Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

to be really bothered by a thread title, to complain about it & not be satisfied with the response?

260 replies

allhallows · 03/10/2007 09:24

Maybe gross blasphemy is acceptable in the UK these days. Maybe I'm too sensitive. Tell me what you think:

Regarding a certain thread title "oh my f*cking god". I complained about it to MN, saying it was unacceptable, especially as a thread title, where you can't avoid it. I asked that it be deleted. I'm not easily offended but this was beyond the pale for me. Here's the response I got from MN:

Hi there
Many thanks for bringing this to our attention.
We agree that this comment was in poor taste but we don't tend to delete on
those grounds because it would be really hard to know where to draw the line

  • what one person thinks is funny can be another person's sensitive spot and the truth is we don't think we should be the arbiters of what people should fine offensive and what they shouldn't. On the whole we think it's better to let the boards self police in these instances, as it's very rare that a tasteless comment is left unchallenged. Certainly in this case, it wasn't and the OP has apologised. Best wishes

I'm not satisfied that in this case it would be "really hard to know where to draw the line".

AIBU?

OP posts:
Baffy · 03/10/2007 09:26

I think that response from MNHQ is fair enough and I agree with it.

The OP was challenged by a number of MNers and apologised many times. She was not being intentionally blasphemous.

Sorry, but I think YABU.

TrinityRhino · 03/10/2007 09:28

I think YABU

I think the answer is fair
It's true what they have said
what if I posted a thread titled 'My ds has a Penis problem' there are some peolple who would find that offensive and would complain but if mnhq deleted that itmn would be ridiculous
And don't say that it's simple evryone was offended by the title in question because thats noi true, I wasn't I read it and thought oh poor person, whats happened to them!

CastsSpellsWitchySpells · 03/10/2007 09:29

YABU - everything has to be taken in context.

mumblechum · 03/10/2007 09:30

I personally wouldn't be offended by it, but that's prob. because I'm an atheist.

I think the MNHQ response was correct.

There have been much worse thread titles than that in the past.

TrinityRhino · 03/10/2007 09:30

I really don't understand how anyone can be offended by a word typed in a sentence
It wasn't racist or an insult or a horror story, it's just a word.

Boco · 03/10/2007 09:31

But they did delete the 'fucking' didn't they - so actually they did respond exactly as you'd asked.

UnquietDad · 03/10/2007 09:31

One person's humour is another's offensiveness. If someone's religious faith is so shaky that it can be injured by words alone, then what is it? Surely if you believe in god (I don't) you don't think he'd be bothered by such petty human things?

TrinityRhino · 03/10/2007 09:33

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I've just realised that you have a problem because it said F88cking god not just F88cking

right I still wouldn't be in the least bit bothered because I am an athiest but my veryreligious friend wouldn't waste her effort being offended by something that was obviously not meant to offend AND she apologised LOADS

brimfull · 03/10/2007 09:33

let it go
it was deleted

2shoescreepingthroughblood · 03/10/2007 09:33

yanbu
I didn't like it either

Howdydoody · 03/10/2007 09:33

YANBU, it's your opinion and if others have complained in the thread and the OP has apologised then that shows it upset people.

If the word wasnt God but another spiritual leader, I am sure more people would agree with you. Sadly, God seems to be ok for a good load of disrespect.

totalyfreaky · 03/10/2007 09:33

Was'nt the thread title changed?

SharpMolarBear · 03/10/2007 09:34

I think YANBU
I agree that it's hard to know where to draw the line, but it's before blasphemy - especially in a title, which as you say can't be ignored (without not MNing )
This isn't taking issue with either the OP (I can see why she reacted as she did, and she realisded it was inappropriate and herself asked for it to be changed) or MNHQ.
Normally I'm on the side of if the title bothers you don't look, but this one IMO was one that should have been changed.

UnquietDad · 03/10/2007 09:34

For some people, "god" is just a word. Get over it.

scareybee · 03/10/2007 09:34

I didn't even understand why it was offensive but then I'm a heathen. You complained, you got a very nice and considered response, the offending word was asterisked out and the OP apologised for causing offence. Seems a very good result to me. YABU I think

brimfull · 03/10/2007 09:34

only reason I would object is because children could easily read thread title over your shoulder.But it was started at night so less chance.

StrawberryMartini · 03/10/2007 09:35

YANBU I agree it was offensive and blasphemous and it should have been altered or deleted. I do have to say as a relative newbie I am fairly shocked at the language sometimes used on here. I don't mind most swearing.. but have been offended to see c* and also blasphemy as above. I think there should be some limits.

LilBloodRedWantsGore · 03/10/2007 09:35

I think that was a fair response and I've had a similar one myself when, ages ago there was a PDSA advert showing a pitifully thin dog and some people seemed to think it was funny, but I accepted that it was me personally that found it offensive and maybe I should just avoid that discussion.

ConnorTraceptive · 03/10/2007 09:35

YABU

I think this board self regulates quite well. Posters always seem to get pulled up by mners if their post is offensive in someway. Which I believe happened in this case and the OP apologised which let's face it is a slightly more grown up way of dealing with it.

StrawberryMartini · 03/10/2007 09:36

Oops that didn't work I mean c@*! obviously! And UQD I think that's quite harsh and disrespectful.

Original poster
allhallows · 03/10/2007 09:36

Funny old world. I read in last week's Sunday Times that very sensitive Muslims working in Sainsburys don't have to touch an alcoholic beverage with their hands.

OP posts:
SharpMolarBear · 03/10/2007 09:37

But she apologised because it was offensive
So why not also remove the cause of the offence? Not childish IMO, just sensible.

lilibet · 03/10/2007 09:37

I was offended by it and wanted to post saying so but then realised by posting on it I would keep it on Active Convos

I think there is a need to be careful on thread titles, and not just with swearing, a few Christmas's ago there was a request that we didn't put anything in thread titles about FC (whispers) not being real

ShaunOfTheThread · 03/10/2007 09:37

I think you can draw a distinction between those cases where the words used are just sounds added for emphatic effect, and those caes where the owrds are used with their actual meaning, or some residue of it, intact.

That's part of the reason why the parody thread-title 'Oh my * Allah' was a little scary to me, because 'Allah' isn't used in English in a way that ultimately strips it of its reference to a deity.

If someone had posted a thread-title using the word 'God' and actually intending to make a derogatory reference to God, that would be offensive.

SharpMolarBear · 03/10/2007 09:38

Yes, and if God was replaced with another religion's deity everyone would agree that it was unacceptable IMO - and quite rightly too.