"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

Oooh...no gurus? Are you sure? I think there may have been one or two baby gurus on here (as in early in their guru career not gurus about babies) around here in the early days....

Mind you, I do still hanker after the old days when there was no arguing and no-one actually cared if we exisited or not (well that may be half true anyway)

Well there you go DMfker, so any traffic from the DM is presumably a Good Thing?

WWW, check it out:

www.fsilaw.com/Profiles/Mark%20Stephens.aspx

Sorry, I know Mark we have to be nice. But is a bit funny.

Must admit i never used to post like anyone else was reading, well, maybe about 5 people, and it never occured to me that it could ever be in a paper, or that anyone else in the world would be vaguely interested. I still don't really. Which is why I have a tendency to over share.

platesmasher, I knew you I am an old name too - just cannot reveal who I was IYSWIM. Still my reg number was very very small

No arguing? Are you mental?
There's been arguing on here since MN first flexed it's servers. Same arguments over and over. Just different topics, and different names. Well, some different. Some very much the same.

anyold - I think most of us suffer from thinking it is smaller than it is not the other way around - don't we?

yea if you want to risk haveing your private life printed in the national garbage. I dont wanna flick through a copy of it on the train and see a thread Ive posted on staring out at me. Talk about devaluing the brand. But I guess its ok as its not a formula manufacturor that were going to be linked with.

VVVQ - like I said - half true

Isn't that rather the point, anyold? If the DM has a circulation of half a dozen people no one would be bothered about being featured in it (except possibly those whose MILs constituted that readership)

Its in caps and everything WWW. With a picture of Mark's secretary looking the least inclined to help anyone, ever. I shall stop teasing Mark now.

well yea but theres been a few people that seem to think that your no more likly to be spotted by someone you know posting on here than if it was printed in the daily garbage. people like talking about millions of people looking at it every day. apart from the odd journalist and bloke looking for porn and falling into a bumsex thread most of the users here are parent or wanting to be parent right. the daily garbage has a bigger audience than mumsnet can ever hope to have because its aimed at a much bigger target group.

target group = bigots? Scary that it's a much larger audience than parents

Yes, that's what has worried a lot of posters who have said (I'm paraphrasing) "I didn't mind posting on MN because I know The People I Am Bothered About [chiefly parents or inlaws] are unlikely ever to read it, but they read the DM and if my posts are going to start getting published in there then I am not happy"

well yeah look at how many people voted for the british national party they were either bigots or idiots. so the rest of the target group is the idiots

does ones MIL know their user name?

Exactly, TDMHWandL. Phew with that name

Oh hilarious at "can my secretary help?" ha ha ha. NO SHE CAN'T, I want the 18 page CV MARK to help!

Ooh, he's represented the Princess of Wales indeed, get him!

Oh, I see, so the argument is "I post here because nobody I know will read" but if it's io the DM then my mum might identify "fuckslikeabunnyrabbit" as me? Okaaay.

Its the surrounding detail tho Custy that gives people away and not the name as such. And only the poster (posting with her own perception of who she was posting to) will know how obvious to a MIL the stuff she is posting is.

TMHWAL, that seems like a fair paraphrase - and does cover at least part of why I don't like it.

WRT the DM readership, does that cover the people who pick up a copy and read once someone has finished with it etc? Because most people who would recognise me would not buy the DM - but would read a spare copy when bored! I think it gets to a far wider coverage than people realise, after all a lot of people who would never read the DM are - in truth - people who would never admit to reading the DM IYSWIM.

the likely hood that ones mil who reads the daily mail - reads this article - realises that the circumstancces are the same and puts the pieces together are slim i would think

althoug thats not the point - which is the daily mail munches flange

well yeah if you read something and think oh that sounds like so and so that I know let me go and have a look. they come here and look and put bits and pieces together and realise it is, or even knowing the idiots that read it not even bother looking it up just confront some poor unsuspecting person who is the wrong person. and even worse then start posting there own nonsense here as well.