mn is a public website. We do not sign up to terms and conditions that say threads may not be discussed outside of mn, on twitter etc...

[wannaBe]

yep, thread about a thread... big deal.

so - thread started on mn. Another poster tweeted about said thread, came back to the thread and said she'd tweeted about it.

Subsequently posters called for her to be banned for tweeting about a sensitive thread, followed by lots of other nasty name-calling.

Thing is, the thread was public anyway. You don't have to be logged into mn to view it. You don't have to have a button next to each post to tweet about it - all you'd have to do is copy/paste the link into twitter. Once you put your private business on a public website you lose control over what happens to it/who talks about it/tweets about it/potentially writes about it in the press.

To suggest that a poster should be banned for talking about a thread that is on a public website, on another public website is ridiculous.

Mn has hundreds of thousands of hits a day. People are very naive if they think that their private, sensitive business is limited to the few people that post on the threads in question.

And people do discuss mn on twitter. Both in terms of threads/the potential genuineness of posters/the outcomes of threads. It's just that they don't come back on to mn to talk about having done so.

no - that's not what I'm saying at all and you know it. I'm saying that WannaBe has a point that people should think twice about what they post on ANY public forum, because it is - by it's nature public.

It is something that has come up time and time again in discussion on mumsnet - and I believe, part of the reason "off the beaten track" was formed - as a non-searchable place to post sensitive topics (except as it can't be found on Active Convo's it is rather too well hidden IMO)

I am very open on MN about me and my life. However, there are things I won't even post in "Chat" (even though it will disappear after 90 days) because I am aware of the fact that any one could find it via google

What baroque said, wannabe did not at any point mention the thread.
A number fo other posters (who seem to have escaped the kicking) mentioned the thread she was talking about. Ina ll honesty I would have had no idea which thread it was if someone else hadn't mentioned it.

And those that keep bringing it up aren't helping.

Well dittany - I wasn't on the other thread, I'm not on Twitter,I actually found this thread from the other thread that's running about this subject (think it's in Site Stuff??). As I'm sure did many other posters who aren't on twitter/didn't see the tweet, or read the other thread.

BUT it was NOT WannaBe who mentioned which specific thread it was about.

dittany actually nobody started "having a go" as you put it, at ss until you came on the thread touting your agenda as usual.

I did not mention the thread.

I did not tweet the thread.

It doesn't matter what thread it was - the point is relevant. And my point had nothing to do with the op of the original thread - it had to do with the calls for someone to be banned because they had dared discuss a mumsnet thread outside of mumsnet, when actually, mumsnet very positively encourage posters to do exactly that by either having twitter/facebook links next to every post on some threads, or by having "follow us on twitter/facebook" links on every single topic - yes every single one even the relationships/bereavement/special needs topics.

It is a subconscious message. It doesn't matter that the buttons aren't there - the twitter/fb logo's are still there which serve as the reminder.

But you carry on believing that I did this to have a go at ss if that makes you happy.

We're going round in circles, I think its time to call it a day.....

I have missed all the relevant threads, and I didn't see anything on Twitter, as I've been a bit busy over the last few days.

I don't know if I follow you, SS, or if you follow me - but actually that's not relevant. The critical thing is that you have fallen foul of the fact that Mumsnet is a public site, and that anyone can link to and from it.

There is a lot of 'cross-fertilisation', for want of a better word, between Twitter and Facebook, and threads are widely discussed all over the place. I have witnessed several 'shout outs' on both Twitter and Facebook - calling attention to specific threads/posters and encouraging people to go and post in support, etc.

I do, though, absolutely get that there are certain topics where sensitivity is important and that this is why the Twitter and Facebook buttons were removed.

I think a general warning at the top of each thread is a good idea - although I don't really think (sadly) it would make much difference.

I also think it's very interesting that there has been no comment at all from MNHQ on this thread, despite its length.

My advice, therefore, would be that you take this up directly with MNHQ - if you haven't already - and I would contact Justine.

biwi I think the fact there is no comment from mn hq is indicative of their stance on it tbh.

mn hq tweet all the time. they have twitter links on the threads and follow links at the top of every page.

"SS youve twisted nearly everything I've said. Frankly youve sounded deranged all evening."

I'm glad you had the courage to come on MN and say that. I know you've been tweeting that all night. Which is not necessary.

When you've done something wrong, all you have to do is hold your hands up and say you're sorry. And that would be okay.

But adding the accusation of insanity to the accusation of prudery, well, it's a bit lame-o.

By the way, you really need to learn to spell the word 'bawling'. I know that you think it is spelled 'balling' but this is more of a slip than you realise.

What larks

SSx

FGS - WannaBe had (afaik when I read the OP and first few posts) started a thread of a nature that she has started MANY times before. This is not a "new" topic for WannaBe to start a thread about, just like you dittany, starting a thread about feminism would be no surprise. She DID NOT MENTION WHICH THREAD AND WHEN ASKED REFUSED TO SAY as her point was (and still is I believe from her later posts) that her thread title applies to EVERYONE that posts on MN.

WTF is with so many of the pro-twittererererers casting aspersions on the mental health of those on the other side of the argument?

Anyway, I really think MNHQ should add something to the talk guidelines saying that threads of a sensitive nature should not be tweeted/FBed unless op gives permission.

It wont make any difference of course, but by the same token I'd much rather have the request to refrain from personal attacks than not.

Christ there would be hardly any MN is issues that have been raised in other threads weren't started as new threads.

I think WannaBe has a valid point - and it's something that I see no harm in reminding people of.

JerremyVile
Please do not tar all the twitter folk with the same brush. Most have expressed symoathy towards SS

This discussion was innevitable. As soon as the first posters signed up to Twitter.

I'm not very good at Twitter, it doesn't work for me. Possibly because it's just too short either to engage with the idea or with the people. But I don't think all the Twitterati are throwing around accusations of insanity.

Just the one. And I think that one needs to find a way back in.

Have a glass of wine Alouise, I find that after a glass of wine, everything looks just a little bit rosier.

oh just the one

Barogue what's "Off the Beaten Track?" I didn't know about that.

I follow AlouiseG on twitter. The vast majority of people I follow are MNERs and IIRC so are ALouiseG's. Any of her followers who are not MNers probably wouldn't bother to click on the link. So, in the grand scheme of things StupiditySquared, my impression of this whole thing is that maybe a few more MNers were alerted to your thread than otherwise might have been.

And in fact, if ALouiseG thought she would be drummiing up support, to be quite honest, I am not sure that twitter would be the best place to look for it. I can't think of many MN twitterers who would be proud porn supporters and who would have been piling in in support. Following someone on twitter does not mean you agree w.ith them

I don't think linking to your thread was a nice thing to do as "Relationships" is a sensitive topic and I do wonder whether there are some topics that should only be viewed by members who have been here a long time and who are trusted ( or as trusted as you can be on t'internet!) At least that way, if a MNer did link to these posts, at least other members of the public would not be able to view them.

On another forum I visit there is an area of the site where you can only go if you have 250 posts and have been a member for a long time. I am not prolific enough on that site to be able to view or post there so don't know what goes on but do think, given that MN has such a vast membership and that most posts can be viewed by anyone, whether this might not be a good idea?

StupiditySquared, sorry this has caused you so much extra stress and I do hope you can work things out.

I have nothing but sympathy for you SS, I may come across as a bit abrupt on MN as I tweet usually, I hope you can sort out your situation as you would want it.

Good for you, SS.

BAR (good acronym btw), I only like savoury biscuits or pretzels with my wine. If fags are on offer, you do have to appreciate that I don't smoke. But if you're forcing one on me ...

And feck it Stupidity, you might as well have a glass yourself!

oh yes - that DollyTwat is very abrupt (btw did you see my post on kuckingfunts thread about the fact I find twat more offensive than cunt ).

no no - not forcing fags on anyone

MMe - how did you know that I can eat a whole triple pack of Jaffa Cakes on my own