So. That thread.

Sorry, yes its the one that was pulled (but it was full anyway).

Is it the "i've upset my v feminist partner over his chivalrousness'?
I got into it yesterday, was wanting to post today (coz my brain works really slowly) and now can't find it. could anyone please point me in it's general direction IF it isn't the one pulled. thanks very much.

He said that the poster who had sent the nasty PMs was one of the people he'd named but it was all fine because they'd apologised to everyone now. So not a misunderstanding, more the ladies do as I instruct them.

How weird, I just looked in Feminism Chat and this thread title has totally disappeared from the topic list.

From what I remember of the last few posts of the thread after Bob named names, there was the post about how he knew because of PM chat and other posters saying the same poster sent abuse to them.

Then there was a kerfuffle about whether he should have named names and he said he thought he should because people were asking the original poster to name the person who sent her one. Then he said he had reported his post to MNHQ to have it deleted.

I'm sure there was also a post about how the whole thing had misunderstood and cleared up off-thread.

Et fin.

I agree het

I could send you a really shitty pm now and still appear really innocent on this thread

Having said that i suppose if we arent told exactly what the pm said our imaginations would probably go into over drive

It would be all "OMG what did rufus say???? "

Although that may just be me

Yes, the claim about the PM was phrased in such a way as to be "look at the nasty feminists being nasty about me", with the clear implication that the PM had come from one of the feminist regulars on the board, but the poster refused to name names (under the guise of claiming the moral high ground: look at me, doing this the right way, getting MN to handle it), thus leaving pretty much everyone on the thread under suspicion of perhaps being the one who'd been nasty (with no clear evidence that the PM in question actually existed at all).

This is why I take the line that PMs are the "property" as it were of the recipient (barring clear cases of confidentiality, where the sender has, say, divulged personal details about themselves as part of an attempt to be supportive of someone in a particular situation). It's entirely up to the recipient whether or not to "retweet" abusive messages - if they are that abusive, the sender shouldn't have sent them in the first place.

Is there any MN policy on off-thread PM discussions, esp if they involve more than two people?

I quite often look at a post where someone says that they were called stupid or the poster made a racist comment etc

And then when i look back, the original poster never said anything like that

Its either been misconstrued or outright lied about

No one else said they had abusive PMs. A certain poster said that he had been enjoying sensible and supportive chat about the thread topic via pm with some posters, and that some of them had received abusive PMs and told him about them.

What is interesting me is that the thread was closed down, but the trolls are on other threads being disruptive - for example there is a thread somewhere on a sexist advert and one of them is in there doing its party trick or demanding examples and then showing how men are also discriminated against, blah, blah, blah, whilst being totally unreasonable but trying to say that the women are unreasonable. Same record, different record player. And they admitted over at Dadsnet that they had been thrown off parenting boards before (they were expecting sympathy).

I think MNHQ should have said we are closing the thread due to abusive pms's if that was the case

No names, no info as to what was said

Oh dear ... that's pretty juvenile of them. If they had abusive PMs surely they should have just informed HQ and left them to it!

I found it very thought provoking too. It's what finally prompted me to start posting again.
Is it possible to get it reinstated?

Gawd... seems I missed all the 'fun'. I agree though that simply removing the offending posts would have been enough. Thanks heaps for filling me in.

Oh one of our half-term visitors was stirring the pot. One poster said they'd received a nasty PM off someone on the thread. Didn't name names. One of the trolls jumped on the bandwagon and said they'd received abusive PMs too (and lots of supportive ones too ). All fairly standard stuff. Then about 6 pages later another poster mentioned that she'd liked some of the earlier posts by a couple of regulars and said troll came one speculating that one of those regulars was going to be banned. The implication being that one of them had sent the nasty pms. Which was bollocks. But this was only in the last 70 posts or so. His post and a couple of others could have been deleted to protect those regular posters. there was no need to delete the entire thread.

Thanks Rufus

What was the naming names crap???

I logged off at about 930 messages. By that stage, the trolls (or possibly troll singular with lots of puppets) had got rather frothy, but I've looked at other threads on here that have been just as bad in terms of trolls being adversarial and being rebutted. I've also seen more than one thread which was derailed. What does not seem 'fair' is that a poster asked a perfectly legitimate question and an interesting debate unfolded, even if it was derailed. The derailment was the fault of trolls who appeared to have no agenda other than being inflammatory. When they were overpowered by reason and logic and WOMEN they had hissy fits. I'm not sure that any of the legitimate women posters were harmed (up until about 930 posts anyway) - so why pull a legitimate thread because it got derailed by trolls and they got their just desserts? So I echo Bertrand in saying;

"There was so much useful, thoughtful stuff.and people put so much effort into trying to answer the OP's questions. And some of the other contributors were providimg an object lesson in what feminists deal with on a regular basis. I am very disappointed that it has been deleted. And unless something happened in the last 30 posts I just canMtmunderstand why it was."

Just seems to me that the trolls didn't get their first prize (having their proverbials sucked by a bunch of adulating women), or their second (fighting all dem nasty wimmin and winning, thus proving that they were both powerful and nice, but they did get their third (their humiliation being removed from public view).

I'd like the thread back!

I have pmed you queen

Agree with xeno and errol

I had forgotten all that

I missed this, what happened? What was the thread about?

Yes, I'm sure it was the allegations 'naming names' crap which got it pulled.