i came accros a new info site
i posted 4 question on it

http://iheard.com.au/?gclid=CJ_tspb13KwCFYSBpAodNF65JQ#

wanna bet it dont get censored

thats why i post here
and link back here

im not sure i would pay to post
im only posting cause i get online acces for $50 bucks from dodo

and they know all about me allready
why change and make more trails

why go to new forums
heck why bother

soon all we will get is things like that cancer site
that censors your posts..to help along their moneyed adgena

nice web site
http://iheard.com.au/?gclid=CJ_tspb13KwCFYSBpAodNF65JQ#
how much of my tax..?
did my ciggie taxes pay for that?

of course they did

what did i ask
the same as i asked here

woodsmoke is number 1 cause of cancer
diesal micro particulate number two
smoking ciggies 3

[used different wording]

next i asked re the social costs
and that smoking r5elatred is only 800 million
bot 30 billion

next re the pictures and proof that thats from smoking
ie not frost bite nor drinking softdrink..to make them black teeth

and the other ones...were one in 4 only can get cancer
and another one

but my point is they wont all appear..there
i just know they will fiddle with it
or drop them as irrelivant..
or not advancing their paid adgenda

never the less they will count my 6 visites as hits
to say look our idea works....lol

plus they got my details
clever aint it

to clever by half
thats why i post here

and if not elsewhere..linking back to here
or there]..[you know that other site i previously favoured
till the kids began their destractions..and the elites got on with their adgendas

just like the i heard site..lol

I too will leave runner alone,I however find much to be offended with in his/her judgmental posts.
I am concerned, do not want the threads issues buried in the mud.
GY did you get my details, are we near getting the donation thing rolling.
I am willing to explore openness, Even to put my full details.
But not willing to have uninvited drop in, uninvited e mails.
I have seen very real damage from such as the CB Radio boom of past years.
I again rattle the tin, not at those that can not afford it but those who can.
This site is the one we made home lets fund it.
If we got enough we could maybe install personal messaging, along with blocks for some.
Hope we do not find no advertisers GY and that we find more who contribute.
OUG it is human nature and hard for many me included but we prove nothing by being rude to each other.
my regards.

csteele

I take no offence at what you have said. Your mention of the horrible failures of Swaggart and Haggard should not surprise anyone. We all have an Adamic nature which can potentially commit any gross sin. At least you agree that what they did was hypocritical and wrong. Bishop Spong is well know as someone who denies the Resurrection of Christ. Any godless doctrine will flow from that heresy.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/facebook-a-cunning-litigators-best-friend-20111129-1o4zn.html
This link to this mornings Sydney Herald could not be more relevant to this thread.
Interesting and informative, it is very worth while haveing a look.
Some understanding of problems confronting GY and our selves can be seen here.

Tom Hodgkinson had a jolly good rant about facebook in 2008....food for thought.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook

Poirot,

I am flattered with your endorsment of my earlier posted statement that:

"To deny availability of pseudonymity
to posters would be, in my opinion, a
huge mistake. I would leave."

I feel obliged, however, to amplify a little, as to an extent the word limit operated to blunt my expression in a way I did not intend. Had I more space in the post I would have said something like "I would be forced to leave", or perhaps "I would have no other choice than to leave". As my post stands, the "I would leave" could be read as some sort of conceited attempt at standing over OLO, a threatening to withdraw some imagined valuable 'contribution', something that was not intended to be conveyed.

I would see myself as having little other choice than to leave, in the absence of pseudonymicity, because of both personal experience of the FIRST RESORT that is frequently taken to malicious exercise of administrative authority against those who speak up in matters of public interest in attempt to shut down discussion, and of being a first-hand witness in the cause of friends encountering similar tactics.

I contend that there is something deeply, seriously wrong with respect to public debate in Australia these days, and, I suspect, with respect to the selection of many of those who would be the 'peak participants' in those intended fora of public debate, our Parliaments. I choose to speak up about it where I see things in the public domain that I suspect may go toward explaining this seeming malaise, backing my claims where possible with publicly accessible official references. Using, as Allan Asher has described it, 'the gift' of the internet, http://twitter.com/#!/allanasher/status/128637967488139264 , and, more locally specifically, that of OLO, to do so.

GrahamY, only yesterday, as to his perception of the state of public debate: http://www.ambitgambit.com/2011/11/29/slippery-slopes-of-church-and-state/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I can only conclude there is fear of open public debate in some quarters because, not shut down, it might reveal political power having been being exercised over an extended period on an essentially false claim to a public mandate.