Dear MNHQ, I didn't see all the problems kick off over poor Revjustabout...

[georgimama]

but I would be grateful if you could tell me that you have at least given serious consideration to banning the posters who were harrassing her.

Thank you.

what a weird thing

if someone hasn't pointed out already, can I point out that the cod on this thead isn't cod (although probably obvious to those who realise codthemag can spell ;-)).

how very odd this all is

Thing is, no-one really knows who anyone is on here. I am, of course, a fox but I think you already knew that.

pmsl littlebella.

are you flying squad?

onebat are you a psychoanalyst?

i'm getting excited now.

x-post with Jute.

I dont know if others feel like this but i think it is a wee bit like an all girls school and the teacher telling someone to change their skirt style becasue the big bullish popular girl has teased her over it...

kind of ' 'I know its awful of Susan but you know what she is like - lets keep the peace'

My work is hush hush

Justa (Rev) - I am so sorry that you had to go through that hideous thread. You have commented on some of my threads before I have found you to be caring, sincere and kind.

I am very upset that there are people like this on MN when there are also lots of very sad and worried people who truly need help who may be put off posting because of some idiots.

Please keep going, I will make sure I look out for you in the future.

As for the name change:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

funnily enough, foxy, the only person on here whose job we know for definite IS the rev, cos MNHQ have seen her credentials.

and she's the one being told to change her name...

Ach, Zophable. Zat is nussing more zan my own vish-vulvillment, my dear.

Hmmm, might have popped this on the wrong thread,.. so many about this hideous subject. I am still angry thou! Off to show my support for the Rev on her thread.... but I do agree with the OP!

i don't think pph is a real princess, for example.

sophable I didn't read her posts and become suddenly concerned. I read what she had written about her supervision and thought the church were trying a new recruitment method. I'm afraid my interest was rather cynical and didn't extend much beyond 'my goodness how odd'.

I didn't report her or her posts, I am just stating that I independently came to the conclusion (incorrectly) that she was posting in a semi-official role for the church (not MN). Found out today that I'd misunderstood.

As I've never remotely attacked her I rather hope I'm not going to be round on for saying I misunderstood her posts.

In solidarity, but I really am allowed to call myself this and spout nonsense, like a Deacon in fact

Would anyone like to come up and see my certificates?

she might want to change her name now though (sorry have actually been working so haven't read zillions of threads)?

OK, jute, so given it was just a misunderstanding on your part, why don't you leave it now?

jute. i think i know who you are. hello. i'm sorry you're even remotely embroiled in this sorry mess and wonder why you are tbh.

"Were I to be posting online, as an individual with acknowledged professional expertise,both I and my professional body would definitely want a disinterested observer to oversee my online life in a general way. They would not, obviously, be standing over my shoulder as I posted - but they would expect to be informed of anything which went beyond the most anodyne advice."

Yes well this is the bit I don't get. It was the fact that she mentioned supervison that made me feel someone was overseeing her posts which puts her (in my mind) in a semi official role.

The difference I see it from todays threads - and the bit I misunderstood- is that she could bring anything in any aspect of her life to supervision. There was nothing special a out MN. But the way you've written it is what made me think she was a representative -of some sort- of the church.

not judging by her defrocking thread tbh foxy.

is anyone watching this heston blumenthal thing? what a nob the boss is.

and i guess what i'm saying is that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the behaviour of pph, enid, bubble99 and batters on that thread.

it was appalling.

why even try to defend it?

yeah but i think heston is a bit of a nob too tbh.

how to make roasting a chicken the most complicated act on planet earth does not make you clever imo.

jute [i know who you are too! ] the way i see it the supervision was to make sure she didn't abuse her role, even subconsciously, or do anything that might cause someone vulnerable to become dependent.

Everyone knew Cod was a magistrate. It didn't matter if it was in her name or not.

Hi sophable

I don't feel embroiled tbh. Recently started posting on MN again and saw the big long thread, read it and thought oh I had that wrong, riiiighhhht I get it now. Or at least I did until onebats last post and am now confused again (it doesn't take much).

I used to belong to a very active church so I have an interest in religious recruitment (although am now atheist). I thought it was an interesting method actually. Although now I find it isn't like that.

the recruitment method that i find the most disturbingly fascinating is flirty fishing....whooaah that is some weird and unethical shit that goes on there!

would never be used by anglican church i don't think, unless by some nutty evangelical faction

I'm not particularly defending (or attacking) anyone (tbh I haven't really seen what was said other than to skim so have no opinion either way). I'm just posting on the 'could revs role have been confused as semi official' question.