Do I have the right to know my mother's medical arrangements?

Baggs yes I do think it’s discourteous to the forum to simply repeat what another poster has already said, without adding anything to the discussion or offering a different perspective.
Of course threads vary in their seriousness, and perhaps it doesn’t matter so much on the lighthearted ones.

Not if the repeater doesn't know they've repeated something someone else has said. I think you are taking an over-censorious stance and apparently assuming people do it on purpose. I daresay that happens sometimes but I think that's rare.

I've often come across several posts in the same thread essentially saying the same thing. It has never bothered me when I happened to be the first to say something. I think most Gransnet posters (most people in fact) are naturally polite.

Besides, the same thing is never said in the exact same words.

Repeats don't matter on the threads on which they most commonly occur: those expressing sympathy.

Hardly light-hearted!

I think the point on this thread in particular is not so much that people have the same point of view. After all, there are really only two points of view - that I was right to be concerned or that I wasn't .

My point was that it would be discourteous of me, as the OP, not to answer questions that people asked on the thread, but I lost count of how often I was saying the same thing only to see, two posts later, another person asking the same questions.

Baggs, you mention people feeling ignored, but surely the worst way to be ignored is to take time to post a considered reply to someone, only to see that someone else posts the same thing five minutes later and people pick up on that response but not on yours?

As someone who has posted on forums for a long time I am fairly thick skinned, but for those who may have lurked for a while before plucking up the courage to join in it can be really hurtful to have this happen, and people have posted to say that they are leaving as a result. At best, it can be off-putting, and discourage people from bothering to say more than 'I agree', which defeats the point of a discussion forum.

Yes, on sympathy threads there will be repetition, as there is not much more to be said, really, but people want to show solidarity and express their condolences. I don't think that is the same thing at all.

Anyway, I am not the thread police, and it seems that there are two schools of thought about reading the threads, so I'm sure everyone will continue to do whatever they think best.

Baggs, you mention people feeling ignored, but surely the worst way to be ignored is to take time to post a considered reply to someone, only to see that someone else posts the same thing five minutes later and people pick up on that response but not on yours?

This has happened to me a few times, doodledog. It didn't bother me in the slightest and I certainly didn't care if what I'd said —note that I'm saying "what I'd said" rather than "I"— appeared to have been ignored. It's just as likely it had simply been missed. On a forum containing thousands and thousands of members appearing to have what one has said ignored or missed is really not a big deal.

It's not about being thick-skinned; more about not taking accidentals of post similarities personally as if someone was doing it deliberately to annoy you. Even if someone was, why would one care about someone with that attitude? Shrug, hey-ho and move on works pretty well.

I think you are taking an over-censorious stance and apparently assuming people do it on purpose.
I don’t censor other people’s posts Baggs.
Nor did I imply that people were repeating others’ posts on purpose.
Discourtesy isn't usually intentional - if it were, that would be deliberate rudeness rather than mere discourtesy.

Baggs, the fact that you didn't care can't be projected onto others, though. I don't think you can assume that 'it's not about being thick skinned' (or it's not about anything else) either, really. There have been posts from people saying that they are leaving Gransnet because they feel ignored, so it does matter to some people, which is all I am saying.

I also think that you are misinterpreting janeainsworth's points, and putting words into her mouth.

I think that when a thread runs to 6 pages, the next poster just reads the OP and responds to that, they don’t bother to read all of the other posts,
if they did they would know that quite often the problem has either been resolved 2 pages back or that the OP has provided further info and of course that others have all said exactly the same thing.

It would be helpful if the OPs replies were also in green......

I agree that it would be easier if the OP's replies stood out more, Oopsadaisy.

I wonder if because we see our own posts in pink it might makes us feel that others should be able to see how often we have said things, when it's less easy for everyone else because the OP posts don't stand out.

I used the word censorious to mean "expressing censure [not censoring] or blame" or "fault-finding" (Chambers) after reading posts that I thought were complaining in tone, where "censure" means to form or give an unfavourable opinion or judgment of/to blame/to condemn as wrong.

If that's not what was happening then I must have misunderstood.

----

Your point about not minding something not being projectable is true, doodledog. It is something one can learn though. I saw this as someone who has. Things on Gransnet threads used to upset me a lot more than they do now. That could be thick skinnedness but I think it's more about detachment.

---

I'm glad someone gets it oops. I was thinking a little while ago also that when it is a very long thread, even if one reads it all, it's easy to miss something because of not maintaining concentration. That happens to me anyway.

*say, not saw

Baggs According to the Oxford Dictionary, 'censorious' is the adjective derived from the noun 'censor' and the verb 'to censor'.
A censor, it says, inter alia, is 'person expressing opinions on other's morals and conduct'.
To censor means to act as a censor, or to make deletions or changes.
'Censorious' means 'fault-finding, severely critical'.
It doesn't give a definition for 'over-censorious' but I think it is an exaggerated and unjustified criticism of anything I have ever written on Gransnet.

At least we agree about the meaning and derivation of censorious, janea.
In my opinion your views on this thread seemed prescriptive about how others should post and “fault-finding” if your prescription was not followed. To me that is censorious for an informal chat forum.

I have no objection to anyone conducting their responses in what you seem to regard as the correct way. I don’t mind a more relaxed approach though whereas it seems you do.

I tend to agree with baggs.
I don't want to have to check if what I'm posting is acceptable to everyone here, or thank people for having a similar opinion to mine.

Baggs so have I got this right?
When I say I’m mildly irritated when people repeat what I’ve said a few posts back on the same thread, that is over-censorious.

But when you make a personal criticism of me , that’s ok??

I don't see anything wrong with this situation. A message was left asking you to call them about your Mum. There was no information about the patient or the medical matter- or even that it was your Mum as far as an outsider would probably know. You have obviously been listed as a contact, presumably by your mother and, to me, this gives consent for you to know about her medical matters if necessary, however, in this case there was no information given about the matter - just a request to contact the caller.

Anyone has the right to keep things to themselves, but in your case your mother has already given consent by giving your details as a contact. While the situation may not be perfect, if the boot was on the other foot and there was a need for you - or anyone else - to be contacted and were not then you would be displeased about that.

It didn’t read as mild to me, janea. That might be my fault. Quite a few people complain about others not reading whole threads and so on and that gets noisome.

I did not criticise you. I said that I thought the stance you were taking was over-censorious. Perhaps I should’ve made that clearer by saying that the criticism of other people's posting techniques when they are not breaking Gransnet forum posting guidelines is censorious.

Some people scoff at this difference (between criticism of a person and criticism of the point of view they are defending; after all, one can argue a case one doesn’t agree with for debating purposes) but it’s an important distinction to make and I am usually pretty careful about it.

spice101, I get that and agree while also getting the OP's concern about confidentiality. I think that though it is there for good reasons the confidentiality rule can be a blunt instrument. That doesn’t make it a bad thing to base our behaviour on.

Baggs Criticising someone’s stance is not different from personal criticism, IMHO.

Sorry I am not going to continue arguing with you.
I find your criticism a bit much, coming from someone who in the past has spoken out in favour of free speech & against ad hominem arguments.

Objecting to what someone has said is not the same as objecting that they have said it. You exercised your freedom of speech and so did I. Neither of us tried to stop the other from saying what they wanted to say. We just disagreed about the subject.

Arguing is not anti free speech.

PS Thanks for the debate. It has clarified some ideas for me.