|
|
 |
|
Getting Support : Speaking Out
Locked Threads | from Tim R - Monday, July 28, 2003
accessed 1804 times I just wanted to explain why I added the "Private Threads" feature. The main reason I wanted this done was to make sure that the child being discussed in the recent dispute never has to read the arguments about his father and mother. As I understand it, PJ's son is about 9 years old, which is old enough for him to roam around the internet and possibly stumble on to this "Discussion". This whole issue also made me feel very uncomfortable, and perhaps this influenced me a little too much.
A lot of people here obviously have very strong feelings on this issue, I'm not even close to unbiased myself, which is why I avoided the argument.
I am a Libra who was raised in Japan, to say I dislike confrontations would be a massive understatement. Still, unpleasant or not, the issue of child support needs to be addressed.
This is not about PJ or Lauren or anyone else. This should be about the children and their needs. We need to look at what is best for the boy involved, and for any other children who need the support and love of their parents. Making a baby takes two people, and BOTH of them need to share responsibility for the results. This is true even if the birth was accidental or unplanned. A number of women who've come out of the Family have found themselves having to bear the burden of motherhood alone, and this needs to stop.
It was very depressing however, to see what should have been a serious debate about parental responsibility turn into a mudfest. I love a good debate as much as anybody else, but it would be nice if people could stick to attacking each others opinions, and leave the gutter talk and personal attacks aside. In debate this is known as an "Ad Hominem" attack, and is generally considered the sign of a weak argument.
For a great lesson on this and other tricks of dirty logic see: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html
This is not the first time this has come up, about a year ago there was a spat between Deb and some of Jamie's relatives which made the current argument look cute by comparison. As with this argument, it quickly degenerated into ugly personal attacks by some of the parties involved.
What I wanted to do with the Private Thread feature is allow people to have a forum to debate issues which they need to talk about, but would rather keep to a few people.
Whether they like it or not, Lauren and PJ are relatives, and I hope they can talk this over and come to some kind of understanding. Disagreements are common to all families, I've had many arguments with different members of my family over the years, but thank God none of them took place on a public web site.
I will be discussing this with the other Editors, to see how we want to handle this, but we'll probably have private threads as a request option, if somebody wants to start a private discussion, they can e-mail the editor and get a lock put on the thread. The thread would then be limited to whichever people they choose to involve in the issue. Threads would only be made private if the users request it, and they would still be free to "Unlock" their comments at any time if they feel they want to go public. Another option would be to have threads where everyone can read what's being written, but only certain people can post.
This is not meant to be a form of censorship, the other comments in the PJ/Lauren thread were locked only because they were replies to their threads, I will repost those comments on their own soon.
Again, this is only an idea, we'll have to decide how to manage this. This is just an experiment, if everyone doesn't like this, then I'll remove it. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from mex
Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 02:02
 (Agree/Disagree?)
If the issue discussed is of a private nature, why don’t you use e-mail? It just seems to me that if you do not have the common sense to keep private issues off public websites, you should not be posting at all.
(reply to this comment)
| from frmrjoyish
Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 00:43
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Why don't we all just see how it goes before freaking out! Maybe it'll be a good thing, maybe it won't! He's just trying to come up with something helpful and he's already said he's willing to rethink it!
With all the negativity over the last couple days, I think we should at least give it a shot!
(reply to this comment)
| from Ian
Monday, July 28, 2003 - 18:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
So you feel that it is appropriate for users to post extremely personal information about each other, and should this information be about a minor specifically, then you will allow everyone to read it for awhile before making it private?
Just curious.
So if it had been about me, say for example, someone named Lorena accused me of having been a druggie, or maybe told everyone that I spent time in jail. Who cares, right? After all, it's not about my daughter, she's only nine so there is no chance she spends hours on the internet everyday....right?
Just keep making up the fucking rules as you go along, I don't really give a shit, just don't justify it with some fucking pre-recorded apoligetic form letter that doesn't really make sense.
.............another fine post by ian
(reply to this comment)
|  From Tim R
Monday, July 28, 2003, 22:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ian,
What I feel is appropriate for users to post is not the issue, I don't tell Lauren what to post any more than I tell you.
If I had wanted to censor it, I would have just deleted it. I was trying to allow the argument to continue without all the bystanders jumping in and superimposing their own issues on what should be a straight forward discussion about what is best for the child. This idea came about because of this mess, personally I would have preferred that the whole issue never came up, but as I said, what I feel isn't really important here.
Most of the people I've heard from don't like this private thread idea either, and as PJ pointed out in the other thread, e-mail works just as well. So I'll ditch it then. I'm sorry if this has offended anyone, I asked Jules to add this, and I take full responsibility for it's existence and demise.
You are angry because this "extremely personal information" has hurt your brother, and possibly hurt your nephew, right? Well guess what, THAT'S WHY LAUREN IS ANGRY TOO. She feels that PJ has hurt her sister and her nephew and she feels she has to speak out because her family has been hurt, exactly the way you are doing now.
When the issue of naming names first came up, I threw in my two cents on the issue, if you want to read it go to:
http://www.movingon.org/replycomment.asp?sID=2&Cat=5&ID=1403&CID=14946&Reply=14946
Remember, this is not just about you and PJ, there are a lot of single SGA mothers who are legally entitled to support. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Auty
Tuesday, July 29, 2003, 12:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Totally off the wall here Tim, but wondering where the line is drawn between naming our creeps that pertain to TF and naming our peers as creeps on this site.
It seems that when one of us names someone like Renata or Newheart as a "creep" we have a lot of support by our peers, ready to sympathis and/or agree without question or argument. However, when one of our peers is mentioned in a bad light there's this whole issue of privacy. It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. We are so willing to point our finger at someone that wronged us in TF but if a finger is pointed at one of us for wrong-doing, we freak out, leave the site & a whole army of defenders are present. Not that the whole army of defenders is a bad thing, I'm just wondering about the children of Renata, that might frequent this site as well. So when making some things private, where do you stop making them private and start making them public? Seems a little hypocritical that folks are all up in arms about this PJ & Lauren situation, but then you have the Jamie & Deb (there are two children involved in this one), the Sarafinaca (which was deleted per agreement), the whole Vandarling section, Sunny James still being reemed on & blah blah blah & on the other side of the fence Renata, Jay, Seth, John . . . .and the list goes on of the named creeps.
So I've come to the conclution that I do not want your job. Making a judgement call with all these situations is rough & you're going to get some flak from folks. But I think the question still remains, where does this end? If you make one thing private you've opened the door to go through this website and make almost every unkind & possibly unfair argument private. It just seems like a whole lot of unnecessary work. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Monday, July 28, 2003, 19:17
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Remember that a lot of so called "personal" information is public record, such as a criminal record, etc. So, posting or publishing public information is not actionable. Further, if something which is not public record is made public, yet it is true, such as someone failing to pay child support, it is also not actionable. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation. Therefore, telling someone another spent time in jail or uses drugs or does not pay child support, etc., and the one speaking has personal knowledge of it being true, then although it may be embarrassing, it is not actionable. However, in some states, imputing sexual promiscuity to a female in a public forum is defamation, as well as defaming the character of a licensed professional. So, according to the law in most states, I can call a man who has never provided child support for his child a deadbeat, but if that same person calls me a licensed attorney, a lecherous whore, then I have a cause of action against them. It might upset some, but it’s the law of the society many of us live in, and since we do not live in the make-believe world of a cult any longer, we might as well start getting used to it. Further, if one is embarrassed by the disclosure of their actions in a personal forum, especially that which affects others, including children, then I suggest they change their actions. There’s no double standard here for FGAs and their abuse of children, both sexual and physical, and SGAs and their actions which affect children. This website has always promoted disclosure, especially of abuse and wrong. There should be no exception for SGAs and their actions which adversely affect children. I bust my butt to meet my obligations, both financial and moral. I do my damndest to be a good parent and provide a good life for my child, even to my own sacrifice. A lot of parents on this website to the same, most without the advantage of ever having known such good parenting themselves. If some of us are not meeting our obligations, then I say cry me a river when they are made public. That’s the whole idea behind national deadbeat media exposure, to embarrass a person into doing the right thing. As a marine, who lives by a code, you should be supportive of such measures. The respect that you are paid because of your position is not due to cover up and denial, it is due to the manner in which you and your fellow marines live their lives. The military does not put up with poor financial management and not paying ones obligations. Further, I hear a lot on this website about “moving on.” Well, part of that is acknowledging what we endured as children but not allowing ourselves to use it as an excuse in our own lives. We have to work twice as hard. Study twice as much. Be the responsible parent we never knew. That is what is expected, and by God, that is what a lot of us have done.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Tuesday, July 29, 2003, 04:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nancy, have you ever read “Les Miserables”? There’s more to life than the law. Many ghastly deeds are perfectly legal, while humans frequently get punished for deeds that are in fact helpful or at least not harmful.
I believe speaking out about abuse is the responsibility of the abused or those with a first hand knowledge of the situation, not uninformed parties who didn’t even witness the abuse. Slander is usually harmful, whether it’s legal or not.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ian
Monday, July 28, 2003, 20:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Perfect......so fucking run your mouth, it seems to make logical sense. When you ruin his new found relationship with his son, then be assured I will hold you responsible.
Do me a favor, don't try to help the problem under any circumstances. After all, if it's legal then do it, even if it ruins lives. Afterwards you can brag about how much everyone had to pay in legal bills. You remind me so much of Jules and Lauren, ready to jump on anyone that reminds them of their past regardless of the consequences.
You definitely need to learn to read a little slower and understand better, my post was not addressed to you, nor do I give a shit what is considered legal in most states. I was addressing the morality of the issue. You were real quick to repeat things you have already said a few times but failed to answer my question (I don't care what you think anyways). Your whole line of thought is devoid of any intelligence whatsoever......but I don't really want to discuss it with you because I think you are an ignorant bitch!
.......another fine post by ian (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Monday, July 28, 2003, 21:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
One who speaks of morality while dismissing others as "ignorant bitch"es. Which one of us is devoid of intelligence?
I hardly think responding to your rantings is going to ruin anyone's relationship with their son. Further, with your profane mouth and juvenile name-calling, which one of us is bitter and jaded?
"I don't care what you think anyways." Mature! Let us all take a lesson from you. In your world, we're all better off covering our ears and digging in our heels and screaming "la, la, la, la, la..." Don't confuse you with any facts, or you're liable to yell, hit or bite.
And that dear comes to you free of charge.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Monday, July 28, 2003, 21:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
How the hell can you hold FGs accountable for their actions and not anyone else? Either you believe people should be held accountable or not. You have personally railed the loudest against censorship and that nothing should be deleted or removed. For the record, I don't really agree with the private thread thing, it's Tim's call and so I took the time to code it, and I understand and agree with his reasons. But I don't like the precedent it sets. I could go through the list of articles in the creeps section and call anyone there who has spoken up there bitter and jaded and tell them to take it up privately with the person. The FGs named there could do the same thing.
I think that after all we have been through ourselves, sometimes we are just desensitised to things that are RIGHTS that children have. I don't know how many people I have heard say "adults touched me sexually when I was a kid, but I wasn't hurt so it wasn't abuse". It's not being bitter to say "this is wrong". I have been both fired and dumped for speaking out about the Family. It's been hard on my parents, and they have said all these same things to me as well. I get hate mail on a daily basis from Family members, and I have put a great deal of my own life on hold to be involved in this site and other projects. It's not been easy to put my own story out there, but I believe in speaking truth and I am willing to actually do something, and not just sit around whining.
Why do any of us speak out? What is the good that comes out of it? Guilty parties start to see that these issues are not going away, and that they cannot just intimidate and bully people into silence. There are people standing behind those who were hurt as children, and there are people standing up for children who are being hurt right now. You will be held accountable for your actions and that goes for all of us too. I took care of children in the Family, and I am ashamed to say, often spanked them for breaking the stupid and arbitrary Family rules. There are probably many things I did that I am not even aware of, or aware on the effect it had on others. If I have hurt someone, they have the right to call me on it, and I hope to God I can listen to them, respect them and do what I can to apologize, take responsibility and rectify the situation. (reply to this comment) |
| | from Wolf
Monday, July 28, 2003 - 17:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Speaking of censorship, what happened to the "ask Alf" section? That was the best part of the site.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]