Mumsnet in the Times by Caitlin Moran

[morningpaper]

Mumsnet in the Times

Here's a nice article about Mumsnet - make way for the newbies.

And blimey don't Justine and Carrie have a lot of children?

oh really Twiglett? Hmm that's interesting

You mean the Cod Piece and the TV Review? Don't you think that's just extending the info that's ON the boards to the newsletter though? Just disseminating a bit? I think it's more interesting than getting people off-board to contribute, don't you?

It's a shame Soapbox wasn't mentioned, as she instigated the original Christmas Appeal.

Yes more like a continual narrative book rather than just quotes

Message withdrawn

I really just want to write "This too shall pass" 20,000 times but they won't let me

No I don't at all MP .. I think the focus is resulting in the perception that it is MNHQ reinforcing a weird clique of 'alpha' or 'elite' posters and giving them an official kudos. In that way their points of view on the boards has added weight, an almost 'official sanction'. It's very discomforting and almost non-democratic.

And I love all of them I really do. And I am happy to consider them alpha posters so long as it is my consideration and not an MNHQ one.

I have made MNHQ aware of this by highlighting my previous post to them.

lol Fio!

I also felt a bit uncomfortable with any posters being highlighted in the article for similar reasons to twig.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

ROFL!
Caitlin Moran I dare you!

rofl Fio. Or how about - suggested weekend activites for parents - friday night - bum sex and butt plugs

I completely agree with Twiglett.

I find myself completely avoiding some of the "élite" posters - there is one in particular the point of whom completely passes me by and I just want to stay away.

I think the point is that any newcomer should be able to come in and have the weight of their words, wit and humour speak for itself.

They should not be going up against a publicised 'elite' of posters, nor think that there is a clique of prefects that are officially condoned.

Funny, articulate and strong-minded posters will always win through and get into your consciousness quickly of course.

I'm just uncomfortable with this change in democratic focus that's all.

Nooo, that was Larkrise to Candleford Slayerette Although some of the same actors appear in both. I don't think any of the characters in Cranford were married, it was spinsterville

I have to agree with Twiglett, I found this quote really interesting and it partly explained to me why Mumsnet is so great and works so well...

"Mumsnet?s official policy of not promoting any poster, however regular, to an editorial post, which would give them the power to delete any libellous post (only Roberts and Longton have this power), is a deliberate decision to keep this close sense of community. Roberts says: ?I don?t want there to be any ?us? and ?them? ? any cliques on the [message] board. We all have to be equal on there.?

But for Caitlin to then single out her own alpha clique seems entirely contradictory and wrong.

Not that I have anything at all against the posters mentioned.

By pruners "we set up our "alpha posters" ourselves anyway, don't we? "

and thereby hangs the rub

While not a "celebrity poster" and therefore secretly at those mentioned, I can see that actually it's quite a nice way to give a flavour of the site and entice people in.

Now I need to think of an angle to develop giving me some credibility and fame on MN. Hmm...

I must admit I rather liked the 'synopsis' on the sleb-posters

What would your synopsis be then?

Teuch: Persistent lurker and binge-poster, often found on the ttc boards ceaselessly (?!) trying to work out her own and others' cycles. Flies below most posters' radar and posts when pissed, which is quite often.

I think in the article it's more an ironic thing to give a bit of 'character' to the site - like Tim Dowling's Liberati and JaneT....

lololol, twiggers re your first post.

we are all equal but some are more equal than others. dontcha know?

very good article overall but i don't think the irony was intentional. no wonder i don't read the papers anymore.

that's not how it reads though MP