A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)

[Mummy195]

@rousette

I'm sure you won't mind that your excellent link gets 'pinned'.

Some of the things MM did before marrying H.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282990766097301504.html

[TofinoSurf]

There's already a H&M thread running.
MNHQ have made it clear they one want one thread to help with moderation.

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/theroyall_family/3980212-Even-More-News-on-Harry-and-Meghan

[TofinoSurf]

*only want one

[Mummy195]

Well, this is not a thread to slag off H&M.

Totally different.

[MichaelMumsnet]

We're fine with this long-running thread continuing.

To clarify, here's an outline of our approach:

For now, we are going to limit the number of threads running about Meghan Markle.
We will keep all discussion to one or two threads, and will look very carefully at reports about overt or covert racism. We will also be minded to delete bottom-feeding internet rumours (although not, to be clear, posts about stories that have appeared in mainstream outlets) - so again, please do report any you see.

[TofinoSurf]

Absolutely bloody ridiculous @mnhq. You're making the 'rules' up as you go along! There only ever were 'two' threads. A positive one and a more critical one. I thought the whole point of only having one thread running (which you've used as a reason to delete many threads, including a line of succession one) is to avoid the positive and negative split. Maybe the other thread would be seen as less critical if everyone that had an interest in H&M discussed on the same thread no matter what their stance.

[WurraBurra]

What does bottom feeding mean?

[ButteryPuffin]

Agree with @TofinoSurf above

It's worth noting that MN have said material from 'mainstream outlets' is fine to post. So while posters may or may not like particular popular newspaper sites, it is misleading to suggest their links can't or shouldn't be posted here. MN have given it the all clear.

[Mummy195]

HMNQ has been clear from a long time ago about their outline and values. What has been posted here is not new.
From what I understand, MN is here to support women, not to be a hate platform. If ppl have problems with what is said on other threads, maybe they can go there and report. There are hundreds of posts on MN and they did say, they can only go through them with your help.

[myrtleWilson]

I agree wholeheartedly about MN being here to support women, which is why (as I posted at the end of the last thread) - I'm surprised that comments which belittle female members of the RF taking maternity leave are allowed to stand, yet here we are.

[callmeadoctor]

What does bottom feeding mean @mnhq ?

[TofinoSurf]

No it's one rule for some and another rule for others. This was a deletion message on a thread yesterday, this isn't the first time they've used this message.

[WurraBurra]

Is it because MNHQ doesn’t get fiscal remuneration from //www.bottomfeeding.com, whereas the mainstream media, sorry, Daily Mail, pays for clicks?

Asking for a friend.

[callmeadoctor]

Ooooh my safari won't open the bottom feeding link (says its not safe?) so Im none the wiser

[ButteryPuffin]

If ppl have problems with what is said on other threads, maybe they can go there and report.

Done that. Hate and unpleasant speculation is left to stand. Double standards, plain and simple.

[Mummy195]

@myrtleWilson
Why don't you report those posts instead of coming on here and telling this to us over and over.
MN has also left over 20 threads that belittle MM standing.

[Mummy195]

Anyway, on with H&M news.

An interesting report from NBC news :

[SetPhasersTaeMalkie]

Thanks for starting the thread. I haven't been on for ages so am going to have to do a bit of reading to catch up.

[Onprozacandmyhighhorse]

"Bottom feeders" apparently refers to publications that make up stories, like People magazine who have caused all the problems for Meghan around the letter she wrote to her dad. I think some posters also include all the British tabloids in that category.

[CallmeAngelina]

The most "interesting" thing about that clip, apart from its obvious bias, was the reporter's over-use of "guys," the quotation whose author didn't appear to know about the correct use of a possessive apostrophe, and the studio team who had to have the word "courtier" explained to them.

High-quality link.

[myrtleWilson]

[quote Mummy195]@myrtleWilson
Why don't you report those posts instead of coming on here and telling this to us over and over.
MN has also left over 20 threads that belittle MM standing.[/quote]
The counterpoint to deletion though is that leaving a post or thread standing gives the reader a useful insight into the mindset of the poster I guess.

[Samcro]

@TofinoSurf

Absolutely bloody ridiculous *@mnhq*. You're making the 'rules' up as you go along! There only ever were 'two' threads. A positive one and a more critical one. I thought the whole point of only having one thread running (which you've used as a reason to delete many threads, including a line of succession one) is to avoid the positive and negative split. Maybe the other thread would be seen as less critical if everyone that had an interest in H&M discussed on the same thread no matter what their stance.

that only works if posters are allowed to post with out being hounded.
to be fair its only a few that do it, but it is very off putting and I for one don't feel like posting there.

[SetPhasersTaeMalkie]

I do think it's interesting to see the American perspective, or rather now it's being reported in America.

[SetPhasersTaeMalkie]

how not now

[Mummy195]

Yes, hahaha. My whole point was when someone asked who the courtiers are. Who indeed.

[Mummy195]

And interestingly, someone Americanexplaining them as Bureaucrats .