AIBU by not eeally undersranding the MNHQ Message Deleted message?

(54 Posts)
StNiChaolas Thu 27-Dec-12 19:50:46

"Replies may also be deleted".

I hactually think "resposnses" would be a better word.

LineRunner Thu 27-Dec-12 21:31:51

No we are being semantic.

Hassled Thu 27-Dec-12 21:33:11

grin

RowanTheRedNosedMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 27-Dec-12 21:33:28

Yeah, Maryz is right - that's the situation the wording is meant to deal with

youngermother1 Thu 27-Dec-12 21:40:31

But message 2 is a response, not a reply - so though you say you will delete replies, you actually only delete responses and leave replies alone.
You should do what you say and delete message 1 only.

StNiChaolas Thu 27-Dec-12 21:41:35

WHAAAT?

EmZed is right?

Hold on a duckfeathering minute...

[grr]

MaryChristmaZEverybody Thu 27-Dec-12 22:05:20

arf, younger. I'm sure they would like to delete some of us grin

Thanks Rowan <preens> It took me a while to work it out, but I get it now.

We have to be very careful to say "your posts make you sound like a fuckwit, though I'm sure you don't mean to be" or summat.

Pah, semantic, pedantic, same difference <sticks tongue out at everyone>

youngermother1 Fri 28-Dec-12 00:48:36

I think we are probably being pedantic over semantics.

LittleTownofBethleHelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 28-Dec-12 10:33:44

youngermother1

I think we are probably being pedantic over semantics.

Yes, you blooming well are! Tsk, you lot...

By 'replies', we mean a reply to a (subsequently) deleted post.

So, if I post: "RowanMumsnet, you are a cow"...

... And RebeccaMumsnet replies: "I agree with HelenMumsnet: RowanMumsnet, you are a total cow" or even "Oi HelenMumsnet, what do you mean: RowanMumsnet is a cow?"

...We may well delete RebeccaMumsnet's post as well as HelenMumsnet's post because RebeccaMumsnet's post is repeating the personal attack that HelenMumsnet is making (and which gets her post deleted).

Def a reply situation, IMO <chief MNHQ pedant>

FivesGoldNorks Fri 28-Dec-12 10:36:38

So rowanmumsnet is a cow?

LittleTownofBethleHelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 28-Dec-12 10:38:04

FivesGoldNorks

So rowanmumsnet is a cow?

Only hypothetically <stern look>

FivesGoldNorks Fri 28-Dec-12 10:39:40

Ok so that's a yes
Am ieven close to getting banned?

LittleTownofBethleHelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 28-Dec-12 10:42:22

FivesGoldNorks

Ok so that's a yes
Am ieven close to getting banned?

It can always be arranged...

SantasNaughtySack Fri 28-Dec-12 10:43:44

How about 'quotations may also be deleted'?
<massages temples>

LittleTownofBethleHelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 28-Dec-12 10:44:56

SantasNaughtySack

How about 'quotations may also be deleted'?
<massages temples>

Ah but then some smart alec will wind us up by posting "To be or not to be" all over the shop...

JenFrankincenseAndMyrrh Fri 28-Dec-12 11:00:43

Repeating nortyness will be deleted?

youngermother1 Fri 28-Dec-12 12:09:37

My chambers has reply as 'to say in answer'. If there is no question in the deleted post,how can a response be a reply?

LittleTownofBethleHelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 28-Dec-12 13:23:59

youngermother1

My chambers has reply as 'to say in answer'. If there is no question in the deleted post,how can a response be a reply?

In the same way as if you said, "Lovely weather we're having" and I replied, "Wonderful for ducks."

I believe the key thing is that it's a response/reaction to a previous statement or action, rather than something entirely unconnected.

You can reply to a letter or an email, for example. Or reply with gunfire. In either case, no questions need to have been asked.

MaryChristmaZEverybody Fri 28-Dec-12 13:28:01

No, no Helen, much as I hate to be pedantic, you didn't reply "wonderful for ducks", you responded "wonderful for ducks".

I think.

[baffled]

But gunfire would be quicker, when it comes to some of the threads.

lougle Fri 28-Dec-12 13:39:39

Can we agree on 'posts'? Covers a multitude of scenarios...

StNiChaolas Fri 28-Dec-12 13:44:51

<<sits backs and observes, grinningly, from a safe distance>>

AViewfromtheFridge Fri 28-Dec-12 14:03:02

But the whole idea is that it's a conversation, when you would talk about people replying to something that you said.

lougle Fri 28-Dec-12 14:52:45

mmm, I think Helen ^ retorted^, personally.

LittleTownofBethleHelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 28-Dec-12 15:02:45

MaryChristmaZEverybody

No, no Helen, much as I hate to be pedantic, you didn't reply "wonderful for ducks", you responded "wonderful for ducks".

I think.

[baffled]

But gunfire would be quicker, when it comes to some of the threads.

Reply and respond are synonyms.

<cocks rifle>

LittleTownofBethleHelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 28-Dec-12 15:03:26

AViewfromtheFridge

But the whole idea is that it's a conversation, when you would talk about people replying to something that you said.

Indeed. <hugs AViewfromtheFridge gratefully>

StNiChaolas Fri 28-Dec-12 16:55:06

I never get hugs from HQ.

<<sobs>>

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now