It is ridiculous how..........

I have been saying this for ages and ages and GNHQ keep saying it's going to be sorted - but it never is!

Have to keep going back to 'last hour' to find something....

No! I don't like chocolate!

Cheese, though, is another matter.....

I LOVE chocolate, and found myself gawping with watering mouth at the image....and very nearly turned to the cupboard wherein lies a sealed box of Belgian chocolates [greedy emoticon]! glass - Josie's undermining your diet thread!

Ooh! Yes! I am totally distracted.....

By the CHEESE of course...

The chocolate picture is cruel!!!!! And strangely mesmerising.

My name is POGS not LOTUSFLOWER.

I understand that G.N. consider some threads get very upsetting to other G.N.'s but the problem with removing them only serves to allow nasty comments made by some to be seen, plus they get away with their comments and not having to warrent them or apologise for being wrong.

If you are a G.N. who has been maligned by another you have no way of putting your comments onto the thread causing you to be either misjudged or thought to be guilty of what you have been accused of. The reason being the originator of nasty comments will obviously have had time for others to see what they have wrote. By the time the G.N. they have caused offence to manages to reply and set the story straight the thread is removed and they are the looser, both times.

The removal of a thread does mean that the situation is not neccessarily quelled but made worse. I hope G.N. will think of a way to show some empathy with the G.N. who has, for an example maybe been accused of using another name, or worse, allowing them to have their say and challenge the accuser. Surely it is only fair both sides should be allowed to have their say not just the accuser!.

I believe you are POGS and not Lotusflower, POGS. I feel your frustration having been there myself. Gransnet stemmed from Mumsnet, and the website owners had the same policy there. If a thread looks like being at all "unbecoming" to the website itself, it must be got rid of. The website is the most important thing and must be protected. I suppose, well I'm sure in fact, that Gransnet is a business like any other.

GRANSNET - sort yer flippin' technicals out!

The last line POGS had nothing to do with your post by the way.

Obviously I couldn't agree more!

It would be nice if G.N. could actually declare that the G.N. member who has been accused is definately not a troll though Geraldine.

I do however fully appreciate the position G.N. is placed in over this matter, very difficult but as I said the originator of the accusation is seen and the accused has no oportunity to defend themselves if a thread is removed.

Hi
I've been lurking for a few weeks and have just decided to join, but I was wondering what constitutes a 'personal attack'? I'm only asking as I've seen some pretty caustic comments that go unremarked, and others, seemingly innocent, that are immediately branded as being bullying, agressive or offensive. I don't want to upset anyone so help please!

I suppose a remark is offensive if the person it is directed at feels offended!
The problem arises when nasty comments are made in a generalised way, without naming any particular member. Generally, the target is pretty obvious but, when challenged, the person making the comment hides behind the defence 'I didn't refer to anyone in particular'.

I wouldn't agree that a comment is offensive if someone says they are offended by it. That means we all have to 'walk on eggshells' all the time. I think it's important to remember that some people take offence much more readily/easily than others. It could be that they feel they have a position to defend, or they think something important to them is being attacked; I don't really know. But look at the way extremists in Pakistan "took offence" at a girl with mental problems accidentally using some pages of the Koran to light a fire (I say accidentally because the news I've heard is that they could have been planted in her bag; she wouldn't have realised that they were pages of the Koran). The point with those people is that they were looking for opportunities to take offence in order to cause trouble.

Now, I'm not saying that there is anyone on gransnet like that, but that shows one end of the scale. At the other end might be someone who feels that what someone has said could be an attack on something important to them but they accept that the person speaking has a right to hold a different view, and to express it, however distasteful the different view might be to them personally.

What I'm saying is that I don't think "someone finding something offensive" is a good way of judging what is or isn't intrinsically offensive. I don't think saying that an idea or a belief is stupid is intrinsically offensive. I also think that, usually, it's fairly easy to tell whether something has been said with an intent to offend or said in the spirit of robust discussion in an ampitheatre (why did I think of that word?! What was the place in Greek cities that they went to discuss stuff?) of free speech.

I like my father's advice, which was that he felt it is more wrong to take offence when it isn't intended than to give offence. I think that is wise though not always easy to remember in the heat of the moment.

It was the forum, wasn't it? Duh

But that's the Latin word. What was the Greek word for forum?

Agora, or, of course, the Academy.

Thanks, MiceElf.

Sensible words bags. My dad used to encourage us to live and let live, and show tolerance, but remember to speak up when we saw unfairness being done to others.

Oh, dear, of course you are right, Bags, I forgot the grin!
I don't really get upset by remarks obviously aimed at me - I have much more serious problems, but I don't think people should be allowed to get away with generalised insults.