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.

Suedonim.

VVVQV (not hunker )

I DO NOT WANT TO MUZZLE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THREAD SUBJECTS SHOULD BE CONTROLLED.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE OPINIONS ON THE MADELEINE MCCANN THREADS ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MAJORITY VIEW ON MUMSNET, THEREFORE I ADD MY NAME AND HOPE THAT IT GETS NOTICED. WHICH I BELIEVE IS WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING ON HERE COMPRENDE?

WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH, I MEAN NOTICED WITH REGARD TO THE NOTICING OF THE DISSENTING VOICES ON THE THREADS THAT ARE RIDDEN ROUGHSHOD OVER POSTERS WHO CLAIM THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH MUST REIGN.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE THREAD IN QUESTION SERVED ANY PURPOSE, EXCEPT TO SATISFY THE VOYEURISTIC NATURE OF A FEW POSTERS.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE 'QUALIFICATIONS' THAT ONE OR TWO POSTERS MADE ON THE SAID THREAD THAT SOMEHOW MAKES THEIR OPINIONS VALID (AND IF THEY WERE QUALIFIED, THEY WOULD BE PROFESSIONAL ENOUGH TO NOT DISCUSS SUCH MATTERS IN SUCH A PUBLIC MANNER)

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HAYCHEE REALISES THAT SHE IS DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE. I THINK HAYCHEE ENJOYS THE ROUNDING ON SHE GETS, ANY PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY - ISNT IT? (ACTUALLY, NO, IT ISNT). I ALSO FIND MYSELF DUMBFOUNDED THAT SHE WAS ANGRY ABOUT SOMEONE POSTING "poopants" ON A THREAD, AND NOT ANGRY ABOUT POSTS SUGGESTING AND SPECULATING HOW A CHILD'S BODY COULD BE DISPOSED OF. I THEREFORE DECLARE ALL ARGUMENTS MADE BY SAID POSTER IN FAVOUR OF FREE SPEECH, NULL AND VOID.

TO HAYCHEE: THIS IS NOT A PARENTING WEBSITE. IT IS A WEBSITE FOR PARENTS. THERE IS A MARKED DIFFERENCE. THREADS IN STYLE AND SUCH LIKE SERVE THE PURPOSE OF HELPING PARENTS STYLE THEMSELVES. THAT IS THEIR POINT. THREADS IN ARTS AND CRAFTS HELP POSTERS WHO ARE ARTY AND CRAFTY DISCUSS IDEAS, ASK QUESTIONS AND COMPARE MAKES. THAT IS THEIR POINT. IF YOU CANNOT SEE THAT THEN I PUT IT TO YOU THAT YOU ARE BEING DELIBERATELY OBTUSE, OR, YOU ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID. TAKE YOUR PICK. YOU HAVE A CHOICE YOU SEE.

I BELIEVE THAT THE POSTERS WHO ARE PROCLAIMING THIS THREAD ENCROACHES ON "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" ARE BEING DELIBERATELY OBTUSE, OR THEY HAVENT READ THE SUBJECT MATTER PROPERLY, AND THEREFORE THEIR OPINION MEANS DIDDLY SQUAT IMVHO.

I SIGN MY NAME AS MY ALLEGIANCE TO THE CAUSE THAT AITCH AND MARTIANBISHOP HAVE BEEN CHAMPIONING SO WELL. YOUR POSTS HAVE BEEN PAITIENT, ELOQUENT AND TOLERANT.

IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY POST, THEN I'M ASSUMING YOU BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH, IN WHICH CASE TOUGH TITTY - ITS MY RIGHT TO SAY IT.

DId you get your elbow stick on the capslock key or something?

No, I figured shouting may help the halfwits understand it a bit better.

I think I got my message across loud and clear.

VVVQV, you are posting that as someone who has posted on a McCann thread.

Yes, I am.

What's your point? If you are going to make one, might i suggest you copy and paste all my posts on said threads (there have been a few since May 3rd 2007) to show some balance?

Otherwise your statement is meaningless.

Hypocrisy is my point.

You lot really are dim on this, aren't you?

ahem

i sign too. (thank you Aitch, you clever girl you!)

and

i second every word of VVV's shouty post just now. and i second them in a shouty voice too.

bravo, raviste, muy muy bien.

LOL Jan!

Binkle, show me where I have contradicted myself.

You cant, can you?

thank you nappies

If you are going to sign your name to a thread which states you have been silent about certain threads (which implies that you have had no association with such threads and would want to have) etc then at least have the consistency not to have already graced those same threads.

That's all I'm saying.

Can I politely suggest you read my post again (I'm trying seriously to refrain from calling you a halfwit).

no no, VVV, thank you for articulating my thoughts so well.

have avoided the whole subject as far as possible, but sheesh! you cant escape it all.

Yeah, whatever.

You know perfectly well what is meant by this thread, binkle

When did I mention contradiction?

I'm not getting into a verbal sparring match with you VVVQV, you're far too quick for me, I'm sure.

The fact remains, many who are on this thread today will not be able to resist commenting on a McCann thread as time goes on - for whatever reason - I'd happily put money on it (even if they slip in the usual disclaimer at the beginning of the post ie 'I never come on these threads blah blah....')

same old same old

There was no hypocracy in that post!

This whole thing is silly. So many people saying they have a right to talk about whatever they want and then they berate those who talk about whatever they want(!), like their distaste at the content of the MMC threads. It's going around in circles. The point has been made several times over the last few days FFS. If you post on a public forum then others have the right to reply whether you like it or not.

You said hypocrisy, not me. Which means you are inferring that my post on here contradicts what I have posted elsewhere.

As WendyW just said - you know what this thread stands for - its not about not posting on those threads, its about being separated from the abhorrent opinions and discussions on those threads (that I may have posted on some of, dissenting abhorrent views, and standing up for freedom of speech too).

You are obviously in the halfwit/obtuse group, as per my post further down.

yes, that'll be me

succinct and blinkered as ever VVVQV.

g'night

succinct, not quite.

Blinkered - definitely not.

If that's the BEST argument you can come up with...well, I'd say you were here for the rabbleraising and nothing else.

Can't spell, meant hypocrisy

nightnight

So where are these distastful feeding to pigs posts then? I haven't seen any

I did see people trying to stop conversations as soon as they were started, before any speculation started, what were the reasons behind that then?

There is no right or wrong here, some are offended by the discussions, some aren't and want to discuss. No one is better than anyone else for having their opinions

Bumping a thread out of action just starts a precedent...what if all formula feeding mums started bumping breastfeeding threads away, just because they didn't like what was being said? Or the ones about early weaning? Or any other thread, I don't like this one, shall I pend all night getting rid of it? No, because it is unreasonable. But if it's happened on this subject, what's to stop it happening again on subjects much less contraversal than this one. This kind of censoring is not for the good of a forum like this one.

I for one wouldn't be signing this kind of thread as I am happy to leave the moderating to people who own and run the site

minority - thats exactly the point of this thread - MNHQ has directed that bumping threads out of existence is not on. Dissenting voices on threads are ignored or ridden roughshod over.

So, folk have chosen to start this thread to show their distaste for certain discussions, as a more representative view of how people feel.

Sheesh, is it really so hard for people to understand?

signing this thread doesnt mean i want to moderate anything.

i just want to say, as is my right, that i think rubbernecking is gross.

feel free to do it (many people obviously do) i just wont participate. and i dont mind saying i think participating (in the speculation and voyeurism) is frankly, shitty.

But then you can also say that people who want to discuss the news are also ignored or trodden roughshod (and insulted too)

Why is one opinion more valid than another??

I think one thing, someone else will think the opposite, who is right? No one and everyone