Talk

Advanced search

a Vote then...post here for a total ban

(32 Posts)
Blandmum Thu 25-May-06 19:12:44

I feel a blanket ban would be the best way forward to help prevent future misunderstandings, and misreadings of posts. The internet is a potentialy 'blunt' form of communication, since inflection and context can be difficult to determine.

I vote for a total ban on discussing the person and her methods.

If you agree please post here....i will set up another post for the alternate view

Piffle Thu 25-May-06 19:13:23

yes indeed neither condemn no recommend

gothicmama Thu 25-May-06 19:14:00

makes sense no shades of grey then

tamum Thu 25-May-06 19:14:18

Mb, I just mentioned on the other thread- we strongly advocated this a few weeks ago, but Justine said she thought it was a silly idea, so I'm not sure we can do it other than as a self-imposed ban. I would personally like to discuss her quite a bit at the moment... [angry}

Saggarmakersbottomknocker Thu 25-May-06 19:14:24

Yes

tamum Thu 25-May-06 19:14:45

I'm so angry I can't do emoticons any more...

JoolsToo Thu 25-May-06 19:14:52

wot about newbies and trolls?

tamum Thu 25-May-06 19:16:29

I think that was part of the argument JT- it would be on ongoing problem unless there was a clear statement at the top of the discussion boards for all to see, but MN Towers are clearly not going to do that.

Crystaltips Thu 25-May-06 19:17:55

MB - not too sure what you are making a reference to ....
What are you wanting banned ??

Have I missed something ?

Angeliz Thu 25-May-06 19:18:31

Absolutely i'm in favour of a total ban. If we can only say positive things then it's very misleading.
(iyswim! )

PiccadillyCircus Thu 25-May-06 19:19:12

Have a look at a long discussion in Site Stuff. Should make things clear.

Crystaltips Thu 25-May-06 19:19:20

ooops ... just clicked ... not really interested in her - so missed all the hoohah .... will skulk off and read the thread

Crystaltips Thu 25-May-06 19:19:35

x-posts

snafu Thu 25-May-06 19:20:56

I think it would be fairly easy to police this wrt newbies. Trolls, well, someone will always try it on but the response will just have to be the same.

I am so angry that it has come to this but I am even angrier about the idea of giving this woman any publicity at all. So, yes, I support a ban.

SaintGeorge Thu 25-May-06 19:22:07

Yes to total ban. Newbies and trolls can be policed and advised by regular posters and swift use of the ! facility.

tamum Thu 25-May-06 19:22:30

I would just like to make it clear that I totally support this personally.

MissChief Thu 25-May-06 19:22:43

don't agree, I'm afraid - I know it's been a complete hassle for MN, but she who cannot be mentioned is so influential whether you agree with her methods or not. All the fundamental stuff of early parenthood - feeding/routines/sleeping/sleeping through/weaning/potty-training etc is there in the books. Even if people haven't read them firsthand they tend to be aware of the methods adovcated and will discuss whether they're "pro" or "con". It would be a real restriction to ban this!

LucyJones Thu 25-May-06 19:24:40

agree wiht MisChief - as far as i can tell she's not sking that we stop criticising her methods, just stop attacking her personally. We should still be allowed to debate her methods on a parenting site

Blandmum Thu 25-May-06 19:24:59

('fort so )

I am unaware of any law that states that a discussion group has to discuss someone.

She cannot complain if no comment is made. Far safer for MN towers.

A shame for those mother who need to get information on this method....not having read or used it myself I cannot comment on its use. But there you go, can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs.

snafu Thu 25-May-06 19:26:22

MissChief, it's too much of a grey area, though, that's the problem. Nothing 'derogatory' can be said, not just 'defamatory' or libellous, and postings on a website are notoriously hard to judge re: tone, intention etc.

So, if that's the case, where will the debate be? It will be incredibly biased and one-sided. Better to not mention her at all, and let people decide for themselves why that should have to be the case...

Piffle Thu 25-May-06 19:26:43

If they need to discuss something unpalletable to others
They may take it to email or msn

Blandmum Thu 25-May-06 19:27:51

Miss chief.

For eample

If someone posted saying

I think this book is the greatest thing since sliced bread'

and another said

'yes, right'

How do you decide if the second post is in agreement or is being sarcastic?

Tinker Thu 25-May-06 19:28:05

But her method polarise people so much. Some people feel very emotional about them that it's quite risky to even allow just discussion of them.

LucyJones Thu 25-May-06 19:28:51

but MB surely it is the personal attacks she is bothered about, not the 'yes right' coments.

Blandmum Thu 25-May-06 19:30:11

But how could you tell that the 'yes right was not derogatory?

She is expecting that as well as banning defamatory threads (which FWIW I think is fair)

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: