Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Re this recent child abuse case, can we have just *ONE* thread for competitive sadding please?

574 replies

solidgoldbrass · 11/11/2008 23:04

Yes it's awful
Etc.
But we don't need a McCann-esque thread frenzy all saying the same thing.

OP posts:
2shoes · 15/11/2008 17:47

who is this one group of people, you all talk about.
as far as I can see the people have objected to all the threads, don't come from any one group. I don't be long to a group

conniedescending · 15/11/2008 17:54

What I am trying to say is that it is not an issue of how many times a thread or topic appears in active converstations that is at then root of this - its the content of it that is irksome to some posters.

tortoiseshellWasMusicaYearsAgo · 15/11/2008 17:57

No that's total rubbish - I think what most posters object to is 5 or 6 thread titles, mostly titled something graphic, which is upsetting to most people, and if it's in AC you have no choice whether to see it or not. The fact that the content tends to be is a good argument for confining it to 1 thread.

conniedescending · 15/11/2008 18:03

well, you've fallen for the propaganda then tortoise

you'd have to live in a cave to avoid hearing something horrid, graphic or upsetting more than once. Hardly think reading a 2 different titles in MN active convos is going to be the only exposure someone gets to this type of story

that is utter nonsense which leads me back to the other real reason this thread was started - to belittle and undermine others

mabanana · 15/11/2008 18:04

What a strange reversal here. Nobody, but nobody, has told anyone off for not being sad enough about this baby's death.
The only people telling other people how to behave are those who roll their eyes simply because some people on the internet say that they are sad about a baby's death. A death that is impossible not to think about as it is on every single news bulletin and in every newspaper. My pregnant neighbour with a little boy of the same age as baby P was talking this morning about how distressing she found the case, and how she was finding it very hard to escape upsetting intrusive thoughts about him. Why shouldn't she be able to talk about this? She's not a 'ghoul', or 'rubbernecking' or 'enjoying' it, or 'rending her garments' or anything else that people have been so glibly accused of.
I haven't actually seen any of the 'frenzy' or 'hysteria' that people are talking about. The hyperbole about rending of garments is merely a rhetorical trick designed to make people sound ridiculous and hysterical, when as far as I can see, they aren't. As I said, maybe I didn't look very hard and if I had searched more I would have found more extreme posts. But then why would I? If I see a thread about something I don't want to read, I don't usually read it.
The OP was deliberately inflammatory, as well she knew. If it was really only about having one thread, it would have read:
"Is it possible to have just one thread about the Baby P case" Simple. Though I think that there is plenty of scope on a discussion forum for different threads. These might include the thread I saw where people were trying to think of things to do to make sense of this death (ie give to charity, lobby MPs etc) and another thread discussing the failings of the ss dept, doctors etc, as well as people talking about their feelings.

dittany · 15/11/2008 18:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Doobydoo · 15/11/2008 18:08

Extremely well put mabanana.

tortoiseshellWasMusicaYearsAgo · 15/11/2008 18:08

Actually I haven't. But I do remember the whole McCann thing on here, and I know that there were a lot of posters who didn't feel they could log onto AC because of the upsetting titles. And this was often quieter posters who just felt driven away, people who wouldn't necessarily comment but would feel unable to come onto MN. And I think the same is true in this case.

LittleBella · 15/11/2008 18:09

aposite article re all this here

blueshoes · 15/11/2008 18:13

good post, mabanana

Chrysanthamum · 15/11/2008 18:19

I agree with astromum, isn't cynicism the biggest pose of all? and sooooo cerebral. Not v liberal tho'. I cant say I was outraged at the posting that triggered all this tho I didn't like it. What is niggling me now is the labelling used a bit later like "stupid people who....". Sorry but I haven't heard any startling/even original observations from this poster. Let people express themselves in their own way judging folk isn't a good idea.

pagwatch · 15/11/2008 18:23

quick thank you to Dittany and Blunt for totally evidencing mt point that posters are deliberately twisting any point made to score points for one side or the other....

For anyone who is interested ( not many I expect) what I actually said was that I thought the thread would be interesting example to my son of how poor debate is totally counter-productive. I never suggested that i was seeking his approval of its content.

I take Dittanys point that the title is part of the 'ruck vs debate' example....but have to add that I never suggested that the title would be excluded.
But I assume from that that I am being placed in the 'with the op' gang. Which I actually find quite funny givenm what I have actually posted...

ah well....

dittany · 15/11/2008 18:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

2shoes · 15/11/2008 18:37

shall I ask my ds who is 16 to read the thread as well?
I could ask dh what he thinks to
I don't tbh Pag see what your sons op has to do with anything.

pagwatch · 15/11/2008 18:47

oh dear lord

Not going to provide examples as I said "I assume"

And I said you made a good point - I had always intended to include the title. I was just unsure as to why you thought I would exclude it.
I provided what I thought would be the downside to his seeingthe content. That was all.

But my personal opinion ( without quotes or examples to support that statement )is that you are now trying to pick a fight with me, for reasons I can't quite fathom other than that some on this thread seem to be so angry that everyone feels under attack.

So I shall leave you to it.
I hope you all reach some meeting of minds.

pagwatch · 15/11/2008 18:50

2shoes

I was talking about the nature of debate - not this OP. Show it to who you will - or not.

dittany · 15/11/2008 18:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

2shoes · 15/11/2008 18:54

(pag I need to ask you something so check out sn)

EBenes · 15/11/2008 18:54

I agree with astropup's assessment. If the original complaint was about the unnecessarily graphic nature of some of the discussion, why is it phrased as 'competitive sadding'? That is a completely different thing, and it seems clear what it means.

mrsruffallo · 15/11/2008 19:18

I agree with mabanana and dittany- they are the voices of reason here

GinghamRibbon · 15/11/2008 19:35

Blimey, having read load of old threads, if you only post what people want you would have about 10 threads

Breastfeeding is best - do not post if you don't agree as per the other 9.

Stay at home mums are the best

Fruit shoots are not good for your kids

Benefits should only be given to disabled children or mothers who look after them

Most of the children on here are special needs

Most of the children on here are gifted & talented

Do not dare ask a question that someone has asked before - the ancients will get the hump

Cod was well loved

Ear piercing is wrong even if you part of a tribe that lives somewhere we don't know about yet.

Competitive Sadding 'as is decribed' is wrong.

How many of you would recommend counselling for someone. From what I have read, pretty much most of you.

So perhaps the 'sadding' is a way of counselling???????????? Ever thought about that.

TheNinkynork · 15/11/2008 19:37

Sorry but PMSL at Dittany's dad / policeman comment

VaginaShmergina · 15/11/2008 20:21

GinghamRibbon you missed off the Smiley faces and chicken nuggets being "good" for your kids and dont forget the Haribo's

GinghamRibbon · 15/11/2008 20:27

Goodness, so I did. Thanks for the reminder

blueshoes · 15/11/2008 20:49

That is an impressive list there, Gingham. PMSL at the ubiquity of counselling advice!