Why have you deleted a thread for being 'banal'

[GhastlyMoiraKroesig]

The thread about Colleen Nolan being a dim bulb.

It was a stupid chatty thread about terrible day time TV and presenters and ended up being a reminiscence about children's telly.

Is it because of the CLEARLY tongue in cheek comment in the OP which got people a-froth?

And as it reported by some tiresome dullard because of that?

[ZippityDoodahday]

It was a personal attack though, was it not?

[GhastlyMoiraKroesig]

Deletion message: Message from MNHQ: Apologies we've deleted this for being possibly the world's most banal thread? (are you bored OP?)

If you are going to delete on that basis the whole website is fucked, frankly.

[GhastlyMoiraKroesig]

A personal attack on whom?

The only personal attacks on there were against the OP. And I am pretty certain she wouldn't have reported it.

[GhastlyMoiraKroesig]

And if you mean a personal attack on Colleen Nolan then every single thread which says 'David Cameron is a twat' should be deleted on that basis I.e. Completely unworkable

[LadyBeagleEyes]

I'm puzzled about that too.
What on earth is banal about discussing a bit of telly?
Is this a banned subject now?

[LeGavrOrf]

I would be very interested in knowing the basis of the deletion.

(I am the OP btw, not sock puppeting myself.

[TEErickOrTEEreat]

I missed that. Interesting deletion message.

[LadyBeagleEyes]

And I resent being called banal.
It's vairy rude.

[LeGavrOrf]

And the OP was not trolling.

[KnittingAndCleaning]

Banal, wow!

[LeGavrOrf]

It was on obviously tongue in cheek. And quite frankly the OP had a load of personal attacks.

I would understand if the thread had descended into anarchy and a row but frankly after about 80 posts or so the thread mood changed and it was just chat about telly programmes. And usually MNHQ decide to let threads like that stay.

There was absolutely no need to delete it.

[SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter]

I resent being called banal too - I think my contributions were extremely profound. Particularly my observations about Hartley Hare.

[SoupDragon]

I thought the OP of that was rude and goady [shrug]

[LeGavrOrf]

Yes but nobody was aerated about that any more.

We were being 'banal' apparently. Just talking nonsense about terrible telly from the 80s. And putting a knitting needle up a Play School doll's bottom.

That's pretty much 99% of my contribution to mumsnet classified as banal.

And if we do have a load of new people or lurkers which have found mumsnet due to the dubious penis beaker publicity, they should get used to the place as it stands. Not pander to them.

[LeGavrOrf]

I really wish there was a [shrug] emoticon.

A Gallic shrug one [tant pis]

[SoupDragon]

I don't think an emoticon would convey it as well as [shrug] without [horror] moving

[schwertz]

Didnt see the whole thread, just the first pages.

MNHQ seem to have declared a pa against many posters and the op.

I have realised though that different MNHQ moderators moderate differently from each other.
Some, like Olivia will sit surrounded by pas and do nothing while others are much hotter.

Calling posters banal seems very odd behaviour.

[LeGavrOrf]

Oh no. We can't have moving emoticons, then we would have that one which actually rolls and laughs.

I have been asking for a twat emoticon for years. A two fingers salute one would be good as well.

Never gonna happen.

[LeGavrOrf]

Lol at the exclamation mark. I am always accidentally doing those (how?)

There is no way to use a without it looking passive aggressive tbh.

I am a bit pissed off at being called banal. Rude Sods.

[HereComesHoneyBooBooDragon]

My EDL op was goady as Hell. That didn't get reported


I do think the deletion message was a wee bit off on that one though.

[HereComesHoneyBooBooDragon]

I love my HullyGullyPuppy