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