to ask why is it frowned upon to remember things some posters' say

[fluckered]

without actually doing a search, why is it not ok to perhaps ask a poster who previously posted for example "I have twin boys both starting school son" who then asks for advice on how to adopt for example as they don't have children .... "hang on a second, I thought you said last week you have twin boys". why is this frowned upon? people are accused of doing advanced searches when some people actually have a good memory or remember a thread as it resounded more for them than others ... and are asked "eh, what has that to do with this thread". am genuinely asking. wouldn't be for someone following a poster around and tearing shite out of everything they post ... but why cant a poster's posting history be questioned if there are obvious inconsistencies?!

xposted with KateSMumsnet.

semantics.

I get it Kate, but there are some much more serious & emotive cases where the poster has elicited a great deal of sympathy & brought some serious triggers to the fore, only to post something which contradicts, negates or ignores this. It's going to cause a reaction.

No one likes a sympathy tourist.

Kate it would be a travesty to be allergic to kitkats. Don't even joke about that shit

Because sometimes posters memories are not as good as they make out and they might be mistaken?

Because it diverts a thread? (Usually into a bunfight)

Because the motives behind doing it may be unkind?

but kateSMumsnet in that scenario if I posted "didn't you just say you were allergic to kitkats" and if I am responded with "oh I see, did you advance search me?" then I would be pissed.

I like the idea of a MN buddy-system for serious KitKat addiction.

Though I confess I've posted elsewhere within the last hour claiming not to like chocolate much.

I meant except for KitKats. Especially when you get one that's all chocolate and no biscuit.

1 Having a shit time/in denial/minimising as a way of coping/needing support not judgement.

2 posting varying made up bollocks to elicit attention.

One of those scenarios deserves scorn, one doesn't.

Those who remember so much detail shouldn't have trouble working out which is which really.

Except for certain topics, I'm mostly a reader, not a poster.

However, I felt sorry for some of the recent posters who were accused of troll hunting. Yes, they brought up past posts, and when OP insisted he/she never said x, repeated OP's previous posts from memory.

It might sound as if they were picking a fight, but I think most were out of genuine concern. Yes, we are all just random posters on an Internet forum, but if someone posts long and frequently enough, it's just natural for posters to start caring. If that involves trying to get an OP to see the bigger picture, it can't be all bad, surely.

Saying what someone wants to hear isn't always the kind thing.

I'd make sweet tastebud love to a kitkat right now.

I agree it's a fine line, and I suppose a lot of the finesse is in how you raise it, e.g. "didn't you previously say you were allergic to kit kats?" vs "you lying CAH you swore blind you're allergic to kit kats, everything you say on here is a lie".

Imagine, being allergic to kit kats

that's true Maryz. and in that circumstance if someone posted that things had changed and gotten better in the mean time i'd totally understand. its the defensive nature of some, and other heroes defending them that get my back up. the in your face contradictions that have ye banging your head against the wall and you are wondering why does no one else see this - but YOU are the bully, and the note taker and the troll hunter. I guess in your going anon be anon ... or if querying something being blasé and not give too much detail and if your gonna lie, remember them!

as Judge Judy would say you don't need a good memory if you tell the truth. god, day time telly sucks!

I could do with being allergic to kit kats, and fry's peppermint bars, ooo and toffee crisps too.

Picnic bars. I've rekindled my romance with picnic bars. And twirls.

fluckered maybe the 'heroes' see it, but also see that having a go isn't constructive in any way?

If its making you bang your head against the wall...click hide tread.

The thing is, if somebody is a sympathy tourist either:
A) people will ignore them
B) some people will unwittingly give a stranger sympathy, which in itself is pretty harmless.
If you really thought somebody was being fraudulent/malicious, I suppose report it, if not ignore the thread. If this leaves you seething for the rest of the day, perhaps reduce your MN use age...?

Chocolate ....good
Coffee ..... Good
Rice crispies .... Good
Nougat.... Goooooooooood

Mix all into a DoubleDecker. EVIL. frankly, they are shit in a wrapper.

@fluckered

that's true Maryz. and in that circumstance if someone posted that things had changed and gotten better in the mean time i'd totally understand. its the defensive nature of some, and other heroes defending them that get my back up. the in your face contradictions that have ye banging your head against the wall and you are wondering why does no one else see this - but YOU are the bully, and the note taker and the troll hunter. I guess in your going anon be anon ... or if querying something being blasé and not give too much detail and if your gonna lie, remember them!

as Judge Judy would say you don't need a good memory if you tell the truth. god, day time telly sucks!

Gawd bless Judge Judge.

You've raised a few interesting points here fluckered. Firstly, if there are blatant contradictions that have really got you puzzled, it's always a good idea to drop us a report to let us know. It may be that they are someone we need to ban.

As other posters have mentioned, it's always worth remembering people and their circumstances change. I could have posted 5 years ago saying I would never have have kids, but if I turned up on a BFP thread, we can't necessarily assume that I'm trolling, as a lot could have happened in the interim.

People may accuse you of all sorts, and get huffy if you mention past threads, but as long as you post in a considerate manner, you know that you're within the guidelines, and there's nothing they can do.

@Maryz

Stop talking about chocolate.

ds came home the other day with a multipack of Double Deckers, ffs. I'm normally a non-discriminating chocolate eater, but Double deckers are really bleurgh.

DP loves Double Deckers and gleefully bough some "cake bar" versions as a treat. Bad and wrong.

MN Helen ; "accuse the OP of being false"
= against MN guidelines.
See, I hate this.
I have a problem with this. I don't think its fair or right.

I have seen threads like this. Many times, over the years. And sometimes the poster gets well and truly caught out. But we're not allowed to say that?

I name change for some things because of this. If I'm having a bad time with DH & want a rant, I name change. I'm a terrible drama queen and will agree with everyone that he is an abusive bastard & I should definitely LTB and all the rest (I've never actually gotten this reply BTW, in case anyone worries) but I will have left off all the things I did to wind him up & how I may have been less than reasonable.

I recognise this in myself, so really don't want this following me around when I'm a bit more rational (which is 99% of the time, he's v easy going).

So, I kind of feel that it you don't want to be reminded of the stuff you said previously then you name change. Otherwise, you obviously don't mind.

Does that make sense??

(Doubledeckers are fab. Eat off the nougaty loveliness & then you're left with a lovely rice crispy cake. What's not to like?? Although I do prefer Toffee Crisp as the rice crispy bit is better)

"fluckered maybe the 'heroes' see it, but also see that having a go isn't constructive in any way?

If its making you bang your head against the wall...click hide tread."

not very constructive of you either tbf.