The MN Mail Column - what we think, and what we plan to do next... part 2

[whataboutthisone]

Firstly, I am a regular but have created a new name for this.

My thoughts about what I know so far:

1. In a much earlier post there was a discussion about a change in T&Cs and whether they are valid or not. Several years ago I took a company to court for a breach of their T&Cs. Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid. However, the judge said that because I had not specifically been asked to accept the new T&Cs, I was entitled to rely on the ones I had accepted and therefore I won my case.

1. I choose to post on MN in the knowledge that the details I give are probably just obscure enough to anyone I may know in RL who also posts, so that what I say still effectively remains private. However, that doesn't mean that the same could be said of, for instance, my mother, who reads the DM (!) There is probably just enough about my circumstances that would enable her to put 2+2 together. I would like the option to choose whether or not I let my Mum ( or anyone else in RL) in on certain areas of my life, and there is a real possibility that this hack, has taken that choice away from me.

1. I have never ( and now will never) post asking for advice, but I will also be very careful about offering advice in the future. I, along with many others, occasionally use examples from my life to explain where I am coming from. If I continue to do that, as I said earlier, it is possible that some people would be able to work out who I am. Now, I am not so big-headed as to believe that any advice I offer is worth taking, however, there are many fantastic posters on here who do give amazing and insightful advice based on their own experiences. It would be a real shame if that was to stop because they, like me, do not want to share some of those experiences with the folk they are close to in RL. It would also be a real tragedy if others were prevented from asking for help for the same reasons.

I am very disappointed that any MNer would feel it is acceptable to violate the trust we place in each other on this forum. I do not know who she is. I do not want to know who she is. But I hope she is hanging her head in shame for breaching the trust that has been placed in her by everyone whose words she has stolen to make a few bucks!

eh? Furious?

Hmm, it is entirely possible they were a new user tbh.
MILLIONS (ok, I'm probably exaggerating) of times I have gone and posted on a thread only to realise it's an old one that a new MNer has posted on. It's quite easy to do if you don't know your way around the site, and, if anything, the amount of posts in AIBU suggests the poster wasn't looking at active conversations but the AIBU topic and posting on all the recent ones, I mean the post that 'reopened' the thread was only THREE days after the OP started it, it's not like it was years old. So it would still have come under 'This week on mn' with or without that post.

Curious... all short posts, how many are reviving almost gone threads? I suppose that is something people can watch for if they do not want to be on a DM thread?

VeeEsss, 142 times? That does sound a bit odd for a newbie TBH!

Does it?
Imagine you've just found MN, feel a bit about 'breaking in' (so to speak) to threads on which people obviously know each other and have a type of rapport. So just type a little bit of agreement or something on each thread you read?

yeah and you just happen to end up in aibu manage to post that many times in 2 days and cant find anything else to post on - yeah right

If it was an old thread, I could understand but what would be the point of reviving a THREE day old thread that already came under the 'This WEEK on MN' banner?

Sorry, it doesn't wash, if you are trying to break in then you may well type a bit of agreement on a few threads but 142 in 2 days? even the most hardcore addicts amoungst us have trouble managing that!

I am pretty obssesed with this whole DM thing but I have only racked up half that in the same amount of time!

can I just inturrupt and applaud the genius of the following comments:

"I for one applaude this government for doing something to stop the dreadful state of our children's lunchboxes. And I say this despite not being a labour voter.
We need to set strong foundations for our children, and burger & chips every day just does not cut the mustard. I think this article is very well written and the photo is inspiring - a dad making his son cheese & tomatoe sandwishes, with not a piece of ham in sight (but where's mum eh?)! Clearly the children are growing up well educated, they can even write their own names upside down - now that's amazing!"

and

"I think we need to blame the fashion for fancy foreign muck for making our kids so picky. Hummous Indeed! What we need to see is a return to good old British dishes such as spaghetti bolognaise and lasagne. Never did me any harm!"

Because it didn't make it into this week - it died on the Sunday, not, technically this week. Revived though, a few more posts cover the revival and hey presto, LH has her chossen thread.

This week can mean two things, perhaps we were getting the wrong end of the stick about which meaning the DM were using?

Why doesn't it?
That's 70 threads a day roughly, how long do you think it takes to read 70 OPs? there is nothing to say they have to have read the whole thread. A LOT of posters here read more than 70 posts a day, I know I certainly have some evenings.

Ok, I don't want a fight about it, to me it is remarkably unlikely, to you it is not, fair enough.

It would be quite nit-picking-ish (is that a word? ) if MN were to say 'Oh you said this week and we took it to mean it begins on the monday, but that thread used hadn't been posted on since the sunday' especially when the DM just say 'Well, we meant weekly like the article, so thurs-thurs'.

I really don't see the point, especially if DM are planning on reviving old threads in the future, do you really think they'd be stupid enough to give us a warning first?

So, IMO, it's a coincidence and everyone is being paranoid (perhaps rightly so) but it has brought up a good point. Would it be possible for someone (DM or otherwise) to revive an old thread and that be used? IF the column is something that is going to continue I think MNHQ should get an agreement from the DM that they will only use threads that have been started since the column was running, that way it gives posters the reassurance that anything they posted previously to this furore will not be used and that there is no way the DM will try getting round this.

X-post

I wasn't meaning from a nit-pickish POV, I meant more ..... well, I had assumed that "this week" meant since the last column which is why bumping this thread made no sense. However if they had actually meant for it to be the current week in which the column appears it would explain why they felt the need to bump the contributing thread...IYSWIM

It is a tiny and insignificant point of course, not something I was suggesting anyone could/would pull DM on, just something that occured to me as a reason for bumping.

Oh, but I agree with your last point though - good idea!

Carrie - hope all went well the scan.

Hi there

Loathe to post again as don't want to keep stirring when the thread seems a little calmer, but wanted to thank folks for their kind wishes for the scan, they were much appreciated. Thankfully all is well, so huge, nay massive, relief all round here.

Back on the old topic, and in light of speculation, we also wanted to reassure that a) Leah Hardy deregistered from Mumsnet before the column started so she's not around bumping old threads to make them current and b) after the email conversation we had with DM we can pretty much guarantee that they won't be resurrecting threads from before the column started so that, at least, should be one less thing to worry about. But we will definitely try and get a cast iron guarantee on this and get back to you asap. Appreciate this doesn't by any stretch solve all the problems, but hope it's something for now.

Off to try and get my brood to bed.

Thanks again for your kind thoughts

good news, carrie, very glad for you.

glad your ladies bits are all tip-top

(Was it interesting? Did you see it all? When I had my last gynae appt. I was taken into a room where I displayed myself (as you do) and suddenly MY FANJO APPEARED ABOVE MY HEAD ON A 36-INCH WIDESCREEN TELEVISION. It was interesting once I'd got over the urge to scream.)

Yes, that was TMI

I'm sure I'd told you before

Loads of fanjo info on a thread about privacy

doh

Thank goodness for wide-screen, eh MP?