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

Please don't turn this into a Moldies thread; i thought we were past that (I am peachy btw)

Goodness, can you do that? Hold online worship sessions? Wouldn't you need some sort of supervision/overview by the church for that? After all, you don't know/can't see your congregation and could say something untoward.

I did not assume that you were involved in rl persecution peahead. The attacks on the thread were enough to disgust me.

Can I make it extremely clear that although I had posts deleted on that thread I have NEVER contacted MN about the Rev and I have NEVER made any investigations into her private life. I don't know what she is called, I don't know where she lives, I know nothing about her personally.

I do still maintain that her statement that all of her posts were being checked by her supervisor in the church of england was clearly a fiction, and I agree fully that she should not have Rev in her posting name, based on the way she has been posting.

I hope MN will delete posts suggesting that because two of my posts were deleted, I have been involved in any harassment or anything of that nature whatsoever. Those suggestions are slanderous in the extreme.

Littlelapin claimed on one of the moldie threads that the moldie site eschewed bitchiness in favour of constructive discussion. The thread that was hijacked was an extremeyl sensible, thoughtful one on a very sensitive topic until some moldies came over to attack rev. Unbelievable.

Is it just me or do people seem to be having personality transplants lately?

Blimey! I have just the thread in question.

What is it with some of the moldies . Perhaps posting on a site full of intelligent and witty posters gets a bit dull somtimes.

CZ Rev (or fromer Rev) used to led a worship group on here, so it was relevant to her postings.

smallorange (clementine) I totally agree.

I was disappointed by the posters involved also.

But isn't a bit of a problem if you bring your real life into your online persona? Putting your job into your online name is effectively saying this is who I am and it can define your posts and how they are perceived. If the rev wanted to post as anyone else does, it would seem sensible to use a nickname that doesn't imply a greater authority than the next person. I haven't seen anyone on here using Dr. or JP or CPN in their names, although i am sure there are such people on here.

And we could all be anyone, couldn't we? If someone is holding themselves out to be something more than just another poster, it is wise to be sure that they are that person rather than a hairy trucker.

I am not challenging anyone here, just putting another pov.

I just wanted to say that I found the discussion on that thread really interesting and informative last week. There seemed to be a sensible discussion going on and I remeber thinking that thread summed up all I like about mumsnet.
That intelligent women can have a discussion about international politics and learn something from each other on a 'mums' forum.
And then these stupid people come in and ruin it.
I don't care if Rev is a real 'rev' (have since found out she is) I was really interested in what she had to say. Can't believe these people have so much time on their hands...

oh i see
mn have deleted the posts in question, yes? (Ive not seen)
how have they infiltrated her personal life?
are they sending threatening emails or something? i just want to get an idea of the crime that warrants banning
i think mn needs to be careful otherwise this will turn into a withc hunt to adn thats not very edifying either

That's just it though. You say "it appears". I do think it would be wrong to get someone banned without irrefutable evidence that they are guilty of the crime.

My GOD I have just looked at the thread and seen the context -- not only Gaza but the Holocaust. I have also seen who the attackers are. Enid, Bubble99, princesspeahead.

It is vile that people who joined an ungoogleable forum to avoid personal exposure should have behaved like this towards rev.

Have no idea what they said as the messages have been deleted, but they are both regular mumsnetters.

IMO they should be outed and banned.

Does anyone have any evidence that those posters who were challenging the rev are the same people who have apparently been responsible for MNHQ contacting the rev? If not, how do you decide who to ban? Or is it a case of, harrass the rev, so must be guilty of the rest?

it was in the IN THE NEWS section: about the UN exposing Israel's use of banned phosphorous shells on Gazan civilians.It is a really good thread - interesting and informative - until the shit stirrers totally fucked it up. Just because they could, and making it crystal clear they don't give a fig about people being killed in wars.

Here

Lots has been deleted though.

I want to see this thread too as I've just trawled the whole religious threads and can't see anything but lively, exciting debate ?

Could someone link to the thread on which rev was harrassed? I want to know who was harrassing her.

yup ban them. not nice. not MN AT ALL!

Absolutely - I agree they should be banned.