I've put a question to the site admin about a thread devoted to the personal messages between posters.

I'd like to see a lot less of that stuff on the topic threads but also recognise that the personal interactions, clearing up misunderstandings etc are important in this community.

A designated place to take those discussions seems like a workable compromise. Hopefully that would give the editors more freedom to delete off topic posts in the main threads as well resulting in a larger proportion of relevant posts in the main threads.

How do others feel about this?

I think it needs to be a site decision but would like the views of others.

R0bert

I think thats kind of a good idea. Whether it would work or not depends on how it is implemented, ie how does a personal interaction get shifted to a different forum/thread?

In principle it would seem a good idea because so many threads turn into personal exchanges which become less and less related to the topic/article at hand.

Perhaps posters should be able to contact each other directly, and so could 'self censor.' This coupled with a way of blocking contact from specific users might also work.

Ok I agree as well but if you look back on the thread you will see that I was having an innocent dig at Greer which by the way she whole heartedly deserved. Then Tao stuck his/her nose in and whamo. But yes I too agree that too often than not forums turn into crap. Thanks RObert

I kind of like the personal exchanges, although sometimes they get a bit too personal. I'd suggest that if a third party suggests two posters take their dispute outside (say if they're clogging up a thread, or if the argument is getting too off topic) then it would be good manners to do so. I wouldn't like to see this as a way of censoring the more left of field comments, though: sometimes these are the most interesting part of the OLO experience.

snout, thanks for putting an alternate viewpoint.

Any suggestions on how we can keep it interesting for people who enjoy this stuff and make it more accessable for those who are sick of it.

I've wondered at times how many potential posters who are out there who don't post just because of the level of personal attack that goes on in the threads. Some clearly prefer that approach while others of us would love to see it disappear.

I agree with the point about not using it censor hence my preference for somewhere to take it outside. I've not spent enough time on how to differentiate between topic relevant comments and low level flaming, sometimes the difference will be hard to spot.

R0bert

Things do get a bit personal, though it does allow everyone to develop acceptance and fine tune their ability to communicate and debate. We all have to put up with each others various rantings and repetitiveness, yet restrain ourselves from allowing our ego's or I'm right to takeover, yet hard for those too blind to see.

From my observations of OLO, new posters tend to test the waters to see how far they can push the limits, until they either disappear when they realise they're looking foolish, or decide to become apart of the discussions, rationalising their responses while still getting their message across.

It's boring reading the same thing over and over, but that's the reality of life. I agree lots of people don't want to be confronted on their beliefs and viewpoints, so freak out when challenged. With humility which I believe most posting here have towards others particularity new people, is commendable unless they post complete crap, then they can expect top be short shafted.

I got involved in another forum (web diary) awhile ago but discovered it was basically for the academic elite and they only wanted to talk semantics and beat their brows to show their eloquent ignorance. Needless to say I saw many who posted reasonable questions, only to be belittled with empty semantic waffle, or ignored. So like me they no longer posted. At least here people actually go out of their way to explain to new posters their mistakes, if the poster is seeking understanding.

General discussions should be a bit more personal as they involve the thread input of those participating here, whilst article comments should be less personal as rarely does the author poke their head in. I believe on most occasions its because they cant support their suppositions, whilst threads started by posters, include the ongoing thoughts of the thread starter. Which leads to more robust debate, and we have to understand the predominance of some genders to waffle on. OOps

I think it is an excellent idea to have a Private Message (PM) icon at the botom of everyone's post.

Individuals would be able to go to "Settings" to either turn this PM function off or on to opt for allowing others to contact them without the need for exchanging email addresses.

I am with Snout that personal exchanges can be interesting as long as they don't go on and on in circles and become tedious or destructive.

Yes Robert

I Agree
Well thought out as usual.

yes Robert Good Idea.
May I say also think if somebody is defaming either a organisation or person that person should be warned once then banned.
Wendy gave one thousand one hundred dollars to GrahamY and just hours after he took the money he banned her for no! reason.

There is not one post! in which this lady had been abusive or down right discusting like pig farmer and yabby.
There never would be as Wendy is a lady.
Oh Graham doesnt like anything said about him so look out i will be banned too.

Antje Struthmann, I didn't see the post which got Wendy banned so I can't comment on that one. I do know one other former poster who shares your views about Graham but it's not a view I share. If OLO is willing to ban someone who has made a large donation then isn't it refreshing to see a place where donations do not provide special protection from the rules?

Wendy is passionate about her work but I've not noticed her being overly restrained in holding back from attacking others. We've not been at war but I did not appreciate her willingness to tell me that I needed to be ashamed of myself after an attempt to explain my understanding of the churches and animal protection issue. Relatively mild but uncalled for.

If Wendy does not like the attacks and abuse stuff she needs to be a little more carefull in what she posts herself. Abuse will still flow from some who enjoy being nasty but that's just the nature of on line discussions, some seem to love the unpleasantness and conflict.

R0bert

Robert

How hurt I am with you. I have always read your comments and found you pretty fair as i posted above. No you didnt get to read the comment as you told Antje because there was none.
I have worked as many hours as possible regarding this issues in the office and from home. If Wendy sounded cross with you it was because she was correct regarding Cuches and Church Leaders. i was one of the four people who sent out thousands of letters to the churches who did not bother to reply.
Whatever Wendy said goes double on that topic from me.

Now regarding your saying it is good to see somebody pay one thousand one hundred dollars only to be banned for no reason is a shock to me.
So you agree its Ok for somebody to take money under those circumstances Do You?
If the service was not going to be available to anybody then he should not have taken her money.
Within hours of taking her money he banned her. She had not even posted anything at all.
I know this Robert because I was at the office when the eleven hundred dollars was paid.
To top it off he has allowed pig farmer to say over and over again that pale does not work in conjunction with RSPCA QLD on live exports. He knows its a lie but he has not stopped this woman defaming an organisation.
So taking somebodies money and then allowing others to defame their organisation is ok with you is it? Of course they cant defend themselves either.
I am surprised and deeply shocked. I thought better of you. Good On her.

So why do you think he should not return the eleven hundred dollars then Robert. Come on he takes it and 6 hours later blocks the service.

TarynW, I can only go on what I've seen of the management of the site over several years and that has left me with a lot of confidence in the determination of the team to support free speech and only delete and suspend in exceptional circumstances.

I've seen a number of posts that have resulted in deletions and suspensions (I've pushed the recommend deletion button several times myself). I've never heard of anyone else being banned for donating money.

Wendy's dislike of the churches handling of this issue does not make it OK to attack someone who is not part of any church but is putting a point of view. No big deal, I've copped way worse on the site but to claim that Wendy does take part in dishing out abuse is more a reflection of Antje's friendship with Wendy than a fair reading of her posts. I've made my views on the churches involving themselves in politics fairly clear on a number of threads so I won't repeat them here.

Given that Wendy is no longer on the site I'd rather not continue a discussion of her behaviours on the site. Unless something comes up that suggests continuing this discussion would be fair to Wendy than I opt out.

R0bert

Robert

Something has come up. Wendy said to tell you that she attacked nobody.
She said that all Churches have a reasonsibilty towards animals cruelty.
Second if you read each and every post you wont find one rude remark such as for example has been made about myself for example and my baby.
I suppose you are going to say Robert you didnt see them
How typical

Wendy was banned after just hours after giving eleven hundred dollars to Graham. She was contacted by another poster who warned her that Graham Young has written some very personal remarks about Wendy to her private email address.

Wendy confronted Graham about this. This person offered copies of those emails.

They warned Wendy That Graham Young had it in for her because Wendy had found a copy of something he had written on another thread which read= The Lord Is Thy Shepard and a good Shepard would lay down his life for his sheep .

Wendy copied it and posted it under the Thread titled Churches Turn Their Baks on Animal Cruelty.
She wrote one word underneath
Hypicrit.
Nothing wrong with the thruth good On her.
So the good christian took her money and banned her
Nice Guy!
You know that is the truth because I do not think your name is the one you are posting by.

your little speach about fairness is a joke.

You can not take funds and then not provide a service.

On top of that he has allowed people to defame her and her organisation and even done so himself while stopping her from defending herself.

None of you like being exposed as the two face people you are.
Oh am I attacking you
.
It seems telling the truth is now attacking people.

Where were you with your standing up for others when yabby was refering to my tits and saying dreadful things about our one week old baby.

TarynW, "Wendy said to tell you that she attacked nobody.". Is that supposed to mean something when Wendy's posts are mostly still around? She clearly attacked other posters.

"You know that is the truth because I do not think your name is the one you are posting by.", are you suggesting that you think I'm Graham posting under an alias? For the record I've not met him but have swapped a few emails with him relating to the site (and none made reference to Wendy). I don't use a name that I can be easily identified by because I post on family law issues and also because I don't want uninvited contact with some posters.

As for Yabby's attacks on you I did see a reference to them at one point but for the most part I've tried to skip over most of those posts that were personal attacks. If I'd seen the particular post and it said what has been claimed I probably would have requested it's deletion. I don't like sledging and bringing your breasts and baby into a debate on animal welfare is low level sledging. If Yabby did post comments like that it says a lot about Yabby and nothing about your chest or child.

I've been saddened by the refusal of people who claim to care about the welfare of animals to care enough to stop playing schoolyard games. It seems that some would much rather fight than find a way forward.

R0bert

Robert
wendy Slamed the Church Leaders because it was true. Thats her job to highlight how they are. I might addd not all. She would be the first to say that. I know she works with some. A good example would be a person who gave up the church because of their refusal include Gods Creatures. Her and Wendy are close. There is nothing in any of the posts put up by her that are not true. Thats what you do not like.
There was no reason to ban her. She was the only one! who did not make it personal.!
Pig Farmer over and over again made personal crude rude comments. Yabby is discusting. None of them had to guts to post in their real names just Wendy.
As for your friend Graham he didnt like being shown up. He didnt like it either when Wendy confronted him about sending private emails about her to someone he met on the olo. That! someone told !Wendy. Sadly it was about six hours after Wendy being the very decent person she is acted on Grahams plea for money.

Despite the fact he had been rather rude to her on the forum and despite the fact that he was in her eyes a hypcrit she still did the christain thing and paid eleven hundred dollars.

Get it through your head that you dont take money off someone and ban them six hours later. She had not even posted.


Taking money under pretences is not a good thing to do.

If he really didnt like her that much because she showed him up as the hypicrit he is like many Church People but not most her should not have taken her money.

Regardless of that even if she had not have paid he has no right to allow creatures like yabby and pig farmer to demane her organisation or anybdy else.
No I was not suggesting you are Graham. Certainly not.
Oh yeh you didnt see the discusting talk about myself and one week old daughter.
Oh sure.

Stop whining TarynW. Seems that you are doing a lot of defaming yourself. Do unto others .....

Robert if the idea is to keep this sort of thing off the main threads I'm all for it.

Pisces, well said.

TarynW believe what you want. You have got so much else wrong that I have no reason to believe your acount of the reasons for Wendy being banned. The comments made by Yabby and Pigfarmer probably have little impact on most thinking posters. You are correct they spend to much time on personal attacks and I suspect that most of us treat the views of those who focus on that fairly lightly.

What has hurt you is the on line behaviour of people claming to represent your organisation. Your team have demonstrated an utter unwillingness to try and see the other side of an any issue you are involved in, you have shown an utter lack of respect for the rights of others to express a contrary viewpoint. Wendy has demonstrated an unwillingness to work with common ground where it exists, it seems to be her way of the highway. That is what is hurting you, not Yabby and Pigfarmers dislike of us city slickers.

Wendy has made it personal, if nothing else her suggestion that I needed to be ashamed of myself was a personal attack and not true. As I've said before a minor slight but Wendy involved herself in plenty of other attacks. If I recall correctly Antje was talking about seeing other posters in court in the same post that he suggested that another poster was insane (could be some defamation there).

Your team has behaved offensively and agressively towards others, your failure to recognise that is quite telling.

And yes I genuinely did not see the particular post you refer to.

R0bert

I checked back on here to see what is happening and I found all these accusations! I wondered what RObert has ever said to deserve these attacks. Did I miss something?
So I went over the older church posts to refresh my memory and to check if I did miss something, but there is nothing that RObert said to make him deserve these attacks.

At the time I remember thinking that the misunderstandings had been cleared up and that it was the end of it.

Wendy, on September 11th, said:
"Robert. Thanks for all your posts and comments. They have been very balanced and fair.
I have not meant to ignore you but you have always seemed so balanced.![smile] Pew Thank Goodness we have some normal posters."

Why drag it all up again?
I really think that all this petty bickering is a waste or posts, time and effort.

Celivia, I think my crime has been to give Graham the benefit of the doubt both in the churches and animal welfare discussion and regarding Wendy's suspension.

Other than that I'm struggling to see why this anger at me.

I actually support much of what Wendy and her team claim to be working towards. I'm not aware of being deliberately rude (well maybe a bit on this thread) to Wendy, Antje or Taryn.

At least the thread is keeping this particular discussion away from threads with real topics.

R0bert

"At least the thread is keeping this particular discussion away from threads with real topics."
Hehe, I think there should be a thread called: "Arguments only"- but this one will do fine in the meantime ;+)

RObert, I think I lost the plot- there have been so many arguments on three threads I've been on: Church leaders, Animal Welfare and the Are Libbers Hypocrites threads, oh and now this one as well, and I hadn't really focussed so much on them- trying to skim through the arguments.

Celivia, I think my crime has been to give Graham the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, from the beginning you did support PALE's work. That you give Graham the benefit of the doubt is your opinion.

People, I really think it is a matter between Wendy and Graham, why would it matter what RObert or anyone else thinks

Cilivia
I hear what you are saying however no there has been a great injustice and I think everybody should not the truth.
Robert I have been over each and every post to you by Wendy.
Please show me where you say she made a personal insult towards you.?
In fact it is the opposite as Cilivia already pointed out.
On forums its true people getting into often heated differences Yes. However it was Wendy who was copping the personal abuse Robert not you not yabby not pig farmer. Even having good reason to lash back she stuck to her mission right the way though and on topic which was animal welfare.
I think this is a attack from people who dislike her comments regarding Churches turning their backs on animal welfare.
Its the Church again
Ok Robert show me this post in which you say she offended you?
Gee I have been offended insulted and ghad terribly things said aboiut me but Hey nobody even got deleted.
She paid eleven hundred dollars Robert. She was contacted by a person who posts regually and informed that Graham was writing private very insulting emails about her [ personally ] to this other poster. She she asked him to explain. What would you do?
There is nothing wrong with Wendy bagging the churches if she likes Robert about their lack of interest in Animal Welfare. Thats what forums are for.
You just dont like it and neither did Graham
So why not at least return her money.
How honest iot that. Show me one! post where she personally! attacked you or anybody else

TarynW, this is pointless. I've told you the detail of Wendy's minor insult to me (more to show that she does do that than for any other point). You don't want to see your own roles in the conflicts that have occured so I'm not spending any more time on that issue.

I don't have Wendy's money, I don't have any acess to it, I've never seen it. My involvement with OLO is as a poster and one small donation (I expect I'll do more over time), I have no involvement with the organisation at all other than thru my keyboard. How can I give Wendy's money back?

I also don't know OLO's financial structures, I hope that it is set up such that Graham can't use donated money for personal use. I also hope that there are some rules around what happens with donations.

That issue is between Wendy and OLO, nothing to do with me.

Sorry it ended up like this, we probably could have agreed on a lot of stuff but you are letting your assumptions about me get in the way of reality.

R0bert

Taryn, are you and Wendy one and the same person? You have an EXTREMELY similar writing style, it is most uncanny.

Robert
Wendy has not posted since she was banned. That was hours after he took her money. It was not! a donation it was eleven hundred dollars for a years membership.
I know because I was sitting in the office. We asked her to ask him if we could pay 6 months membership because of little funds.
He said no it was eleven hundred dollars for a years membership or nothing.
Because we were doing a petition against live exports we wanted to put it up on the membership forum so we paid. Well actually Wendy ended up paying it because I could not afford to put in that much and I told everybody that. My husband and I have just moved and had a baby so money is tight. I work for Free as Wendy and Antje Does. Antjes been banned too for posting the truth. Sorry if you feel we are against you. You are wrong. Actually yu were Wendys favourite so I dont know how you came to think that way. Yes we are out spoken about Church leaders not speaking out about animal cruelty but we never attacked people personally. Yabby and pig farmer did however and they still post. You call that fair? Laurie or Laura as you never posted regarding animal welfare why dont you mind your own business. No I am not Wendy and I am sick of people like you trying to still discredit her for simply helping animals.
No I am the lady that yabby posted I should rip my one week old baby off my tits!
I asked Graham To delete it but he wouldnt.
So be sure I have my own problems with Graham and I stand alone on that. Nobody came to my defence only Antje and she was banned because of it!

Robert
I forgot.
The fact is Wendy did not post anything between the short hours that she paid the money by the way and him taking it. So the question is this?
If he had a problem why did he take her money?
Also he has been asked and asked to send a copy of this so called offensive post and has failed to do so?

I put it to you that Grahams problem is political and he does not like! the straight out approach to Church Leaders.
Its called a conflict of interest Robert.
No its certainly not your fault. I know you are just another poster .
I wanted to tell you the truth thats all because of yur comments earlier.
As well, another member who works with animal libbers might find it annoying to have us post. Remember we also protest about people taking money by way of rallies to the general public against people eating meat. We are main stream Robert. We do not beleive anybody has the right to tell others not to eat meat.
Ever wondered if that might have upset the other member?
I have.
Bottom line this is most unfair. I have contacted the minister for comminications myself about whats been said about muself and one week old daughter at the time. No licences are required to run a forum Robert. So yes this is political and its totally unfair.
If Graham thinks he can he is not going to have to return the monrey or allow the organisation to use the forum after paying eleven hundred dollars he is kidding himself.
Nothing gives him the right to keep a Not For P. organisations money Robert. Surlety even you can see that. What you take their ne thousand one hundred dollars then six hours later ban them??
Then why not refund! the money and! produce evidence the back up your claim
By the way if?? it were true a first warning is common as well. Many others have been really!

Ahhh, Robert. Here is a glaring problem with your idea, unless every thread has its own 'take it outside'

Others come in and havent a clue what your on about and are rudely treated by other posters. Things could end up quite ugly dont you think?

Wendy?? Is this some kind of running joke with you guys?

Anyway, I thought the idea here was to discuss an outlet for issues with a particular poster and take it off the thread, not a place to hide and flame people without their knowledge.

Pisces
Certainly Robert put this thread up to try to sort things out.
Not just say oh well too hard and anyway I dont want to get off side with the editor.
No your the one posting in a name that other than your own.
Nor has wendy posted at all since she was banned.
Robert Wendy liked you so I wnt bother you anymore about this matter. You thread is a good idea. I can see it is only going t lead to them picking on you. Keep up your sensible ideas
Dont let others talk you out of it

I just want to set the record straight and give my opinion about the annual fee Wendy paid to OLO.

Even though I do think that personal matters as serious as this would be better taken outside, I feel that this will go on and may become a bigger problem.

Can we look at it without personal accusations or involvement- from a legal or logical point of view?

I looked at the information available and merely on basis of this info without having had a chance to look at OLO's (Graham's) side of it, I cannot see why Wendy should not have her money returned, or at least most of it. (I repeat I only know Wendy's side of things- and as RObert says, there might be things involved to keep in mind from OLO's side as well)

In all fairness,
* If Wendy paid annual fees to OLO and
* only hours after paying she was expelled, and
* she was expelled before she posted anything new, and
* she never had a chance to even use the service she paid for, not eve once, then
* she should have a refund.

As far as I know, any other business would have to give a customer or client a refund if the customer changes her/his mind within I think 48 hours.

Is that a fact? I thought there was a cooling off period involved in every deal we make, unless we sign something that states otherwise.
Am I wrong to believe that?

Since Wendy was expelled from OLO (the reason for that is not really all that relevant) she asked her money back within I believe 1 day.

Does she have rights to a refund, by law?

Celivia, I'm not confident enough in knowing the facts to get into the ethics of that part of this. If the version of the story Taryn tells is factual then I'd favor the refund option myself but I've not heard Graham's side of this.

In regard to the legals if Wendy did what I did then she probably made a donation rather than paid a fee for service. From the Support page "If you believe in what we are doing select one of the options below to make a donation." http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/membership/

My donation did not give me any extra privileges on the site, same number of posts and same word limits as other posters etc. If it was a fee for service then I would have expected to get something for it (600 words a post maybe).

Taryn thanks for that last post. Wish Wendy well for me.

Pisces, I think the same issues apply to the main threads as well. I've seen issues from one thread get taken across into other threads, some of the personal battles seem to go back a long way.

As far as I know seperate threads for different discussions is allowable within the rules. I figured I'd make a start and see what gets learned out of the exercise, it may not turn out to be a good idea at all but I'd had a guttfull of the personal spats on what could have been serious threads and this seems like it's worth a try.

OLO has apparently also considered the idea of being able to send a private message to another poster. I don't know if they are still considering it or what form was proposed.

R0bert

Cilivia, did you read the rules that you agreed to when you joined this forum? Most people probably don’t and I assume your friend Wendy didn’t either.

None of us have been charged or paid a fee to post here so I don’t quite understand your argument. There are options on this forum to make a donation but that does not give you any special services or rights over other posters. I believe there is an option to become a member of the OLO that links your website, maybe that is what she signed up for. Go up to the top of this page and click on Journal. Have a look under members and see if she is there.

I cant see anyway that her payment is related to being able to post when we all do it for free. As for being banned, she would have had to have done something. Have you seen some of the stuff on these threads that doesn’t even get deleted?

Maybe your friend isn’t being quite up front with you and maybe trying to save face?

pisces

Your wrong. I know I have been asked not to go on about it but i was working there at the time.
Its so unfair. She called and enquired about a membership. He said she could not do it for six months only one year at eleven hundred dollars. I know! she could not really afford it but paid thinking she could help the animals by using the forum to let people know about pale and codes of practise.
Just after she paid she spoke by phone with another poster who warned her Graham was contacting her [outside] the forum and running Wendy Down. She emailed him and confronted him.
He banned her before! she even used the service once! I am not sure if he banned the other person for tipping her off or she just left after that.
I was there so dont say I dont know. Then refused to return the membership fee. Thats is the truth. I was there!

Look what he allowed those people to say about myself and baby. Do you think thats normal. I asked and asked him to delete it. My husband emailed him as well.
He did not even reply.
I know you might mean well but no your wrong.
wendy as I said asked me not to post anymore especially for Roberts sake.
I just had to correct you.
I cant stand seeing good people who have done nothing wrong being defamed.
Me being one of them.

TarynW
"by using the forum to let people know about pale and codes of practise"

If you go to the top of the page, click on Journal and have a look under members, there is a listing for Pale. Is this what you are talking about?

If so, your friend has no arguement because she is still using the service she paid for. That service would have nothing to do with being able to post here.

I am not aware of what was said about you or your baby so cannot comment. If they refused to delete it, maybe you misinterpreted what was said?

RObert says: “Celivia, I'm not confident enough in knowing the facts ... If the version of the story Taryn tells is factual then I'd favor the refund option myself but I've not heard Graham's side of this.”
Agreed, I was trying to say that as well. I made clear that my opinion was only based on the information I saw on here and some emails I received.

Pisces,
indeed! I was first under the impression that OLO did not give PALE the service they paid for, but their link is there with all the other members’ links. The link works.

Pisces,
I have to admit that I only glanced over the rules.

I found, under ‘rules’:
Subscriber services
“We may cancel or discontinue your use of or access to any subscriber service without liability to refund any fees paid in advance for future services if you have breached these Terms.”

I think that there are two issues:
one about receiving the service paid for (the PALE link on the OLO members’ list) which has been done.

2B continued

The second one about Wendy changing her mind about requesting the service and asking for a refund when she was banned from posting on OLO.
This happened about six hours after she transferred the money.

The question is: did she ask for a refund before or after the webdesigner had added PALE’s link to the members list on OLO?

If the webdesigner added it already, it’s understandable that money couldn’t have been refunded as the webdesigner needs to be paid for that and OLO needs to be paid for the space provided etc.

But… if Wendy requested a refund and changed her mind about having the PALE link added before any work was done, then I think it shouldn’t have been denied as there were no costs yet.

The third issue is about the reason for her being banned can be discussed long and hard but outsiders won’t be able to form an opinion on that- we may not have seen the posts that were removed. If we did, we have no proof.

It is quite irrelevant to Wendy’s case whether other people on OLO were insulted or offended by other people’s posts.

I did see that misplaced joke by Yabby about your baby, Taryn. It's a tasteless and quite vulgair joke but a different issue from Wendy's case.

Anyway, this is my view so far- I can be right or wrong about things.

Well, Cilivia, from what I can make of this, Wendy asked for a refund after she was banned from posting on the forum not because she had changed her mind about the service she had paid for and is still receiving.

It would seem that she had some misunderstanding about what her membership entitled her to. Not reading the "rules" is never an excuse. You are asked if you agree to those when you sign up to post here.

As being able to post is subject to the rules you pointed out, and not part of the service she paid for, I dont believe she would be entitled to a refund. Sour grapes is generally not reason enough.

What do you mean she still has the service? Shes banned! I told you I was there! I am only posting to Robert and Cilvia because its was her thread and Robert did show some interest unlike many
She called Graham because I showed her a letter from him which was on the forum at the time. It said OLO really needed members. Wendy being the kind soft hearted person she is said ok give me the phone. She told him the membership would have to be in the organisations name and not her own. He said ok well put your web master on. Wendy gave the phone to Steve. He told Steve to go in and cancel the registration for Wendys name . Steve Did that. He then told Steve To sgn back in as PALE in Conjunction with RSPCA QLD. Steve did that too .
Then as soon as she posted he wrote back saying you are barred for using two different names which is against the rules. Wendy wrote back on a post which said and said enjoy the money Graham
He went beserk!
She had not even signed the agreement. That came two days later.
To top it off she gets emails from one of his free workers warning her hes been emailing that person in private saying some nasty things
As I said before I dont know if that person left or was banned as well for letting the cat out of the bag
Mean while the pig woman is posting lies about her and she cant even defend herself. Hell she pays eleven hundred dollars to be slandered. He put the name pale in conjunction with RSPCA QLD up so why let this woman go on and defame a member.
Pisces by the way I am talking to the others not you. As I was involved I should know.
I am not allowed to do that work anymore because my husband got sick of seeing discusting things about his wife and baby

How rude of you TarynW. My name was clearly at the top of your last post and, this being a place of public opinion, not private, I shall respond to whatever I wish thankyou.

You clearly do not listen. Pale's website is stilled linked as a member of OLO. Being a member does not make them ammune to the rules.

Clearly, your friend has done the wrong thing or this action would not have been taken.

As for what was said about you and your baby, I am starting to think it is an exaggertation now on your behalf?

If this ges to court I will be there. My husbands happy for me to post on this thread but not the other because of the discusting things Graham said was ok . You know this goes on googles.
Wendy wont be happy when she finds out I am trying to tell people the truth because she told me to leave it.

I cant. I just cant Robert. Its so bloody unfair. She has very little funds and put the membership in only to help him. Look how shes been treated. My God Whats wrong with everybody.
All this woman tried to do was help Animals.

Thats Her Crime!

Why am I the only one speaking out.

You cant take eleven hundred dollars off a person then refuse the provide a service. Within hours!or return their money.
Think about it.
Just look at the discusting! remarks that are still up!. Look at the posts from pig farmer saying wendys a lyer and pale are not in conjunction with RSPCA QLD.
I cant understand this guy. He himself posted that he! rang the RSPCA QLD and He posted > That is the end of this Wendy does work with RSPCA QLD. Then he allows a non member to go on defaming an organisation! by saying Wendys a lyer and dont have anything to do with the organisation. They have no right to use that name etc.
Whats going on?
I think Wendy should talk with the fraud squad personally.

Pisces
You were not involved. I am not rude I just strongly suspect you are using another name. If you did not see the comment about myself and one week old baby then you cant comment can you. My husband contacted our lawyers and the Minister for Cominications about it. They dont think its a little matter. So our family will leave it to them. They have passed it on to the correct authoritys.
As I cant seem to get it through your head I am talking to Cilia and Robert you may post to me all you like but I wont be answering you.
If I am right about your true ID you wrote in support of the crude comments and in fact! added a few yourself. Dont you know the rules about using several names. Give me eleven hundred dollars and I might tell you.

TarynW
This is how you respond to someone that does not agree with you? Personal attack?

You and your friend may be accused of using mutliple identities, but do not put me in that same catagory.

I do not know what was said about you on another thread and have not commented on it. Cant see how it would be a matter for the courts if OLO refused to delete it. Cant be all that bad.

I am starting to see why someone would say unpleasant things about you.

"You cant take eleven hundred dollars off a person then refuse the provide a service"

Hello!

The service is still being provided, how many times do you have to be told before you take a look for yourself.

Hello
He told Steve to take off her name and put the organisations name up. Steve did that. She paid the money. When she posted in the organisations name he banned her for using another name. Hello!
Your the one who does not read.
Cilvia already knows the truth so I was really just telling Robert.
The fact the remarks were left up about myself and baby say a lot. Although I requested they were deleted as did my husband they remain still to this day.
You keep saying she can use this service. That is not correct. I told you he banned her saying she had used two different names. Hello. Remember now I was there. You were not.
You cant take eleven hundred dollars off a organisation then ban their use.
You really need to get the facts straight .
So if they cant use the service because they followed his! directions then he should at least return the money. Either that or apologise for what is clearly his mistake and provide the service they paid for. I dont even know that they would wish to continue to use it after the discusting posts that he refused to delete. That would be up to her.
The Ministers office are not too pleased about it I will let you in on that much.
Go back and just take a look. Cilivia is right. It was discusting.

You will have to direct me to the thread you are talking about before I can "go back and take a look".

My understanding of OLO membership is that it entitles you to a 12 month link to your website from their members section. Pale has that service, listed under institutions.

As far as posting goes, you would be on the same level as the rest of us and subject to the same rules. I see two different issues here, one does not automatically go with the other. Posting is a free service and if you break the rules, you're out. Now you say wendy was banned for using two names, the original arguement was because she posted something that was banned and it seems noone got to see it. Therefore, none of us can say if she deserved that action or not. Only Wendy and Graham would know that.

I know, you say you were there and saw and heard everything, but we were not. The post she was banned for cannot be reposted without someone else getting banned, so we will never know.

As far as I can see, Pale has membership here and thats what was paid for. Being banned from posting for bad behaviour is irrelevant, she still has the service provided as far as the link to her site.

Pisces, if this is about dual identities then "http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=18#1375" might be part of it.

I'm not sure why but Wendy appears to have had two ID's running on OLO at the same time. If I've got it right the details are something like
Posts under "People Against Live Exports (PALE) conj. RSPCA QLD" had it's first appearance on 18th September 7:26 am and the last post (deleted) for that account was on 21st September 6:12PM. The user of that name claimed to be Wendy http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=18#1375 .
Wendy's last post under her own name was 19th September 11:06.

Graham's post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=18#1436 is relevant.

I've found pigfarmers comment to Taryn at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=76#1631

I don't know if that brings any clarity to things, I'm still confused by it all.

Taryn, my apologies - I had seen that post and forgotten it. When I went searching for it I recognised it. I read a different context into the post and did not see it as an attempt to denigrate either your breasts or baby but rather part of an overall dislike for cityslickers on pigfarmers part. I might be wrong.

R0bert

Yes, Pisces, there are two different issues.
A membership does not protect one from being banned.

Oops Yabby (has he been banned as well?) if you read this- sorry you didn’t make the remark about Taryn, Pigfarmer did and then you quoted it.

RObert, thanks for posting those old posts. It is clear to me that I have been misinformed.

It seems that Wendy did use dual identities- it might well have been a mistake or misunderstanding, but the fact is, it is against the rules and ground for suspension.

I was under the impression that Wendy was banned before she even posted anything new. I was told this and now it seems that she did post. The facts are there.

Perhaps I’m mistaken but although some might argue that it was not ethical to ban Wendy so soon after she became a member, I cannot see that Graham did anything unlawful- the things he did were within the rules.

Whether it is ethical is a different issue again but no ground for a courtcase as far as I can see.

I sincerely wish Wendy all the best- sometimes a little misunderstanding or neglect of rules may cause us a lot of trouble.

I have learnt from this as well- since I am generally too lazy to read rules and privacy statements and merely glance over them in about 10 seconds.
I have read the rules now and will make it a habit in the future before I cause trouble for myself.
Things like this could happen to anyone- not just Wendy, we must take care!

As long as we learn from our mistakes, we can use all experiences in a positive way.

Cilia
I dropped the forum when the nasty posts were not taken off. When I read Yabbys comments about taryn ripps kid of Titty and rushes to key board I thought it would be taken off straight away. I actually was ashamed that any bloke would say that about a one week old mum. I dont blame taryn for being upset. That comments is still up tonight. I just checked

I made a comment back then that I thought they should have been taken down so I am not going over old ground.

I have been overseas since then and was sorry to see what had happend to these people who clearly only cared about Animal Welfare.
I took the time to find out the facts.
She joined telling him it would have to be in the name of their organisation.
He told her to cancel her name and replace it with the other name. He did not tell them it had to be done on each and every thread.
I think its all been a misunderstanding from what I can make of it.
Be fair Cilia. If the person in charge told you to cancel your registration and re register you would think he knew what he was talking about wouldnt you?
To those who are interested I am trying to get some normal comments on animal welfare. I thought it was the least one person could do.
I am a butcher by trade but strongly object to live exports. I have loaded them on the ships in my younger days and it still haunts me. I guess if I can do something to pay for my actions now it will make me feel better.
Look for the new thread. Be warned I am not getting involved in any comments about Wendy.
I think shes been burnt badly and I know she only cares about improving things for animals.
Cant see any harm in that.
To me the subject is off limits.Hope you all think about the animals for once.
This thread is for all your hard work Wendy

Cilivia it is scary sometimes what we agree to when we just tick the “I accept” button instead of having a good read. I have been caught before and always take a look now.

Thanks for that Robert, you certainly know your way around this forum.

“Wendy does have a relationship with RSPCA. To what degree we are no longer going to explore” There seems to have been some dispute over Wendy’s right to use RSPCA in her business name? I must admit, I would have wanted clarification of that because I have never seen another entity using it. No offense meant, it just seems unusual to me.

I wont cut and paste the other comment because I know TarynW will be offended, but Robert I think you are right. If you read the remark in context with the rest of the paragraph, its not offensive I don’t think. It did give an instant picture in my head, and I admit I did smirk, ( Especially after my discussions with TarynW this morning, she does get very passionate in her discussions), but I would understand if you thought it was a bit crude.

It is plain as day that Wendy was switching between two different identities well before she was banned.

This morning TarynW you said it was coming up on google? How? Even if you searched your name it wouldn’t come up. It has been spelt Tamyn in that comment. I don’t think you need worry about too many seeing it, and I wouldn’t worry about people thinking badly of you because of it.

Benny. I bit too obvious don’t you think?

Whats Obvious to me is that you are one of the trouble makers.

Go find a life but dont start on me lady.

I spent almost the whole day looking at this co joint venture in person.
Its the best plan anybody has put up as a alternative to live exports.

If I can help then I will.
I dont need some old fussy following me around the forum.

I dont know what the rules are on picking fights but we will find out in a minute because I wont hesitate to hit the complaint button.
Thats why i stopped coming on here last time but this time I will call the person in charge personally.
I am not known as a bloke who stuffs around.

A lot of this argument started because pigfarmer (with the support of Yabby) on the Animal Welfare thread said, among some other criticism, that PALE was not working in conjunction with RSPCA without getting her facts right. PALE does work with RSPCA- last time I checked PALE was on RSPCA's website as "RSPCA in conjunction with PALE".

Pigfarmer just made assumptions in an attempt to make Wendy look unprofessional so I don't blame Wendy for getting upset about that.
Wendy did go into defence, which is a natural reaction but even then she did not attack the business of her pigfarmer. Because all she does is think of the animals and she agreed with the pigfarmer's work.

I agree that the mix-up of dual identity posts was a most likely a misunderstanding- but the damage has been done. The OLO rules state that this is ground for suspension.

Because this is all very serious and probably going to court I don't want to say anything that could cause more arguments or trouble for people involved in this argument.

I wish Wendy well.

This was my last post on the matter.

RObert- I can still post about the original topic: I think indeed that yours was a good suggestion- there should be the option to take things outside.
I was thinking not only of this private message option, but also of an icon perhaps next to the 'recommended for deletion' icon which would be an icon for 'recommended for outside discussion'.

For example, there could be a rule (more rules!) that if say 3 people in a discussion have clicked the 'recommend for outside discussion' icon, a post would warn people to take the argument outside and any more posts on the argument would be in danger of deletion and the posters of suspension.

So it would be more of a voting icon- if 3 or more people get sick of the argument- the fight will have to continue outside.
Just an idea popping into my head.

cilvia
I think you mean pale in conjunction with RSPCA QLD dont you, Not RSPCA.

The People Against Live Exports works in conjunction with RSPCA QLD
see web site.
http://www.livexports.com/
Wasnt that what Wendy was going crook about in the first place
I am sure you meant well

It would seem that you guys are having trouble getting your stories straight?

Benny, good idea to try and get some discussion going again on animal welfare. Good luck in keeping it on track.

To clarify a point "When I read Yabbys comments about taryn ripps kid of Titty and rushes to key board " - it was Pigfarmer who made the initial comment, not Yabby. Yabby quoted it shortly afterwards. Different readers will find different levels of offensiveness to the original comment in context, I'm one who read it as Pigfarmer thinking that she thought Taryn would be outraged at the stuff that proceeded that bit and was having a dig rather than an attack on Taryn's baby. Others including Taryn see it differently.

There are times that I wish the site was more active in deletions but then I also enjoy the lack of censorship. Much better than talkback hosts who cut off comments they don't agree with etc. I looking for alternatives to wholesale deletions which might improve the main threads hence this thread.

I like Celivia's suggestion of an extra icon that can be used to recommend that a discussion be taken outside. I'd assume that if a few different votes popped up for that and the site adminstrators agreed then they would put in a post telling participants to take it outside. Continuing that discussion on the original thread would be grounds for deletion or suspension. Sort of what Graham did with the link I posted earlier in this discussion where he told posters to cool it.

R0bert

Celivia it is to your credit at least that you concede that Yabby and Pigfarmer were trying to make Wendy look bad and caused her a lot of grief and distress in the process..I cant belive they were left unchecked for so long and making so much trouble for others and not just Wendy..

They no doubt had a good laugh about the whole thing.

As for the ethicality of Wendy being banned and the issues surrounding that well the less said the better I think.
We all have to live with our own consciences and be able to sleep at night I believe.

I think Pisces is actually the old Pigfarmer?

ROFL Is that what you think taurus? Thats actually funny! How wrong you are.

There is something going on here between you all though isnt there? All this sudden agression? What are you threatened by exactly?

"cilvia
I think you mean pale in conjunction with RSPCA QLD dont you, Not RSPCA.

The People Against Live Exports works in conjunction with RSPCA QLD"

*BLUSH*

YES sorry- that's what I meant! RSPCA QLD
Thanks for pointing this out, it is important.

I was emailed this article which I found interesting enough to paste here.
This might be a good enough reason for taking things outside not only when they get annoying to others but also when things can get ugly.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/1160246303293.html

People who donate their time finding alternatives to live exports do so for the sole reason of improving animal welfare.
However a lot more needs to be done.
The answer to the live exports is to sell direct to the buyers of the meat in the Middle East or other countries. AFIC have a responsibility towards the accreditation of the meat to ensure it is Halal for their customers.
Working together with RSPCA QLD and Australian Federation of Islamic Council gives any foward thinking farmers a chance to expand.

Apart from educating the general public about live animal exports it is important we also look at the opportunities for outback people to add whatever infastructure they require to become a exporter or as well as farmer.

With the help of AFIC its possible to redirect some of the animals going live and reopen a few dead horse country towns. All Governments need to get behind this. Many people think abattoir work is only manual labor. Some say that animals are dropping like flies in paddocks especially in WA.
However the real facts are animals are trucked thousands of miles from state to state to reach these ships to make up the quota.
We are blessed to have Mark Townend RSPCA CEO QLD who has met with Church leaders and others assisting in the education of Animal Welfare.
Education of the public is the number one starting point to improving Animal Welfare.

The Reach out for Christ Church who Mark met with have put their hand up to speak to their flock about live exports.

This is a good start and we thank Steve Ryder and Mark.

There are two other Churches who have made contact also wishing to get involved.
There is a need for more people willing to give up a few hours of their time to assist the Church people who have shown willingness to start including animal welfare in some of their bible classes.
Should anybody wish to help you can contact us by clicking below and scroll to the ban Live Exports icon
http://www.rspcaqld.org.a

Benny thank you for explaining clearly.

I suggested deletion of that mistake but even Graham (chief editor) said that there is nothing to worry about (since I have corrected the mistake when I was made aware).

PF
Once a mistake has been recognised, admitted and corrected, it is a bit unfair to come back on it and use it to suit yourself.

Hi Robert,

I agree with the original message of the article.
The long threaded discussion confirms your point :
Take it outside!

Thanks Tauras

Yes it was actually a low act trying to discreit Wendy and PALE because of her stand against the blind eye of the Churches towards animal welfare.
As for Pig Farmer she requested we expose Animals Australia for refusing to support free range farmers.
Then did an about face when it was posted on OLO.
The thing is she originally asked for it to be posted on our web site.
Sad isnt it that she didnt have the balls to stand up to them
Still after all is said and done I guess she was concered she would be hassled by DPI and effect her biz.
At the end of the day she still at least in her own way has more common decency than those who tried desperatly to gag us educating the public about the lack of concern regarding Animal Welfare by church Leaders using unfair priveledges .
Let that be a warning to anybody who tries to delude themselves there is freedom of speach anywhere.
Guess there must be a few too many church members ah .
The good news is after intensive investigation the bank belived Wendy not the other bloke and she was refunded her ,money.
With it she paid for half a dozen strippers to attend the AWB enquiry and two churches to protest their lack of action.
Antje
PS watch this space. Some people dont! want you to know the truth

Wendy/Antje, you have never been moderated (I assume that is what you mean by "gagged") for expressing legitimate opinions. You have been moderated for flaming other posters or being disruptive in other ways.

You have been asked not to bring these fights onto the forum, and yet here you are doing it again. I am suspending you for 7 days.

I note that you allude to Wendy's claim that she paid TNF money to be allowed to post on the forum. That is not true. She paid for membership of TNF by PALE. She has gone to her bank and claimed that we did not deliver the "service" of allowing her to post on the forum and there has been a dispute through the Bankcard disputes process. It is defamatory to suggest that we have withheld a service that was provided to her, which is another reason that you are being suspended.