I HATE MUMSNET: Why one mum thinks the parenting website is smug, patronising and vicious

[morningpaper]

night night

Princess
Did you check your emails? You have to verify your existance.

How do you comment underneath a comment?

Loving it.

Especially the comment who said that we'd be all upset and snivelling into our laptops at such a harsh review.

You'd never survive AIBU if you were that sensitive.

Mme Lindt - yes I did. In fact I thought I'd made a mistake in verifying the first time, so did it again and was told I was already verified.

Zephirine - I said of the person looking for support for the British way of life (whatever it was - I c+p the sentence): what a strang thing to say. That MN has a million members, diversity of opinion, chat as well as serious discussion, blah blah.

Maybe my comment was just too boring.

strange

Last time I posted a response on there it took several hours for the verification email to reach me.

I have commented, not sure why I bother though LOL. Who cares?There'sloads of sites out there, and people have to move on and find one that suits them.

just hope MNHQ aren't upset by it, that would be a shame.

Well I think that some of the posts on here can come across as smug, patronising & vicious.

Still think it´s fun though!

Oh dear. I'm going to have to retire this posting name for good aren't I...

But it's just so damn tempting sometimes...

Am loving the detective work on this thread

Personally I think she is very probably Keyser Soze. We need to see if she has a limp.

The daily mail REALLY wanted to run that mn column didn't they. They are such sulkers.

Please can someone tell me how the hell I comment on a particular comment underneath it?

I don't think you can. I think you have to copy and paste the bit you want to reply to.

Are they really still running it? In the print version only? What have the colums been about then?

Just wanted to add - in the hope that Schmauskin is reading this thread - that she was given careful and polite and friendly explanations, several times, about why MNHQ pulled her thread. No bitching. Not a viper in sight.

Yet six weeks later, here she is accusing MN of bitchery and nastiness.

I don't get it.

Was that really the same schmauskin? I thought it was someone taking the piss.

Ah how I love My MN!!!!

"Just wanted to add - in the hope that Schmauskin is reading this thread - that she was given careful and polite and friendly explanations, several times, about why MNHQ pulled her thread. No bitching. Not a viper in sight.

Yet six weeks later, here she is accusing MN of bitchery and nastiness.

I don't get it."

But it's not her who has written the article!

DF - Schmauskin has commented on the DM article (see online).

Thanks for answering my question (I am finding this page thing hard with mn so did not see it had been asked before!)I don't understand the 'revenge' thing. Why do they need revenge? As far as I can see they have carried on running the peice and MN have no power to stop it

"DF - Schmauskin has commented on the DM article (see online)."

oh rght, I assumed that was a mumsnetter taking the piss.

I don't think they have any decisions to make do they? Articles have always been lifted by the media and I presume they will carry on being lifted in the same manner. Why should it make any difference whether it is the dail mail or CNN?

"It's an awful site. I posted recommending a brand of formula milk and it got deleted. I politely started a thread (in capitals, because it important) telling everyone how rude they were to delete my thread and I was given so much grief it's unbelievable. I promptly left and it was such an unimportant even in my life that I haven't given it one single moment's thought since. Not one. No.

"

sounds like a mumsnetter taking the piss to me