DBF banning thread, part 2.

[Rhinestone]

OCCUPY MUMSNET continues......

Justine, that was a little topical joke, please don't ban me!

But you yourself are coming across as the world's authority on this issue and how MN should apply its policies- that's the point I was trying to make.

I liked the post earlier about, er, I forget exactly what, but ethics and stuff, just before Pan went all poncey. That was more sophisticated, I think.

As I remember, DBF/Val has always made a point of saying that she isn't any kind of expert or authority, just someone who cares very much for dogs and isn't afraid to speak her mind.

Obviously she does have a great deal of experience and expertise with dogs, but I've never seen her set herself up as an authority figure.

She isn't LeBOF; she is just stating a view. That's what MN is for. I don't understand your problem with that. It is very excluding.

All I'm saying is that fair has to be fair!

You cannot be banned and reinstated, banned and reinstated like that. Or you can...but the same has to apply to all of us.

Going by what has gone on here...apparently I have quite a lot of leeway remaining on being obnoxious to people. If I am banned for a personal attack I can expect to be reinstated, yes?

SixString she was TheLadyEvenstar, hence TLES

You mean catsrus's thing, LeBof - yes.

I think DBF was recognised as an expert, rather than being a self-appointed one.

Ah, now I understand.

Thanks

Yy Grimma I agree.

pictish - not sure - I think there's an argument that a few people deserve more leeway than most when judging their negatives because of their huge positives.

But remember the Peter Singer slogan, catsrus: Kantianism for people; utlilitarianism for animals.

Catalie- I don't know if you are on a PC and can do the F3 thing for pictish's posts on the thread (I can't), but they are all very 'and let that be the final word on the topic' in tone. I have explained why I personally find that triggering to my irritometer. I am not just randomly hostile to how people who say they are new to mumsnet post. I would find it annoying from somebody longstanding, to be honest.

pictish you've made several personal attacks against DBF on these threads. Why don't you follow the MN rules that you keep reiterating?

Grimma you can't run a site the size of Mumsnet like that....or at least, you shouldn't.
Who gets to decide whose positives outweight their negatives...who gets to choose what ARE the positives or the negatives??

You can't have that....it leads to far too many grey areas!

It has to be the same for all or not at all.

Oh, and just to explain further- I posted about the newbie thing because I find that tone of posting not only irksome (my issue? Maybe), but baffling in somebody who hasn't been here that long. I genuinely do not understand. So I'm not being an arse for the sake of squashing or being unwelcoming- it's not something I would normally have occasion to comment on.

lebof-you have really done yourself no favours with your response to picitish...

pictish - MNHQ already has to use their discretion and judge what's ban-worthy and what isn't. There are already shades of grey.

I must admit i was beginning to wonder if DBH and Pictish had 'history'

LeBof - I don't mind. As a poster on here, I am open to criticism as anyone is....that's fine.

My tone is because it has to be final! Banned is banned. Not banned is banned, unless lots of us say pleasy weasy with a cherry on top.

That isn't fair and it isn't right. So yes, there is a tone of 'let that be the final word' to my posts...simply owing to the fact that in order to be fair, banned has to mean banned.

You can't just demand the rules be changed cos it's your pal! Neither can I!

That's your opinion, Pictish, and fair enough. I was just explaining why it was pushing my buttons. I'm sure there are things about me other posters which irritate people too that would be water off a duck's back to me.

Sall very intresting.

MN is a site for parents by parents etc, but within that you have specialist areas with extremely strong views that don't operate in the same way as the wider site, yet are subject to the same rules.

No wonder there's probs

pictish a few other posters have had bans lifted before. It's not just one singular poster. There would be similar outrage and has been similar outrage when other prolific posters have been banned unfairly.

As Grimma said there are already shades of grey.

Alouisee - as I have already said on this thread, TLES may not have been the best home for the dog, but she has improved the dog's health and quality of life. And there seems to be an assumption, demonstrated in your post, that any new home NOT found for the dog by DBF or another rescuer WILL be a bad home - and there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this assumption on the deleted thread.

Why is it not perfectly possible that the home in Hertfordshire exists, and is with people who will give the dog a caring, competant, and experienced forever home??