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.

IMO you're in a no win situation now Justine.
Rev is a rev and is therefore qualified to give spiritual advice if she should so wish... unless you are going to say she can't. in which case you'd have to also say no dr/lawyer etc can dispense any professional advice either.
It really can't be one rule for Rev and another for everyone else.
As it is she's the only poster having to adapt her name due to no fault of her own.
sorry if this is being argumentative btw

Well tortoiseshell, does your suicide example involve a fake priest? If not, then it's entirely irrelevant.

It's irrelevant in any case, because the Rev has been proven to NOT BE A FAKE PRIEST ffs.

yes you could aitch. but they are coming from a place of having been hurt so to my mind there is an albeit subtle difference.

the huge difference being that moldies can see everything on here and comment on it without anyone seeing it. which means that i hope that they stop doing it.

Aitch,

don't think you could construct that case as it would imply that an amorphous group of people got together off board to plan it.

At least the anti-moldiers (whomever (if ever) they are) post publicly on this board.

kinda...
i was really addressing that to dittany, but kinda.

don't get me wrong i think that what they did was utterly crappy and they should apologise, but now i'm seeing the same names popping up i suspect that there is an element of anti-moldiness at work as well. and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with it and if i know them at all would be horrified.

my last post to cf, btw.

horrified enough to comment? horrified enough to say stop?

I sincerely hope so.

Without having a go at anyone's credentials - a person can correctly call him/her self a minister/shaman/Big Kahunaburger of any religious belief he/she likes by means of buying a certificate off the internet. It doesn't actually matter.
And a person could come on here, be a properly qualified priest/priestess of any religion going, and give horrible, damaging 'advice' (just think how many branches of religion hate gay people, for instance). That person wouldn't be misrepresenting him/herself but would still be peddling bullshit.

ANd I never thought that the RW threads (which I have posted on and found interesting) were any kind of official MN Church Thing. FFS MN is not a Christian forum. Yes there are Christians on MN, there are also Pagans, Muslims, athiests and I would venture to suggest that there are Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and probably every other lot too. The RW threads I have viewed in the same light as the various ante-natal/post natal threads, the ongoing bereavement support group threads, the Fab& Glam threads, the scuttles, the flyladies and the wierd fruit&veg lot - a regular slot set up by MNers to hang out with their particular mates but open to all who are interested in the specific topic being discussed. WTF is wrong with that?

Justine - I kind of understand that. But my gut feeling is that they were just trying to get at her because she is popular and was anti-mouldy

And it does make it look like rev was the one who was being made to compromise. I am hoping that the abusers on that thread were given a warning at least. The way they went about raising their concerns was not on

am PMSL at PPH and her "legendary" troll finding skills though.

BUT FGS JUSTINE, IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT SHE IS A REV!

After which point, it is utterly irrelevant what andy other trolls have done. And incumbent upon you, surely, to say to the Rev 'thanks for that, sure you understand, Judge Flounce and all". And to the rest of us, 'we are delighted to confrim that the rev is a rev. We will not hear of any furhter attacks on her, particularly any which involve her private life'.

Which is, Onebat, as far as we're concerned EXACTLY what we have done. In fact we went further than that - we deleted the attacks before we'd finally established things to the best of our ability - innocent until proven guilty etc etc.

This further discussion is picking over the detail of what has happened to get us here. I'm responding and trying to explain what I believe others' motivations were. But perhaps I should give up now as it's clearly not helping, and at the end of the day others can speak for themselves if they wish - just trying to paint a full and fair picture.

i genuinely have no way of knowing for sure, but i can't think that they'd approve, really i can't.

Are you talking about me, Aitch? I am one of the 'same names', but my presence on this thread is because I've been appalled by the three Moldies' behaviour, and very disappointed with MNHQ's response. Not because of the existence of MOldies.

Justine, but am I right in thinking that she will be allowed to post as before? I'm not sure that I saw her giving spiritual advice, but we probably have very different theology and no-one has ever accused me of being a wooly liberal.

So she will still be "giving spiritual advice" (if we assume she was in the first place), you have now taken the rare step of publicly confirming her qualification, but you would like her to be stripped of her Rev in case it gets confused with the people who have Mumsnet in their name or MNHQ after it? If you are more worried about wrong spiritual advice than legal advice then this strikes me as a not very bright move? Surely the issue is more about the potentially harmful advice than the title of the person giving it (esp in this instance where you yourself have confirmed the qualification of the poster). Had you not confirmed the qualification, then I could understand you asking for the namechange. If you were worried that people would be falsely led by her spiritually then changing the name stops that how?

What about other people giving spiritual advice - have you checked StGeorge's qualifications as a fully qualified pagan (or whichever paricular belief that she holds - sorry StG if I have it wrong)?

surely it's not a matter of "wrong" spiritual advice (you could debate that until the cows literally come home) but being a "MN-endorsed Rev" by virtue of her title? (which presumably MN doesn't want, even if they could interview/appoint one)

Just my opinion, Kay. I think it's fine for reluctant worshippers to have a thread to reluctantly worship together. Or for vegetable fans have a thread to plan veg outs together. Or baby led weaners to have a thread to advocate banning mushy foodstuffs for infants together. And enthusistic articulate folk on those threads will clearly be liked and respected and seen as leaders in that area, just as justabout is. Twas ever thus. But when it becomes an official extention of somebody's work to the extent that a thread becomes someone's ministry it has very probably all gone too far, imo.

Justine, that is EXACTLY what you have NOT done. YOu have made the victim adjust their presentation of themselves. YOu have not sanctioned, or threatened to sanction, those who launched a concerted and unjust attack upon the victim.

it was actually seeing dittany's name and her post about vendettas that made me post that, onebat, not so much yourself. but i do think that the names are all the same. meh, including mine, though... so... [pot] [kettle]

Ingles2 I think there is a subtle difference. We do not discourage expertise - look at what Tiktok, Mars etc do all the time. We discourage the setting up of official roles. We would object even if it were Tiktok who called herself BreastfeedingcounsellorTiktok and I can't think of anyone more qualified for that role.
It's about titles and position and all posters being equal. But I admit it's not an easy distinction.

hear hear scummy

I think there's an element of it Aitch ... a few of the moldies who attacked en masse but it is a leap to suggest that it's moldie policy. Depending on how hurt you are by the existence of moldies, you might be more willing or less willing to make that leap.

For myself, I think that there is coordination amongst some moldies, but there's no evidence that I can see that there is a moldies-wide strategy - if there is, then there are a lot of names "missing" from the threads where attacks have taken place.

That leaves me to think most of the missing posters would are either a) quietly and privately shocked, b) unaware or c) quiet and complicit. I have no evidence to suggest that it's c), and that would be the bit where someone could criticise.

What would be the reaction if some of the "big" moldies came on to this thread? Would they get an entirely fair hearing?

"The thing is Aitch, I have noted a couple of things about moldies and have been right each time. I noted that there was a secret forum where people were getting together to launch attacks on to threads on Mumsnet they disapproved off - oops I was right they were all moldies and they did have a secret forum. I also noted on that thread I just linked to that the Rev was getting it in the neck - a few weeks down the line she is getting hounded on insulted on here as a troll and those people doing it have been so successful they've got her to change her name, courtesy of Mumsnet.

these are assertions on your part. you're not right in my eyes.

"The thing is Aitch, I have noted a couple of things about moldies and have been right each time. I noted that there was a secret forum where people were getting together to launch attacks on to threads on Mumsnet they disapproved off - oops I was right they were all moldies and they did have a secret forum. I also noted on that thread I just linked to that the Rev was getting it in the neck - a few weeks down the line she is getting hounded on insulted on here as a troll and those people doing it have been so successful they've got her to change her name, courtesy of Mumsnet.

these are assertions on your part. you're not right in my eyes.