Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Other subjects

Blu back, one thread only for now, but will take questions.

70 replies

Blu · 02/08/2006 00:32

OK.

Had a message from someone not on the therad to say there is a lot of upset caused by my leaving, and what I said. I have skim read some threads just now, and am v tired, so apologise for missing info / incoherency.

I decided to leave - for then, for as long as it felt right, maybe for good, for a few reasons. Spending too much time, but also the way i felt i was spending it.

I was concerned / upset / sometimes angry at the way some posters were getting treated. i am a fan of robust debate, don't atke stuff personally myself (much) and don't usually get into rows. But I kept seeing people's spats (feindly or hostile0 careering across threads and taking over threads of new and shaky people. Stuff that I thought was insensitive. Don't need to go over it and resurrect it!

I have been fed up about the tone of some threads, and the way context is (can be) ignored.

My reaction to the 'junk' thread was accumulative, and not all about moondog. Language is important. One day, some of us were pointing out to the Beeb that thier headline about death after bf-ing was inflammatory, the next we are being told (by some - some of the same posters) that Moondog's thread title was ok and it is basically the fault of the reader if they get upset. I am talking about the effect of words in the title, not the notion of linking the article or having a factual discussion about it.

I was incensed by your bringing up of the SN thread title, Greensleeves, because that seemed exactlly a case in point about double standards - one title is ok, one is not, you can decide Fios title was not ok, but that moondogs was completely different, and I was angry that you appeared to be defending a position you didn't even have much sympathy with in order to support moondog.

By the by. You are not the reason I decided to leave that night. It was the tone of Mn in general - some of the things that have been said on a thread started by MI. And I shouldn't have made presumptions about your relationship with special needs, my irritation was about what i perceived to be double standards in what was ok to post, and where you had apparantly decided that someone else was NOT alowed to post something v close to their heart, but moodog COULD post something that may be very close to trampling on someone else's heart. Not by posting the link, but by using words like 'peddle' and 'junk'.

For the rest, we'll see. MN has been brilliant for me, it si brilliant. But in truth I haven't enjoyed it as much recently because of things I intervened to say on threads at the time, or because of things which have been talked about generally this week. But charging off in a fit of fury isn't the best way to make it better, more suportive or more generally fun (for all) - i knw that.

I have come back because i am sorry that my exit has caused knock-on problems.

And just to clarify, I'm not talking as an SN member. My visits there about ds are specifically about containable issues, i don't live the life of Fio or Jimjams, not at all.

Have not previewed this....will be unintelligble...

OP posts:
Blu · 02/08/2006 00:33

I don't mean upset because I left, i mean upset because of the way i did it.

OP posts:
marthamoo · 02/08/2006 00:35

Blu, not unintelligible at all. Just echoing a lot of how I've felt about MN of late. Maybe it's time I took a break too.

Jimjams2 · 02/08/2006 00:40

Ah Blu I'm pleased you're back, and I hope it will be for more than one thread.

I was to blame for the title ending up being discussed in the formula thread btw. Not to go over it again, but just to take some blame for making you incensed. I posted it because I thought it was an example of one rule on one thread, and one on another, but I shouldn't have, I should have had the sense to leave it because it was from an upsetting thread. And I do want to apologise about that (again!).

Blu · 02/08/2006 00:40

And Gs - I didn't / don't think you were anti-SN, just being doubley-standardy - and was cross that you were (or seemed to me to be) telling JJ how she should feel on the thread in question.

OP posts:
Jimjams2 · 02/08/2006 00:41

But I think that's by the by anyway- and perhaps the bigger issues are the ones mentioned by MI earlier.

Oh god marthmoo not you too, please don't.

Blu · 02/08/2006 00:41

JJ - ok, then I apologise for reading threads late at night when a bit ever so slightly drunk and not paying attention to who brought it up.

OP posts:
Jimjams2 · 02/08/2006 00:42

ah good I'm glad you said that Blu because that's how I interpreted it earlier. Phew.

Jimjams2 · 02/08/2006 00:42

Ah I'm out of synch and its too late.

Greensleeves · 02/08/2006 00:43

It felt like a personal and rather hysterical attack to me. And you presumed I knew nothing about SN (wrongly). And, incidentally, I wasn't the one who quoted the thread in SN - I'm sure Jimjams won't mind my pointing out she was the poster who did that and brought the other thread up.

So yes, I felt your personal attack on me, a la "you waltz all over these boards" etc - was pretty uncalled-for. I'm not aware of having fallen out with you, but I certainly won't forget you!

Heathcliffscathy · 02/08/2006 00:44

NO. stop it all of you. no leaving. stay and talk. no leaving.

Greensleeves · 02/08/2006 00:46

No, actually, I'm fucking sick of this. Bollocks.

Although MN being the way it is, I doubt it will cause much of a ripple me fucking off.

Jimjams2 · 02/08/2006 00:46

No I have to go to bed!

GS I have already mentioned that I brought it up.

soapbox · 02/08/2006 00:48

Blu, you know I can't even remember who the posters were. But what really gets on my tits is people who post saying, it's a public forum so I can post what I like. The clear implication is that they don't give a shit about how other people might view their posts and how upset they might be about them.

I really could never be that uncaring about other people - in RL of in VL. Why can't people just suppress a little of their often unintelligible views in order to protect the sensbilitites of other people? Afterall, that is surely what we would do in RL.

I am deeply concerned than MN is in danger of being taken over by the gobby, shoot from the hip, don't give a damn school, and that was never what MN was about.

It is therefore no stretch of the imagination to link this behaviour with the call for separate sections of the site. Some people want to be able to post again, in a 'safe' environment, where they won't have the shit ripped out of them for posting how they feel.

It is all very troubling, and like you I think a rest is long overdue.

Jimjams2 · 02/08/2006 00:50

oh no don't go!!!!! I've only just come back because of you lot.......

(I think we decided against the private or at least completely private exclusive to SN section....)

Blu · 02/08/2006 00:50

I did feel that you and others have been covering quite a few threads with value-laden comments about everything from soft drinks to pasta to heavens knows what, and the 'you' there wasn't you by yourself, honestly. One of the things that has p*d me off recently is the way threads have snowballed by groups of people pilling in to agree with mates.

This is all very unfortunate, horrible, now because a lot IS now focussed on you, gs, and i came back for this thread because i can see that that is not fair.

OP posts:
Blu · 02/08/2006 00:58

GS - i'm here to say again although i did mean you about the double standards, I didn't mean you individually about anything else, and I said below i was wrong about the SN bit (and it wasn't actualy relevant to what i was trying to say at the time anyway) can see that it is very unfair that it has all converged around you on this thread tonight.

I'm off to bed now before I make things even worse.

OP posts:
VeniVidiVickiQV · 02/08/2006 01:00

Blu, I wonder if your interpretation of "piling in with mates" isnt in fact just that a group of people who have got on well in the first place because they share the same views on things generally, will then likely agree in the same manner on future threads after already having established common ground?

There isnt anything wrong with that, as far as I can see. The same way its likely that the folks who frequent the SN boards are more likely to agree with each other on certain topics - they go there for a reason and have "bonded" with each other.

SminkoPinko · 02/08/2006 01:02

I think it's big of you to come back and start this thread, blu. I wish you were back properly.

GS- i suppose there's no possibility of kissing and making up here? I know you are feeling brittle and shit but is there no way forward?

Blu · 02/08/2006 01:05

No, VVV, it isn't! That happens, TOO, and when it's good that is the making of a community.

I can see the difference.

OP posts:
Jimjams2 · 02/08/2006 01:07

I do agree with Blu about the piling in. It's the same phrase as I've used over the past few months, and its horrible.

Greensleeves · 02/08/2006 01:12

Kissing and making up can be taken as read, if the "other side" are OK with it. I hate grudges and I don't want them.

Sorry about me, tonight. I don't know what's happening to me I just need to go to bed and forget it all. I am NOT harbouring plots/murderous impulses/secret hatreds for ANYONE. Please can we just start again?

SminkoPinko · 02/08/2006 01:18

Going to bed and starting again tomorrow sounds like a v good idea, GS. I hope everyone is ok. Tonight has been like watching one of my son's enormous mollescums explode painfully and I think it's time to clean up the blood and cream cheese and tears and put a plaster over the crevice and relax and recover.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 02/08/2006 01:19

Im probably just naive! Night night everyone

(again)

xxx

Blu · 02/08/2006 01:20

Night nigt.

OP posts:
SminkoPinko · 02/08/2006 01:21

night blu.

Swipe left for the next trending thread