<<whispers>> Was there ever any clarification about whether the issue with GF was swearing on here?

[hunkermunker]

MN Towers, if you'd prefer it if this was deleted, please do so.

But I'm nosy. And I want to know. Please?

(I didn't swear in this, though I was tempted to...childish or what?!)

Yes, free speech is extremely important, but there are times when I feel like standing on the corner between two threads shouting "Gercha sharp stick here, free sharp sticks for poking hornets nests! Po-o-o-oke the hornets nest, laydeeees!".

lol!

you'd make a hell of a lot of money Blu.

oh you'e selling them for free! how very altruistic of you...

Wordsmith, of course we need to be able to discuss parenting techniques - we just all need to remember that we can't start making libellous comments about people & expect to get away with it!
We had discussions about Gina Ford techniques on here for years before it turned into a personal attack on the woman herself.
I don't like the course of action she has resorted to, I have reservations about her methodology and I very much hope that she and her lawyers are making threats rather than seriously considering taking Mumsnet Ltd to court. However, it is a huge wake up call to all of us that we are responsible for our comments.

Am amazed that those who are angry about the threat to MN are not prepared to suspend a conversation which, while perhaps interesting, even compelling, can only make things worse for MN.

There's a big difference between having the right to say something and deciding that it is worth saying.

I've kept out of this so far, but jsut wanted to send my support and tin rattling abilities to the Mumsnet team.

As a GF devotee, who has had many heated discussions on her in support of GF's methods, i do feel this is a very sad situation. I supported ginababe on the original thread, and could completely understand how hurt and upset she was by some of the personal comments that had been madeabout her - we need to remember that parenting gurus are human beings too. However I can honestly say that as an avid reader of GF threads, I have not seen anything since the Ginababe debacle (well until now) that would constitute a personal attack on Ms. Ford - discssions have centred on her methods and have been very well self policed by memebers on both sides of the debate. The recent comments that have not been about her methods have been about her (IMHO) ill-advised decision to persist with legal action against Mumsnet Inc - which seems to have done everyting possible to appease her.

Im also of the view that it's best to leave matters alone for the time being.

But I don't understand (sorry Blu, having another poke) how any comment can be deemed personal when nobody knows her. Surely people are commenting on information that's already out there for public consumption. And if you can't scrutinise the methods of a parenting guru, then you're not doing the best for your child. We all want whats best for them - ideas need to be contested. People can't get uppity when evidence comes out to say this technique or that strategy might be dangerous. New evidence on infant psychology is emerging all the time. Parents and parenting gurus alike need to hear it, not put their fingers in their ears shouting "la, la, can't hear you". Blummin'ek!

You can scrutinise the methods, you can't say, for example, "X is damaging children by advocating we do Y" or "X is a "

Of course comments can be deemed personal. You don't have to have a relationship with someone to make a defamatory comment.

I don't like being told not to post because you don't think it's a good idea Bloss. I know you've given us your reasons but it doesn't mean we all have to agree with them. If mumsnet ask me not to post I won't, but they haven't asked people not to post on this thread. And I have learned my lesson, I won't be posting anything remotely inflammatory or libellous.

So can you say 'X's advice on Y is contested by new scientific evidence that suggest it may be damaging to children?' or 'That piece of advice sounds alarming and totally unintuitive to me?'

Could one say "I believe that X's methods have caused stress and guilt to a generation of mothers who would otherwise have been happily winging it, and possible long-term damage to the minds of their children" ?

or not

or anti-intuitive, if such a word exists..

I'm only lurking, but I have to agree with you WWW.

Yes, MT. Provided that evidence exists.

Sue Gerhardt says it alot!

I think it's "counter intuitive"

Do we need references and footnotes

Do our posts need to be peer-reviewed in a reputable scientific journal before we press the POST MESSAGE button?

Oh, well I'm alright then, thanks Soupy.

on that last example I'd be inclined to say X advises ***.

I'm more inclined to follow Y and do *** because it suits me.

But then life is never that simple is it?

counter intuitive! doh!

No, MP, but should you be hauled up to prove your comments are true, you'd need that scientific evidence :)