to think that some personal attacks are entirely justified and should be left?

[wannaBe]

e.g. if a poster tells a victim of rape she should just have said no and should have taken control then it is, IMO, perfectly justifyable to call that poster whatever names one sees fit.

Or if a poster compares children with sn to serial killers it is, again, perfectly justified to make one's opinions of said poster perfectly known without needing to face the prospect of deletion for doing so.

If someone's views are so abhorrent why should they be afforded the right to claim victim status when they are labelled for those views, and a personal attack on that level is nothing more than that - a label.

So while I do agree that on the whole personal attacks are wrong, I think that there are exceptions to every rule and that perhaps some should be left, in certain circumstances.

MN already makes a decision as to what stepping over the line is, I've seen personal attacks left on the board.

Challenge the behaviour and their comments without the name calling.it may be momentarily satisfying to call someone a cunt, or whatever but you lose the argument because the name calling is what people focus on.

I don't mind personal attacks to be honest - they show themselves up and I think they could be left so others can see them.

I don't understand why people can't just ignore them or tell them to fuck off back

The only thing I would have a bit of a problem with is someone using 'contact a poster' to call them a cunt.

You don't want that appearing in your inbox.

YANBU, i said to a poster that there actions were the actions of a twat and i stand by that, they were. I actually called her that but i wasn't deleated so i don't think every insult gets deleated.

The posters who claim that claiming any form of benefits is wrong, are attacking the poster who has just stated that they are carer,so,i agree,there is no difference,in some cases.

However i have seen debates stopped because of to quick name calling, which is a shame, because it the thread went on, the poster may have been educated on a few points.

I kind of agree in a way OP

All too often you see someone being totally vile and their posts are (eventually) deleted by MumsNet.

Then a couple of hours later, people will see the thread and accuse everyone of 'ganging up' on that poster...usually because they have no idea why people are so angry with them.

On the other hand, you can understand people reporting certain posts if they really, truly are upset by them.

But for the most part, I think it's best to let the rest of MN see how vile/stupid/whatever that person is, rather than remove the evidence.

No, it has to be straighforward 'no namecalling' otherwise it's too subjective. Who at MN towers gets to decide what is 'abhorrent' and what isn't? This is different for everyone.

Debate the post, not the poster.

(I say this as someone who has occasionally called names on here in a fit of temper. I was deleted and rightly so)

"if a poster tells a victim of rape she should just have said no and should have taken control then it is, IMO, perfectly justifyable to call that poster whatever names one sees fit"

Whaaat?!?

YABU.... first ever ->

I can't see the point in allowing a thread to degenerate into name calling and insults. If someone's views are that abhorent then it will be obvious to everyone reading the thread. It's perfectly possible to make your views known through reasoned argument without resorting to insults and vile language. If anything it gains the original poster sympathy.

Sincere apologies to the OP for my previous post.

Now realise that s/he was referring to the hypothetical poster who criticises the h. rape victim, rather than the victim his/herself.

Still wouldn't agree with the name-calling though.

I think all should be left for everyone to read. Debates do get heated, people sometimes post in anger or emotion, its life, we are all adults.

I prefer personal attacks to stand. They say far more about the attacker imo.

It wasn't just hypothetical, nun; there was a thread in Relationships where about five or six posters weighed in with comments like that. There were quite a few deleted posts!

I agree with abbierhodes - you cannot police a subjective threshhold effectively. All or none: and I prefer none.

YANBU. People may be entitled to thier opinion but I am equally as intitled to call them a Twunt for voicing it. "I'm entitled to my opinion" is less of a defence and more a really lame attempt at deflection.

If someone sets themselves up to be shot then they shouldn't be surprised when the guns go off.

Anniegetyourgun
It wasn't just hypothetical, nun; there was a thread in Relationships where about five or six posters weighed in with comments like that. There were quite a few deleted posts

I see. Thanks!

The problem with personal attacks is that there are better ways to make a point. A good thing about personal attacks is that it shows the person who wrote them as being rude and ignorant, which can be helpful. I think the posters of MN are very good at policing these boards, and I don't believe any personal attack would go unchallenged.

Actually I have had personal insults directed at me in the past and I'm glad they have stood, because I'm perfectly capable of sticking up for myself, and if I haven't shown myself though my posts to be so, I think other posters would have stepped in.

Either way, we are all on here because we agreed to follow the MN rules, so if anyone doesn't want to stand by them, they should bugger off.

I do too

and if I realise I have gone too far, I come back and apologise

Am with you there TSC, its far too peremptory, someone can launch page after page of attacks on you, sneering and encouraging others to, but call them a bitch, which they are being, and you get deleted.

It depends I've been in situations , on here where my temper has erupted and then stepped back and thought hang on I went to far there.

alot of posters dont have the competance to now when so censorship is neccesary.

*to know

I would much prefer the vast majority of personal attacks to stand.

A while back I was involved in a thread where the OP was thoroughly offensive about stillbirth. I told her to F off and my post was deleted as a personal attack. As were the most offensive of hers.

However IMO the net result was that we both looked as bad as each other when you scanned the thread and saw all the message deleted messages. Worse still she then claimed I and others had said things we hadn't and of course with the deleted messages it did look questionable.

At that time I wrote asking MN to reconsider their policy on deletions but to no avail. I would have much preferred that late comers to the thread could have seen her for the nutter she was.

I don't report attacks upon me, as a rule.

Split posts.

So if someone posts something horrendous and offensive,

I find it incredibly offensive that you are blaming the victim ...