Dear Pericles and OUG,

You have a point, and I agree that the discussions include people with various values. However, I think that some could read it with the 'only' implied. If the olo participants & audience include people with various values why mention values at all? Alternatively the statement could be: "In our audience you will find people with your values."

I think the wording implies that all 70,000 share the values.

We've seen from our own experiences that people in different walks oflife may interpret the same phenomenon - whether it's a riot, a PM's policies, a religious doctrine, - in very different ways. In other words, people tend to see the events from a viewpoint of subjectivity - an interpreatation based on personal values and experiences. This fact raises a very important issue. Is it possible to understand things from a viewpoint of objectivity - an interpretation that eliminates the influence of personal values and experiences?

I guess the first step is to recognize that subjectivity and objectivity are not two neat and separate categories; they are really matters of degree. By exercising scrupulous caution people can attempt to be as objective as possible. This caution involves a deliberate effort to be conscious of one's own biases so that they can be kept out of the process. For editors involved in the media for example, the ethical code requires them to be intellectually honest - that they attempt to be aware of their own values and not allow these values to distort their work; that they relentlessly hunt down the relevant facts and not ignore those that are inconvenient for their pet theories and beliefs; that they not suppress opposing viewpoints or manipulate facts to prove a point. When views are published others will assess the sitations and make decisions accordingly. Total objectivity is probably impossible to achieve, but a self-conscious effort to be as objective as possible will produce vastly less biased results all round than not making this attempt. The bottom line for many corporations is that they compete not through the quality or price of their products but rather through their advertising. They devote huge resources to this end and their aim is the pursuit of profits. Anything that appears even remotely controversial, I suspect will be avoided - and controversial topics on internet forums -
will unfortunately mean the loss of corporations sponsorship that prefer to play it safe.

David f with respect mate.
That is very silly stuff.
You can not possibly think that surely?

Lexi, "Anything that appears even remotely controversial, I suspect will be avoided - and controversial topics on internet forums -
will unfortunately mean the loss of corporations sponsorship that prefer to play it safe."

Or are the companies reacting to the threat of embarrassment through being named as one of the parties 'involved' in a controversy? Advertisers and activists sense that the herd might react to a headline, but they rarely read the story to establish the facts.

However to model behaviour as a good corporate citizen a company might instead call the activist's bluff and defend editorial independence and free speech. Anyhow, companies that are seen as easy beats will attract activists from all interests like moths to a flame.

Cornflower:

I can't argue with your valid reasoning.

as lexi pointed out
advertisers look for..*certain_values
they serve specific demographics..have their target marketing

but i lost the point i was going to make
[i note no smoke's booze suppliers in the adverts...

but it seems every word in the topic has an advert
to convert or subvert the opinions expressed within the host topic]

you said quote

'why mention values at all? '

values is a key word
remeber the email ..was an advert too

''Alternatively the statement could be:
"In our audience you will find people with your values."''

but that would have been incorrect
there can be no will..[as in must]

there is only opinion here...and we all got our own
but behind the one common fact ..we share..
[ie an adgenda that needs others to hear our opinions]

we otherwise are a diverse bunch..

[there could be some recipiants of the email
who might take a 'will find' ..as a broken promise..and sue
if they dont find..]

there can be no concensus
we are all different..

its not like a porn site
where everone is into that specific porn [for egsample]

we are about intelect and voicing our opinion..
doer's..thinkers [as well as consumers and potential customers]

some of us..me find many adverts are subversive
and consuming my restricted download limits
..but even i have clicked on a few adverts

ok not as many as belly or yabby or the minester
but its all a numbers game

and hit or miss
the odds are ..here you will get a return/response even to an advert

even if your id gets suspended for voicing an opinion
[or rather not an opinion..but more how you chose to say it]

even so
the reason for this topic..and the email
was anz and ibm seeking to make their points
and im so over rebutting others opinions points

i just want to post and go
my opinions about the adverts
heck i dont know

opinions can be right or wrong
so lets keep the adverts where they belong
on the sidelines ..paying for the whole thing..oh what joy they do bring..