Public Scrutiny vs Entitlement to Privacy of involved Parties

[Dr. Maserati]

I actually was typing about that point whilst you were posting.

I think it has hit the line, as it is impossible to discuss the point she wanted to make without saying something. She didn't give names, she didn't gave details. But she did, indeed, drag in her own kids in the same post that condemned someone else for doing something similar (albeit to a different scale).

However, what it also did: it did put everyone else at a disadvantage: we only have her word for it, and we can't go deeper. I have no reason to doubt or question it, but at the same time I can't see why other people should just take elizab at her word (in priciple) on this, now she had made them part of a public argument.

Hence why I said it is nigh impossible to give wording what is ok, and what isn't. Intent and execution matters, I guess.

If folk can take the example as a discussion point starter for the general principle, rather than a specific example to be picked apart and elaborated upon, I can live with it. It certainly isn't an invitation to prove elizab wrong over the back of her children's entitlement to privacy.

I had to go back and read the posts to try and see what you are saying here.

I certainly don't see it as BA "dragging' her children in to the discussion.
It was an overall comment on 'children' being 'used' and then people taking exception to it by saying 'spare the kids' - Betsy was highlighting the hypocrisy of those statements.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

I missed the fun and games but it looks like I started this with a response to a Dr, Maserati post. My mentioning that Lance's family man image is a sham and he is a well known horndog, before, during, and after his marriage, brought out the flat earthers whose usual modus operandi is to repeatedly insist that people prove the earth is round. It is a surreal situation when the truth cannot be discussed and the tinfoil hat crew is allowed to supress evidence of it with the help of the moderators.

 

[Race Radio]

Ok, let me get this straight. Wonderboy posts my personal website, filled only with pictures and stories of my kids and family, to his 2.5 million twitter follows.....but his kids are off limits?

OK for Armstrong to smear anyone that questions the myth but when the shoe is on the other foot the groupies scream*






*Not calling you a groupie Francois

 

[Francois the Postman]

Ok, let me get this straight. Wonderboy posts my personal website, filled only with pictures and stories of my kids and family, to his 2.5 million twitter follows.....but his kids are off limits?

Your beef is with Twitter about that, and with yourself for creating a publicly accessible space with personal details, with an open door to billions of people. His kids are still off-limit here. If he had done it here, and it came to our attention, he would have known for sure that it is not ok here.

OK for Armstrong to smear anyone that questions the myth but when the shoe is on the other foot the groupies scream*

How is following a bad example a good idea, or an excuse to do the same?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Ok, let me get this straight. Wonderboy posts my personal website, filled only with pictures and stories of my kids and family, to his 2.5 million twitter follows.....but his kids are off limits?

OK for Armstrong to smear anyone that questions the myth but when the shoe is on the other foot the groupies scream

But those things did not happen in this forum, did they? This forum is our concern, not all things on the web.

Susan

 

[Race Radio]

-- edited by mod ---

 

[rhubroma]

No it is not off-limits, you can have a general discussion about it.

You have just dragged in your own kids to make an argument about a general point.

People can now do 2 things: take your word for it and leave it at that. Or scrutinize it to see if you are right, or wrong, or to prove you are wrong. Since you bring them up, even if you avoided their names, people are now at a disadvantage for making a counter-point, unless they go deeper.

You probably wouldn't welcome photos of your kids here that show them utterly happy and not apparently affected to the point that they suffer in any significant way. We are all affected by something, not? You wouldn't like to see several posts of psychobabble that state they are actually stronger because of it. Etc etc. Or maybe you would welcome that discussion.

It doesn't matter. And that is the point. The kids are people in their own right, and no-one asked them if they welcome speculation about that here on the forum, or of they want to be paraded about in public. And even if you asked them, they are minors, and legally deemed to be unable to make their minds up about stuff like this. They might or might not regret it in the future.

It isn't about you or Lance. The policy is in place for the kids.

It is perfectly possible to discuss the general principle without dragging anyone's kids. To be honest, I can't see that discussion being long.

It all boils down to a principle of decorum. Too bad society doesn't have much decorum and especially the journalists. Just ask lady D's kids.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Dragging my kids into this because I admitted they've paid a price for all of this? Is not every family involved affected by it one way or another? That's just ludicrous to suggest or infer I've dragged them into this because I've said they've paid a price.[/I] EVERY CHILD HAS on either side of the fence. That's just common sense.
viele danke Susan.

Yes, I said you dragged them into it because you mentioned your kids when they were not a topic here at all.

a) you raised them in this thread before anyone else did.
b) I said you did so
c) I said you did so because you couldn't make your point without saying something
d) I also stated time and time again that that is where you stopped, you just mentioned them, to make that point
e) I said you made it clear you didn't want them to became a topic here
f) I said no-one should use the fact you raised them voluntary and unprompted as an excuse to make them a topic here

g) I totally fail to see why you have a problem with that, unless you have read "dragging into it" as saying "you have yourself to blame if they become a topic here", totally missing that I said the exact opposite.

I defended what you did and how you did it elizab. And wrote a lot of words that were supportive of how you did it and are supportive of the general point you wanted to make.

BTW, you also added a layer that wasn't part of the discussion (so far), by adding the topic of kids who were not put in the public eye, but still were affected. That is/was, technically, not what we are talking about. I am not saying it isn't worth talking about. But don't come and tell me that you didn't inject your kids into this conversation.

I am, btw, not questioning your word for it, that they are affected, as I have no reasons to, but pedantic enough to state I am taking your word for it, as it is a fact I make important assumptions about.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Your beef is with Twitter about that, and with yourself for creating a publicly accessible space with personal details, with an open door to billions of people. His kids are still off-limit here. If he had done it here, and it came to our attention, he would have known for sure that it is not ok here.


How is following a bad example a good idea, or an excuse to do the same?

Oh I bet that would have ruined his day.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Oh I bet that would have ruined his day.

OK Mr Cynic, are you volunteering to see if if would ruin yours, if we pretended you were him and had made such a post, for real? [insert the emoticon of your choice].

 

[Stingray34]

OK Mr Cynic, are you volunteering to see if if would ruin yours, if we pretended you were him and had made such a post, for real? [insert the emoticon of your choice].

Is this an appropriate post from a mod? You're not ordinary posters anymore, but model ones.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Is this an appropriate post from a mod? You're not ordinary posters anymore, but model ones.

Drunk with power. It happens to most forums.

 

[Berzin]

IMO, you're being disingenuous at best. Comments about his personal life, family have NO place in this discussion and prove nothing except taking a discussion down to the lowest level possible.

I've read articles Kirsten Armstrong has written about "losing herself" after marrying a wealthy, powerful man, and about her struggles to refind the inner self she had "lost" as a previously successful, independent woman. She was indeed very vague and cryptic, but still in all she put her private out there for people to scrutinize and of course, for maximum effect, the article just so happened to revolve around her ex-husband Lance.

Listening to the travails of over-privileged, blond Caucasian women in our society made me so sad I almost started a fund for them. I would never have known a life absolutely devoid of the basic struggles the rest of the world is forced to endure was so demanding and difficult.

I wish I could find a link to this vomit-inducing bile. I think the article was in Runner's World. She used to write articles for this magazine mainly for the "Ladies Who Lunch" crowd.

She had done this on more than one occasion. Writing about the NYC Marathon, she couldn't help but mention that her ex-husband Armstrong was in NYC to run the event also. See a pattern?

My question is this-why are theses people off-limits when they have publicly put themselves out there writing stuff that is meant to draw attention to themselves? Riding the coattails of a famous person is not worthy of derision? I think a bit of satire and sarcasm is very much in order.

Why was Sheryl Crow always featured in the TdF coverage like no other rider's girlfriend/wife before or since? Then when she and Armstrong break up, they want the public to respect their privacy? C'mon, now.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

[/I][/B]

I've read articles Kirsten Armstrong has written about "losing herself" after marrying a wealthy, powerful man, and about her struggles to refind the inner self she had "lost" as a previously successful, independent woman. She was indeed very vague and cryptic, but still in all she put her private out there for people to scrutinize and of course, for maximum effect, the article just so happened to revolve around her ex-husband Lance.

Listening to the travails of over-privileged, blond Caucasian women in our society made me so sad I almost started a fund for them. I would never have known a life absolutely devoid of the basic struggles the rest of the world is forced to endure was so demanding and difficult.

I wish I could find a link, I think the article was in Runner's World. She used to write articles for this magazine mainly for the "Ladies Who Lunch" crowd.

She had done this on more than one occasion. Writing about the NYC Marathon, she couldn't help but mention that her ex-husband Armstrong was in NYC to run the event also. See a pattern?


My question is this-why are theses people off-limits when they have publicly themselves out there writing stuff that, in hindsight, was disingenuous at best?

That is a fair question.

If people have put themselves out there then I believe they are fair game for comment - however my own 'rule of thumb' is, "does their position have anything to do with cycling or the subject being discussed?".
More often than not the answer is "no' - so I steer clear.
Of course everyone elses personal opinion may vary.


To be fair to the Mods - while this is a public forum it is operated by a private company who are the ones to decide what is or is not crossing the line.

There is a fine line in discussing this issue - and if I was to try and sum it up it would be it is one thing to talk about the subject but quite different to discuss the 'subjects'.
It is an arbitrary decision so I can certainly see why they would err on the side of caution and try and keep families out of the discussion.

 

[Runitout]

Ok, let me get this straight. Wonderboy posts my personal website, filled only with pictures and stories of my kids and family, to his 2.5 million twitter follows.....but his kids are off limits?

OK for Armstrong to smear anyone that questions the myth but when the shoe is on the other foot the groupies scream*






*Not calling you a groupie Francois

If that is what happened to you, then as far as I am concerned, you should have carte blanche to do whatever you want in return, just as Betsy should. What's good for the goose, etc etc.

I don't think it's fair for random punters to lob metaphorical grenades at family, but if yours has been targetted personally, then go for it, and I wish you the best.

 

[Francois the Postman]

If that is what happened to you, then as far as I am concerned, you should have carte blanche to do whatever you want in return, just as Betsy should. What's good for the goose, etc etc.

I don't think it's fair for random punters to lob metaphorical grenades at family, but if yours has been targetted personally, then go for it, and I wish you the best.

What? You are a kid and your dad is a meanie who annoys other people, gets personal with someone's family, and also is misguided enough to parade you about in public as part of some show that makes him look good, so that suddenly gives other people the right to drag you into their beef with your dad AS WELL?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I think you are forgetting whose rights we are concerned with here. The kid has had no say in any of it, and is legally unable to make up a mature say, even if they did. So no, kids are and will remain off limits.

Even if your kids are the target of grenades... [I don't think anyone has actually said that, Betsy was talking about them being affected directly in an indirect way, RR said his kids were suddenly on public show to Planet Armstrong, he didn't say they were smeared or targeted by grenades, and he placed them onto the internet himself]. But even if they were: that still gives you no reason to do the same to other innocent bystanders.

I might understand it, I might sympathise to a point. As a post, it will not be acceptable here. And to be frank, I think it as misguided as the adult who made the first stupid move in that chain. Understandable. Misguided.

Fair to the dad. Not fair to the kid. That is the trump,as that is the one why we have the rule, for the innocent bystander. Lucky dad.

 

[Francois the Postman]

My question is this-why are theses people off-limits when they have publicly put themselves out there writing stuff that is meant to draw attention to themselves? Riding the coattails of a famous person is not worthy of derision? I think a bit of satire and sarcasm is very much in order.

My question to you is why you keep missing that I keep putting in the specific quantifier that specifies that any adult who start trading on the association in public, by definition steps voluntary in the public domain about the association, and hence also lose the total protection that we extent to people that don't do it here on this site. Depending on the context, some protection might still be in place. A toe over the line is not a green light for a public flogging.

The one exception that I would like to make to stepping out into the public voluntary, is that some people have no real choice in that step. Ex-wives do, wives don't always. They "have to be" at the arm of someone or, quite rightly, "want to be and have every right to do so", on public occasions that matter to their other half and on which they can be expected to show up as well. They will be harassed by the gutter-press into doing interviews in oh so many clever ways that make it nigh impossible to say no. Doing those sort of things doesn't equate to "voluntary stepping into the public arena". Writing a book does.

 

[Runitout]

What? You are a kid and your dad is a meanie who annoys other people, gets personal with someone's family, and also is misguided enough to parade you about in public as part of some show that makes him look good, so that suddenly gives other people the right to drag you into their beef with your dad AS WELL?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I think you are forgetting whose rights we are concerned with here. The kid has had no say in any of it, and is legally unable to make up a mature say, even if they did. So no, kids are and will remain off limits.

Even if your kids are the target of grenades... [I don't think anyone has actually said that, Betsy was talking about them being affected directly in an indirect way, RR said his kids were suddenly on public show to Planet Armstrong, he didn't say they were smeared or targeted by grenades, and he placed them onto the internet himself]. But even if they were: that still gives you no reason to do the same to other innocent bystanders.

I might understand it, I might sympathise to a point. As a post, it will not be acceptable here. And to be frank, I think it as misguided as the adult who made the first stupid move in that chain. Understandable. Misguided.

Fair to the dad. Not fair to the kid. That is the trump,as that is the one why we have the rule, for the innocent bystander. Lucky dad.

Well, it's a fine line, methinks:

Where someone, anyone, goes after a public figure's private life, then ceteris paribus, that is unacceptable in my book.

Where someone does the same, and the public figures has also made a public virtue of their family, then I still think that is unacceptable to air their family laundry.

Where a public figure parades their family, and then further uses another's family as a way to attack them? Well, in those circumstances, I would blame the public figure for inviting scrutiny on them by those they choose to attack in that fashion. I understand the reason for your rules, but in my view Race Radio can do what the hell he likes in response.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Well, it's a fine line, methinks:

Where someone, anyone, goes after a public figure's private life, then ceteris paribus, that is unacceptable in my book.

Where someone does the same, and the public figures has also made a public virtue of their family, then I still think that is unacceptable to air their family laundry.

Where a public figure parades their family, and then further uses another's family as a way to attack them? Well, in those circumstances, I would blame the public figure for inviting scrutiny on them by those they choose to attack in that fashion. I understand the reason for your rules, but in my view Race Radio can do what the hell he likes in response.

I do not think the moderators are telling anyone what they can or cannot do - they are (my interpretation) saying do whatever you want, but much of that may not be welcome in the forums.

 

[Anonymous]

I have brought his kids into it for sure. I am the one who made the comments about counseling, and I meant it and believe it will come to pass, but to think I was striking out at the kids is to miss the point. (A mod raised this point and dragged me into this because if you search it, you will find I am the offending party and believe I have the right to defend myself as such) The point is that growing up with a sociopathic father who lives one of the biggest lies in the history of sport has its consequences, and that if Lance genuinely cared about his family, he would cease his fraud. I made the same point about cancer patients. If he really cared, he would stop his fraud. He doesn't, and I am making a point about HIS character by discussing that. It has nothing to do with the character of his kids or wife. To point out that he is has cheated on his past wives, and has left his family are points of fact. He dragged that into the public discourse by cheating on his wife and leaving his first family. I didn't force him into those actions. I am merely commenting on the man's character using publicly available information. I didn't spy on him to find this out. I didn't make these things up.

Lance Armstrong is a lying sack of monkey **** in my book (yes, I could have been less colorful, but its me...so...), and has harmed numerous people including his family in perpetrating his lies. His defenders drag up his cancer and how much good he does, and how he is being persecuted, and how he _______________, and deserves to be regarded as a hero. I disagree. The public discourse on the subject has been (in the US) overwhelmingly biased towards Lance "the amazing savior of America and defeater of the evil silly French and liars like Landis, Lemond, Betsy, Tex Pat, Simeoni, Bassons, Hamilton, Ashenden, Frankie, CBS, 60 Minutes, Pelly, Kimmage, etc, etc, etc, and savior of cancer patients everywhere." They use his propaganda machines to help get their stories. There is another story there, and everyone familiar with him knows it even if they support him still. Pointing that out doesn't drag his family into anything. It is a comment on Lance and who he really is. What is offensive is the liar, not pointing out his lies.

And publishing a person's personal website (with pictures of his family and children) on your twitter page followed by almost 3 million people (knowing the fanatical, cult like following you have with some people) is sadly a perfect example of the character of that man, and the kind of person who does such things is very likely having a detrimental effect on many of the people in his personal life. Pointing that out is just a fact, and again, only reflects on the man. His girlfriend and children are not at fault for any of his actions, but certainly they are being affected by his current actions. That isn't dragging anyone into anything. It is just fact.

 

[ElChingon]

For a moment I thought I was on the wrong tab of who knows how many I have open but I never go to phsyco-babble sites so knew I must be (unfortunately) on CN Forums

When did common sense go out the door and raving lunacy enter the picture? I think everyone is forgetting we're on a Cycling site which from the numbers I see in everyday life is a very very small population of the other sites on the WWW. Some members think this is the Supreme Court of Cycling where their pontifications will go down as law. Sorry its just for fun people, once that thread hits page two or three you post will be forgotten like yesterday's headlines on your local paper (unless Jay Lenno decided to use them in his bit). Some posters need to get back into reality.

To quote a great quote: "Settle down Francis" (not referring to the Postman by the way).

 

[Rip:30]

I know right. Mods calling them innocent bystanders is hilarious... Mods are way over-inflating the importance of an internet forum. These kids will enjoy a life of privilege none of us will ever know and all the associated pitfalls. If you google their names their images and associated gossip are already in the public domain. Who cares if TFF pontificates about an outcome years down the road. If he turns out to be right then give the guy a gold star in a decade, if hes wrong then the statement was irrelevant.

Yawn.

 

[Rip:30]

Ha. Chingon, you beat me to pontification by 30 seconds or so.

 

[Anonymous]

I was outed by one of his fanatical followers. Honestly, it didn't worry me too much, but the fact is that he posted my name and other personal information on a public website. He then called my school and tried to talk to the dean in an effort to get me kicked out (...because I said mean things about Armstrong...seriously, that was his argument). Water seeks its own level, so no surprise there.

His outing of RR is simply unbelievable. Fortunately, the press is quickly discovering that he is, nor ever was, the man his PR firms presented. Nor is he the facade he presented in his books, or by his most ardent defenders (Watson, et al). He is one of the most disgusting frauds in the public sphere. Weiner has nothing on him. His continued PR campaign opens him up to any criticism he gets. His girlfriend and kids don't certainly, but none of that was really about them, it was evidence about his personality, hookers, blow, oh my.

 

[Anonymous]

I know right. Mods calling them innocent bystanders is hilarious... Mods are way over-inflating the importance of an internet forum. These kids will enjoy a life of privilege none of us will ever know and all the associated pitfalls. If you google their names their images and associated gossip are already in the public domain. Who cares if TFF pontificates about an outcome years down the road. If he turns out to be right then give the guy a gold star in a decade, if hes wrong then the statement was irrelevant.

Yawn.

And I have survived being irrelevant for 43 years now, so I will survive that too if it never comes to pass. I won't speculate on whether or not I feel it will come to pass as that appears to be over the line.