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.

I have a conspiracy theroy on this

Once upon a time on MN (before my time) there were a bunch of troll busting heros who outted the dreaded judgeflouce, they became highly respected Mners because of their ability to sniff out evil trolls

MN of late has become a divided place, big fights between moldies and mners, moldies having lost a lot of respect and royalty status on MN.

In an attempt to gain back their hero status they set out to, once again, sniff out, what they though was an evil troll, so some raised there concerns with MNHQ and others took it into their own hands with their vigilante group to out the troll and thus be, once again, crowned the heroes of MN, and therfore regaining the respect of Mners and bridging the gap between the moldies.

But it backfired. Badly.

Just my take on things and i am probably, mostly likely, way off the mark (i do have a vivid imagination) but hey ho.

So someone accuses the Rev of being a troll, she is found not to be a troll, but Mumsnet advise a namechange?

This isn't even a remotely similar story to that Judgewoman who turned out to be a male psychiatrist (but LOL at that).

I call for Mumsnet to put a disclaimer on the top of every page reiterating the fact that people may not be who they say they are and that all posters are equal and that there are no resident experts as far as MNHQ is concerned. And for RevJustAbout to keep her name and keep going with her interesting RW thread.

Who seconds me?

LOL Vinegar, you may not be too far from the truth there....

Sorry about awful spelling and grammar, still hals asleep

half

Fuckity fuck

i agree with you RD.

Forum imposters are nothing new, hell mumsnet has it's own infamous JF, outed as the result of suspicious mumsnetters, they weren't 'deluded' on that occasion! Why other posters here are so horrified at the thought of an imposter posting on mumsnet and that it should be xxxx it frankly disingenuous. People have pretended to be doctors and got a way with it, its not that unbelievable surely.

It's a shame for the rev (being genuine) that she was under suspicion this time but I would have thought with mn having that history (JF) she might have been at least a teeny bit understanding of peoples concerns, especially given the training she's had and the field she is in.

Of course she's an ordinary poster too and is bound to be hurt by the accusations and I'm sure her accusers are regretful for that hurt.

I do think she was wrong though, starting the 'defrocking' thread which exacerbated that hurt and instead of understanding, forgiveness and 'turning the other cheek' it has reignited all the vitriol and bitterness of some weeks ago.

warty: it wasn't that people were concerned about her being an imposter (with no provocation, btw) but that it was done with so much vitriol and bile.

Personal attacks of that viciousness should not be tolerated. End of.

I was around during the JudgeFlounce de-wigging. This situation really isn't comparable at all.

Warty i agree with you, there will always be imposters and genuine folk have every right to raise their suspisions if they feel someone is indeed a troll

But please, raise them issue with MNHQ, the way they went about thier troll attack was wrong, vicious and vile, they should be ashamed of themselves, and not one of them has offered a proper, sincere apology, or is willing to admit they were wrong.

wartybosoms she has turned the other cheek quite a lot actually. She has been very understanding about people questioning her credentials. Does that give them the right to be so abusive? Of course she is going to explain her position.
The first time she was taunted she had just suffered a personal tragedy. i couldn't believe how she responded to the attacks with such grace and good humour. The second time also. The sanctimonious judgements of some which expect her to stay silent on the matter regardless of how she is attacked is a bit off putting.

I was around for the JF thing too and there were definitely direct accusations on the board.

ruty - From my recollections, PPH had also suffered a personal tragedy but that didn't stop a mumsnetter from accusing her of lying about it to gain sympathy [hmmm]

Neither side can claim a moral high ground in this matter.

Oh i get it, so becuase someone else accused PPH of lying on a completely seperate occasion, that means PHH was justified in accusing someone else of being a troll

Is that what your saying?

Personally i cant see why that has anything to do with

'Neither side'?

This kind of inflammatory language is really not helping, warty.

We're talking about particular individuals who have behaved very badly. This is not 'sides'. In any case, the argument that one person/group of people are claiming the moral highground is ridiculous, and that equally bad behaviour from someone else justifies other bad behaviour is even more ridiculous.

Bullying is bullying.

"ruty - From my recollections, PPH had also suffered a personal tragedy but that didn't stop a mumsnetter from accusing her of lying about it to gain sympathy [hmmm]

"Neither side can claim a moral high ground in this matter."

No, sorry, don't get it - what has a disputed spat between PPH and another poster got to do with the Rev?

This is just a "look at the shiny thing" tactic to obfuscate the unacceptable behaviour of three formerly prolific posters with an axe to grind. And who have yet to lodge an apology that looks sincere.

[sniggers at some of the funny names having a very serious discussion]

KM said she didn't do that, but if she did, it was wrong. I thought she was [rather cack handedly] trying to show that you can accuse anyone of anything which is unfair without good grounds. It was not the right thing to do, but how that justifies the personal attacks on rev I'm not quite sure.

Wartybosoms: Kerrymum did NOT accuse PPH of lying about it. She said something along the lines of 'We have no evidence that your father has died but we aren't attacking that' after PPH had accused Justabout of lying about who she was. It is really daft to keep making up stories about KM and pretending that something happened that didn't happen.

mp - whatever the phrasing, it's very insensitive to bring it into the argument at all. Shouldn't have been mentioned at all.

And tell me - was Judge Flounce publicly accused of "making up" family dying in the Holocaust?

Let's not forget the way in which these posters' "concerns" about potential trollery were couched, shall we?

Yes tortoise, at times there has been lack of sensitivity on both sides

What I mean is it's a cheap point against something that is a personal sadness, bereavement should be off limits I think within an argument.

Bereavement was not off limits on the Israel thread, it was the very topic of the attack on rev.

firepile, i don't know who you are, but i like you, and your use of the word 'obfuscate'