[Closed] Mumsnet - it's got a bit heated offline

Fails miserably to back it up with evidence when pushed

Oh, he had evidence when pushed. That's why his account is still active. He was simply mistaken.

True to form, he provided what he sees as evidence.

And true to form, it failed to back up his accusations.

with no justification for posts being removed or being banned, it can seem a touch biased.

I've just checked back in the logs as you suggested, just to verify my facts.

When I deleted your first round of inappropriate posts on the 7/7 thread, I sent you a warning thusly: "If there is a time and a place for these stories, this thread and today is not it. Kindly desist."

You then followed this up with another lengthy 'cover up' post, closing with "(Awaits wrath of Cougar)" - ie, you were deliberately posting after being asked not to. This is why you earned yourself a ban, and this too was explained to you at the time. (As an aside, it wasn't me who actioned the ban, it's the first time I've seen that post.)

I'm not sure how this constitutes "no justification" unless of course you've given us a fake email account and aren't receiving our communications. In which case, that's your outlook (and breaks the T&Cs so I suggest you rectify it if so).

Whatever neal, my cakes would totally spank yours and I'm pretty good at dressing ladies mannequins for shop windows too.

I'm glad you've checked the logs Cougar... how many other similar instances come to light?

DD? What's everyone's favourite diminutive IrishBristolian done now?

I'm glad you've checked the logs Cougar... how many other similar instances come to light?

There is a shade over seven million posts on STW. Much as I'd like to check them all, you'll have to be more specific if there's anything else you'd like me to explain in public for you.

If not, I suggest we move on back to the original thread.

That sounds like a wonderful idea, we should've tried it 2 pages ago...

Now, about my stretch marks and split ends

Still waiting for evidence of non-moderated posts.........

Tea is going cold and the soggy biscuit about to drop in the mug.........

#Makes you think though..........

Edit: bugger, beaten to it. 😳

Tea is going cold and the soggy biscuit about to drop in the mug.........

Looks more like a beaker to me.

I tried mumsnet for a while and I found it very unpleasant, unwelcoming place. Several members advised me that it took them a year before they were acknowledged or accepted In the form "community", and that I should just stick with it for a few more months. What kind of nonsense is that? Give me STW any day!

Looks more like a beaker to me.

*spits water out*

It's not water.

[quote=jiveybunny]Whatever neal, my cakes would totally spank yours and I'm pretty good at dressing ladies mannequins for shop windows too.

I'll say it again... "what a massive shock"

[quote=nealglover]Jivebunnyjive makes an accusation
Tells someone to look into it themself
Fails miserably to back it up with evidence when pushed
[b]Fails miserably to make jokes in a weak attempt to distract attention[/b]

Pretty sure I've reported at least one Jive's posts for being in bad taste.

Iirc something to do with the holocaust.

soggy bisuit

ewww, FFS, next you'll be emailing photos of your cock 🙄

Pretty sure I've reported at least one Jive's posts for being in bad taste.

Iirc something to do with the holocaust.

Strangely enough, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Mozes_Kor ]Eva Mozes Kor[/url] a survivor of childhood experiments in Auschwitz thanked me for providing her with leads to help her uncover documentation regarding what she endured.

Those leads went to the CIA...

What I post may sometimes be disturbing and challenging, but I have no intention of offending.

Your post was neither challenging or disturbing.

Just inappropriate

Good grief!

I banned him!
He's gone for a bit.

[quote=Cougar said]unless of course you've given us a fake email account and aren't receiving our communications. In which case, that's your outlook

Other mail clients are available 😛

I'd just like to say well done to Cougar for the handling in this thread. Option 3 on the previous had me chuckling as well.

**** me!

Drac was on Jim'll Fix it?

I did write to him a few times but I guess I wasn't his type. I have met Prince Charles though. Makes you think.

Mark is a lizard. So is Drac. See above for all the proof you need.

Other mail clients are available

Oh, very good. I'd have been proud of that one if it'd been intentional.

Well done Cougar! Grace under pressure...Now about them lizard overlords...

Thank god for that. I've never read so much drivel in a while as I have in his posts. Clearly he's on unsupervised care in the community.

Certainly makes you think.....

Not sure if it was patience beyond the call of duty or letting him get enough rope to hang himself, but well handled by the powers that be.

Certainly makes you think.....

Not sure if it was patience beyond the call of duty or letting him get enough rope to hang himself, but well handled by the powers that be.

Certainly made my head hurt.

(-:

Mumsnet, then?

Just don't be surprised when the SWAT team turn up on your doorstep tonight. Just saying like....

[quote=Mark ]Good grief!
I banned him!
He's gone for a bit.

I hope you explained why

[quote=Cougar ](-:
Mumsnet, then?

Bit tame compared to here

I'm waiting for the Mumsnet hacker to link my username there to my username here. My whole life will unravel in the public gaze.

Apart from the bits on Ashley Madison, obviously.....

Well done Cougar! Grace under pressure

I disagree. Posting up details of a private email* exchange is not very becoming.

*I assume it was email and not a private text message to his phone or something... 😉

Edit : Unless JHJ was warned on the thread, in which case ignore me. Though I still think the best and most graceful course of action would be to totally blank the member in question. Y'know, like a male lion does with competition.

Mark, thank you, could you make it permenant for everyone's sake, espcially jhj. Maybe he see how long he could last on Mumsnet (#makes you think).

Posting up details of a private email* exchange is not very becoming.

It wasn't really an "exchange" beyond a Warning and what's in the thread. I see no privacy issues in making public an email [b]I [/b]sent, particularly given that it was made public in response to an... enquiry from the original recipient who chose to make the issue public in the first place. If it was someone else's email I'd wholly agree, that's bad form. But not what I did.

There have been some interesting posters on here over the years,some of who have been banned,I liked TJ,but he couldn't let an arguement go,and Elfin was another,but JHJ is the only one who I think ought to be in a supervised environment of some description.

It's an unnecessary addition IMO.

Cripes, what a thread..

It may not be the "best" thread of 2015 but for sure it must get an award for one of the most "challenging"

😯

teasel - Member
It's an unnecessary addition IMO.

In what respect?

It was a private communication, albeit only Cougar's side, but it's private and should stay that way.

Look, it's just my opinion. I seem to remember something similar being done before on more than one occasion, though not necessarily from Cougar. I think it's uncalled for, is all.

I'll just sit here and chill and keep my fingers away from my keyboard.

I'm not sure as I agree, but I'll and give that some thought. Thank you.

I'm a big advocate of transparency to a point of being too transparent sometimes perhaps. (But he [i]told[/i] me to check the logs...!)

TJ must be better off
JHJ similarly, just cannot see that line he has crossed

paddedfrednsafetydibnah on the other hand had so many sandwiches missing from the hamper, well basket... Either obsessively stalking people on other forums, IRL or hopefully has seen sense and sought help.

But he told me to check the logs...!)

Indeed he did, so I guess he kinda brought it on himself.

Peace and all that shit...

On that note,

This thread has gone a bit "me me me" and I'm not wholly comfortable with that. So I'm bowing out.

MUMSNET!!

I might be alone in thinking this, but I don't[i] mind[/i] JHJ - this is said with not really giving too much importance to what he writes - I just think generally, he's a nice enough chap, with a passion for [i]something[/i].

There are plenty on here that aggravate me more with the things they say and the way they talk to people, and he's not one of them.

I do think (and this thread is an example) that he could probably refine some of his phrasing of his rebuttals, but I get the impression he's actually a decent bloke, maybe a little too passionate and lacking in evidence, but that's half the battle he faces with his particular stance on things.

Some of the insults that are leveled at him are not deserved though IMO, as on this thread, but beyond that, the really pathetic mocking/insults and 'pack-mentality' bulling, actually show up the really nasty folk.

Some have considered 'evidence' of their own, and confront him with it -that's fine and he needs to tackle that and fight his corner - that's what 'debate' is all about.

The majority though that I see are just unpleasant comments, kicking down an easy target. To me, it reflects more on them, than it does Mr Jive.

He's just passionate about a subject and has a few things to learn about the ways of talking to people; at some point, haven't we all?

EDIT: ..and at least he rides a bike!

JHJ was being a douche. He threw out his usual, vague passive aggressive comment. Then when called on it, tried to back track. He did it publicly, calling into question the MODs, I see nothing wrong with information disputing his rubbish being produced to counter it.

I'm all for privacy, but if you want to sling mud in public; remember, it's a two way range.

Mark, thank you, could you make it permenant for everyone's sake, espcially jhj.

Not for my sake. I'd like to see him back some time. There are some inconvenient truths in the things JHJ posts. It doesn't take long with Google/Duckduckgo to sort the wheat from the chaff. Whether the subjects raised are in such bad taste that they should not appear here is for the mods/management to decide, it seems to me that many members enjoy his threads either because they are interested in what he posts or because they enjoy having a go at JHJ.

Anyhow, this time he was right, some things are censored - things that are judged to be in bad taste for example. Unfortunately he reposted the things that were in bad taste rather than just reminding Cougar that things had been censored because they were in bad taste.

I agree with Teasel that the best place for a warning is on the thread. I check my e-mails once a day so find warnings after I've been banned for ignoring them. So to the main reason for my post here:

Mark, Drac, Cougar and the undercover mods, could you post warnings on the threads please so everyone including the offender knows there's a problem and can desist before things escalate and/or result in a ban. 💡

I don't mind JHJ - this is said with not really giving too much importance to what he writes - I just think generally, he's a nice enough chap, with a passion for something.

There are plenty on here that aggravate me more with the things they say and the way they talk to people, and he's not one of them.

Some of the insults that are leveled at him are not deserved though IMO, as on this thread, but beyond that, the really pathetic mocking/insults and 'pack-mentality' bulling, actually show up the really nasty folk.

+1

(I hated to do that +1 thing as it seems very STWery but there you go)

Whether the subjects raised are in such bad taste that they should not appear here is for the mods/management to decide,

I disagree. It's not just for the mods/owners to decide, it's for everyone who uses the place as well.

Mark, Drac, Cougar and the undercover mods, could you post warnings on the threads please so everyone including the offender knows there's a problem and can desist before things escalate and/or result in a ban.

We do that where appropriate (to the best of our ability).

You have to understand, a ban (temporary or permanent) is viewed as a last resort. These days, regular users (as opposed to spammers and such) only ever get bans for either being persistent offenders or for wilfully ignoring warnings. We don't [i]want[/i] to ban people unless we're left with little option.

It's not just for the mods/owners to decide, it's for everyone who uses the place as well.

And that's a very good point; yes, absolutely.

It's not a democracy though is it Flash, and even if it were, how many people objecting to the ski and snowboard thread would it need to get it taken down?

In this case we have some members supporting JHJ and others wishing a lifetime ban on him, someone has to decide so it's down to the mods and management. Then members can decide whether they wish to continue to use the forum should they feel really strongly about either his presence or him being banned.

Edit: I really don't willfully ignore e-mail warnings Cougar, I just don't find them until it's too late.

I'm gonna chirp up and agree that it's a bit of a shame..
We all have interests outside of cycling and love to discuss them here.. Whether it's cars or sheds or music..

The bloke felt like he had something important to share and that really upset a few queer folk, although I fully understand that the way he chose to share his interest wrankled with many more people..
He was a bit of a character for sure, and it's unfortunate that he unsettled some people who's reactions showed a lot more about their problems than his..
But he stood on the tors of the big boys today and got spanked.. Silenced he would probably say..
Fair well mystic sleuth.. I'm sure your ponderings will see a lot of egg on your detractors faces before the fat lady sing

I might be alone in thinking this, but I don't mind JHJ

I don't either, he's free to create whatever discussion threads he likes to further his ends (er, when Mark's ban wears off anyway).

What isn't acceptable is his continual derailing / disrupting of unrelated threads with his tangental conspiracy theory wibblings. Which, to his credit, he seems to have mostly stopped doing. Mostly.

soobalias - Member
TJ must be better off
JHJ similarly, just cannot see that line he has crossed

[IMG] [/IMG]

even if it were, how many people objecting to the ski and snowboard thread would it need to get it taken down?

Why would they? It's a fine example of self-moderation. As, at times surprisingly (!), is the annual rugby thread.

Basically, the only reason someone gets reported and/or banned seems to be when they fail to obey life's Rule One. Namely, "Don't be a dick".*

For all his worthy efforts**, JHJ was clearly looking for an online scrap today. Sadly.

* I am qualified to say this, having felt the hammer's blow on a number of occasions.
** As I have often said, his motives and aims are entirely admirable, his approach at times lamentable.

JHJ obviously is passionate about the subjects he posts about, how he goes about sharing that passion with others may not be normal by most peoples standards. Maybe if those members who constantly goad him and bully him in these threads were themselves moderated or warned off by the mods he would have learned by now better techniques to express himself and communicate with others.

But hey, he is an easy target and I suppose it gives the usual suspects in here ample opportunity to show themselves for what they are. I am surprised some of the name calling and offensive comparisons go completely unchallenged, yet JHJ offensive posts are jumped on all the time.

That is double standards.

A lot of it doesn't go unchallenged; but assuming the community doesn't self-police, that's what the Report-Post button is for.

We don't always read / notice everything. I'd encourage you to please call out anything that you considered out of order.

It used to be Hill dodger, have a look at the latest forum rules which are mostly an improvement.

Edit: I had my most serious personal disagreements of the year on the ski and snowboard thread, Flash. Remember the cornice and avalanche debates? They are the only times in the year I've posted opinions that I knew would probably offend another poster, things that needed to be said in the interest of mountain safety.

Anyway.

My last <mod> comment here will be, please don't criticise someone who doesn't currently have right of reply. It's unfair.

And on that note, I am actually out of here now to try and have an evening.

Anyhow, back to the topic; any developments as yet? Have they got any idea who has done this? Clearly someone with a serious axe to grind with the site and it's founders/users.

Maybe not Moose. I don't recall the yoof responsible for "the great hack" having a serious axe to grind with STW. Some people do things because, in the words of Mr Clinton, they can.

Just seems a lot of work, the hack coupled with the 'swatting' and the twitter account, just for giggles, no?

some people just like to watch the world burn

I don't know. Hopefully the culprits will be caught and asked to explain to a magistrate or judge.

soobalias - Member
some people just like to watch the world burn

It seems a bit more than just yoofs playing to me - but maybe they are sitting there having a giggle at getting the police to play their games for them.

If there was any link between mumsnet and gamergate I'd have gone with spotty teenagers having a go but this seems much more calculated and specific to that site.

I'd be interested if the swat thing means there be a lot more police interest in tracking down who did it than 'just' a hack.

I'm immune to any of that swatting shite anyway - my house is an odd number 8)

some people just like to watch the world burn

Where's Donnie?

^ that quote looks different in italics 😀

[quote=wwaswas ]I'd be interested if the swat thing means there be a lot more police interest in tracking down who did it than 'just' a hack.

Well it is quite clearly wasting police time, and they do tend to take that sort of thing quite seriously (they could have been eating doughnuts instead 😉 ) - probably easier for them to get sufficient evidence than with cyber crime. I'm sure they're also keen to discourage other people trying it.

moose - Member
Anyhow, back to the topic; any developments as yet? Have they got any idea who has done this? Clearly someone with a serious axe to grind with the site and it's founders/users.
Edukator - Troll
Maybe not Moose. I don't recall the yoof responsible for "the great hack" having a serious axe to grind with STW. Some people do things because, in the words of Mr Clinton, they can.

Netmums ? 🙂