Rules - Mumsnet & Gransnet discrepancies

Fanny I just re read your original post. Deleted for “gossip and speculation” ?.? Come on surely a huge amount of what is posted on GN is either of those or both ?

Then I apologise Janejudge. I thought it was yet another sneery dig at me. My bad.

I wasn’t aware you had apologised NellG. I didn’t go back to the thread., but thank you.

I’m sure this one will be pulled now.

I’ll probably be reported too. That’s how they work.

I apologise too. I hadn't really considered it could be taken another way when I posted

Peaseblossom I think lots of us are feeling quite got at - which I believe was Pippa's point about people feeling good when perhaps they shouldn't/might benefit from a bit of self reflection/reflection.

I will say that I never sneer by intention. If I have ever posted anything that looks like sneering, or ever do, please haul me up. I can be sarcastic and snarky, but again if I am off beam tell me - I usually dont start it, but I do end up in it. If I'm trying to be tongue in cheek I'll usually either post or ?

Fanny I am really really surprised you have had anything removed because to me you are a very well mannered and pleasant person . I guess it is different strokes for different folks. I had my conspiracy theory one about Diana’ s death removed ,also. I still maintain that it is the truth but I won’t repeat because the Tower of London and permanent exile doesn’t appeal.

Done it again. Came back to check on how the chat is going. Last night it was hugs and drinks were out (I think?)

I'm shocked that someone can receive an unsolicited PM. How it it possible to send a PM and not say who it is from? Does the link not pick up the GN poster (username) who sends it? I've presumed this as I've received a few PMs and the email always says which GN it is from.

Anyway - Quite a few have defensively said they didn't send it. No one's ever going to admit to sending what was obviously an offensive PM.

GN's talk guidelines: We take a dim view of mean-spiritedness, ganging-up behaviour and rehashing old arguments GNHQ are obviously looking at this thread. I wonder when they will comment again? I suspect they rely nearly 100% on reports from posters.

I'm like Peasblossom in (foolishly) offering an opinion on one thread but was soon driven off, by a concerted sneery, mocking attack.

Well said NellG particularly about the "lecturing" tone of some posters.

Urmstongran

^If you are someone who is feeling better ask yourself why^

Well that was me last night PippaZ. I even suggested a group hug!

I think I felt better because we were being a tad more open with each other about how we deal with our feelings when we post. I felt a bit better connected with some posters as I now have a better understanding of their thought processes. No bad thing surely? Nothing sinister.

I just happen to think communication is key. It breaks down (maybe imaginary) barriers and promotes a sense of understanding. I now sound like MM so I’ll shut up.

Bet this thread gets pulled later today ....
?

The mods were looking (and commenting) yesterday so it will be on their radar.

I’m pleading guilty to this too. I genuinely wanted some advice as to how to deal with my particular bête noire , the factually inaccurate post. I’m sorry this couldn’t be accepted at face value but it won’t stop my having learned /reflected from this thread

muse, I think Pippa meant that the pm was signed but not requested so she will know who sent it.
I wish she would tell us so that we can all breathe out and also know what we’re dealing with.

Ditto LauraNorder it's caused a lot of upset. Either say it all or nothing at all eh?

I’m with you LauraNorder I think ‘unsolicited’ just meant ‘out of the blue’.

Actually upon reflection the person who sent it knows who they are and may well be feeling (possibly deservedly) guilty. I don’t think it’s a good idea to ‘out’ them now as it’s too late in the day. It seems goadingly unnecessary and somewhat prurient.

I know it wasn’t me. That’s good enough in my books. Sorry you got a mean message PippaZ. I got one once a couple of years and it upset me terribly. Time passed. I got over it.

I’m pleading guilty to this too. I genuinely wanted some advice as to how to deal with my particular bête noire , the factually inaccurate post. I’m sorry this couldn’t be accepted at face value but it won’t stop my having learned /reflected from this thread.

I don't think that asking how to deal with a factually inaccurate post is the problem with this thread, and I certainly take that at face value. It is the 'some posters' digs that I find difficult. 'Some posters' expect facts and figures, 'some posters' make sneery digs', 'some posters use a lecturing tone', that sort of thing.

You said this upthread, and I absolutely agree:
What I’d really like to happen is just less personally driven reactions to people. If a post is personally nasty or mean to someone, it would be nice if more people were willing to call it out and not just let it go because of their own feelings about the poster it’s directed at.

What I would add, though, is that veiled personal reactions are just as bad, or even worse, in my opinion. At least calling someone out on things is honest - posting lists of the types of post you (generic - this is not aimed at you personally at all) find irritating, whether that is people who quote, people who ask for facts, people who sound judgemental, people who post long posts (who moi? ) short posts, whatever - is not. It is passive aggressive at best, and doesn't really move the debate on at all.

Doodle we had to say ‘some posters’ and ‘some threads’ on this thread else we couldn’t say anything about perceived general problems . And I’d like to agree with those who are irritated when posters don’t RTFT and plough in as Nell describes or just repeat points already made several times. This point doesn’t need specific examples of named posters or threads- it’s generic ?

As that was me Doodledog I'll hold my hand up - it wasn't intended to be thinly veiled or passive aggressive. I am just on a final warning form GN and trying to be constructive without naming names and starting flame war. I was just trying to post my observations on reading the kinds of things that often seem to cause the upsets on threads. I can't think of another way of doing it.

My final warning came from me calling someone out directly. It was reported as a personal attack. I don't know and don't need to know by who, that's their business and GN's.

I know, but this vagueness is going on on another thread too, and again people are taking things personally that were not intended as digs against them, but against others. This is exactly what I was meaning in my first post on this thread - it is pointless and just upsets people.

The rule that says we shouldn't refer to other threads, and the vague one about 'mean spirited behaviour' or whatever it is, mean that proper discussion is all but impossible on here, though.

My last post was to SW.

Nell, I didn't mean you in particular - I did a quick trawl through the thread and they were the things that stuck in my mind that were vaguely referring to posting styles.

I haven't seen a thread where you called someone out directly, and if you have been warned for that (assuming you weren't out and out aggressive) then I despair. How can people discuss things on a discussion board where we can't be 'mean' (whatever that means), we can't address the disagreement directly and we can't know what others will see as a personal attack? Maybe some clarification from HQ about what constitutes 'an attack' would be useful - as it is, there seems to be a very loose definition being applied.

I’d love to name the poster who started the bullying posts and the “friends” who joined in.

I wish the thread hadn’t been deleted so people could look back and see what this high-minded person is actually capable of.

I wasn’t even in an argument. She just saw an opportunity to mock and enjoyed her cleverness.

As indeed I’m sure she’s enjoying that I’m still upset about it.

But I guess I’m just having a personally driven reaction.

Doodle ( takes umbrage?) you said not all that thread wasn’t just about me ????

Doodledog I'd agree with that.

I did make a few posts about things I saw as problematic, so wanted to state I'm aware and trying to tread carefully. So no worries ?

I haven’t read all this yet but get the general gist and will only say it wasn’t me guv...honest.

I am just on a final warning form GN and trying to be constructive without naming names and starting flame war

Good grief! Whatever next?
I've always thought your posts were very reasonable NellG unless I missed something.
If I did miss something it must have been a very brief encounter, surely not enough to warrant a final warning.

Apparently not Callistemon - and in all fairness to GN I broke the rules. So unless I've misunderstood the email then yeah, I believe so.

It's getting the point where I may well save them the bother! But I was stupidly optimistic that all this discussion would improve things on here, but apart from a few exceptions it would seem not. Told you my brain doesn't work right! ?

I would be genuinely sorry to see you go NellG as I for one see you as an asset to this site. Please rethink about leaving whenever this enters your thoughts as you would be very much missed.

Cheers Kalu still here!

I’m honestly a bit confused as to what we are discussing on here ?
Too much reporting ? I’d say there must be if Nell has ended up with a yellow card
Some oversensitive people ? Probably.
Is there gossip and speculation ? Of course !! But I never knew it was banned.