PALE: "To respond to these question would take us back to the original complain made by Robert claiming we broke OLO rules."

Do you read what is written before responding? I am not referring to Robert's question, I am referring to my own 3 questions. Why do you keep bringing this back to Robert? It was your behaviour in response to Robert's questions that got my back up and prompted my own, broader set.

My questions and their context make it very clear that I have tried to get across to you the fact that you are foolishly allowing your name to be used in a way that brings it into disrepute and may well be in breach of the guidelines under which you claim tax-exemption. A sensible response to that would be to say "thank you for pointing that out" and work out a way to fix the problem.

Why do you find this either threatening or difficult? After all, you were prepared to pay me to stop bothering you - use the money to fix the problem instead, perhaps?

PALE: "PALE WILL NOT! BE CHANGING ITS TAG.
WE JOINED AS MEMBERS AND ANTJE POSTS> SOMETIMES MEMBERS SEND EMAILS WITH COMMENTS TO POST.
THATS NOT BREAKING RULES -"

Noone is suggesting PALE should not post here, merely that the corporate name should be reserved for topics for which it has a charter. My own advice would be to appoint a corporate spokesperson and to treat postings under the PALE handle as press releases. If individuals who happen to belong to PALE wish to comment on unrelated topics, they should use a unique handle.
It is also usually regarded as polite to provide attribution if quoting someone else's opinion or question. Just a thought.

Anti Septic


This post has been copied by Antje from a word doc to ensure the original rules set out by OLO are protected.

You have no history with us and I find your posts are flaming.

Thank you for your suggestions and those along this thread will be raised at our next meeting.

We are not a huge group so your ideas of paying corp people just to post olo are unreaslistic.

The offer of a small amount of funds just in case you were sincere were from myself personally and certainly not a pay off.

We never run from a problem and I think you will find most groups are silent because of the new law.

Nor are we in great fear of loosing tax decuctions because under the new laws if groups protest live exports they loose it anyway.

We have no intention of not protesting live exports so clearly its not our first concern.

I am going to make a comment about this thread considering everybody else has been doing so.

If you look up you will all see Graham Young has told Robert that we have not broken forum rules.

That would confirm that this thread was defamatory to us in the first place.

It suggests we broke forum rules which implies were are cheats or liers-dishonest.

In my opinion it should never have gone up. It is in fact untrue. This was confirmed by Graham. So clearly it defames us.

I see posts all over the forum calling us racist pigs and worse.

I see they are still up. In fact all over the forum. Then you people have the nerve to tell me your concerned for the group.

I see one lady posted in another thread that olo should have dealt with these posts that were very offensive to us.

I note her kind fair post was removed.

I have of course copied all comments on olo including this one.

Just in case its again the only one to be removed out of these discusting comments.

RObert,
I think I must go and hook myself up to one of my machines, place a couple of thingamabobs on my head, turn on the doo-hicky and casually frassle my brain, for even attempting to re-enter this thread, but with all the comments being fired at you, it's kind of hard to let you take all these kick-@ss comments alone, so I'll wallow on the side lines to see what happens next.

I must admit, I don't know much about some of the issues flying around in here and find some issues I find, are not even close to what originally started this thread off.

PALE: "Thank you for your suggestions and those along this thread will be raised at our next meeting."

Feel free to do so. I hope you present them as they are intended and don't portray them as an assault on PALE.

PALE: "We are not a huge group so your ideas of paying corp people just to post olo are unreaslistic."

Why do you need to pay someone? Surely one of your members is able to vet press-releases? My suggestion was that you should nominate such a person as your "spokesperson" and so ensure you don't have things being released in the group name that could be to the group's disadvantage.

In my view there were 3 things wrong with the offer to pay me:
1. It smacks of a pay off, particularly as you had already attempted a smear which didn't work and then threats, which also didn't work.
2. It was made to silence my own dissent, which was directed at your own organisation.
3. It sought to create yet another "group" of people opposed to the mistreatment of animals, further fragmenting and diluting the field.As you mentioned in the Tassie Exports thread, the field is already badly fragmented, with many groups who "don't talk to each other". The effect of that can only be to weaken the strength of the response to the trade.

PALE:"Nor are we in great fear of loosing tax decuctions because under the new laws if groups protest live exports they loose it anyway."

And your evidence for that is...? May I suggest that if your group is in danger of losing tax-exempt status it is more to do with your activities that are unrelated to the charter of the group? I have noted that you are very quick to claim persecution on this forum whenever a post is removed, yet you continually launch personal attacks on those who disagree with you. Perhaps the 2 are not unrelated?

I wish you well with your next meeting and hope that your members find my suggestions useful.

The question of course people will ask themselves now is why olo would allow this clear defamation to continue
That along with who really is Sparky?
There are now alligations that we tried to bribe this person when I offered funding [a small amount for him to start his own animal welfare group in his state.
I think olo should remove this comment but do not see Graham doing so.
While this may be a bit of fun for Robert and Graham a court wont find it so ammusing.
Nobody is immune from the law just remember that and this thread Robert was allowed to start is deflamotary and damages now will be sort.
Its more than that really its aboutjustice.
There is a programe on ABC called media watch that would be happy to look at this internet service also.
You are cowards who hide behind false names while having the hide to demand each person put their real names up.
Whydo you think taryn stopped posting Graham? because everybody knew she was a member and attacked the poor lady any time she posted.
You already have real names with pictures and even contact numbers
This thread is a discrace Graham Young.
Great way to treat a member Graham

SPANKY, thanks. I'll try and avoid commenting on those attacks aimed at me - I think I've put enough stuff up previously to make it clear what is going on for those with the time and interest to wallow through it (anybody like that may need to borrow your machine).

Before you use the machine find the link I posted earlier to the original carpark and have a skim of what's left of the start of it. That will give a fairly quick guide to the role truth plays in the claims made about what I was doing when I opened that carpark.

I don't think I had anything to do with Wendy being banned but can't prove it. I have nominated posts for deletion for serious flaming, brazen advertising and promotion of violence but don't recall doing so in Wendy's case for multiple identities.

My rebuttal of other false claims has been completely ignored so there is not much point in continuing. I'm monitoring what goes up in case there is someting actually worth commenting on.

I have the impression that Benny_Sampson who was heavily involved in the original carpark was with PALE (but am not certain of that).

Don't fret too much. Whilst I don't enjoy having people think I've set out to harm PALE I don't see that anything said here will change the beliefs some cling to.

R0bert