daily mail 'mumsnet for jihadis' how is that ok?

[LostMyBaubles]

Dear mnhq
how can the daily mail say an online forumis 'mumsnet for jihadis '?

If I were MN I would be highly insulted by this insinuation that mn lets extremists post what they like

Kind of proves my point worra.

Violets that's not what the article is about at ALL. Nowhere is that insinuated.

But clearly, some people will think that ^ which is damaging to MN's reputation. So yes, i'd be unhappy if I were in charge at MNHQ.

The worrying thing is,
is the Daily Mail right?

Has MN been letting people post pictures of cakes with terrorists on them, whilst banning other posters for more trivial things?

I would like to know, is it true. And if it is, why are those things allowed to 'stand' when other things are taken down straight away?

Er, it's quite clearly just using 'Mumsnet' as shorthand for a site for adult women which includes a discussion area. There's no link made and very few people wouldn't be able to understand it, it's quite clear.

This really is outrage for the sake of being outraged and looking for something to complain about because you don't like the DM.

You might secretly love it.
I don't!

patterkiller in the nearly 4 years I've been on MN I would say it's by far and away the most linked to/read paper.

Oh dear. Read the thread and/or the article Violets.

Mumsnets has just been used as a synonym for Popular-women's-forum.

They could have used Netmums or Bounty or any other forum name on the same article, it's just that Mumsnet is the most popular.

It's just a small attempt at revenge for MN's scathing comments on their crappy excuse for a newspaper.
You may be certain that whichever third-rate 'journalist' wrote that tripe will be reading this very thread to see what responses he/she has obtained. Well dear journo, here's my response - FUCK OFF!

Violets that's not what the article is about at ALL. Nowhere is that insinuated.

Is that, or is that not - a cake with a picture of the twin towers and a certain person on it?

Or do my eyes deceive me?

If it is, and MN allowed the picture to remain up on the site, then you have to ask yourself:

a) did MN not notice?
b) did they notice and decide to turn a blind eye?
c) if b), why turn a blind eye?
d) pc bs of not wanting to offend people.

IguanaTail's post at 22.10 sums it up perfectly I think.

Blimey my typing is getting worse and worse.

violets the cake wasn't posted on MN

It was posted on the forum the Daily Mail is comparing to MN.

They said it in the Sunday times too! I can only wonder what the aibu threads are like.

There headline worked.
I thought it was posted on MN.

their

Is that, or is that not - a cake with a picture of the twin towers and a certain person on it?...If it is, and MN allowed the picture to remain up on the site...

What are you talking about? Read it. Read the article. Read the thread. Have a sit down and a think and come back.

Clearly not all DM readers should be given the credit you think they should Worra

Can any of you actually read?

Mn is more likely to have a photo of a cake shaped like a large arse or willy, or poo.

I don't think anyone should be given/not given credit for the newspaper they read.

I'm just pointing out that it's a very popular newspaper with Mumsnet members.

I get what you're saying though Summer. It will obviously confuse some people, just as it confused Violet.

If 22:10 post by Iguana is correct then Mumsnet as a noun is going to make it to Oxford dictionary soon

Hilarious

Case proved by violets about 20 posts in

Oi ubik, I read the article in the Sunday times actually...

Oh bless you violets !