Taryn, you and Antje both seem to overestimate the effectiveness of Antje attempts at abuse and insult. Her claims about control were more amusing than bothersome. I was much more bothered by the scale of the hypocracy in Antje taking someone else to task for making comments personal. The control statement was a fresh reminder of Antje's frequent use of personal attack in posts rather than the reason for the post.

In my view the post I made on that thread while slightly off topic was a legitimate follow on from the post by Antje. Perhaps you could take her to task for her off topic post on that thread if the issue is of such concern to you. If Boazy is bothered by my post not being right on topic he can comment but I think that he honest enough with himself to recognise that he would not be in a strong position on that score. It may be a case of the pot calling the pot black for both of us on that one. Actually if Boazy will promise never ever to post off topic again he may have my most profuse apology for my transgression on the thread he started.

By the way can you, Antje or David please answer a question. When a post comes in under the name of "People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming" does it represent the official viewpoint of that organisation on that issue of is it Antje's opinion?

I have always assumed that the posts represented Antje's opinion and have responded accordingly but the ongoing suggestion by your self and Antje that your orgainsation is being attacked by myself lead me to believe that you and Antje regard those posts as the official position of the organisation "People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming" on issues such as residency laws, hospital treatment for people not born here, the threat posed by muslims, politics, my finances and love life, my and CJ Morgans mental health etc.

R0bert

Hehe, not much changes on the Pale threads. It seems to me that
if these girls arn't squabbling with somebody, they might be
bored!

Taryn, yet another point in one of your posts that I'd not addressed earlier.

"Robert thinks I should have to now choose between my new husband and my kids. I didn’t ask him for his input. " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=989#17465

Taryn, if you read back through that thread you will note that you choose to put your circumstances up on a public thread, my response to what I understood of your circumstance was supportive and your friend Antje then asked me a specific question regarding my views and a different interpretation of your situation. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=874#15962

I kept my answer general and avoided as far as practical reference to your specific situation. I've no interest in causing you unnecessary hurt but nor do I feel a need to change my views because they may distress someone.

I reread those posts because I was concerned that Antje may have introduced your situation into the thread and that I may have commented on it without your consent for your situation to be in the discussion. That is not the case.

Perhaps you should discuss with Antje her decision to press for an opinion regarding your situation instead of my attempts to keep the answer general rather than specific to your situation.

Later in the discussion I accept that I was more specific, if I have given offence for comment on your specific situation rather expressing my viewpoints on the overall topic I apologise for that. If you are upset because my viewpoints don't suit you then sorry but thats life.

R0bert

Ever read the credit section at the end of a movie, where it states:
"All names used in the making of this film are fictitious", "names and places names changed to protect the innocent", "anything resembling the nature of this film has no bearing on anyone and is purely coincidental"

This is exactly how this thread is supposed to work, any resemblence in these threads to anyones private lives, doings and/or way of life, has nothing to do with what is written in these passages and should always be taken as coincidental.

These threads are made up of words put together by a fictitious name, no face, no addresses, absolutely without curriculum and identification, only thoughts of others relating to others without knowing who they are talking to,..thats all.

Come SPANKY read the whole thread, review the two threads that are mentioned here.
Understand the threats both Lady's have used, understand the very near deliberate lie that this thread is anti pale.
Is that the group, one member or more who are we said to be discriminating against.
Is the confusion of this David posting as pale CEO not worthy of investigation?
Is every word pale prints the thoughts and views of that group or just one rather abrupt lady?
And gate crashing a David Boaz thread? how can that be done? tell me how?
BD your God has no part in this debate, you mean well but it is about openness and good manners while you have been close to pale in some threads you have like most of us got the Sharpe side of bitter words too.
Is it pale the group who thinks like those words or just one[or more?] who post under that name.
PALE is an animal rights group, is it wise to have every person in that group held responsible for such posts?
Again judging on what I read here pale is a poorly run group unable to focus on its main reason to exist, unconcerned at its public image, and far too often uses insults rather than debate.

I WOULD ASK POSTERS TO LOOK AT PALES LAST TWO POSTS IN RUDD ENDANGERING AUSTRALIA OR SOME SUCH.
I will make every effort to reduce my heat and pain
the forum comes first however can we take the group known as pale on face value?