Dear MNHQ, I didn't see all the problems kick off over poor Revjustabout...

Justine 'deluded rather than malicious.'

Do you really think so?

I think both.

Yes I'm sure thier emails to you were put in reasonable concerned lanaguage, but thier public posts on MN most certainly were not .

As you well know.

They came on Mn only to attack Rev, for no other reason, their comments ranged from snidey to vicious, and I think can most certainly be descroibed as malicious. They most certainly were not polite, if testing, questions from concerned individuals who then contacted MNHQ.

Why are you trying to put a postive spin on this revolying behaviour?

Why have you decided to focus on what Rev to cuase such unplaesntnessrather than the unpleasntness itself?

I am sure the individuals concerened are perfectly decent women most of the time, but on this occasion thier actios were certainly not decent. I'm sure it wasn't a moldie arranged attack, just an attack arranged by a couple of moldies. Subtle difference.

I'm afraid Justine that I find your statements about these incidents such as 'deluded not malicious' to be very (wait for it).............disingenuous. Sorry, but I do. No other word (I can think of right now).

Bundle, MNHQ have explained themselves, I and others think thier reasoning is poor and thier decesion and focus very wrong, and I was under the inpression I was free to say so. As much as i liked.

They may well have the last word, but I can comment as much as I like on the last word. Stick around I'll get bored of repeating myself eventually.
Just not yet.

Bundle - are you trying to have a fight? I was just surprised that you were addressing your comments to me as if I was the only person who was questioning MNHQ's decision. That's all.

I agree with you, Justine (and Dittany).

But isn't that one of the aspects of Modiegate that people were concerned about (ie people being discussed in secret with no right to reply)?

I suppose at least this sorry saga has given the Rev an opportunity to know the kinds of things that are being said about her in private (and to show them to be false). It goes without saying that others who are slagged off discussed on Moldies don't have that privilege.

(My first post on Moldies btw. Let's hope it's the last)

Ok, I think I understand mumsnet's position on this...

As long as no one accuses me of not being a penguin, I can post on whatever topics I like. If anyone shouts troll though and mumsnet hq verifies that I am a penguin then, although I can post on any topic I like with the name Gloriamumble, I can't start a topic about fish recipes lest I be deemed to be holding myself out as the "mumsnet resident expert penguin".

I can however post fish recipes under any other name (non penguin related) and I can also tell everyone that I am a flightless seabird in the content of those threads.

Sounds like a silly policy to me.

And, IMHO, the timing of rev's name change matters not a jot - if the reason it was suggested was as a result of her being unjustifiably hounded then that is pandering to bullies. It would still be wrong even if rev had waited to change name and no one else connected the two; the rev would know and the bullies would know.

(discussion, I mean. if that is the case)

justine it could just have easily have happened on FB, email, MSN

That's a bit worrying.

"why I am the only objector to be singled out here"

Quattro - MrJustAbout here; I'll pass the message on.

No persecution complex, Bundle - just curious as to why you asked me the direct question when I am not the only poster to be asking questions of MNHQ (though I may be the only one still up).

I am struggling to understand what is going on. It seems extraordinarily unfair. And my sense is thatI am not the only person who thinks that.

firepile the decision has been explained, if you don't like it, tough

as for being courteous, I seem to remember a number of her posts containing f**k, directed towards other posters

Hope this hasn't damaged the mn experience for you Justabout - sorry about the unpleasantness

So, lots of emails appear with MNHQ at about the same time as three posters launch a concerted (public) savaging on the Rev.

Is it just me that thinks that this smacks of a campaign against her?

I am still struggling to understand why she has inspired such a negative response, or even "concerns" - her postings have been consistently courteous and honest as far as I can see.

sorry for double post

justine doesn't have to explain the minute elements of MNHQ convos behind their decision making to you/me/anyone, surely? she is trying to be fair

firepile, do you have a persecution complex?

I was simply responding to your question

(justine are you watchign the bbc news channel- nice summary of obama to rhapsody in blue)

firepile, do you have a persecution complex?

I was simply responding to your question

(justine are you watchign the bbc news channel- nice summary of obama to rhapsody in blue)

My, that's a lovely spoon you have there.

They are considering it a jolly good win.

Well, it's a respectable (and respectful) question,so let's see what the answer is.

What, from TheReverentCustardo to The Archbishop of Custardo?

Bundle, not sure why I am the only objector to be singled out here.

Justine has "explained" the decision.

Many posters have said that they think the rationale makes no sense, and asked that MNHQ reconsider. And I was posing a specific question about something that Justine asserted, with - as far as I can see - no evidence to back it up.

Or are we supposed to just say that's fine, MNHQ - back the bullies. Lots of us do not wish to be complicit in a process that penalises a wise and witty contributor at the behest of posters spreading poison and false allegations.