"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

Christina, if you aren't going to believe what you are told then why ask supplemental questions?

FWIW, I do believe MNHQ's protestations. There have been episodes in the past that have caused just as much (in fact, probably more) stress and general unhappiness on the boards and they've been quite prepared to put their hands up and say "OK, we made the decision beause we just hadn't anticipated it would be this unpopular". I see no reason why they should suddenly start lying about things this time. In particular one of the last major kerfuffles was sparked by MNHQ approving a MN-related article in a national newspaper, so I am sure that Justine is right when she says that if they'd been involved in this they would have consulted MN first

If you have so little respect for the individual people who run this site then perhaps you would be happier posting on a different large parenting forum with an ethical advertising stance and a commitment to consulting its membership? Let us know when you find it.

christina, I also think that MNHQ didn't know what was going to happen...

and I don't believe they knew it would fall out like this.

Which is part of my concern as to what next..

I don't feel safe with this and feel desperatley uncomfortable- not really for myslef as I've been as circumspect as possible on alot of personal details... but there are some very very very vulverable people on here and in life.
And ther thoughts and worries and experiences are on this board and sit here in the archives.

And MNHQ thus far (and this may well change) have no idea if they can stop anyone form any media just coming in and taking chunks of what they have said and putting them inot another context entirely.

They have an agreement witht the DM apparently that asks if they stay off these posts.
But i doubt this is in law or enforceable-- as they ahve said themselves, they simply don't know, nor do lthe lawyers probaly-
Theiinternet is new in terms of the law and thsu far all the law cases to do with it have been test type cases

TheDailyMailHatesWomenAndLemon - My supplemental questions were quite rhetorical. Just venting. It's what MNHQ allows us to do. Vent and cry then they carry on regardless with their money making decisions.

It seems to me there've been a few episodes recently where "things got out of control". Remember the recent "swine flu parties" on radio? Yet they are full of journous, they know the media game. Then trying to put this innocent face on here. Sorry, just one too many for me.

At this very moment I have about as much respect for people running the site as they do for me/us. Make of that what you will

I don't think there's a perfect site for me, but this was quite fun and ticked most of requirement boxes.

I think we are all out of our depth on the implications of this.

The end point could well be lifting somebody's DV post to advertsie kitchen roll...

We just don't know how much control MNHQ has over who can take stuff out of here- and nor do they (unless there has bene further clarification overnight)

Sorry, MN, but I belive you need to allow some of us to bow out and take our stuff with us.

I'll certainly come back, but be much much more aware of waht i'm writing for and I'm sure you'll be able to advise us on what has been agreed and allowed.

"she wants all her posts deleted in case her privacy is compromised?"

No, I think she wants post linking her old posting name and her real name deleted. Quite rightly too. Outing someone's real name is not on.

i don't understand. it's not her posting name, it's a posting name from about two years ago. and anyone with half a brain can work out who it is by doiing a 'more by this author' search on the DM site. she's still posting, but under another name. i could see the argument for deleting that.

ex ed of cosmo? son with aspergers dx? (actually lol i've just checked and the cosmo thing's not online, i must've read that in the actual PAPER ).

with the greatest respect, LH has put herself out there massively, she can't really pick and choose.

lizjones my reading of it was that any reference to LH and her past mn name (she hasn't actually posted by that name for at least 18 months afaics) on these threads would be deleted, ie. that her anonymity would be respected just as any other posters's would, not that all her past posts would. It seems as if she may well have posted more recently under another name and I think I recall recognising her on one such thread since but can't remember what her name might have been.

I think part of the issue, as with many of the other past mn "scandals", is the suggestion of a breach of trust from within. She is/was a well liked and sensible poster, who at times received support from others here, but it feels as if that has somewhat gone out the window even this time though no malice may have been intended.

IIRC she outed herself (in terms of linking her old posting name and her real name) repeatedly in the past. The connection there is verging on general knowledge and I do think it's silly to decide, years later, that she's worried about it.

If her concern related to her new username, which is not widely known to be her, I'd understand.

But I suspect the original name was when she was a more prolific poster and at a more sensitive stage with her dc.

Could whoever it is that said LH has previously outed herself as being [insert posting name here] forward a link to that to MNHQ? If she really has told people herself in the past then MNHQ could take thedecision that the knowledge was put out there by LH herself and she has to live with that - and then stop running themselves ragged trying to delete our posts. After all they have quite a lot to be doing at the moment!

FWIW I do still think posters deserve to keep their privacy - even if they are compromising others and I feel that that applies to LHs new posting name until such time as she chooses to reveal it herself.

Outed on here or not others will know who some MN are through meet ups and also then talk about them on msn, email, over coffee, in Tescos. So even if not named on here, people will know.

Yes, and I haven't repeated the name anywhere, but I do think it's faintly barking to post a dozen threads identifying yourself over a period of years, be in a position where everyone knows who you are, and then several years later start objecting to it. The only people who will care that LH is TheNameWeShallNotMention are the people who were around at the time that she was posting under that name, and they pretty much all know already. So unless there's also a plan to send men around to scour our brains out with wire wool I don't see what it's achieving.

oopsagain makes a good point about lobbyists etc posting on here.

1. A little bit of jiggery-pokery with different email addresses and names, you create a thread saying isn't X wonderful

2. Publish thread in print media, saying, Mumnet thinks X is wonderful

3. Profit!!

And it's all very well now teling us we could be featuring in the DM, but what about,for example, the embarrassing medical problem I posted about last year? No-one told me that could be rubbed in my MIL's face!

Stripey, that is silly. It has been said here again and again that "you have to watch what you say in an open forum" "You are responsible for your own information". If I choose to say "Hi, I am KingCanute and I live in Outer Mongolia and my RL name is Robinson Crusoe" then you really think other people should just ignore that and behave as if I never said it? Really?

[a dozen is probably exaggerating, I admit. But I knew who she was, and I am notoriously slow on the uptake, so it must have been pretty bloody obvious four years ago]

I agree with that Stripey - that is probably why she namechanged, however you have said it, you cannot take it back at a later date and expect everyone else just to fall in! You accept and learn from your mistakes and move on. LH has managed the moving on part, I am just not sure why she is expecting MNHQ to run around cleaning up her messes from several years ago. Something tells me she won't be in a hurry to help retrive information if she prints something one of us said several years ago and have now hanged our minds about!

Sorry x post, I do not agree that each thread is a new start - so you think, for example on the SN boards, we should all just "forget" what we learned about people in a previous thread and never refer to it again?

Can't you see how ridiculous you are being?