Graham - I personally don't think the multiple identity thing is much of an issue, I pointed it out but did not recommend deletion. The rule I'm thinking of is

"- registered user or subscriber services are for one user only and you will not let any other person use your User Password or any registered user or subscriber services;"

As Antje pointed out she apparently typed the message so the rule would not have been broken although the post did not make that clear.

I'm more concerned about the regular claims that the organisation PALE is being attacked when the actions or views of people posting under their name are commented on negatively. Browse their posts and you will see plenty of instances of that. The most recent which I'm aware of is not particularly clear but was in response to a post by Belly http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=993#17512

The message which claimed to be from David CEO of PALE http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=874#17174 also made similar claims and included a reference to lawyers, given that nobody elses occupations were mentioned I'd read that as a veiled threat against a poster.

There have been others where it is made clear that Antje thinks that responding negatively to her comments on almost any topic is an attacking on the protection of animals.

There were suggestions of legal action against myself by members of Wendy's family supposedly for defaming PALE the organisation when I'm fairly confident that I've never attacked the organisation and their work (although I have expressed concern at them allowing Antje to post personal views on a wide range of topics under their name). Their choice but I don't like being accused of attacking their work as a consequence.

In regard to insults it's your site go for it. Personally I've not noticed anything much different on this thread to that which can be found on most threads but I may be to involved in the discussion to be objective.

Cheers
R0bert

Belly,
In answer to your question:
One step at a time, Graham Y has the near correct approach.
Decypher the last five threads and try to understand what is actually afoot here.
In one instance, we have the rantings and ravings of those directly involved with PALE, the opposition defending IT'S rights and before you know it, the thread has become a huge discimination affair that was in fact supposed to have been averted at all costs, we do not need any type of slander nor ugly issue, raising it's ugly head for others to identify and prey on, as many of the users on this thread are doing, you and I and others are doing it at this very moment and I find it very unnecessary.
Take note of what I wrote in my last thread and you will see the truth lies in it's passage.
A lot of people who read these threads, read them word for word and take it with a pinch of salt, then we have those who read between the lines and immediately take words in the wrong context and before you know it, all hell breaks loose.

RObert made a comment and was disliked because of it, like many of us, we tend to always spend time dislodging our feet from our mouths from certain things we said, on the other hand, we have the hard-a*se "bar-stewards" who couldn't give a flying s**t for what they say on these threads, they are not aware there are some fragile people out there, with feelings,... just like you and I.

Now then,
It's a known fact that persons working for and on behalf of animal protection groups, rightists, agency's and the like, are in fact people who have witnessed attrocities, that over time and rightly so, have become hard toward other people and fully against any form of cruelty or misconduct towards animals, there are some groups who hide behind a "name" of some sorts for there own personal gain and if this is the case with PALE, which is clearly a point being highlighted here, amongst other things, then I suggest somebody had better take a step in dismantling this organisation if what is said is true.

"eccentric" aye :)

Graham Young
Thank you for controlling OLO I am sure you have more to do. PALE will try not to offend anybody. We respond if personally attacked to defend our position 'only'. Let OLO run OLO and leave complaints to OLO staff and Director. I doubt Robert will listen to `even you`.

To everybody else-This will be our last post under this thread. [A couple of posts long because I would like to say something nice to each person]

This forum some-bodies business. It’s a political forum. Please let’s not spoil its good reputation by abusing it for school yard standards.

We look forward to seeing you all in other threads and hope we can all make a genuine effort to respect each other and learn from others comments.
PALE has no political agenda and stands apart for from all for that very reason.

SPANKY
You in particular have explained pales position probably better than we ever could have.- Thank you

I don’t know who you are but you have an amazing insight into the awfully political overture to Animal Welfare organizations in Australia.

Yes we stand alone for the Animals. Your ‘correct’ daily we see dreadful things covered up by all sides of Government and Industries [and others]?
We had some wonderful news last week sent with the blessings of the new Australian Mufti. They agree along with Saudi Arabia contacts that Animal Welfare needs a higher priority.

They are going to support our program to assist Aborinal people by reopening pre stunning abattoirs in Australia. They “will” support pre stunning as well plus look at the use of gas to render animals unconscious before having their throats cut.
We need the others to support the HKM proposal working with Muslim leaders of Australia which has been done exclusively by pale. They refuse.

Something`s terribly wrong with politics and Animal groups. In our work we hope to bind even closer friendships with our new Mufti of Australia and our Muslim Australians Aboriginal people. By helping the Animals we help ourselves and this country.
Blessings of peace to all.

1)
This has been a most interesting thread. It has raised issues that I believe had to be validly raised.

At the outset, I will indulge in a little obsequiousness(!). OLO has been a discovery for me; it IS without doubt as someone else has said , the premier debating site in Australia; bar none.

Any of you who do or have belonged to other forums will know that there is frequent criticism of moderator intervention. In my view this treats posters AT TIMES, as children who cannot say one thing out of line. Particularly if the site has a leaning to Right or Left, or whatever other bias. And that IS frequently the case.

Quite simply that is blessédly missing here. There is an excellent leeway to express our views. We are accepted as mature adults with differing views. That is pure joy to me. It IS a privilege.

For the MD. of OLO to post then, is interesting, and pretty obviously considered as necessary.