Clarification please

[Hullygully]

So I come back to find that you have deleted my thread asking why my Santa thread was deleted.

Of course it was a thread about a thread, it was asking a question about the thread.

Wtf else is one supposed to do?

I put it in site stuff.

It was also a really nice friendly thread full of poetry and laughs. Why why why why was it deleted? What the hell is going on there?

Secondly, if one wants to talk about something, and that something has been deleted purely owing to others mischief, does that mean that one is never to talk about that subject again??

How mad is that?

I hadn't thought of that.

I hope MNHQ come back and ADMIT they shouldn't have said Hully was being inflammatory. Cos she wasn't and its NOT FAIR to accuse someone of doing that, when it is plainly not true.

awaits zapping from MNHQ

FFS. I can't believe this thread is still going on and on and on over the same ground again and again and again. The world has it about right

Have they really changed the deletion message?

If so, what hope is there anyway?

Apologies to coming to this thread so late in the day.

My sense of timing seems to be a bit off these days,

including turning up for the MN meet up a whole day early.

Yes, you may well question my ability to think sensibly.

And I see that with this thread and others, MNHQ have been under pressure.

And that is fine. What I do not like, is being deleted alone on a thread at the behest of some other random poster. with no feedback at all.

I promised I wouldn't do bunfights, but I never promised I wouldn't do lighthearted posts/faintly sarcastic posts/posts laden with irony.

I personally feel there is no place for me her any more. I have tried and tried. But to be deleted simply for disagreeing with someone with a faintly sarcastic edge to my post is not the MN I found six years ago.

Sorry, but it ain't.

You give idiots posts after posts after posts of objectionable stupidity and if any one dares call them on it we get deleted.

Deleted for pointing out their are ignoring facts?

And god forbid you do it is a faintly amusing, not too leaden way.

Sorry. I am really fucked off with all of this.

I loved MN when I joined. Now I feel I have to tip toe around the sensibilities of fools.

And then random post out of nowhere, you have blinking Diane Abbot doing a blog about Nelson Mandela?

The same Diane Abbott who nominated Jonathan Aitkin as one of her children's godparents?

Could you not have found a black MP who did not have such links to the right wing of this country? The same right wing that called for his execution?

Let alone her tv slot with Michael Portillo and Andrew Neill?

Do you think we have no political memory at all?

And before you get all twitchy and deleting, I will say her track record in constituency matters is excellent. You could not hope for a better team to fight your cause.

Shame about the rest of it.

There are plenty of black MPs who would have been happy to have done a blog about what Nelson Mandela meant to them and the world.

But I guess this thread will go in the morning.

So I will start another one about Diane.

After all, you can't delete me for questioning her links to a Tory MP who was sent to jail for fraud?

I'm sorry, are you really comparing message deletions on an internet board to Mandela?!?!

Seriously?

I agree, Hully, you need to take a step back.

A person can bring appeasement to themselves by letting go, as Maryz's excellent post said.

We are all wronged sometimes[not saying you are or you are not here].

Letting go is a vital skill of life.

hth
www.mayoclinic.com/health/forgiveness/MH00131

Comparing to Mandela bingo

i knew someone would say that

no, Mandela as a topical eg, just as Santa was

Hully, how many piss taking / larking about / goady / sarky threads do you think you have you started in your years here?

I've been here close to the same amount of time as you, and 'noticed' you I think from day one. You have a style that is hard to hide, and your threads have a certain 'Hullyness' that is unmistakable.

I believe that it is hard to tell when you start a thread whether you are being serious, taking the piss, having a laugh or 'other'. When you started thread one, initially I thought it was a piss take and I expect other posters did too. When I saw the PAs against you my immediate thought was that people didn't 'get' you, and thought you were serious. I was surprised to discover you were.

The second thread, again I thought your outrage was a joke. Until this thread, where it seems I was wrong about both.

Maybe that is the problem. People see the Hully persona, automatically assume that you aren't being serious, and respond accordingly.

For example, on this thread I cannot take you seriously if you ARE comparing yourself to Mandela. I mean, really? Who would? It's rather distasteful - and frankly leads me to believe that threads one and two WERE pisstakes. It comes across as over-egging the pudding.

Can you understand the confusion? Maybe MNHQ feel the same.

(Maybe the answer is two names: HullySerious and HullyLite )

See above re mandela

This is my last post on the subject. The second thread was started in SITE STUFF because it was about deletion policy. It was deleted in a kneejerk reaction, calling it a thread about a thread. The message was later changed. Draw your own conclusions. This thread isn't deleted because it is about policy too. Yet to defend the deletion of the second thread i am publically accused of being deliberately inflammatory and a liar. Shame on you mnhq.

Actually, aside from "was it deliberately inflammatory?" I would like to put a word in in favour of the deliberately inflammatory.

Not hurtful, offensive to the vulnerable, insulting, crude, or, well, stupid.
But an interesting, contrarian, stirring point of view, sincerely offered in the spirit of creating some heat and light and opening some things up. Not necessarily sincerely held to the absolute nth degree - perhaps some element of the posit as opposed to hold - but sincerely offered for constructive purposes - sincerely considered to be a legitimate and interesting starting point for discussion
these can be funny, clever, interesting
they can also be annoying if done with a heavy hand and / or it's not your bag, in which case, oh well

It really bugs me this big-sisterly heavy handed hegemony that consensus and agreement is automatically good. Agreement and consensus is what you want when you are trying to decide where to have lunch, but boring and pointless when you want to play

Oh dear god. Get over it.

SoupDragon, what are you doing here if you don't care?
It is funny that people can be so self righteous while putting the energy into telling other people to stop putting the energy in to something they insist is unimportant.

Is no one ever allowed to post opposing views without it being dismissed as some sort of buzzword bingo? It happens all the time and it's frustrating. Looks like I wasn't the only one reading the Mandela comparisons who found it to be in bad taste.

Also wasn't there lots of criticism about the reasons for thread deletion not being clear enough? If they have changed the deletion reason perhaps that is because they think it is what is wanted as opposed to some sort of sinister censorship or rewriting of history?

I think it might be time to step back, or get over it! You are arguing about nothing and it's all a bit bonkers imo.

So, can I just ask a question?

A lot of threads on here lately are started in order to provoke a debate- threads about what people put in their DCs packed lunches, where people park their cars, whether teachers are right to do xyz, how much money people spend at Christmas.

We are not all the same people. So in my mind, I could go down the list if active convos and find things that i think have been said to goad me. Things that other people would agree with.

Every single thread has the potential to turn into a bun fight.
Every single one.
All it takes is one person to find the subject of the thread wrong, 1 person to post how much they disagree with the OP and it all kicks off. It happens all the time.

So my question is this. If every thread is perceived by different posters differently, how can you decide which ones are "deliberatley inflammatory"?

Because I find the sanctimonious "oh my god look what is in this child's lunchbox" threads to be pretty goading and inflammatory. I find the threads about WOHM vs SAHM, parking, school punishments etc goady.

But there they are. Every single week. Full of people sniping and arguing.
I don't get it. Every subject could be argumentative. .

The deletion message did change didn't it? Can we at least clarify that. Initially it only said because it was a Fred About A Fred.

Those of you who find the Mandela theme distasteful are very much free to say so. I seriously doubt anyone on this thread would report you for having that point of view.

Totally agree with this "It really bugs me this big-sisterly heavy handed hegemony that consensus and agreement is automatically good. Agreement and consensus is what you want when you are trying to decide where to have lunch, but boring and pointless when you want to play"

Getting more and more like the Huns site by the day.

If every thread is perceived by different posters differently, how can you decide which ones are "deliberatley inflammatory"?

I think HQ that you should change the wording because, by saying 'deliberately' you are making a judgement on the OP's intentions. And sometimes you are wrong.

Also, you have as good as admitted you made the wrong call here but won't outright state it.

Both of these actions are highly likely to offend posters - ie accusing them of intending to goad and then finding them not guilty but refusing to acknowledge it.

Tantrums, I agree, but even worse than goady they are also so terribly boring.
because everyone on those is just looking for an opportunity to get out their hobby horse and ride it around in the way that makes them feel good.
the "OMG COMMON PERSON LUNCHBOX" ones are really offensive (to me) not because my kids don't get fucking home woven yoghurt in theirs, but because it is just so awful to see all these people piling in to glory in their disgust at the proles.
They don't uncover or unpick anything except a load of predictable prejudice and I stay away from them because when I am skiving off at work I want to do something fun.

What is so horrible about this idea that threads can be deleted for being "deliberately inflammatory" is that it points to an implicit approved list of hobby horses that can be ponced around on in certain areas by certain people, which is not only socially and politically retrograde, but tedious as fuck