Gransnet forums

News & politics

Come on you Daily Mail supporters

(141 Posts)
bluebell Thu 03-Oct-13 20:44:09

You are being very quiet!!! How dare they - a memorial service. An apology does not cut it!

j08 Sat 05-Oct-13 22:35:44

My threads belong to me. Def!

j08 Sat 05-Oct-13 22:34:56

petallus I am sooo sorry if the thread title offended your literary sensibilities! That was never my intention! grin grin wink

petallus Sat 05-Oct-13 22:03:33

Thanks merlotgran

merlotgran Sat 05-Oct-13 21:47:55

Alliteration

Ana Sat 05-Oct-13 21:47:12

I thought it was burka. I just copied when...hmm

petallus Sat 05-Oct-13 21:44:25

The title of the thread does.

Aka Sat 05-Oct-13 21:42:28

grin

petallus Sat 05-Oct-13 21:41:13

What's that word that means making an impact through the use of a string of words all beginning with the same letter of the alphabet?.

absent Sat 05-Oct-13 21:40:03

I thought it was burka not hijab but the objection to the phrase fucking burka/hijab in the title of the thread was that it could be interpreted as a pejorative comment about the piece of clothing (which wasn't the intention of the OP). Presumably, anyone who saw it in that light wouldn't want to read the thread – which turned into something pretty unreadable anyway.

Do threads belong to the OP? Discuss.

petallus Sat 05-Oct-13 21:39:37

It was 'fucking burka' not hijab. I remember thinking that the OP should have said 'bloody burka' because it has more of a ring to it.

Ana Sat 05-Oct-13 21:28:10

Why is it OK to say 'fucking hijab' in a post but not in a thread title?

A google search would surely reveal all anyway? confused

j08 Sat 05-Oct-13 21:25:27

Bluebell won't mind if you get her thread deleted. smile

j08 Sat 05-Oct-13 21:23:10

Email, that was.

Ana Sat 05-Oct-13 21:23:09

Lovely, jingl! smile

Riverwalk Sat 05-Oct-13 21:22:59

When lots of words would stand out to anyone taking a glance - is that a reason to censure?

Is it too much to expect someone to read the whole thread in order to get the gist of things?

We're not supposed to discuss other threads - a deletable offence. I wonder if that applies to threads that no longer exist! hmm

j08 Sat 05-Oct-13 21:21:54

The one I got this morning I think was from Kat. Nice and friendly.

Ana Sat 05-Oct-13 21:21:38

Hmm...

j08 Sat 05-Oct-13 21:19:41

How do you manage to hold all this stuff in your brains for so long? confused

Amazing!

Aka Sat 05-Oct-13 21:16:28

hmm

whenim64 Sat 05-Oct-13 21:15:07

Riverwalk the two words were juxtaposed and yes, were part of a longer title, but would stand out to anyone taking a glance, and certainly would cause offence to some. GNHQ made the decision. I didn't report it myself, but watched the discussion develop into a car crash. I think we have to take some responsibility to write opinion in a way that allows debate to continue, but I can accept that not everyone has this view.

j08 Sat 05-Oct-13 21:11:34

Or Charlotte.

j08 Sat 05-Oct-13 21:11:12

You reading this Cari, Kat, and the dreaded Lara?

j08 Sat 05-Oct-13 21:09:52

Don't mind me by the way. smile

j08 Sat 05-Oct-13 21:08:51

The whole thread?!

The trouble with GNHQ is that there is no one person at the top any more. I think perhaps one of them decides something but then heads go together, virtually speaking, and a different conclusion is reached.

I find it quite fun, guessing who sent each particular email to me.

Riverwalk Sat 05-Oct-13 21:06:11

When there was no such phrase 'fucking hijab' - those two words were part of a longer title of a thread which was perfectly reasonable.

The OP was trying to say that there were more important things to be angry about than the wearing of a headscarf.

Changing the thread title was patronising in the extreme.