Wasn't there a general consensus that we were going to try and steer clear of upsetting news stories?

[DingdongMegaLegsonhigh]

OK - I'll admit I'm feeling particularly sensitive today but there are currently two really upsetting thread titles in active convos. Didn't post on either as a) I didn't want to read them and b)it would have put them back up the top

i have been particularly obtuse, have i not? (please use least flattering definition).

nah you have skinny arse scumster.

i noticed the hairy when you bent over in club and showed the crack of your arse

waxing is good for that so rhubarb tells me ( who suffered from same problem of hairy arsedness for years)

[ouchouchouchinasantahat] @ waxing an arse

I might ask MN for a [cunt] emoticon actually.

Would mean I could start my "motherfucking cunt" threads and post an appropriate emoticon.

Obv I'd have a [fcunt] emoticon for Christmas.

Greensleeves: I was referring to your comments about people would like to attend public executions
"I have always wondered what sort of person voluntarily attended public executions, or threw the legendary rotting fruit at the unfortunates in the stocks and pillories of medieaval England. I know now"
I thought that was quite aggressive. I wasn't quite sure who you meant by it. I assume not me, but other people on this thread, surely?

ROFL!

If you weren't sure whom I meant by it, dara, then I don't see how you can feel abused by it

I didn't say I personally felt insulted. But I do feel that your posts on this thread have been, at times, offputtingly aggressive. You repeatedly claimed that people on Mumsnet (like Mummydear, presumably) who have posted about sad events were obviously enjoying and revelling in other people's misery to the point where they would love to watch people being killed. I can see you thoroughly enjoy your inventive invective, and it certainly looks like a lot of fun to throw yourself into, but I think those comments are unfair and unkind. You may think they are in poor taste (I sometimes think similar posts are in poor taste and somewhat pointless myself) but to suggest that she was, say, loving the fact that the boy was attacked, is really unecessary. That's all.

lol @ "inventive invective"

Is that it now, dara? Have you got it all off your chest?

I agree with Jools

but also have to say, if people DIDN'T post their 'oh how sad' responses to those titles 'In The News' then the threads would die a sad death. I do also think some threads about sad stories do provoke sensible debate on MN.

Agree with Jools except that I did enjoy Love Actually .

I nominated Love Actually as the worst film ever!

Is a newsagent a good analogy?

Say you were waltzing in to buy an Independent and an organic orange juice and you were disturbed by the tasteless and upsetting headlines on the Star and the Mirror, as well as horrified by the fruit shoots nestling next to the juice in the fridge. Would you ask the newsagent to stop stocking the products you didn't like? Or ignore/put up with it because the newsagent is running a business and these things presumably sell well despite your personal dislike of them? Or perhaps you would find a different newsagent?

Or, maybe, they'll put them on the top shelf?

Really amazed at the reaction here, and on the other thread. Okay, perhaps the title on the other one was ill thought, but as I said on the other thread, do none of you open a newspaper? They hardly word these issues sensitively, do they? I really resent the implications of some that I started the other thread to just provoke a reaction. It is a serious issue, and yes, I do have an 8yr old ds myself which is why it caught my eye in the newspaper. The only mistakes I made were posting on here, purely to see if anyone else had heard about it, and yes, to say that I don't think parents should allow young children out alone after dark, and I'm not going to apologise for that, and to perhaps not choose more sensitive words, but really didn't anticipate the reaction at the time.

I'm rapidly going off MN, as I said on the other thread, it's all about people lurking behind anonymous nicknames and being confrontational and argumentative and often downright rude and nasty. None of us would, for example, stand in the school playground and speak to each other like that. For example, I started a lighthearted thread the other day in pets titled 'do you buy your pets Christmas presents' and was hit by a barrage of abuse about world poverty, and people calling me sad. What's all that about? I also recall one of the first threads I read opon discovering MN. Someone's neighbour had pushed her 5 year old dd over and hurt her. The MNetter posted in chat and was delivered with numerous posts suggesting that it was the child's fault. Really don't get my head around things like that. If I do bother with MN again, it will probably only be to look in on telly addicts or some other relatively 'safe' board where they're not out to get you. Or are they? It wouldn't surprise me.

"do none of you open a newspaper?" Yes, but a newspaper doesn't keep scremaing its headlines at you when you're just looking for light entertainment does it? You shut the page and its gone.

thread titles shout out at you from the screen again and again and again and should be worded with this in mind. You can't ignore them like you can a paper headline

But you can - there are more ways of accessing MN than just by Active convos, especially if you only want light hearted stuff.

But it is of course more challenging to try and make everyone else change their posting habits.

I agree with Dragon. As I said before and you may not know as you are new is that most of us use active convos and the thread titles just keep on appearing at the top of the page as they are bumped.

Um... Actually no. There aren't any that will stop that thread title popping up unless you don't want to see any "In The News" threads.

Would you think it acceptable to walk down the high street repeatedly shouting that thread title? After all, people sould just put their fingers intheir ears... Putting it in a thread title is the same thing as well as being completely unnecessary.

'The wording of my OP was exactly how I had it smacked in my face when I opened my paper yesterday morning.'

Then why on earth the need to smack the 20,000 readers of MN with it in the face? I just don't see what point it serves.
BTW I'm responding here rather than choosing to bump the original thread.

It isn't remotely the same thing! This is a discussion forum. People choose to come to it to have discussions.

(just to clarify, I don't have a problem with these kinds of news stories being discussed on MN, of course I don't. I just find it completely unnecessary for thread titles to be quite that explicit when it's an upsetting subject. I think all thread titles should be chosen with care.)

Ok, how about you walk into a crowded pub and repeatedly shout that headline? People go there for discussions.