why can't i post on a thread now its past 1000 posts but others can.

[mamazon]

i know that actually i probably dont want to but some of the things said there are so ludicrous i can't help myself.

has tech fitted a "its for your own good" devide where it stops you posting on deeply offensive threads for the sake of your own sanity?

[Lulumama]

i reported dogthehunter to MNHQ, she posted the same comment about single mums on two different threads and seemed determine to upset a lot of people. absolutely unnecesary

[rantinghousewife]

No this particular poster isn't a name changer, she posted a while back about her problems and some people pounced on her, I was one of a few who defended her. That's why I remembered her. I felt a bit sorry for her at the time.

[rantinghousewife]

It wasnt dogthehunter, although I agree, she was a namechanger.

[stripeymama]

Dogthegit is now banned.

[Peachy]

I think the dog one was the worst, lots of swaering etc- but the other one (noName or soemthing like that?) is a familiar poster who changed her name a while back and then stayed that way- a sort of longlived name changer, I guess.

[Wisteria]

victory!

[Peachy]

Thank goodness Stripey, she ahd me in tears (thank Lulu too)

[Lulumama]

i was very aggrieved on your behalf

[stripeymama]

I cried too. And had to have a fag (gave up in August).

There is just no excuse for that kind of vitriol.

[stripeymama]

And apologies for the fact that I swore rather a lot too.

[NoNameToday]

Peachy, I originally posted as papilion and another poster objected as it was too similar to hers, I have not changed my posting name since, nor have changed my beliefs.

[Peachy]

But you did change your name- so I was rigt (I dint say anything about malicious did I?- just name change)

[NoNameToday]

I felt the name change was fair, in that the other poster had been around a while and I was a newcomer, and I didn't mention about anything malicious either?

[VictorianSqualor]

I havent tried posting on it since last night, I knew my words were going to end up being twisted, as I see it, most people on benefits would prefer not to be,a nd find it bloody hard, those who do manage to work and sort childcare also find it hard, sometimes it is impossible to find work, especially when you have children you are in sole care of.
Of course we all get pissed off with people fucking over the benefits system but unless people are going to call the fraudline they will continue doing it, benefits can't really be changed because it would be the genuine people that ended up getting screwed because of it, and that is my final opinion.

For any of those on here that are single parents or on benefits I apologise that you had to put up with such disgusting comments from fellow parents.

[geekymummy]

Hear hear, VictorianSqualor (LOVE the name!)

MN can be so supportive, it was such a shame to see how things went down on that thread, and I only skimmed it!

[NoNameToday]

I really felt that for me to be associated with the doghunters comments was quite insulting.

I do not swear and have never been abusive to anyone, I'm quite prepared to fight my corner, state my case/opinion in a civilised manner, and, afford everyone else the same.

This weekends postings have opened up a new dimension to mumsnet for me, one that I am no longer sure is where I choose to be.

[nightowl]

sorry to hear some of you were in tears last night. i went to check on the kids before i went to bed and sobbed my heart out when i saw dd's innocent little sleeping face. i felt so much guilt at what they are going to go through facing attitudes like some on that thread. thank goodness that they are too young to know that people think they are useless good for nothings (i dont recall the actual expression used). all because of a situation i found myself in .

[VictorianSqualor]

NoNameToday, I actually agreed with some of your points, I don't think you should be associated with doghunter, what I thik did happen however was it became very much us and them after dog started.

I'd like to think everyone can agree with what you said WRT people who were able(obviously single parents are not always able and nor are some couples) to work and claiming benefits on this premise should try their hardest to get employment, it was dog who (AFAIK) implied that single mothers were allsorts of dreadful things.

[Lulumama]

doghunter was offensive, nasty and she was deliberately stirring, i don;t associate your comments with hers at all..

[NoNameToday]

Thank you VictorianSqualor and Lulumama for your kind posts, they are much appreciated.

We all have differing viewpoints , based on our experiences, it doesn't mean we are wrong or right, and it must be beneficial to hear the other side of any argument to enable us to see the other persons perspective.

[Wisteria]

I only took offence at Dog, we are all entitled to differing opinions, that is what MN is for.

I also agree that people who deliberately 'choose' not to work are wrong but I would never in a million years attribute that attitude to any particular group in society!

I would also like to think that the majority of people can see that there are many external adn internal factors affecting people and many of these are not immediately apparent, that does not mean that they should be judged..to do so is arrogant and ignorant IMVHO.

[Peachy]

NNT I personally didn't associate your posts with doghunter either- certainly your POV was the oppsotie of mine buut that's OK, I'm not one of those who lets that carry with them. There is a massive difference imo with some level of anoyance at a person's POV (which is quite the norm for me on MN LOL) and genuine offence and upset, as with Dof.

RE malicious- sorry i got the imrpession you thought I meant that from your post, nothing mroe.