• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Public Scrutiny vs Entitlement to Privacy of involved Parties

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
Runitout said:
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.

In this example, as presented, the initiater is certainly the one to blame for "the situation". For the parading to further an image, and for attacking someone else's family, or trying to get through to someone via their family. They can even be scrutinized for both actions in this forum too. People have been, and will be, and that has never been an issue. Scrutinizing them is not the problem.

Nor what we are talking about.

What you cannot do however, is use the public figure's misconduct as an excuse to do them what was done to you, and ridicule, expose, speculate, threaten, or even discuss their kids and the lives of those kids, and their mental state, and what they get up to, etc.

As you do it by hurling stuff at innocent by standers at this, to get through to the culprit. You involve yet another party who had nothing to do with it.

And that is all I have said, that discussing their kids, who they are, what they do, what they look like, or speculating how they might or might not feel about their dad, how they are affected, etc, what mental scars or burdens they must have inflicted, or not, is off limits.

Talking about the principle, and scrutinizing the private realm of a public (cycling) figure, when they trade and capitalize on their private life by raising it for effect (this bit matters), fair game. Always has been. Always will be.

I guess some people are saying that we still won't allow scrutiny of Public Person C here, then. You are misreading, in that case. If C does something to B to get to A, that is wide open here.

But giving permission to Person A (or E) to involve Innocent Bystander D, because D matters to Culprit C, who took aim at Innocent Bystander B, to get to you, Person A, makes no sense to me on any level.

Which is what we have been saying all along. The kid's lives are off limits. The kids are. Not the parent's action or hypocrisy.

No matter what you beef is with C, or how personal it is, D is no legit target, and didn't become one, simply because they happened to be around C, or born into the family. They are not doing anything. C is the target, and remains the sole target. Even more so.

No matter how much you want to make person C feel how it felt to you (or others), you would do it over the back of someone who is not involved in the action, and who should be able to get on with their lives in peace, and in private.

All the more if the outrage is about having people involved who shouldn't have been.

Involving others the same way, to prove that point, is nonsensical, and indefensible from the innocents point of view. The only point of view that really matters, and why we take that position, that discussing anyone who didn't step into the public light, and is involved in a realm usually seen as private, is off limits. None of your business. And we are even stricter about that when it involves minors, as they are deemed/seen to be unable to stand up for themselves, and legally deemed to be incapable to make up their own minds or realize the full consequences, even if they did play a more active role.

For clarity: I have never seen RR making Lance's kids a target, for instance, so we are talking hypothetical here, after people speculating about "if he did that", not as a result of something that RR actually did.
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,059
1
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
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.

Holy crap!
My google autofill completed "who is race r" to radio. WOW
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Francois the Postman said:
In this example, as presented, the initiater is certainly the one to blame for "the situation". For the parading to further an image, and for attacking someone else's family, or trying to get through to someone via their family. They can even be scrutinized for both actions in this forum too. People have been, and will be, and that has never been an issue. Scrutinizing them is not the problem.

Nor what we are talking about.

What you cannot do however, is use the public figure's misconduct as an excuse to do them what was done to you, and ridicule, expose, speculate, threaten, or even discuss their kids and the lives of those kids, and their mental state, and what they get up to, etc.

As you do it by hurling stuff at innocent by standers at this, to get through to the culprit. You involve yet another party who had nothing to do with it.

And that is all I have said, that discussing their kids, who they are, what they do, what they look like, or speculating how they might or might not feel about their dad, how they are affected, etc, what mental scars or burdens they must have inflicted, or not, is off limits.

Talking about the principle, and scrutinizing the private realm of a public (cycling) figure, when they trade and capitalize on their private life by raising it for effect (this bit matters), fair game. Always has been. Always will be.

I guess some people are saying that we still won't allow scrutiny of Public Person C here, then. You are misreading, in that case. If C does something to B to get to A, that is wide open here.

But giving permission to Person A (or E) to involve Innocent Bystander D, because D matters to Culprit C, who took aim at Innocent Bystander B, to get to you, Person A, makes no sense to me on any level.

Which is what we have been saying all along. The kid's lives are off limits. The kids are. Not the parent's action or hypocrisy.

No matter what you beef is with C, or how personal it is, D is no legit target, and didn't become one, simply because they happened to be around C, or born into the family. They are not doing anything. C is the target, and remains the sole target. Even more so.

No matter how much you want to make person C feel how it felt to you (or others), you would do it over the back of someone who is not involved in the action, and who should be able to get on with their lives in peace, and in private.

All the more if the outrage is about having people involved who shouldn't have been.

Involving others the same way, to prove that point, is nonsensical, and indefensible from the innocents point of view. The only point of view that really matters, and why we take that position, that discussing anyone who didn't step into the public light, and is involved in a realm usually seen as private, is off limits. None of your business. And we are even stricter about that when it involves minors, as they are deemed/seen to be unable to stand up for themselves, and legally deemed to be incapable to make up their own minds or realize the full consequences, even if they did play a more active role.

For clarity: I have never seen RR making Lance's kids a target, for instance, so we are talking hypothetical here, after people speculating about "if he did that", not as a result of something that RR actually did.

I didn't make his kids a target by mentioning them either. I made HIM a target for his actions that affect them. Period. Your characterization is misinformed and simply wrong. Nobody is writing personal opinion about them or what they did. It is about Armstrong and what he has done, and how that affects a wide variety of people. Your continued insistence that it is something other than that merely serves as fodder to make a point that isn't actually true. I have never seen anyone attack his kids personally. His mom maybe, but again, she put herself in that line of fire. But his kids, former wives, or girlfriend, nope. All comments in relation to them deal with Armstrong's actions that affect them. Nothing more. Your characterization is incorrect.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
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.
I really like your post. I agree with it for the most part. I have bolded the part I take exception with. Those two asshats do not deserve the props you give them. The two of them are a couple of enabelers and then cried wolf when the **** got 2 hot. Their character is suspect and that is my opinon.

I would also like to add that while reading the thread,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (yeah Pylons...stuck keyboard again) I do not understand how Betsy brought her children into this sorry *** thread. She just tried to make a comparison etc.

My boy ChrisE would disagree but well thats my opinion. :rolleyes:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rip:30 said:
Holy crap!
My google autofill completed "who is race r" to radio. WOW

That is pretty ****ed up. Again, rarely has a man deserved what is coming to him this much. Is it any wonder why his defenders here get flamed?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Glenn_Wilson said:
I really like your post. I agree with it for the most part. I have bolded the part I take exception with. Those two asshats do not deserve the props you give them. The two of them are a couple of enabelers and then cried wolf when the **** got 2 hot. Their character is suspect and that is my opinon.

I would also like to add that while reading the thread,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (yeah Pylons...stuck keyboard again) I do not understand how Betsy brought her children into this sorry *** thread. She just tried to make a comparison etc.

My boy ChrisE would disagree but well thats my opinion. :rolleyes:

I hear what you are saying, but still think they didn't deserve to be targeted. I also point them out because his actions toward them was a seminal moment for a lot of people in terms of smelling the coffee.

As for the characterization of Betsy bringing her "kids into this." There is a lot of CYA here by certain people. Instead of just taking their medicine and admitting they were wrong, they keep defending their actions to the grave. It shows a lack of humility, but I guess we are all guilty of that at times.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
I didn't make his kids a target by mentioning them either. I made HIM a target for his actions that affect them. Period. Your characterization is misinformed and simply wrong. Nobody is writing personal opinion about them or what they did. It is about Armstrong and what he has done, and how that affects a wide variety of people. Your continued insistence that it is something other than that merely serves as fodder to make a point that isn't actually true. I have never seen anyone attack his kids personally. His mom maybe, but again, she put herself in that line of fire. But his kids, former wives, or girlfriend, nope. All comments in relation to them deal with Armstrong's actions that affect them. Nothing more. Your characterization is incorrect.

You must have missed the photo that RR put up with (no dates times etc.) without any supporting story of a woman we are supposed to believe was in San Fran and with LA......ring on the finger etc.
I would like to say for the record I am a bit surprised that the photo was not of LA hugging on a Matt ..MC. with his shirt off! . LMAO
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
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).

If I remember correctly, it was addressed as you were insisting that this is how the kids must be affected, or it will come to haunt them later in life, when you have no way of knowing this. Suggesting that minors are ripe for counselling, in effect, is not acceptable. That's where that fine line was crossed, from our pov. I think "all we did" was remove it and let you know why. Pretty low key stuff. "Your case against Lance" is not exactly suffering because of it, is it?

We have let you rant and rave about Lance, and how you see him without much intervention. We get a bit more on the clean-cut side of "appropriate" when it involves minors. If you think that is overly cautious, in the example you gave, or pedantic, or taking it waay to serious, so be it.

For kids, we do indeed take privacy, and being allowed and able to grow up away from the stuff that isn't of your making, seriously. If it is insignificant given the whole, so be it. Not adding to the pile is still the right thing to do, in our eyes. When it comes to minors, "we have our truth, we like our truth".
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,059
1
0
Visit site
Francois the Postman said:
In this example, as presented, the initiater is certainly the one to blame for "the situation". For the parading to further an image, and for attacking someone else's family, or trying to get through to someone via their family. They can even be scrutinized for both actions in this forum too. People have been, and will be, and that has never been an issue. Scrutinizing them is not the problem.

Nor what we are talking about.

What you cannot do however, is use the public figure's misconduct as an excuse to do them what was done to you, and ridicule, expose, speculate, threaten, or even discuss their kids and the lives of those kids, and their mental state, and what they get up to, etc.

As you do it by hurling stuff at innocent by standers at this, to get through to the culprit. You involve yet another party who had nothing to do with it.

And that is all I have said, that discussing their kids, who they are, what they do, what they look like, or speculating how they might or might not feel about their dad, how they are affected, etc, what mental scars or burdens they must have inflicted, or not, is off limits.

Talking about the principle, and scrutinizing the private realm of a public (cycling) figure, when they trade and capitalize on their private life by raising it for effect (this bit matters), fair game. Always has been. Always will be.

I guess some people are saying that we still won't allow scrutiny of Public Person C here, then. You are misreading, in that case. If C does something to B to get to A, that is wide open here.

But giving permission to Person A (or E) to involve Innocent Bystander D, because D matters to Culprit C, who took aim at Innocent Bystander B, to get to you, Person A, makes no sense to me on any level.

Which is what we have been saying all along. The kid's lives are off limits. The kids are. Not the parent's action or hypocrisy.

No matter what you beef is with C, or how personal it is, D is no legit target, and didn't become one, simply because they happened to be around C, or born into the family. They are not doing anything. C is the target, and remains the sole target. Even more so.

No matter how much you want to make person C feel how it felt to you (or others), you would do it over the back of someone who is not involved in the action, and who should be able to get on with their lives in peace, and in private.

All the more if the outrage is about having people involved who shouldn't have been.

Involving others the same way, to prove that point, is nonsensical, and indefensible from the innocents point of view. The only point of view that really matters, and why we take that position, that discussing anyone who didn't step into the public light, and is involved in a realm usually seen as private, is off limits. None of your business. And we are even stricter about that when it involves minors, as they are deemed/seen to be unable to stand up for themselves, and legally deemed to be incapable to make up their own minds or realize the full consequences, even if they did play a more active role.

For clarity: I have never seen RR making Lance's kids a target, for instance, so we are talking hypothetical here, after people speculating about "if he did that", not as a result of something that RR actually did.

It's a celeb culture over here mate. Regardless of what happens on CN forums these kids will be discussed in much larger public venues. Your righteous efforts will be in vain. Look at every magazine in every check out line in the US--celebs, their sig others, and their children. Lives of privilege here come with gossip and scrutiny.

But whatever, have fun changing everyones mind.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Francois the Postman said:
If I remember correctly, it was addressed as you were insisting that this is how the kids must be affected, or it will come to haunt them later in life, when you have no way of knowing this. Suggesting that minors are ripe for counselling, in effect, is not acceptable. That's where that fine line was crossed, from our pov. I think "all we did" was remove it and let you know why. Pretty low key stuff. "Your case against Lance" is not exactly suffering because of it, is it?

We have let you rant and rave about Lance, and how you see him without much intervention. We get a bit more on the clean-cut side of "appropriate" when it involves minors. If you think that is overly cautious, in the example you gave, or pedantic, or taking it waay to serious, so be it.

For kids, we do indeed take privacy, and being allowed and able to grow up away from the stuff that isn't of your making, seriously. If it is insignificant given the whole, so be it. Not adding to the pile is still the right thing to do, in our eyes. When it comes to minors, "we have our truth, we like our truth".

Actually, having worked with children in a mental health setting, I actually do have a way to know that. I see your point, but want to make CLEAR that I never attacked his kids, ex, or girlfriend. They are innocent victims in all of this, and I never suggested they were culpable or part of his doping and fraud. I sincerely believe that they will pay a bigger price than anyone but Armstrong in all of this. That is, unfortunately, the ways families work. If it seemed that I was attacking them, that is not what I was doing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Glenn_Wilson said:
You must have missed the photo that RR put up with (no dates times etc.) without any supporting story of a woman we are supposed to believe was in San Fran and with LA......ring on the finger etc.
I would like to say for the record I am a bit surprised that the photo was not of LA hugging on a Matt ..MC. with his shirt off! . LMAO

The thing about RR is, based on my experience of interacting with him over several years now, he is almost always right about what he writes. I know people dislike him for many things, but his record on things is pretty solid from my experience. He has told me things in PM's that certainly came to pass, and his posts here generally are proven correct down the road.

Personally, I love his wedding invitation to The Hog's wedding every time he posts it.

And ask yourself this: If he were so far off, why would Armstrong target him specifically? People get pi$$ed off when someone tells the truth about them, not when they lie.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Let me add here that if the information regarding the person who gave Lance the information about RR is true, I am disheartened, and will light him up in a special way. I hope it isn't true, but I fear that it is.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
I hear what you are saying, but still think they didn't deserve to be targeted. I also point them out because his actions toward them was a seminal moment for a lot of people in terms of smelling the coffee.

As for the characterization of Betsy bringing her "kids into this." There is a lot of CYA here by certain people. Instead of just taking their medicine and admitting they were wrong, they keep defending their actions to the grave. It shows a lack of humility, but I guess we are all guilty of that at times.

I agree with what your posting. I would say that I understand who was intimidating who. It is only the person with the power that does the real intimidation at this party. She never brought her children into this mess and I do not expect she ever will.
 
Thoughtforfood said:
The thing about RR is, based on my experience of interacting with him over several years now, he is almost always right about what he writes. I know people dislike him for many things, but his record on things is pretty solid from my experience. He has told me things in PM's that certainly came to pass, and his posts here generally are proven correct down the road.

Personally, I love his wedding invitation to The Hog's wedding every time he posts it.

And ask yourself this: If he were so far off, why would Armstrong target him specifically? People get pi$$ed off when someone tells the truth about them, not when they lie.

don't know if I have had the pleasure of seeing this...:)

I appreciate RR's info and he seems to know of what he speaks.
I find it interesting that Lance knows who he is and is fixated on him...lack of control there..

how long ago was it that W-boy posted the personal info and website? after the investigation and Flandis ?
such a despicable and low act...very immature and vindictive...but why am I not surprised.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
The thing about RR is, based on my experience of interacting with him over several years now, he is almost always right about what he writes. I know people dislike him for many things, but his record on things is pretty solid from my experience. He has told me things in PM's that certainly came to pass, and his posts here generally are proven correct down the road.

Personally, I love his wedding invitation to The Hog's wedding every time he posts it.

And ask yourself this: If he were so far off, why would Armstrong target him specifically? People get pi$$ed off when someone tells the truth about them, not when they lie.

Yes I liked it so much a little bird some how made it available to me to post at the DPF! LMAO

I will say this .... I am not in the part that dislikes RR. I happen to respect him and know that he is on to something when he says such. I often will ask him for a proof or picture or something but I THINK HE KNOWS THAT IT is all in jiiist?? Well by now he should. I am just jerking his chain because I do know he will have the goods. RR has proven to be a valuable source for cycling inside scoop. I think RR also know that through the years and a little bit of back and forth that I also would know a couple of folks and .......while I might like to STIR the POT... I agree with him more times than not.

As to LA and his children. Well I think the more LA props them up into the spotlight then the more free game they become. It is a product of the fab...glam lifestyle he has chosen for himself and family. That is not our fault on this message board.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Let me add here that if the information regarding the person who gave Lance the information about RR is true, I am disheartened, and will light him up in a special way. I hope it isn't true, but I fear that it is.

Obviously that person is a member at a message board near ....US. Please if it would not hurt you TWO much then pass along the info via a PM so you can ummmmmm cough cough....share the love ..... I think I could give this person a special type of SHOUT OUT! ;)
 
Rip:30 said:
Holy crap!
My google autofill completed "who is race r" to radio. WOW

Mine autofilled with only "who is race ". Didn't even need the extra "r".

But, nothing on Google that appears to violate his privacy, let alone the Lance tweet.

The Jamie Lindsay rant is, of course. But, Jamie has never provided the accounting to support the rant. So, it is just a rant.

---

On the topic of Lance's kids, I have mentioned his "children" or "kids" at least once.

Lance made the topic of his time with his children his number one reason for the first retirement. Thus, the topic of whether or not he spends time with his kids appears fair game and it is/was in that context that I mentioned them.

He hasn't suspended any of them over the balcony of the Hotel Adlon in Berlin (yet). If/when he does, we should have another opportunity for dialog.

Another topic that should be within discussionary bounds is how on earth a sterilized person (public knowledge...) managed to have more children (also public knowledge...).

Something funny or funky about that.

Finally, the fact that most (sorry Ashley) GFs bear strong resemblance to his mom was actually the point behind the question that led to the 'donut grease' comment. He was claiming his type wasn't a look-a-like, but hot babes.

And, there is tons of press about Lance's mom-a-likes.

Frankly, in the case of the donut grease comment, it does seem within bounds to wonder what his mother thinks about his statement and the house of mirrors in Lance's dating life.

Dave.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Actually, having worked with children in a mental health setting, I actually do have a way to know that. I see your point, but want to make CLEAR that I never attacked his kids, ex, or girlfriend. They are innocent victims in all of this, and I never suggested they were culpable or part of his doping and fraud. I sincerely believe that they will pay a bigger price than anyone but Armstrong in all of this. That is, unfortunately, the ways families work. If it seemed that I was attacking them, that is not what I was doing.

Strange, having been trained in child's psychology and sociology, and some practical experience of that too, I know you can't know for sure without sitting down with them and getting deeper into it. You are assuming.

I also never said you attacked them, etc. You making me react to things that aren't alleged by me to you, as if I said that.

Nor did I say or suggest it was YOU who "dragged the kids into it and their mental state". You seem to assume I meant YOU, when I was talking in general with something else on my mind. You certainly were not the only one who raised the kids' metal health as an issue, and you also were not the one who did it really inappropriately. Not sure why you think "if you do a search it will show that it was me". And feel you need to defend yourself, when I never even addressed you, or named you, or thought of you.

I feel I keep addressing things that aren't said or haven't happened, yet somehow I have done all those things, or we as mods just keep doing them.

But again, in your specific case:

When you insisted you knew for sure what the mental health state of the kids was or how it would affect them in the future, you crossed a line, even if the point you wanted to make was about Lance. I can read, I know what the direction of your post was, from your pov. Still, from the kids point of view, even if that doesn't matter to you, it was saying they, now, must be needing psychiatric help. You just went over a fine line. Not much, but enough for us to make an adjustment. It was also at a time when people had raised spouses and kids really inappropriately, just before you did that, so we were making sure that new occurrences that strayed in the same direction were addressed before they escalated badly.

If we were too cautious in your case, from your point of view that is a yes. I get that. We have a trickier job, we need to judge what you intend to write, what you actually write, and how it affects the goings on at the Forum at that time.

Here, a lot seems to boil down to the word "dragging", I think, that I used. And that you felt I was addressing you, making it personal, and why you are blowing back. Go back and make it "raised the topic", "mentioned it", and that it wasn't actually about your case. just read what it actually says. Yours wasn't the biggest thing we had to deal with, when it comes to Lance's kids either.

It is why it was removed and you were given an explanation why, without any further consequences if I am right. It wasn't a big deal, not then, not now. So don't make it one. Pretty please.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
Rip:30 said:
It's a celeb culture over here mate. Regardless of what happens on CN forums these kids will be discussed in much larger public venues. Your righteous efforts will be in vain. Look at every magazine in every check out line in the US--celebs, their sig others, and their children. Lives of privilege here come with gossip and scrutiny.

But whatever, have fun changing everyones mind.

Aye, but that doesn't mean we should follow suit. And certainly around the issue of minors (for which most of the press has adopted a stricter voluntary code of conduct as well, in just about all Western countries that I can think of).

I am also aware that privacy in general is dealt with very differently in Europe, compared to the US (very broad brush here and certainly not a uniform rule), so cultural attitudes will be a bit different too (again, broad brush, and not suggesting one is better than the other, let alone suggesting that the UK -where this site's originates from, and its HQ is- hasn't got it's fair share of gossip outlets either). Still, it probably means that some lines will fall a bit further inland than people are accustomed too, I guess.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Francois the Postman said:
Strange, having been trained in child's psychology and sociology, and some practical experience of that too, I know you can't know for sure without sitting down with them and getting deeper into it. You are assuming.

Sure, its the internet and humans make guesses about things all the time. Welcome to planet Earth. My experience says that this family will be dramatically affected by this. Honestly, to suggest it won't is much less likely.

Francois the Postman said:
I also never said you attacked them, etc. You making me react to things that aren't alleged by me to you, as if I said that.

Oh, certainly that suggestion was implicit in your rants on the subject, but as you will see, I didn't take it as a personal affront. I felt you were saying that in a general way.

Francois the Postman said:
Nor did I say or suggest it was YOU who "dragged the kids into it and their mental state". You seem to assume I meant YOU, when I was talking in general with something else on my mind. You certainly were not the only one who raised the kids' metal health as an issue, and you also were not the one who did it really inappropriately. Not sure why you think "if you do a search it will show that it was me". And feel you need to defend yourself, when I never even addressed you, or named you, or thought of you.

No, I actually didn't think you remembered who did it. I outed that fact myself because using the search function could easily show who did such a thing, and I felt it was appropriate, knowing that I made a statement on the subject, to address it. I didn't feel singled out at all.

Francois the Postman said:
I feel I keep addressing things that aren't said or haven't happened, yet somehow I have done all those things, or we as mods just keep doing them.

You keep addressing things that aren't said on your own dime. I haven't forced anything.

Francois the Postman said:
But again, in your specific case:

When you insisted you knew for sure

I am allowed an opinion, and that is all I have represented. I believe, based on my experience, that they will be dramatically affected, and the longer this goes on, the worse it will be. You can play the dispassionate clinician all you want, but I don't have to. This is the interwebs, and this is an interwebs forum, and here, pontificating about things is the norm. You act like I made some novel, new kind of posting style here, and I just didn't. You act like hyperbole constitutes the fact that I claim to have examined the kids and diagnosed them. I am just sharing opinion. It really isn't any more nefarious than that. And my larger point is that Armstrong is selfishly hurting the people closest to him by continuing to lie about his past. I am pretty sure that is not some novel, unheard of consequence to things like this, but maybe your psychological and sociological training says differently?

Francois the Postman said:
what the mental health state of the kids was or how it would affect them in the future, you crossed a line, even if the point you wanted to make was about Lance. I can read, I know what the direction of your post was, from your pov. Still, from the kids point of view,

Wait one freaking minute, didn't you just lecture me on assuming things you have no substantiation for? How do you know what the kids point of view is, or whether or not they even read it?


Francois the Postman said:
even if that doesn't matter to you, it was saying they, now, must be needing psychiatric help.

Point of fact, I said I think they will need psychiatric help. That is my opinion, and will be necessitated by the actions of their father.

Francois the Postman said:
You just went over a fine line. Not much, but enough for us to make an adjustment. It was also at a time when people had raised spouses and kids really inappropriately, just before you did that, so we were making sure that new occurrences that strayed in the same direction were addressed before they escalated badly.

Okay, I can understand that point, and have no problem with it.

Francois the Postman said:
If we were too cautious in your case, from your point of view that is a yes. I get that. We have a trickier job, we need to judge what you intend to write, what you actually write, and how it affects the goings on at the Forum at that time.

Again, no problem there.

Francois the Postman said:
Here, a lot seems to boil down to the word "dragging", I think, that I used. And that you felt I was addressing you, making it personal, and why you are blowing back.

You assumed wrong. I actually didn't think you knew for sure it was me. I knew for sure it was me, and wanted to address it because it isn't hard to find if you know how to use the search function.

Francois the Postman said:
Go back and make it "raised the topic", "mentioned it", and that it wasn't actually about your case. just read what it actually says. Yours wasn't the biggest thing we had to deal with, when it comes to Lance's kids either.

It is why it was removed and you were given an explanation why, without any further consequences if I am right. It wasn't a big deal, not then, not now. So don't make it one. Pretty please.

I'm not really. But do you not see how your lengthy post makes as big of a deal out of it as I have? I mean, if you didn't want to make a big deal out of it, you could have written a post that was one paragraph consisting of maybe two or three sentences. Let me give an example:

"TFF, look we are just trying to keep the kids out of this because we don't think its appropriate to mention them. This isn't about any specific member posting anything. Don't make a big deal out of it because it isn't that big of a deal."
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,059
1
0
Visit site
Francois the Postman said:
Aye, but that doesn't mean we should follow suit. And certainly around the issue of minors (for which most of the press has adopted a stricter voluntary code of conduct as well, in just about all Western countries that I can think of).

I am also aware that privacy in general is dealt with very differently in Europe, compared to the US (very broad brush here and certainly not a uniform rule), so cultural attitudes will be a bit different too (again, broad brush, and not suggesting one is better than the other, let alone suggesting that the UK -where this site's originates from, and its HQ is- hasn't got it's fair share of gossip outlets either). Still, it probably means that some lines will fall a bit further inland than people are accustomed too, I guess.


Oh really? There's no aggrandizement of celebrity life on CN?
 
Race Radio said:
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

Surely he didn't do this...?

He is worse than I thought.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
Rip:30 said:
Oh really? There's no aggrandizement of celebrity life on CN?

That wasn't the context. You present a selective quote, omitting the statement I responded to. The context in the quote I responded to was that significant others and minors were dragged in by the gossip press anyway, so it was a lost battle to fight.

So I wrote that it still doesn't mean we should do the same, and certainly not when it comes to minors.

I did not say anything about CN or the aggrandizement of celebrity life in general.
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,059
1
0
Visit site
Francois the Postman said:
That wasn't the context. You present a selective quote, omitting the statement I responded to. The context in the quote I responded to was that significant others and minors were dragged in by the gossip press anyway, so it was a lost battle to fight.

So I wrote that it still doesn't mean we should do the same, and certainly not when it comes to minors.

I did not say anything about CN or the aggrandizement of celebrity life in general.

Well what I meant to convey was that CN forums are pretty heavy on the gossip. INDISPUTABLE FACT.

I don't see the logic in allowing all the gossip about one part of a family, daddy in this case, without some discussion of how the rest of his family might be doing. You could easily construe all the direct gossip about dad to be just as damaging to the rest of his family as would be any potential discussion about the actual other family members. How would his kids feel if they read the vitriol that gets spit around here about their dad?

Again though, it's all irrelevant because no one reads CN forum garbage except us. And if they did, they are the only ones who would really know if what was being said was true or not. What matters is what's really happening to the people being discussed, not what someone here says. You guys are confusing reality with the internet.
 

TRENDING THREADS