Not wishing to further abuse other threads with this discussion I'm taking it outside.

I refer to a post supposedly by the CEO of PALE under the account normally operated by Antje - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=874#17174

CJ Morgan, I'd not seen that particular post. My understanding of the site rules is that only one person is supposed to operate an account. A clear breach id that is the case, I've wondered at the disjointed nature of posts under that name but assumed a different cause than multiple posters.

David from PALE - perhaps as an organisation you should reconsider allowing staff to use the organisations name to make personal comment on a public discussion forum. The poster seems to feel that when they are criticised for their often offensive behaviour your organisation is being criticised and from your post it would appear that is of some concern to you as well. Q

uite simple, if that's a problem ban them from using the organisations name for personal comment. Others have changed alias's in the past. Your choice but please don't go bitching about harm done to PALE by people responding to the behaviour of your staff when they post under the organisations name. If you chose to allow Antje (or others) to post under your organisations name then the original post and or responses to it may do harm to your valuable caause.

If you are CEO perhaps you should review the topic of Corporate Governance.

R0bert

Hi R0bert,

I'll use this thread as you intended. On the other thread, PALE posted:

"IN second marraiges there ARE others! to consider including the children of that marriage! here you are wanting a LAW to make most times Mothers hand over the kids because! shes found a new husband and life!
Nasty Controlling and spiteful that would be and very unfair on the liitle kids.
Mummies getting re married and leaving daddy
We must punish Mummy.
Then you try to control OLO rules.
oohah! You dont agree with what I said- I`LL show her by getting the whole NFP banned.
Charming morals."

I'll just comment that the continuing practice of whoever it is posting semi-coherent personal comments, under the PALE oraganisational nickname, does nothing to enhance the organisation's public image.

However, that's their problem, I guess. If they choose to post silly, hateful, bigoted and personally abusive comments under the PALE name on a public forum, I see no reason why they shouldn't attract the responses such comments deserve.

I am like others interested in the thread and the thread that started it.
Yes at times it is clear I let both barrels go too,no saint but I hope I try to stay in line.
Pale it would appear often hits the post key without re reading it, I very much once did so too far to often.
Targeted often by pale I take no offense, none at all.
But reserve the right to return service.
I however twice got both barrels from a person who was clearly in these pages only to support another poster ,two different posters supporting two different people.
While we do not use our names surely we should be honest and only use our sign ins ourselves?

Hey Robert.. this might be the place to offer a recent experience of mine... unrelated to Pale or the thread..but good carpark stuff.

There is this woman in the gym I attend..and she is one of those people who has BITTERNESS written in every line on her aging forehead.
I don't know what her issues are, but about 3 years at least..ago..I did what I normally do when someone new comes in.. I introduced myself and asked her first name. She is the only person out of probably 100s who have responded with a gruff 'who the hell are YOU' kind of 'get lost' tone... so..I cut my losses and decided NEVER to speak to her again... unless she spoke to me.. and for 3 yrs its been like that..I just plain ignore her.

Wellllll 2 days ago I was into my usual thing of sitting 'this' way on a long stool doing my tricep curls.. I do each arm, then rest for a minute, then turn the other way, do the other arm and rest for a minute.. .. this time, when I turned around for the next set and the 1 minute rest.. she happened to be doing some exercise on an apparatus nearby.. I didn't say anything as usual, but surely my eyes did gaze her way a few times in the normal 'a moving object gets ur attention' kind of way...

Then.. out of the blue, suddenly I got "I'm WARNING you, keep OUT of my airspace, if I ever see you sitting there watching me like that again I'll report you...I'm SICK of it"!

wow... you could have blown me over with a feather. I did NOT see that coming. Anyway..the more I thought about it the less happy I became..so I reported her myself.... I get along great with everyone there.. male and female alike.. how sad when one person takes an ugly man hating turn for the worst.

I've started this thread not as PALE suggests "opening up your school boy thread rubbising PALE." but to address issues which seem to be clogging up other unrelated threads. Nor am I seeking "to get a NFP organisation banned from OLO", I choose not to use the recommend for deletion button on the post which claimed to be from another person. I don't know if it breached a rule or not but it was not circumventing posting limits so it did not in my view warrent action.

If posts put up under the name of "People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming" are to be believed Antji is allowed to post personal viewpoints under the organisations name and then both Antji and the organisation feel that the work of the organisation is being harmed when Antji's viewpoints or behaviour are commented on unfavourably by other posters.

If the either Antji or the organisation feel that their work is being harmed by interactions the solution is simple. Do what the rest of us do and post under either an alais or a private name. Using the organisations name to attack others or post material unrelated to the mission of the orgainsation and then hiding behind potential harm to the organisation when criticised is ethical cowardice.

Whilst Antji continues to post as "People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming" she chooses to risk harming the organisations reputaion. While the management of the organisation choose to allow the use of that name for the expression of private opinions they choose to risk the organisations name.

Those who challenge or comment on Antji's opinions or behaviour are not generally trying to undermine the animal welfare work of the organisation but to take part in a normal aspect of involvement in an online discussion.

Antji I don't really care if you use the organisations name or some other but I don't feel the need to avoid commenting on your behaviour or views because to do so might hurt your organisations work. It's your choice to use that name, the consequences are yours.

R0bert

Morgan

There was `no bridge` of OLO rules because I typed the message from David.
We note you `failed` to post Roberts comments which PALE responded to-

Which was he wanted a LAW to stop people from moving if they re marry.

To which PALE responded Robert you cant control others lives.

From there Robert breaking ALL forum rules gate crashed Davids thread with a childish post because he did not like this comment.>

"Robert you cant control people lives especially where there is a second marriage involved."

To which he responded they would have to choose and hand the children over if they wished to relocate!

How terrible that another poster did not agree to his new law.

Robert the clasic is you carried on about PALE breaking OLO rules trying to get us banned.

Yet you yourself broke a much bigger rule by gate crashing Davids thread because you couldnt get my attention.

Then you opended this thread which is nasty and shows how far you will go to get your own way and again take control.

I note as you want to be the OLO police but these rules do not apply to you or the thread where this came from with people selling products.

Seems to me its ok for "you" and others to break rules by advertsing products for sale but thats OK.

Its just get PALE because I dared to point out your new law was unworkable and unreasonable and controlling- even spiteful.


You`v made yourself look even more controlling and foolish[ 'if thats possible'] opening up your school boy thread rubbising PALE.

How pathetic.

I have difficulty understanding why you would work overtime to get a NFP organisation banned from OLO.

It must take a certain type of person to sink that low.

belly None of my comments have ever been directed at you.
They ALL have been directed at Labour to highlight their appauling lack of Animal Welfare and leadership to keep jobs in Australia.

Thats is what PALE does- draws attention to Animal Welfare- or the lack of it