 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33985706 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33985706[/url]
[i]"An armed response team turned up at my house last week in the middle of the night, after reports of a gunman prowling around," she wrote.
"A Mumsnet user who engaged with @DadSecurity on Twitter was warned to 'prepare to be swatted by the best' in a tweet that included a picture of a Swat team, after which police arrived at her house late at night following a report of gunshots.
[/i]
and it's not even gamergate related
Just reading about that, I was about to ask if it was anyone here.
In seriousness, if anyone (or their OHs) use Mumsnet, now would be a good time for a password change.
those pesky dads wearing purple, tsk. 🙂
Lucky she could get hubby @ BBC news to shill the story...
She doesn't look very happy at all does she 😯
Sometimes find it a bit worrying that people with such influence over the nations thinking habits are so closely linked.
Wonder how much infomation Ian Katz as editor of Newsnight withholds?
Same with Mumsnet...
I'm sometimes surprised on here that the mods can be so selective in what they censor
That said, sorry to hear they've been victimized in this manner, being on holiday was one in the eye for whoever set them up.
[i]I'm sometimes surprised on here that the mods can be so selective in what they censor[/i]
Didn't we have the Moderator bashing thread over the weekend?
Cyril Smith and Jimmy Saville started Mumsnet off as a cunning ruse to gain access to children.
A little known fact
*hides back under the desk*
Didn't we have the Moderator bashing thread over the weekend?
Mebe, but perhaps I wasn't clever enough to link it to an event which has only just been publicized with regard to Mumsnet...
Maybe now's a good time for a vajazzle joke:
An mumsnet user tells her significant other she is off to have a vajazzle.
'What's a vajazzle' he asks
'It's where they put sequins all over a c**t' she replies
'Oh, so you're going to be on strictly come dancing'?
😯
erm...
That was not what I was expecting form a JHJ post! 😯
maybe the Mumsnet hacker managed to get JHJ's STW credentials?
I'm sometimes surprised on here that the mods can be so selective in what they censor
Excuse me? Such as?
Surely you have access to all the forum logs?
It's not forum logs I'm querying, it's your accusation.
What are you suggesting is being censored (selectively or otherwise)?
The logs will tell you all you need to know... though not necessarily the public at large 😉
I do love that JHJ uses the word 'censor' to refer to what most people would call moderation - it's just perfect for that 'they're all out to get me' attitude.
[edit] 'the logs' prove that aliens abducted JHJ but Mark and Chipps have been censoring every reference to it. Cougar and the other 'grace and favour' mods aren't in on JHJ, there's no point alluding to it they don't know.
Maybe the Bundeburg lizards are really a group of stressed middle class housewives in Balham ruling the world for sinister reasons? The Muffia?
If there's one thing I've learned it's don't mess with the Muffia
No, sorry, I'm not having that.
You've just levelled an accusation at me. I want you to give me an example of this selective censorship, or I want it recanting and an apology.
I have no need to "do my own research" when the people you're suggesting I look into includes me. I am, I think, pretty uniquely positioned to know exactly what I do and don't censor without requiring log files. So let's have it. What's been censored?
[quote=jivehoneyjive ]I'm sometimes surprised on here that the mods can be so selective in what they censor
Yeah they seem to ignore all sorts of trolling conspiracy theory stuff
You tell me... you seem sure you're the moderator in question 😉
[serious]
I'm with Cougar on this;
JHJ - put up or apologise and shut up
It's all very well to make blanket statements on forums but these are real people you're levelling accusations at.
[/serious]
Oh God this is escalating quickly...calm folks!
I'm with bearnecessities on this~ there's no need to be so uptight; just an observation.
it all just went a bit "weird kid at school pulls a knife"
[quote=jivehoneyjive ]You tell me... you seem sure you're the moderator in question
I'm not a moderator
[i]just an [s]observation.[/s] accusation [/i]
ftfy
It's one thing to make off the cuff comments/allegations about public figures we are several steps removed from, to make them about a specific group we all know/deal with requires backing up or retracting.
Intended or not, JHJ needs to put the pin back in the grenade and step away quietly.....
Cougar seems hell bent on taking offence... if it was an accusation, I would have named a moderator
Being as there's multiple moderators, I don't know who's doing the moderating and thus am in no position to make accusations, merely observations...
Prepare to be swatted, jhj
[i]I don't know who's doing the moderating and thus am in no position to make accusations[/i]
you accused the mods (plural) being "selective in what they censor" yet can provide no examples at all.
Do you have any examples where you feel selective moderation has been carried out or is it just vague accusations at a group some of whom are publicly identifiable on here?
Anyway, back to the original subject, who's feeling nervous about their partner finding out they have a mumsnet account?
Well, being as in the past, the mods have chosen to censor subjects, it would be somewhat disrespectful of me to re-raise issues that are evidently deemed taboo...
Anyway, back to the original subject, who's feeling nervous about their partner finding out they have a mumsnet account?
+1
Is this about Friday Kylie?
[i]it would be somewhat disrespectful of me to re-raise issues that are evidently deemed taboo... [/i]
how convenient.
perhaps you could post some examples where you felt moderation/censorship should have been carried out but wasn't due to 'selective moderation'
Well, being as in the past, the mods have chosen to censor subjects, it would be somewhat disrespectful of me to re-raise issues that are evidently deemed taboo...
No you made an accusation against the moderators and now you are trying to weasel out of it. Post what you are talking about or post an apology.
perhaps you could post some examples where you felt moderation/censorship should have been carried out but wasn't due to 'selective moderation'
That would seem a foolish course of action, intent on stirring controversy...
Wonder what guidelines the mumsnet moderators have?
[img] https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcScf3krOFMpz_GBUem20FIqtLlgy8BQjJ0kexWXv-JMBYLof-rN [/img]
[i]intent on stirring controversy...[/i]
whereas what you've posted so far on this thread wasn't? 🙄
Ooops
What I posted and peoples reactions are different matters...
[i]What I posted and peoples reactions are different matters... [/i]
Classic troll response. I'll stop feeding you now.
Cool, back on topic:
Sometimes find it a bit worrying that people with such influence over the nations thinking habits are so closely linked.Wonder how much infomation Ian Katz as editor of Newsnight withholds?
Same with Mumsnet...
Well after that the thread title seems a bit redundant.
perhaps you could post some examples where you felt moderation/censorship should have been carried out but wasn't due to 'selective moderation'
That would seem a foolish course of action, intent on stirring controversy...
Wouldnt selective moderation be moderating only some posts about a topic or opinion (such as from one person) but not all. Consistent deleting of topics or all posts expressing a certain view would just be 'moderation' would it not? So you could probably give some examples if it were selective.
Anyway, there seems to be more anonymous moderation these days, whatever happend to the <mod>post deleted<mod> comments of the old days (but with square brackets, which everyone used to have fun faking).
lots of frayed nerves
Cougar seems hell bent on taking offence...
That's because baseless accusations are offensive.
I take great pains to ensure exactly the opposite of what you describe, and I've fought tooth and nail against censorship on this forum. As have other moderators. So either we've missed something which needs addressing, in which case we need to know about it, or you're mudslinging.
if it was an accusation, I would have named a moderator
No you wouldn't, that's not your style. You'd have posted a screen capture of Drac on Jim'll Fix It in 1985 and added "makes you think, doesn't it."
In any case, how can you name a moderator unless you know who is doing what behind the scenes? It's not possible. So now you've got three options.
1) is you provide an example of this selective censorship which surprised you.
2) is you retract the accusation and apologise.
3) is I provide you with a concrete example of selective censorship and resolve your disruptive influence to this thread, and continual disruption to this forum, permanently.
See, things work a bit differently when you swing around conspiracy theories about people who are actually present to challenge them.
Well I'm thinking the mods are now being selective by not closing this thread given it seems any discussion on the original subject is unlikely (I did try).
I'm thinking my first response to jhj was the best way to deal with such comments and wish I'd got it in before it got too serious.
Well I'm thinking the mods are now being selective by not closing this thread given it seems any discussion on the original subject is unlikely (I did try).
I think closing this thread for veering off topic (and not every single other thread over 10 posts) would be the very definition of selective ;0)
I actually took what JHJ to mean was that the moderators steer their own independent course and are not unduly influenced or interfered with by the publishers of STW. I.e the moderation is delivered to a good standard and is unbiased.
Might have wrong end of stick though.
I think the moderation here is good. Treads a fine line very well.
Say for example the 7/7 bombings...
on the anniversary of the 7/7 bombings, I provided a (mainstream media) [url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development ]link[/url] to Robin Cook's analysis from the day after it occurred, which also went into detail of how Al-Qaeda would never even have existed if not for Western Intelligence services...
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation.
Similarly, I posted another MSM link to a strange anomaly whereby it appeared [url= https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mXn3BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=netanyahu+7/7&source=bl&ots=F652D3p8o7&sig=ztpbEWwz3ElUXRuL3SrXKiv7fBc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCWoVChMIksKssb-1xwIVzA8aCh25SApc#v=onepage&q=netanyahu%207%2F7&f=false ]Benjamin Netanyahu, who was in London at the time, appeared to have received advance warning.[/url] There are several further anomalies which remain unanswered.
My posts were deleted and I was banned for a week... a familiar pattern for having a questioning perspective it seems.
Who was responsible for this I don't know, but surely, if we are to progress as a species, we need inquiring minds to fact check everything we're fed these days...
Considering all the criticism I've faced, it's a bit of a slap in the face for Cougar to get so sensitive over a comment that I stand by...
My posts were deleted and I was banned for a week...
Your posts weren't censored because of their content, they were deleted because it was deemed insensitive - by the other users, not just the moderation team - because of the timing of the posts. You'd chosen a remembrance thread to push your conspiracy theory agenda, which is just bad taste.
Glad we could clear that up.
It could of course be argued that it is bad taste to censor such matters~ after all, the families themselves tried time and again to get a public inquiry, but the government refused...
But, so be it, apology accepted.
[i]But, so be it, apology accepted. [/i]
are you for real?
[quote=jivehoneyjive ]My posts were deleted and I was banned for a week... a familiar pattern for having a questioning perspective it seems.
I think you'll need an example of where that didn't happen given similar circumstances to prove selectivity, but nice try...
But, so be it, apology accepted.
Could you point out your apology, I must have missed it?
You posted links to published information, you didn't come up with it yourself so to have such links removed from an obscure MTB forum does not constitute censorship in much the same way that Cougar's explanation doesn't constitute an apology.
A lot of people on here seem to like arguing for argument's sake...
Who was responsible for this I don't know, but surely, if we are to progress as a species, we need inquiring minds to fact check everything we're fed these days...
Sorry to break it to you but you are not the next step in human evolution. Rally, really. Not.
How can you be so sure?
This thread is the forum equivalent of suicide by cop.
whoa there neddy, back that truck up a bit.
Drac was on Jim'll Fix it?
😆
[quote=jivehoneyjive ]A lot of people on here seem to like arguing for argument's sake...
It passes the time of day
I love the general chat on STW, probably why I've been here so long. I also love the way some threads can go off on very amusing tangents. The one where the dude was trying to post pictures of his bike which descended into a photoshop war was a classic example.
However I am getting a little bored of JHJ invading threads and turning them into conspiracy fests with no concrete evidence other than "makes you think...".
Wonder what the forum would be like with a little enforced absence? Makes you think...
So, before this thread gets closed, I feel I must say something I've said before.
JHJ, do **** off.
As you were.
I take it you didn't like the vajazzle joke then?
This is starting to resemble mumsnet!
I think this JHJ person is either paranoid-delusional.
..or smoking something.
..or socially inept
..or all of the above.
Definitely an attention-seeking-poo-bum though.
Good luck with that.. 😆
whoa there neddy, back that truck up a bit.Drac was on Jim'll Fix it?
Not sure if he was or he wasn't but either way it makes you think.
Do they do the bombers thing on mumsnet?
I reckon the oestrogen would be a sound alternative to all this pent up testosterone...
However I am getting a little bored of JHJ invading threads and turning them into conspiracy fests with no concrete evidence other than "makes you think...".
Oh yeah, that's the other thing I was going to answer:
a familiar pattern for having a questioning perspective it seems.
The "familiar pattern" is not you being censored by The Man for providing uncomfortable truths; it's you not being allowed to derail umpteen threads with unrelated conspiracy theories (and I appreciate the irony in what's happening right now).
This is starting to resemble mumsnet!
. . . except on Mumsnet we're allowed to swear.
And we have little piccies of bikes and cake and wine and flowers 😀
Oh, and we often discuss DH (also DD and DS and DM)
Well what a massive shock.
Jivebunnyjive makes an accusation
Tells someone to look into it themself
Fails miserably to back it up with evidence when pushed
Fails miserably to make jokes in a weak attempt to distract attention
It's such an unfamiliar pattern of events 🙄
we often discuss DH (also DD and DS and DM)
You'd never get that sort of thing here. Neither the OP nor my OH would put up with that sort of silliness.
(and I appreciate the irony in what's happening right now).
It should be pretty clear I had no intention of taking it into conspiracy territory, but was basically forced to by your excessive sensitivity...
I'm sure for the most part you do a wonderful job of being a peacemaker in this rough old town, but you have to realize, on occasion, with no justification for posts being removed or being banned, it can seem a touch biased.
Now, back to vajazzles on Newsnight
Fails miserably to back it up with evidence when pushed
Oh, he provided evidence when pushed. That's why his account is still active. He was simply mistaken.
That remains debatable, but as you were...
Esme has DH?
Heart. Broken.