Lyle Shelton’s latest tamtrumette

May 2, 2019

Has anyone noticed that Lyle Shelton always manages to turn everything around and make it about him?

My article Lyle Shelton calls the police puts Lyle’s silly trantrumette into perspective.


Graham Young admits gay activists brought him to his knees

Apr 16, 2019

Who would have thought that gay activists could have sucked dry Graham Young’s rivers of advertising gold:

While On Line Opinion may have contributed to some small softening of political debate, that would be impossible to detect compared to what social media has licenced.

In 2010 we were the subject of an advertising boycott, organised by gay activists, which destroyed the business model of the site. (Read the full details here.) Our sin was that we published this article by Bill Muehlenberg as part of a feature containing 25 articles on gay marriage, 75% of which were in favour of it.

But to activists 75% is not enough. It has to be 100%, so in a technique, since used by organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Sleeping Giants, our advertisers were targeted to pressure us to stop publishing anyone who disagreed with the activists. $17,000 income from advertising in the month of November 2010 went to virtually nothing in January 2011.

The same thing is being done to Rugby Australia over Folau, but instead of protecting his human rights, RA is caving in.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20260&page=0

He gives a lot of credit to these gay activists for their actions. But stop for a minute and think about what he’s saying.

These activists approached his advertisers with a simple request not to advertise on his site, and they made an informed decision not to place their brand amongst the content he chose to publish.

Short of taking credit for the distasteful content his advertisers chose to avoid, be blames homosexual people for daring to take exception to homophobic content he published.

If there ever were the monthly thousands pouring into the On Line Opinion coffers that Graham Young claims, the fault lies at his feet for not having done the necessary risk analysis to cater for the day he might not have the loyalty of his most profitable advertisers. After all, they’re only trying to protect their brand from being tarnished by the toxic content he was publishing.

And that’s exactly what Qantas is doing by not wanting to have their brand tarnished by the homophobia emanating from Rugby Australia’s midst.

Hark Graham: Don’t be surprised when your pro-gay advertisers object to your homophobic opinion.


POSTSCRIPT

After I published this article Chrys Stevenson contacted me and brought to my attention the following extract from her 12-Feb-2011 blog MY FREE SPEECH FIASCO, which paints a different reality to that which Grahan Young believes occurred:

So, when I heard that Graham was being persecuted for publishing an anti-gay marriage article by Catholic conservative, Bill Muehlenberg, I was outraged.  I disagree with everything Muehlenberg said in the article, but, in the cause of free speech, I supported his right to put his point of view, and Graham’s right to publish it.  Muehlenberg’s article is highly selective, makes some ridiculously broad assumptions and is clearly biased.  On the other hand, it is reasonably well written and, while being critical of what he sees as homosexuals’ proclivity for infidelity, he doesn’t (in my view) directly vilify GLBTI people, either as individuals or as a group.


The story I heard, initially, was that someone had taken offence at the article, complained to some of the advertisers on the site (specifically IBM and ANZ) and that these companies had removed their ads – at significant financial cost to Online Opinion.


Impulsively, I contacted Graham and offered my support.  I also did a quick survey of articles about same-sex marriage on Online Opinion and found that pro-gay articles far outnumbered anti-gay articles.  There was no question of anti-gay bias.


Graham then made me aware of an article about the incident on the gay online journal, SX.  The story suggested the problem was not so much Muehlenberg’s article, as Graham’s failure to remove an offensive comment, by ‘Shintaro’ on another article which suggested that gays should either stay in the closet or be murdered.  Graham protested that he hadn’t removed the comment because it had been taken out of context.  He provided me with the link and I satisfied myself that the person who posted it was not advocating violence at all; he was pro-gay and anti-violence and the comment was intended to show where the anti-gay rhetoric in the discussion could lead.


Now, in high dudgeon at the injustice of it all, I posted a comment on SX defending Graham and Online Opinion and I wrote an email to a number of influential bloggers and columnists suggesting that they join me by writing in Graham’s defence.


Graham emailed back saying, in effect, “Nice email, but the facts are wrong.”


It seems that in my rush to play the part of Crusader Rabbit,  I hadn’t done my homework on the issue thoroughly enough, and Graham had (quite rightly) assumed that I had.  The advertising, it seems,  wasn’t lost because of the comment mentioned on SX, it was withdrawn because of another comment altogether.  This comment read:


“It’s interesting that so many people are offended by the truth. The fact is that homosexual activity is anything but healthy and natural. Certain lgbt’s want their perversion to be called “normal” and “healthy” and they’ve decided the best way to do this is have their “marriages” formally recognised. But even if the law is changed, these “marriages” are anything but healthy and natural. It is, in fact, impossible for these people to be married, despite what any state or federal law may say.”

Posted by MrAnderson, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:09:39 AM


A gay reader brought the comment to Graham’s attention and asked for the reference to the ‘perversion’ of LGBT people to be removed.  Although Graham did not agree with the remark, he felt that it was a view which was commonly expressed among a minority of Australians, which did not incite violence, and which would have been acceptable (if widely condemned) in a parliamentary debate.  Given his commitment to free speech, Graham refused to delete it.


Having been rebuffed by Graham, the reader then decided to complain to the site’s advertisers.  Someone within IBM (it is not clear whether it was the same person) also complained to their management.  As a result, IBM and the ANZ decided to withdraw their advertising from Online Opinion and a number of other advertisers followed.  Sadly, as Online Opinion is part of an advertising co-operative, this meant that other bloggers also lost a substantial amount of their income, despite having nothing to do with Graham’s editorial decisions.


Now I was in a quandary.  In fact, I felt like I’d been hit with a ton of bricks.  All day I’d been sending supportive emails to Graham and shouting loudly from my ‘freedom of speech’ soap-box.  He thought I was an ally.  I thought I was an ally!  Now I realized I’d gone off half-cocked and, with this new information to hand, I felt I couldn’t defend Graham’s actions.  I felt sick, conflicted and embarrassed.  OK, I felt stupid.  I’d emailed all these people and said ‘stand up for freedom of speech!’  Now, if I was to be true to my own moral compass, I was going to have to write back to them and say, “Given new information to hand, I’m no longer standing up for free speech.”  I wished that a large black hole would just open up and consume me right then and there.


When I told Graham that I could no longer speak out publicly in his defence, he said I didn’t understand what free speech means.  Perhaps he was right.  I support free speech within limits, but not untrammeled free speech.  Perhaps that’s a terrible cop-out.  Perhaps it is ideologically unsound.  All I know is that every ethical atom of my being was screaming at me that I couldn’t defend the right of anyone to call a gay person perverted.  Nor could I support the decision not to delete a comment which was not only highly offensive, but, given the weight of expert medical and sociological opinion, patently untrue.


https://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/my-free-speech-fiasco

How I got my latest 30-day Facebook ban

Aug 13, 2018

On July 14 Facebook rewarded me with another 30-day ban for posting this story and accompanying comment, which apparently breached their “Community Standards”.

20180714 Pink Apostates post gets me a 30 day ban on Facebook

I was not actually told which part of my post breached their standards, so am unclear about what I shouldn’t write in future.

These insane 30-day bans make no sense, and with no practical appeal process the entire exercise is a complete farce.


Lyle Shelton scores a hat trick against himself

Jun 10, 2018

“To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.” — Oscar Wilde

In the wake of the deregistration of Lyle Shelton’s domain names lyleshelton.com.au and lyleshelton.net.au, and his subsequent claim this was an attempt to silence him, it’s interesting to note that he made no such fuss when his domain lyleshelton.org.au was also recently deregistered.

The Internet Archive shows us the presence of the domain lyleshelton.org.au:

lyleshelton.org.au scanned five times by Internet Archive April 11-19 2018

Lyle Shelton had been publishing articles under lyleshelton.org.au, in parallel with publishing them on lyleshelton.com.au, evidenced by records of posts received via RSS subscription between April 12-20 2018:

April 12 2018
http://www.lyleshelton.org.au/why_truth_should_always_trump_prejudice

April 16 2018
http://www.lyleshelton.org.au/consequences_what_consequences

April 18 2018
http://www.lyleshelton.org.au/this_pathway_to_totalitarianism_must_be_reversed http://www.lyleshelton.org.au/qld_education_minister_drops_truth_bomb_about_safe_schools

April 20 2018
http://www.lyleshelton.org.au/here_s_what_the_chronicle_is_saying_about_my_call_for_conservatives_to_be_conservatives

On April 23 2018 the domain lyleshelton.org.au was no longer able to be reached:

lyleshelton.org.au domain can't be reached April 23 2018

The WHOIS record for lyleshelton.org.au indicated on April 23 2018 that it was in a pendingDelete (Client requested policy delete) status, effective April 20 2018:

Whois response for lyleshelton.org.au:

Domain Name lyleshelton.org.au
Last Modified 20-Apr-2018 14:10:06 UTC
Status pendingDelete (Client requested policy delete)
Registrar Name GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrant Whitestone Strategic Pty Ltd
Registrant ID ACN 618607051
Eligibility Type Other
Registrant Contact ID CR315360472
Registrant Contact Name David Hutt
Registrant Contact Email david.hutt@whitestonestrategic.com
Tech Contact ID CR315360477
Tech Contact Name David Hutt
Tech Contact Email david.hutt@whitestonestrategic.com
Name Server ns10.nationbuilder.com
Name Server ns11.nationbuilder.com
Name Server ns12.nationbuilder.com
Name Server ns13.nationbuilder.com
Name Server ns14.nationbuilder.com
Name Server ns15.nationbuilder.com
DNSSEC unsigned

auDA says of the pendingDelete (Client requested policy delete) status:

Domain names that are deleted due to a breach of an auDA Published Policy will transition from a “Registered” to a “Pending Policy Delete” state at the time the deletion command is submitted by the registrar. At this time, the domain name will be published on the Official Domain Drop List for 14 calendar days after which it will be purged at the next drop cycle.

auDA policy states of a .org.au domain name:

SCHEDULE F

ELIGIBILITY AND ALLOCATION RULES FOR ORG.AU

The org.au 2LD is for non-commercial organisations.

The following rules are to be read in conjunction with the Eligibility and Allocation Rules for All Open 2LDs, contained in Schedule A of this document.

1.  To be eligible in the org.au 2LD, registrants must be non-commercial organisations as follows:
a) an association incorporated in any Australian State or Territory; or

b) a political party registered with the Australian Electoral Commission; or

c) a trade union or other organisation registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009; or

d) a sporting or special interest club operating in Australia; or

e) a charity operating in Australia, as defined in the registrant’s constitution or other documents of incorporation; or

f) a non-profit organisation operating in Australia, as defined in the registrant’s constitution or other documents of incorporation.

2.  Domain names in the org.au 2LD must be:

a) an exact match, abbreviation or acronym of the registrant’s name; or

b) otherwise closely and substantially connected to the registrant, in accordance with the categories of “close and substantial connection” set out in the Guidelines on the Interpretation of Policy Rules for the Open 2LDs.

The domain name lyleshelton.org.au appears to have breached all the auDA requirements of a .org.au domain name.

Lyle Shelton lost his lyleshelton.org.au domain name due to breach of auDA policy.  The registrant for the domain name, David Hutt, would have been notified of this in advance of the domain being taken offline.  Clearly David and Lyle weren’t able to sort out the discrepancies with their two other domain names before they were also found to be in breach of auDA policy.


Pogo (Nick Bertke) admits homophobia

Jun 2, 2018

Lyle Shelton. Always the victim.

May 20, 2018

… home addresses put on the internet by one of your team …

Background here.


Yarra City Council and PayStay have refunded in full the parking fees they charged me on the ANZAC Day public holiday

May 5, 2018

On ANZAC Day I parked in PayStay zone 33331053, in the vicinity of 193 Brunswick Street Fitzroy, clocking up a fee of $7.46. Whilst I suspected the parking should be free in that zone on a public holiday I noticed a nearby car parked in the same zone had bought a parking ticket from the machine and so to be on the safe side I decided to activate my PayStay app.

This is the transaction details for my parking period:

PayStay parking fee 25 Apr 2018

Later on I looked up the Yarra City Council website to check the situation regarding parking on a public holiday:

Parking on public holidays / For parking signs that state days of the week, parking and time restrictions on the signs do not apply on a public holiday.

I then emailed PayStay to enquire if their app should let me activate a parking period during a time that Yarra City Council says should not need to be paid for. I received a response saying the app should not let me pay if payment was not required:

In that situation if the spot you’re parking in doesn’t require you to pay it will show a message informing you that you are not required to make a payment. All information provided on the app is provided from which ever council covers where you were parking.

I then went back to zone 33331053 to check the parking signs and saw they do state days of the week:

Zone 33331053 / 2P TICKET / 7AM - 6PM MON - SAT

Zone 33331053 / 2P TICKET / 7AM - 6PM MON - SAT

Having read the Yarra City Council policy on parking on public holidays, and having clarified with PayStay how their app should work, it would appear there is an inconsistency somewhere that amounted to me being charged $7.46 on the ANZAC Day public holiday when I believe I should not have been required to pay anything.

By extension, other people using PayStay in that Yarra City Council zone (or other similar zones) on ANZAC Day (or other public holidays) may also have been billed for their parking when they oughtn’t have been.

On May 2 I emailed Yarra City Council requesting a full refund of my parking fees.  On May 10 I received a written reply as below and a full refund of my fees.

Yarra City Council parking fees refunded May 10 2018

I have asked Yarra City Council if PayStay will , in the future, allow a fee to be charged on a public holiday in a fee-exempt zone.  I have also asked if they will issue refunds to all people who they took money from on ANZAC Day (and all other public holidays) in that and other similarly fee-exempt parking zones.


%d bloggers like this: