Daily Mail part 3

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Just to respond to

"You were at just as much risk of being quoted by a journalist before"

I really don't understand that - please explain how the odd one off is exactly the same risk as a weekly column that will definitely be quoting an MN thread?

There were risks both times but they are not the same - surely that's obvious?

BOF, I would love a drink - and silliness actually, this is all a bit much for me. BUt I really do feel strongly about this, the prospect is too much for me and I don't feel comfortable posting elsewhere at least until I have some idea how it will end.

Thanks for the invite though

Sorry, haven't been able to keep up with fast moving threads so far. But just wanted to ask. Has the Terms of Use bit about how they can use our posts changed in the last few years?

Because i seem to remember (bear in mind it was a few years ago now) that when I signed up to Mumsnet, I had to tick a box that said that i gave permission to Mumsnet to use anything i posted for their own publications etc, and that they had the right to edit them as they saw fit.

But, just looking at what is currently written here It seems that they have accounted for every eventuality.

I just wondered if this had changed recently, or has it always been like that?

Moldiegate is STILL rumbling on for some poster . Or should that be grumbling on...

ISWYM Lily, the risk hasn't significantly changed.
I think the main reason I disagree (you guessed? ) is what I said before - people will have had to search google or MN or whatever (or be an MNer) to see contentious threads. They didn't tend to come across them by chance, especially if they weren't heavy internet users, apart from maybe twice a year a feature in some newspaper. Now there is a regular column featuring contentious threads (I bet - if it stays on fake tan and eyeliner then I'm safe as are most of us) there's a lot more chance of someone reading it because it happens to be there and they read it from cover to cover. Or they're bored and have read the rest and done the crossword.

apart from 7 down
"I can't believe it's not ...?" Popular spread. 6 letters. Last one's an 'r'.

Stealth, it was from the start of the thread:

"By anyoldDMfucker on Sat 15-Aug-09 19:49:24
but how come links with formula companies are baaaaad but links with the daily garbage are goooood surely they both as bad as each other."

I don't think the DM actively pursues policies that they know to harm babies - but I'm not sure that "not as bad as Nestle" is much of a compliment...

but mumsnet and google aint all its cracked up to be sorry but its not unless you put mumsnet in the search box lots of searches ive done on parenting stuff havent give me mumsnet links.

I can't believe it's not lard. Er.

ah right sorry hunker I missed that - thought you were posting on another thread in your mind Yes I agree.

Yes, I see what you're saying. I think my position is, as I said earlier, MN have always relied on a media presence to attract posters, and so it has always occupied a fairly high profile place in the media. And so this doesn't feel very different to me.

I think maybe the solution would be to not use user names in the column, then it is the discussion that is being reported, rather than the individuals. Obviously though it would be very easy to locate them through the search facility.

I maintain though that everything should be written with the assumption that it will be read by someone you know!

Why such a nasty post then shiney?

I know you think this has been done but seriously, I am a bit shocked at being attacked like that!

I don't need much provocation to post about formula companies' shady practices, Stealth...

This is a shocking read for instance.

the thing is the media interest thus far has always been short quips and witticisms on the burning issues of the day (eg swine flu).

Up to now, no-one has ever thought of printing verbatim a detailed, personal and identifable OP and most of the responses to that OP, complete with nicks.

That's a completely different kettle of fish.

I have to say I've never really noticed much mention of MN in the media
But then I don't read newspapers and don't watch TV so that might explain it!"

That is shocking hunker.
What are the chances the DM will promote his situation? Asylum seeker + breastfeeding link - no way I'd ahve thought!

GROUNDHOG DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fit's in perfectly with this thread being done over, and over, and over and all the talk of films. Bonus points for me.

Seriously can we just not all realise that the media have been quoting MN for a long time, this is not new. It is and always has been a public forum and anyone who is that interested in you could find you very quickly in a Google search should they wish to.

IMO if you are that worried then either change name every so often, leave or stop posting very personal details.

Sorry I noted definate lashings of sarcasm in there. Quite possible that you were refering to previous, more fun, threads where we were trying to get to a thousand posts so yes I may well have misread that.... goodness I need a glass of wine!

Jaqueline, thank you for your unique input

Jacqueline are you reading any other posts.
Yes anyone could have found the posts IF THEY HAD WANTED TO
now it's displayed with their cornflakes whether they feel nosey or not

That's the point king it's not unique input and neither is anything on this 3rd thread it has all been said. Can we just wait for MN towers to get back to us. Unsure what the was for but right back at ya

"By LilyBolero on Sat 15-Aug-09 18:57:20
But Riven, that has always always been the case - really nothing has changed. And it would be a shame if people felt they couldn't post on the site -it's just good to be aware that it is public! Which I think is sometimes forgotten tbh.

Those people citing risks etc, with the increased readership of the Daily Mail - it is 1 column a week, with maybe 4 or 5 posters quoted? How many threads are there per week on here? Must be in the thousands. How many posts made? Must be in the 10s of thousands. So numerically risk hasn't increased much. It's the perception of the 'risk' that has changed."

you are so COMPLETELY missing the point. it's not about risk across the board, it's that IF YOU ARE PICKED AS THE OP then your risk of being spotted increases exponentially.

now, it's still highly unlikely that we'll be the one picked, so that may be where you're getting your (imo flawed) premise re perception, but if you are the one, then your risk just shot up massively. so... don't faint in the booking appointment, don't get sacked, and sure as hell don't post for advice about it on MN.

i mean, that support is the whole point of MN, but hey ho let's just chat about fucking bumsex from now on and everyone will be happy.

Yes stealth I have read all 3 main threads and several other mini threads.

The Times have been lifting threads and quotes for a long time now, why has no one been quite so hystericl about that?