 2011.

This inconsistency suggests to me that it was the 'automatic' advertising placement service that effectively made the initial decision, months ago, that advertising was to be withdrawn, and that ANZ was not party to that decision at that time. I suspect that it was only when it was realized the matter was going public that ANZ was advised of the specific content, the 'incitement' post, as justification for action already taken on its behalf, upon which basis ANZ ratified the decision.

ANZ deceived!

Shintaro,

Maybe you protest too much while continuing to argue the toss on the open forum. Keep it between you and admin thanks.

[Deleted. Post tends to confirm poster a sock puppet.]

Forrest Gumpp,

Fascinating developments. So the original article immediately resulted in financial pressure/withdrawal of advertising from ANZ (although the action was taken on their behalf) as originally believed.

However supporters of the action against the original article such as Bolger relied upon Shintaro's post to demonstrate that the original article was vilificatory in conjunction with the comments Shintaro's post spawned as a result of its own vilification albeit due to being misunderstood.

They believed that the action was triggered by Shintaro's post. Further, ANZ seemed to have ratified the action based on a belief shared with Bolger that the article itself had incited vilification (as evidenced by Shintaro's post) even though that wasn't correct. There are a few twists and turns there so I summarised to check if I have all this correct?

Shintaro if your account is deleted how can you post? If it was about to be deleted you should be aware that expressing disappointment like that means that you risk flaming and if your account is deleted you will have no opportunity to respond.