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.

MmeLindt... Really? 'sealed up' not 'sewn up'? If that's what is was, it's very different to the FGM bandied about and it bears no relation.

Now THAT annoys me... somebody makes a misguided or what they think is amusing, comment and somebody else decides that what THAT person actually meant is something ten times worse.

There are quite a few on MN who do that and THEY are the ones that ought to be feeling some culpability in blowing this up into something it clearly wasn't.

The "sealed up vagina brigade" jibe referred to the people on the thread who did not agree with ALG's porn-friendly stance

I was one of those people. I took offence, on SS's account (even though I don't "know" her) but also on my own.

I said very, very early on in the other thread that an apology would be appropriate. I have upset people several times on MN, but have at least had the guts and decency to admit I was wrong to do that. I have never, ever used twitter or FB to do it, though, nor invited others along to pile in. One-on-one insults, to the "face" is more my style, at least you both know what you are dealing with.

It should be possible to disagree without hurting people, and even worse, attempt to widen out the number of other people to pile in and hurt the original poster some more.

Nothing to do with "privacy" nor the WWfuckingW, just being a half-decent human being should do it.

Aloiseg said later that it was "sealed up", I did not see the tweet in question.

You do have to know that Aloiseg has about 290 followers, and in the fast moving stream of twitter probably only about 5 or 6 would have seen the original tweet.

If there had not been the outcry, then I very much doubt that more than a few people would have clicked onto the thread, and most of them would have been MNetters.

I do agree that the way in which thread was linked to is the problem.

There is a world of difference between implying that the OP and those objecting to porn are frigid, sexless harridans and asking for other opinions on a controversial thread.

And I think that linking to a thread such as the porn one in Active Convos is fine, whereas the one linked to was a real situation with an upset OP.

PeterAndreforPM... I absolutely agree with that. I've also said things that have upset someone, without meaning to, and the quickest way to fix it is acknowledge and apologise. We're all human and anyone can have a bad day.

MmeLindt... I'm not a Twitterer myself. I think having 'followers' (if you're not a pop star or film star) is absolute indulgent nonsense, but each to their own. Twitter, word of mouth spreading or just ganging up here... it's all the same to me.

I think that this debacle is a storm in a teacup, there are too many threads on MN that degenerate into a 'them and us' scenario; it seems that you either agree with somebody or you're the enemy and I find it really childish and insulting that adults treat each other like that.

I have a lot more respect for someone that can hold their hands up and say what they did/said was wrong.

You don't have to deny or refute your original stance. You can say you still agree with the premise of what you believe. It doesn't make you look weak or that you are backing down.

It makes you look like a more evolved and human person though.

LyingWitch
It is not some kind of a weird cult. You follow the comments of people (or business/news outlets) and some follow you. I use it more for news, politics and blogging, with some random chatter thrown in.

Yes. This is about decency, fair-play, sensitivity and integrity. All those things. Owning one's own remarks and behaviour. Having the courage to say sorry if you've got it wrong or caused offence or pain. Keeping your arguments to the thread, so that everyone can see what you're saying. It's about being a decent adult human being.

I would NEVER get any work done...

100 lines for me... I must NOT Twitter, I must not Twitter...

But what makes you think the poster believes that she was wrong or is indeed a 'decent human being'?

but it still doesn't take away the issue that mn is a public website and that you cannot have the expectation that your private business won't remain such if you post it on public internet forums.

And actually I think that privacy and sensitivity go hand in hand, since it's potentially not such a big deal if you're recognised because of your postings about your back garden/the birthday cake you made for your children/the dress you wore on the school run, whereas it might be more of an issue if you're recognised for your postings about yours/your dh's affair/your divorce/the problems you're having with your children - stuff you might have chosen not to tell people in rl but which people in rl might be able to recognise, iyswim.

LyingWitch
And people tweet links to such interesting articles and wonderful products.

PosieParker was trying to get me to apologise yesterday, something along the lines of when my daughter is dancing and hits my son I will ask her to say sorry to her brother.

I responded that I would've been more inclined to tell little brother thats what happens if you get in someones way.

That is how different we all are on mn.

The only concession I will make is that if i recognised the posters name or she had a profile I probably wouldn't have linked it. She was anonymous though and it wasn't her distress that amused me, it was the ensuing bunfight and the extremely irate views held by some mnetters.

I am not "trying to get" you to apologise, ALG

I suspect you feel you have gone too far to do that now. Which is a shame.

Are namechangers more open to ridicule then ? If you wouldn't have linked because you "knew" her, that suggests you think so.

FWIW, SS is a very well-known poster in her usual guise. Who has supported others. It was clear from early in the thread that she had pm'ed other well-known posters to verify she wasn't a troll when those accusations started, and they were satisfied.

So, by that token, only posters you don't know would be subject to such disrespect then ?

studiously tries to ignore the lures of the champion Twitterer, Mme Lindt...

The namechanger issue has long puzzled me. I know people do it, I know why they say they do it, but I don't understand why they do it. Surely nobody knows anymore about them in their regular name than in the changed one?

It's the namechanging that made it easy for new people to come on for a 'bunfight' and just say that they've changed their name.

I take no notice of 'well respected', 'much loved', 'well known' labels or anything like that. I don't care whether somebody else knows or likes them, if I like them or their posts, that's enough for me. I hope that I'd try to treat everybody the same until there's a reason to ignore someone.

Lying, would you post in your usual name then about such a sensitive issue ?

Rightly or wrongly, people do build up a "persona" under a particular name, and some things you may want to keep separate from it

That is precisely why MN holds on to the name change facility, as explained by them

I think SS is thanking God she did nc for that thread, and I wouldn't blame her

I would certainly be nc'ing and/or doing a disappearing act if I hadn't, tbh