Justine said

[GretaGip]

that deletions were going to be a bit more reasonable.

I have just seen 2 deletions on a thread that totally weren;t against Talk Guidelines.

What the heck is going no?

I happen to still have a window opem, and can quote them.

It's really annoying and actually unacceptable, as it makes sane poaters look like Vipers when they're not. I thought this was going to be eradicated.

I am really saddened.

HQ?

[allagory]

I have asked DH (libel lawyer). If you are seriously suggesting that someone is delusional, then that is potentially defamatory. If you are using it just as a form of abuse, it is not. It's just abuse.

In the terms of the Mumsnet rules, it seems to me that you just need to say that someone's opinions are delusional, rather than they are delusional. Because you are attacking the opinions, not the person.

Which is silly because that is probably more likely to be defamatory than calling someone delusional. Which was probably just abuse.

I wonder if Mumsnet HQ don't need some more expensive advice...

[garlicbaguette]

I don't believe people can't tell the difference between insulting an opinion and insulting the person who opined. "That's crap" is a debating position. "You're crap" is an insult.

[MmeLindor]

That's ok, Helen. I will know what I am thinking when I use it. :)

I never ever ever use the word cunt in RL. And very very rarely online.

I do agree with you, actually, that we should be civil to each other. It would make it much more pleasant for MNHQ too, cause you'd be spared the 'wahhhhhhhhhhhh, she called me names' nonsense.

[HelenMumsnet]

@ChippingInLovesAutumn

From the medical dictionary:

medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/delusion. delusion /de·lu·sion/ (dĕ-loo´zhun) an idiosyncratic false belief that is firmly maintained in spite of incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary...

I still don't see how it's a personal attack.

Seriously, it's also defined as a "persistent false psychotic belief" and is associated with some forms of paranoia, schizophrenia etc etc

[Plyushka]

Some people will never get it, garlic.

[garlicbaguette]

Chipping, because the remark translates as YOU ARE MENTALLY ILL IN QUITE A SERIOUS WAY.

[ChippingInLovesAutumn]

It was much better in the old days when you could just call someone a 'stupid twat'. Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

[MmeLindor]

Garlic
If someone called me delusional, I would assume that they disagreed with my opinion, not that they were seriously questioning my MH.

[garlicbaguette]

Oh, thanks, Plyushka, you may have saved my (admittedly fragile) sanity!

[Plyushka]

Allagory makes some good points. Lord McAlpine is trying to shed some light on how to stay within the law on Twitter.

[HelenMumsnet]

@garlicbaguette

I don't believe people can't tell the difference between insulting an opinion and insulting the person who opined. "That's crap" is a debating position. "You're crap" is an insult.

Indeed.

[Plyushka]

The problem is that if people really can't grasp it, then MNHQ will have to keep explaining every disputed deletion. Which is a waste of time for everyone.

[HelenMumsnet]

Oh look and now you've made me take my eye off the bidets.

Grr.

Excuse me for a mo

[garlicbaguette]

YY, MmeL, but would you be comfortable telling someone you don't know well they were delusional? What about using 'anorexic' in a non-clinical sense to someone you don't know?

[Portofino]

I am all agog because I "started' all this with no more than an autocorrect. To me, this should be about what the poster wrote, which was rude, defensive etc. The responses WERE fair in the context.

[ChaosTrulyReigns]

Agog is a well underused wrod.

Fosho.

[LadyMaryChristmas]

I was called delusional once (I'm being serious now, the port has worn off). I was offended, there was no need to insinuate that I had mental health issues just because they didn't agree with what I had posted.

[HelenMumsnet]

@Portofino

I am all agog because I "started' all this with no more than an autocorrect. To me, this should be about what the poster wrote, which was rude, defensive etc. The responses WERE fair in the context.

Think it might be useful if I repost my earlier post here..

We do get it.

Someone is vile. You say something chippy in return.

Both posts get deleted.

It feels unfair as chippy isn't as bad as vile.

But we don't do gradations of personal attack, we're afraid. Our heads really would explode then!

Perhaps it's best just to say something acidly nice instead of chippy in future? I dunno, maybe, "What a charming/intelligent/awesomely articulate post"? Point is made but it's not personal...

[ChippingInLovesAutumn]

Garlic - and you think SHOUTING and < > comments help how? I find that far less tolerable than being called a twat.

Plyushka - How rude. Of course people wont 'get it' unless someone (like Helen just has) finds a way of explaining it that makes some sense. Simply repeating 'it's offensive' does not help in any way. Nor do sarky comments surprisingly enough.

Helen - I didn't see that on any of the sites I looked it up on & have never intended it as anything other than a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary as in - 'you are delusional if you think your teenager doesn't swear when you are not around'. It's getting hard to know what you can actually say without unwittingly offending someone :(

[Plyushka]

Allagory, maybe your dh could do a webchat.

[MmeLindor]

Bad comparison, Garlic.

'Delusional' is used in a 'omg, what on earth are you talking about' kind of way. You may not like it, but it is. It wouldn't occur to me that someone was seriously questioning my MH.

Calling someone anorexic is different because its only used to speak of someone with an eating disorder.

[HelenMumsnet]

@ChippingInLovesAutumn

Helen - I didn't see that on any of the sites I looked it up on & have never intended it as anything other than a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary as in - 'you are delusional if you think your teenager doesn't swear when you are not around'. It's getting hard to know what you can actually say without unwittingly offending someone :(

No that's fine. We do understand - and we're always happy to explain our thinking behind a deletion in situations like this.

[Plyushka]

I think the confusion is (partly) between "deluded" and "delusional". If someone is deluded, then they are mistaken, often partly through fooling themselves. If they are delusional, they have delusions.

[HelenMumsnet]

@Plyushka

I think the confusion is (partly) between "deluded" and "delusional". If someone is deluded, then they are mistaken, often partly through fooling themselves. If they are delusional, they have delusions.

But the KEY point is that the word was applied to the poster, not the posts.

We can argue about definitions till the cows come home but the intent was to attack another poster personally. Which breaks our rules - however mild or vile the attack.

[Plyushka]

Yes, indeed; not sure why that point is not clear?