And yet PALE, when CJ tried to stop the thread, you kept commenting. For crying out loud, if you stop posting, it will lose momentum and all go away.

There's been no need for this. Some are of the view that you should change your posting practices, but you feel it's not necessary. Fine. We've established that.

Everything's been said. It's all so stupid, but perhaps you should learn to simply let go.

If you're really worried about all the negative things being said, here's an idea.... stop posting on these two threads! Sheesh.

I have just deleted a comment which could have been interpreted as suggesting that PALE attempted to "bribe" someone. I am leaving PALE's last comment, although it is arguably a breach of the forum rules. I am prepared to have my role scrutinised and to answer questions non-aggressively.

I note that PALE is now threatening legal action. That need not stifle legitimate discussion, but you should all bear in mind that you are responsible for your own comments, and that in the event that the threat is carried through a court has the power to order us to provide them with your personal details.

PALE appear to be alleging bad faith on my part. This is not true, as anyone who has followed these threads over the years should be able to tell.

They also appear to think, when they say "great way to treat a member" that because they paid a membership fee to join The National Forum, publisher of On Line Opinion, that they are owed special privileges on the forum. Any organisation in compliance with The National Forum's objects can join the company. That does not give them special rights in the forum. I moderate this forum on the basis that everyone is equal and will not be swayed because of someone's financial contributions.

PALE also appears to have a problem with The National Forum allowing someone to start a thread which questions what is happening under their identity. I do not agree. They are a public organisation and it is entirely proper that they be subject to legitimate public questioning. In this case RObert was interested in exactly who was posting, and when. It appears to me to be a good question.

Graham
It is is a question that only you can answer.
We followed your intructions to the T

You said in writing that Antje could post as pale but "only Antje".
You also said if we brought up our tag again you would bar us for life
Yet Robert was allowed to bring up that very subject
Knowing we could not protect ourselves!

Graham, I'd like to clarify a point from the last part of your post.

I'm not particularly concerned with exactly who is posting (I keep my own identity private). Rather with being able to differentiate between different users and official organisational viewpoints. P1,P2 & P3 might achieve the same end.

I am concerned that when I express disagreement with the views posted under the name of PALE I get accused of attacking the organisation and trying to undermine their work on animal welfare regardless of the topic being discussed.

I'm concerned that PALE's name is being used to make public statements about my mental health, love life etc and that of other posters.

I think that it would be in PALE's best interest to separate themselves as an organisation from the personal views of whoever posts on other topics but that is their decision.

Mostly I'd like a simple meaningful way of responding to comments without confusion over who I'm responding to.

I noted a possible breach of rules in the opening post, that has been addressed previously both by PALE providing an explaination and by your own earlier post.

R0bert

I stopped posting for a long time because of this.

Much later I asked olo if I could post again.
I was told I could but only as a person not pale.
I was happy to do that but then was accused of posting as a pale person and the mulpile ids came up again.

The same thing happend to another person who posted.

So being told only Antje was allowed to use olo was ok until anybody esle who posted as a person was jumped on by ' Certain" people being accused as really posting for pale.

I used to enjoy olo in the beginng and I wanted to post for the animals live exports.
I have been reading this thread but not posting.
I wanted to let others know who read this outside olo that there is another side to this.
I dont blame them saying they wont discuss this anymore.

Robert
I just saw your post. So the truth finally comes out. It was because I made the comment when you were gong to visit the nice lady
Oh well Robert you have got yourself in a stop now considering you just told me Ishould pass my children back to my X becauseI am re married and we are moving.
From there you flew at pale- clearly because you identied me as a pale person.
I think pale responded to you if I recall by Antje saying Robert You cant Run Peoples lives.
In reference to mental health it was yourself who made comments about Antjes- If I recall now.
However that aside at least you now have told Graham Young the truth,
Thats a start.
So you agree it was always about your on line friendship and that you felt I had made you look rather childish
Because Mr Young that was all it was ever about.
You have caused stress to them to me to Graham because of your own little ego
You can dish it out but dare anybody say in a civil tone
Robert you cant control peples lives.
You encouraged others to call them racist pigs.
Thats ok with you clearly.
PALE can post on any topic and so can I.
I was polite when I said it.
I even left the thread because I did not want to argue.
I think pale the real truth is finally out and I hope olo now see it.