I thought this was a public forum.....(40 Posts)
so how come some posters have the right to close a thread and then repost other peoples threads after editing the posts herself?
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
If you mean the thread about buying a poodle cross, the reason the OP and DBF asked for it to be deleted was because the detailed analysis of the website in question would have shown potential backyard breeders the 'wrong/right' things to say, to hide the real nature of the operation. DBF reposted the very useful tips given by some posters to avoid buying a puppy-farmed dog, but didn't repeat the 'giveaway' signs that other posters (including me - happy to be edited by DBF on this one!) had pointed out.
They would have to have a good reason to initially close the thread and then I suppose there is nothing to stop people re-starting a different thread having copied posts and then be selective about what they post again.
afaik any OP can ask mnhq to pull a thread they started. i have never done it but i assume you would give mnhq a reason why you want it pulled. quite rightly that reason may not be made known
once a thread exists and until it is pulled it is of course public and anyone can cut and paste information contained on that thread. you only need to be a member of MN to post a message. absolutely anyone can read the posts
in this instance the OP and the poster cutting and pasting info have worked in co-operation
i fail to see why that bothers you?
The pulling of the thread is understandable and MNHQ make the final decision but reposting edited threads by another poster .....ok must just be me <wanders of to netmums>
But it was mutually agreed, wasn't it? So there's no real problem. I think it might have been easier to just delete the offending posts, but I didn't see it past the first few posts.
No no no. It only looks like a forum. It's a cult.
well has anything posted could be seen by millions it is not private information is it?
<nods head and silently agrees with my leader showofhands>
Good girl. You're nearly ready for the next level my child.
exactly what you post can be seen by anyone so it should be the posters words not edited by other posters
aah a cult I understand now
the thread was pulled by myself because it contained information which was only given by me which needed to be deleted. the reason dbf has so kindly reposted pretty much the rest of the thread is so none of the information given by other posters was lost. the only inforamtion missing from the rehash is information in my posts. MNHQ do not normally delete threads unless there are personal attacks or racism, this was an exception for reasons which i am sure most of the posters who were on the original thread will understand.
Would it not have been easier to ask for your posts to be deleted though, Dita? Not that I've got any issue with it, I'm just curious. And would you mind PMing me the missing bits, because I am terribly nosey...
VCA - what a shame you didn't have the courtesy to ask Dita or I personally.
I emailed Dita to ask her if she would be willing to ask MNHQ to delete her thread, giving specific and valid reasons for that request, some of which have been identified on here. Others, which are more important to dog welfare even than the reasons given by posters here and which for that reason I'm not prepared to go into, I explained fully and politely to Dita and made it clear that there was no obligation upon her. Because there was quite a lot of this information it was easier by far to delete and start again than to report and have deleted several seperate posts. Deleting individual posts would have made the thread nonsensical in parts.
I assured Dita that if she was happy for me to do so I would ask MNHQ too, with a full explanation and that if she was happy for me to do so I would screenshot the original thread for reference and repost the relevant to puppy farming posts as best I could (although mindful of my limited and slow typing skills) rather than lose all her, and others', valid comments and or lose the important message and advice in the thread altogether by asking for deletion alone. I did this as posters had said that the advice on what to look out for was helpful and for some, insightful.
Dita responded by saying that she was very much in agreement with my reasoning and that she'd sent MNHQ what she described as a very lengthy pm explaining why she was asking them to delete the thread. I'm a rescuer who is involved in AR campaigns against puppy farming and so I do happen to know a bit about this subject.
MNHQ later emailed me to say that they'd deleted the thread. I replied with a thank you - CatherineMN came back to me to say "It's no problem - the thread was certainly an eye opener. So glad you were on hand to help and advise the OP. Mumsnet at is best ".
In keeping with my promise to Dita and MN I re-posted what others had said. Yes, I have edited potentially dangerous remarks. There are genuine reasons for this - Dita knows them, MNHQ knows them and approved the request, I am not going to state them publicly. I also edited out some of the less relevent comments (such as about coat type or a recommendation that Dita opted for a Poodle) including chunks of my own posts in order that the vital points weren't overlooked and also in the interests of some form of brevity, my slow typing, the boredom threshold of those who had read the original thread and the fact that I wanted to get my promise to Dita over and done with so I could medicate my epileptic dog on time.
It might reassure you to know that I had before I read this thread pm-ed a couple of MN regulars who I know to be genuine (ScuttleButter, a respected and knowledgable dog welfare and puppy farm campaiger is one of them) to explain my reasons and what I know. (*Dooin*, you were next on that list lovey but I've been sidetracked!). Without trying to speak for her, I think that ScuttleButter will confirm that my reasons are valid, genuine and made for legal reasons and without malice towards any MNer or any attempt to edit anything which I merely disagreed with and barring acting in the interests of dog welfare I have no "hidden agenda".
If you really want the edited bits on having a Poodle instead of a Doodle (interesting and valid, but I was aiming for brevity and relevance to puppy farmers and how to avoid them) or how Many Tears operates (MY post and important but not relevant to THIS topic), please pm me and I'll email them to you. Having sought politely and obtained from both Dita and MNHQ their permission to avoid mentions of material which could be damaging to canine welfare I will not however be sending you the details which I edited and for which I gave comprehensive and valid reasons for asking to be removed.
aaargh again DBT post is leaning towards the cult idea and no guesses as to the leaders
You asked only some of the posters permission and you chose which threads to copy cut and paste after YOU had edited them.
ok get the picture
she only asked my permission, it was my thread (oh and mnhq). fgs the woman works so hard for dogs, has helped so many of us novices, is ill and has a poorly dog. I could have actually pulled the thread without dbf reprinted all the relevant posts. and she is helping people buy puppies with these posts which is something that we all know for a fact she doesnt agree with.
The picture being, quite clearly, someone who is passionately interested in the welfare of dogs and who is trying to do them, and MN in general a service. And who has gone about dealing with a thread that had a mix of information which could be misused among valuable stuff in a sensible manner (though time consuming to herself) with the full support of the OP and MN.
i just dont see the problem. no-one has been misquoted. some people have been left out, well no-one is under any obligation to cut and past everyones post. no-one has said it is a 100% copy of original thread so no-one has been misled
There isn't a problem, just someone itching.
Join the discussion
Please login first.