Qui tacet consentire videture... I want it to be understood by MNHQ and by guests to this site that my silence on the subject of the recent speculative threads does NOT condone their existence.

[Aitch]

Aitch.

you ponce aitch

It's really not about censorship custy, truly- MNHQ have made it very clear that they are not going to indulge in censorship, so it's just a away of being able to say, without engaging in argument, that some of us want to distance ourselves from the comments made. Not just those about the "body" but about the motives.

read the thread, custy. it's been covered.

By Aitch on Sun 09-Sep-07 12:36:40
true story. perhas 'existence' isn't right? it's all the hand-wringing and miss marpling that is nauseating. but i kinda couldn't get into that in the title. anyway, you get the gist. smile

But I think its a little bit egotistical to assume that anyone discussing anything on any thread is wondering what those who havent posted on it think about it.

It certainly never crosses my mind because it isnt like I do a mental roll call on any given thread and think so and so hasnt posted - what must they think of my opinions about all this.

I just assume those on a thread are interested and those not - aren't. If they leave the thread I assume they have lost interest/gone to make a brew or whatever.

I understand those who have never posted on the McCann thread (in any way, speculatively or fact based) feel a need to state how horrible you find these threads - but not those who have given their thoughts (whatever they maybe) on one.

Message withdrawn

I find lots of things in life vile and repugnant (indeed often the odd MN thread that many of the posters on this thread might revel in). Is it really down to any individual poster to condone or not condone any particular thread however? Can't quite get my head around this whole thing - something just doesn't sit right with me. Why would anyone be thinking about whether or not I approved because I simply desist from posting on a thread?

I find it dispiriting that so many people think that reason will automatically fail.

I find it dispiriting that so many people think that reason will automatically fail.

so do I. But fail it did yesterday, spectacularly.

Nope - this is not to do with censorship.
let them dicuss, let them speculate, let them generate conspiracy theories and say vile unproven things about individuals - that is absolutely their right (unless it veers into libel - that's a call for MN to make on risk)....I'm simply sayiong 'I'm not taking part'. Call me an overblown posturer, or even a fucking nutter...I don't care! I 'get' this. I haven't asked for this or any other MM thread to be deleted or kazooomed out of existence. And if i want to SAY I don't want to post on them, what you gonna do? tell me I have no right on MN to say that? [mind-boggled emoticon]

Freedom of speech has to include the freedom to talk shite. Otherwise it's not freedom. But sensible people can say that it's shite. They have the freedom to do that too.

Freedom of speech has to include the freedom to talk shite. Otherwise it's not freedom. But sensible people can say that it's shite. They have the freedom to do that too.

But by not posting on them Blu, you've kind of already made your point, no ?

No. You still want you opinion to be known. Which is fair enough.

FGS!

It wasn't just 'talking shite'. It was making accusations. It was friggin' libellous in some instances.

In others, it was downright disgusting.

NFK - I agree with that. I find it very very dispiriting that reason has made no dent at all...and has merely fuelled yet more vitriol.

Sorry, Expat. Was that aimed at me? I haven't read much of that other thread. I'm more interested in the existence of this one. I'm sure you're right, that it was more than just shite.

yes, but you, and I and numerous other MN are so bloody tired of the whole nastiness of the thing (and assorted other shit in RL) that we don't post.

Loads and loads of us don't post.

So they 'get away with it'.

They probably think that they are in the majority.

If they are, I'm sadder than I can say, if not, I want them to know. It might make them re-think their position.

Or it might not

aga
doo doo doo doo
push pineallple shake the tree

But surely the strongest statement you can make about not taking part in something is simply to, er, not take part? Isn't that evidence enough that you do not want to take part? Just thinking of maximum impact for the cause here - a genuine silence/boycott would have been soooo powerful.

I think that's what I've been trying to say Roobie.

but we have done that. And they are still talking about feeding dead bodies to pigs and hiding corpeses in suitcases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

they arent i cnat see it
it hink the best method was attack

the bleach

Binkle - no, not really, Because visitors to the site, and people who come on MN only to post and read that stuff (and there seem to be many) don't know who is NOT posting, who is NOT taking part, and how many that is. Silence works differently on the net.

But i don't really wnat to labour the point - jpining the thread was enough - i undestand what Aithc was doing and why...if it isn't your way, then that's 100% fine with me.