OT:Mumnset

[dennis]

Why don't you ask a woman, not your mom.

[newshound]

Hence the success of this group: a significant number of very well informed (and suitably modest) posters!

[Tim Watts]

Mum.

Or are you american?

[Adam Funk]

What, you don't see that here?

[dennis]

Its been mom around here for at least 60 years.

[Tim Watts]

Where's "here"?

[dennis]

West Bromwich.

[Tim Streater]

In that case, no it hasn't.

[dennis]

Yes it has.

[Graham.]

Apple pie bed? Did the staff mistake you for a honeymoon couple?

[Johny B Good]

I think that's yet another example of feminine multi-tasking in action, the art of holding two different conversations at the same time.

[Graham.]

Even I only saw the first draft. I doubt if she will want to put it on-line, but I will mention your interest when I see her on Friday.

[Graham.]

Agreed, but I don't really agree with how Michael put it. We know who the real "smartarses" are in this group and I welcome their contribution at any point in a thread.

Even if you don't get a resident polymath giving you a definitive answer, there are often enough contributions to allow the questioner to see a consensus pointing on a given direction. I am sure we can all agree that is the strength of this group.

[Chris French]

In message , Graham. writes

No, it seems quite normal in hotels for the duvet to be tucked in like a sheet - I guess it looks neat and tidy.

But it means you need to pull it out when you go to bed

[michael adams]

Indeed. But then this group hasn't been killed off, for that very reason.

I somehow suspect that the OP has misunderstood the purpose of forums such as Mumsnet.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the clunky nature of most web forums, with no automatic quoting or attribution, means that misunderstandings and talking at cross purposes are all too common. But the fact remains that the participants seem quite happy to carry on in that way.

On my local forum, as in most others, all the participants seem quite happy to launch comments into the ether with no indicationas to who they're actually responding to. So that when I actually quote previous posts it almost appears confrontational - as though I'm holding people to account for what they've posted. And so maybe people are happier with a looser format which offers more scope for ambiguity.

Even if others find web-forums unusable for that very reason.

michael adams

...

[Nightjar]

That probably depends upon whether or not he reads threads with Harry as a contributor.

[Peter Crosland]

My email is valid so you can contact me that way if you could. TIA.

[Graham.]

I know what you mean really. I'm over 6ft tall.

[bert]

In message , Johny B Good writes

But not so useful if you have an audience of one.

[Johny B Good]

In this case, it's just the most efficient means of spreading the gossip, uncluttered with counterproductive discussion of the content. Such discussions can take place later amongst the larger group in more relaxed surroundings after they've all had time to digest the 'intelligence' thus gathered.