Thread about a thread

[bibbitybobbityhat]

Mnhq - do you always delete threads about threads as a matter of course?

What should a person do if they want to discuss a spin-off subject without hijacking the original thread?

Please clarify.

It depends, bobbity.

We say in our Talk Guidelines and I quote : "If a thread is deleted, please resist the temptation to start a new one repeating and rehashing everything that has been deleted: most Mumsnetters consider that to be very bad manners and, of course, it's highly likely that the new thread will be deleted, too."

And it's the same with threads about threads that haven't been deleted, really.

So, it's not on to start a thread about a thread purely to bitch about discuss the posts/posters on the other thread.

But it's fine to start a thread following on from another thread - and discussing a general issue that the other thread might have provoked.

The thread about a thread that was deleted last night was fine to start with, I think (though I wasn't here ) but it then became so peppered with personal and specific references to the other thread and posters on the other thread that it had to be deleted.

.

Some of us are sorry that the thread has gone. As I understand it, a couple of posters started arguing amongst themselves - surely if their comments breached talk guidelines, then they could have been deleted. The rest of the thread was quite worthwhile, I would have thought (though I do say so myself).

We def agree that the rest of the thread was worthwhile, bibbity.

But, as well as the poster-to-poster fisticuffs, there was quite a lot of naming of the OP of the orig thread and comments on her situation.

The (very lovely and hard-working) MNHQer on duty took the decision that deleting all the bunfight stuff and all the orig-OP comments would take an age and would only render the thread incomprehensible. So the thread was deleted.

Do please feel free to start a new thread, though. We really don't want to censor discussion.

No, the irony is that I think the discussion had come to a natural end with just a bit of unpleasantness at the end. Shame that that had to wipe out all the effort people had made in sharing and putting their thoughts/feelings in writing.

My "no" was to Helen's comment about starting another thread. Obviously I agree with you Mary!

@Maryz

But would it not have been better to issue a stern warning, and ask people not to refer directly to the other thread (I don't think it was even linked, and people were saying "the op" not naming her)?

That's not quite right, Maryz. There were many references to MrsX...

@bibbitybobbityhat

No, the irony is that I think the discussion had come to a natural end with just a bit of unpleasantness at the end. Shame that that had to wipe out all the effort people had made in sharing and putting their thoughts/feelings in writing.

Fair enough, bibbity. And we're sorry to have upset you. That wasn't our intention at all.

We'll definitely take your comments on board.

Hmm. Well. Thank you for replying.

Bibs can be quite scary can't she?

@bibbitybobbityhat

Hmm. Well. Thank you for replying.

A pleasure.

See? Scary.

@Hullygully

See? Scary.

wot woz the thread about?

you may well ask.

Don't ask! it doesn't matter, its gorn.

okay [sigh]

I think I may have referenced the OP of the other thread by name. I did it because it seemed a bit impersonal and snotty to just call her the OP all the time. I wondered if she might be reading it and so I wanted it to seem like we still had her well-being in mind, rather than discussing her like a specimen, no matter what side of the divide we were on. I apologise if that contributed to the thread going. It's a shame as we were all simmering down and sharing chocolate and cigarettes, like the Germans and the and British in the trenches on Christmas Day in WWI, although I think we had naked dancing rather than football, iirc.