To think that someone posting for help and support

[BumpingFuglies]

should not have every post they have ever made trawled through and scrutinised so that others can prove themselves right?

If a thread you are reading seems implausible or suspect, so you search the OP and throw comments in that they made before? Or do you take it at face value?

I suppose it depends on the nature of the thread really.

If someone posted they had 3 DC's...2 DD's and 1 DS but you were full sure they'd posted before that they have only one child, why would you not bring that up?

'Comments' they made before...well unless it's directly relevant and important to the thread, then no I wouldn't bring them up.

We all change our opinions/views from time to time so it's not fair.

Fair point, Worra

I take it at face value.

If I start to think it's not real, I stop posting.

If they appear to be starting after money/wanting people to meet them, I report.

I'd rather try to help someone who turns out to be fake than risk hurting someone who is at the end of their tether and has nowhere else to turn but an anonymous internet forum.

However, people should be aware that if they say one thing and then later totally contradict themselves, there are people who will call them on it, so it's best to be consistent.

of course, in some cases, people do fudge details and change bits in an attempt to remain anonymous. I think people forget that, when they start with the "you said you had a 12 yr old, now you say he's 10..." stuff.

Why would you take it at face value if they said something different before?

In you knew somebody in real life who told you one thing one day, then said something very different the next, would you just take the most recent thing they said at face value?

I wouldn't, it would be odd really if I did.

I agree with Worra [for a change i'm usually arguing with her!]

I don't personally I can't be arsed. But have been on threads where others have mentioned past posts and sometimes it throws up a whole new perspective. Sometimes its irrelevant sometime its very relevant. also, I imagine, some people go look because they have remembered the other posts contradict themselves.

Yes Hecate, I see that. It's the fact that people choose to nitpick on details, rather than see the big picture that disappoints me.

Details about DCs is one thing. Your entire movements for 6 weeks ago is another.

That's not what you said last week.

Dprince yes, I have done this myself, just to refresh my memory.

I think what gets me is when people read a previous post, read "between the lines" and come up with their own theory, without the OP having a chance to comment.

tethers

I think it depends on what you are trying to achieve. I know there was a thread today (maybe it is the one you are thinking of) where I do think it helped to be able to piece together what is going on in the Ops life in order to give her the best advice. But just bringing up details from other threads in order to get one over the OP or to make the OP look bad, no I don't think that is right at all.

I feel like I'm covered in ink and have been made to report to the head teacher's office.

ABSOLUTELY we should nit pick. Do you know nothing about troll hunting?

So if someone is posting for something other than help/support, is it perfectly find to scrutinize?

I don't see the harm of using advanced search - that is what it is there for, clearly, or there wouldn't be an option to search by nickname. I think it's off to then quote old posts at someone. And I agree with hecate even if you suspect a little it's better to post genuinely then go quiet. But surely there is often a middle ground - when you don't remotely imagine the person is lying, but you do want to check if you remember rightly what they said before. There are more OPs I find suspect when I don't know the backstory, than when I do. You sometimes end up checking what has happened previously and going from 'are you mad?! Your MIL is a saint and you overreacted like a fool!' to 'ahh, your MIL is the one who did x, y and z ... now I see ...'.

What is wrong with that?

TooMany - yes, I think you've said what I'm thinking rather better than my OP!

Shine - (love your username) I know nothing much

I posted on one today, which others may be thinking of, where the posters past history absolutely had a bearing on what advice she should be given.

I do think that calling people on certain things is automatically seen as troll hunting, where it should be perfectly possible to question inconsistencies without the insinuation that the whole thing is made up. Any genuine poster should have no issue with this, surely?

For example: last week OP posts that she is on a very, very limited food budget. This week she asks for advice on how to deal with her new, rather large and expensive dog.

Now, if one had read both these posts, would it not be quite normal and outside the remit of troll hunting, to mention it? Are the 2 things irrelevant? Should we erase our brains after every MN session?

Some people can have a real need, even if their back story isn't consistent.

MN is a public forum and it can be sometimes a bit silly to give too much consistent detail away, not to mention dangerous.

Nothing wrong with that LRD, I think it's just when it's used to tie the poster up in knots and try to "trap" them, that I object.

Lardy we can resume normal bun throwing on another thread

Arrrrrg, I keep getting the age of my DS2 muddled up, in all fairness I do this all the time, I spend half the year thinking all of them are their previous age, it might be some sort of denial,

I also call them everyone else(and dogs) in the household's name until I get to the right one,

three of my own (spread out), plus extras, and a few spares.

I hope I'm not the only one who can't keep track, slightly worrying if I am.

Bawdy, yes that's one today, but there have been others that have been in the same vein. In fact, I got hauled up my MNHQ for being suspicious recently.

I agree with starlight.

bumping, the reason I ask is because lately, the way MNHQ deals with things, it seems as if there's no difference between the two. I've seen threads where totally normal comments have been deleted, and it's nasty because if you come back to it later, it looks as if there's been a right slanging match.

LRD - the reason I ask is because lately, the way MNHQ deals with things, it seems as if there's no difference between the two. I've seen threads where totally normal comments have been deleted, and it's nasty because if you come back to it later, it looks as if there's been a right slanging match.

Yes, I've noticed that.

Starlight I agree, but it isn't always the lack of consistency that is the issue. It can just be that a poster has started quite a few threads in a fairly short space of time, so when they are having a crisis and post again surely it is natural to say, have you considered a,b or c based on your previous threads.

I'm concerned that posters with genuine worries, no matter how unbelievable, may be put off by a minority of negative comments, based on the advanced search. That's all.

But when DO past posts get scrutinised? Imho, is usually when there is a "money" thread, or when poster has a history of posting repeatedly on the same topic without taking any of the advice given.