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

JO4

Thanks. I know you are aware of my position as you were on a thread G.N. decided to delete,' in part' by a G.N. member naming another as a sort of troll, which I gather is against Forum Etiquette.

I am simply saying had the thread carried on then other G.N's could have made their own adault decision as to who they agreed with. I for one can cope with someone calling me me names and disagreeing with my view, just as long as I am allowed to defend myself or my point of view.This cannot happen if a thread is removed. It also makes other G.N's wonder what 'terrible' words were said and they will probably continue with their view of things in their own head. That is just as bad as in my opinion, possibly worse, especially for the accused member. If no complaint has been made, just let it run a while, it will die a death anyway.

I do, as I say, understand G.N. position and if they remove a thread it must have been in their opinion potential for trouble.

I see what you're saying, lily, and I agree with you. Trouble is, people have different conceptions of what "saying it how it is" means. For some people what seems like a pefectly ordinary way of speaking, may seem like a horrid way of speaking to someone else. Sorry to keep going back to "That Man" but he's a good example to use. People often accuse him of being strident, aggressive, and so forth. He isn't. He's actually a very polite man. But why beat about the bush? If you feel something is plainly wrong and have reasons for thinking it, surely it makes sense to say it in a straightforward way that as many people as possible will understand? Whether they agree or not is another matter. Dawkins' aim is to be understood and for people to see why he has arrived at the conclusions he has arrived at in the clearest possible way. Being agreed with is a bonus. But if someone doesn't agree with him, he wants to know why, and what evidence they have for thinking something different. In most cases, they have no evidence so they, perhaps, feel at a disadvantage. I think that is what sparks the feeling of being offended rather than anything their opponent has said, or the way he has said it.

Plenty of people do agree with him so he has that bonus much of the time. Lucky him. But it's largely down to his ability to communicate clearly and without unnecessary padding. He's a good communicator. I admire that even when I don't agree with him.

POGS, when this happened to me Gransnet pointed out that there is no way that they can know for sure if two posters are one and the same person. Apparently you could set up two email accounts. I suppose this is right when you think about it. And adds to the frustration the accused feels!

I don't think it is necessarily the case that one person is simply 'being blunt' and the other party 'takes offence' where none is intended. Any intelligent reasonably sensitive person knows when a 'blunt' comment will give offense. People who pride themselves on telling it how it is get away with it because the rest of us, who are sharper ( see what I did there?) don't challenge them. We should. But assertively, not in a passive/aggressive fashion.

Thus she made a friend, Bags. That's all it takes.

The wife and I...

The wife in this Mormon family are quilting soul-mates and have a lot in common with regard to child-rearing. Her kids were at school with mine in Oxfordshire for a while. That's how we became friends.

I saw she was new, standing waiting in the playground for her kids with no-one to talk to and started chatting. Eventually I said "You must come round for a coffee sometime". Her reply: "We don't drink coffee".

Note the "we".

"Apple juice, then", I said.

Been thinking further while eating my bread and marmalade (the bread machine element seems to have siezed up after eleven years of almost daily service so I'm letting it do the mixing and kneading, then making plaited loaves to cook in the oven; the results are really nice. You needed to know this ).

I remembered something That Man Dawkins said when someone told him that he shouldn't 'attack' religious beliefs because people found them consoling. His reply was this: "I'm not interesting in what's consoling; I'm interested in what's true."

That is blunt. People find bluntness difficult, which is understandable. However, what he said is not offensive. He was simply stating where his interest lies, which is fine. He's not always that blunt, but in any case, there is nothing intrinsically offensive about succinct straightforward honesty, even when other people don't like it. In a recent interview on Swedish and Norwegian TV, where he was speaking to a Mormon rock star (so famous that I've forgotten his name ), RD was pretty forthright about the fact that the inventor of Mormonism was a convicted fraudster so how on earth could people believe his story about how the Book of Mormon came to be written. The Mormon chappie was a little non-plussed. One wonders if he'd ever come across that Truth before. Unfortunately the Mormon had to leave the chat show soon after this exchange. RD had not realised the Mormon would not have time to respond to him (bit mean on the part of the chat show organisers, perhaps, or perhaps they did it deliberately to give Mormon an easy get out from an uncomfortable situation, in which case it was kindly done), apologised to the Mormon on that understanding and shook hands with him. I daresay I can find a link if anyone wants to see this.

My point? What RD said was not offensive but the Mormon could easily have decided to be offended.

To be honest though, Mormons who come out of their comfort zone, must be used to that kind of comment, musn't they? I have Mormon friends in Utah who very rarely mix with people other than Mormons. I was an exception and we're still friends even though they didn't manage to convert me. I think I'm their only non-Mormon friend. Their whole lives revolve around their church, even their work. I suppose it's a bit like an 'open' monastic existence. Lovely people but highly indoctrinated from birth and utterly misguided in their beliefs.

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.

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.

Thanks, MiceElf.

Agora, or, of course, the Academy.

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

It was the forum, wasn't it? Duh

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.

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'.

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!

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.

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

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!

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!.

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

By the CHEESE of course...

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