board77

Quote:

I'm not saying anything. I was just doubtful of your opinion. Is that not allowed?

Ok, sure, but I don't see anything in your response that indicates simple doubt of an opinion. Seems that you're saying that if I really knew 13 year olds with ADHD, I would realize they are just waiting to off themselves.

Quote:

I am skeptical about people who fail to offer any kind of credentials (i.e. medical doctor, psychologist psychiatrist), who make statements about what they would diagnose.

What the hell are you talking about? How many times do I have to say I am not diagnosing anything? How could I be any more clear that I am referring to what I found in the several stories I have read?

Quote:

She isn't intelligent enough to know that she was leading on a 13 year old by sending messages from a myspace account that was not her and was pretending to be someone else?

I don't know how intelligent she is. But if we believe Megan's parents, she got upset when Josh stopped wanting to be her friend. Not boyfriend, not fiance, not FWB. As it turns out, Megan was a big head case. So why are we assuming anything about what was said to her, based on her actions? If you can prove there was anything more than casual chatting, please share.

Quote:

Ok, sure, but I don't see anything in your response that indicates simple doubt of an opinion. Seems that you're saying that if I really knew 13 year olds with ADHD, I would realize they are just waiting to off themselves.

Seems like I am saying? You can feel free to read into what I am saying, but if I am not explicitly saying it, then I am not saying it at all.

Quote:

How many times do I have to say I am not diagnosing anything?

I could continue going after this point, but I won't. Dropped.

Quote:

So why are we assuming anything about what was said to her, based on her actions? If you can prove there was anything more than casual chatting, please share.

The girl kills herself, so maybe she's just fucked up, or if we believe one of those initial news articles (forgot which of the first two links) one of them said that one of the last things "Josh" said to Megan was something along the lines of "yeah, the world would be better without you." Is that casual chatting?

Also, [a]ccording to a police report, Lori Drew said she wanted to know what Megan was saying online about her daughter and had "instigated and monitored" the fake account. This is from the first article linked in the initial post of this thread. So, it isn't simply "say what you will about things happening in her home" because the woman, according to police report, did know exactly what was going on. Even if she didn't know Megan was a headcase, she should have known that creating fake online accounts and messing with a 13-year-old (she knew the age of Megan since her daughter and Megan used to be friends) was wrong and fucked up with to begin. I think this is why people want her charged with a crime.

10ft, my main argument has been that Meagan's parents were "wrong" to let her be on the "social site" or whatever they're called. Whether the child had mental health issues or not: I think it's wrong to let 13 year old kids on those sites.

Cyber-bullying is a huge problem. Kids that age are vulnerable. Why take a chance? How is it going to hurt your kid NOT to be doing this?

I don't mean "your" kid, 10ft, but in "all our kids".

And from experience I can tell you that all the certitudes you presently have are going to be challenged and maybe destroyed as your children grow up. No one ever thinks that's going to happen, but it does. It isn't a bad thing, necessarily. But it's a hard thing.

As for the child "being responsible" for what she did, that's one point of view. We're all "responsible" for what we do: but 13 year old girls are not mature enough to make any life-altering or ending decisions, regardless of their mental state. Suicide at any age is a dreadful thing. The dead person might be "out of pain", but the pain for the rest of us is unending.

This thread is kind of surreal for me. Maybe it is because I'm not around much, and came into the thread only recently. First, for vison:

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote about children and online activities. I don't believe I've posted anything in this thread to indicate I advocate young kids on these sites, hence my confusion. It's like you are replying to someone else. In fact, in my first post of the thread, where I linked to the "no charges" article, I said the following:

Quote:

They certainly don't need to be in online social circles. She also may have lied about her age to get a Myspace account. I'm not sure when the rule was made, but currently you have to be 14.

I was referring to mentally troubled teens, but that doesn't mean I endorsed very young normal teens on Myspace.

Next: TED,

You are confusing me even more. I posted:

Quote:

I know plenty of people with ADHD that have experienced rejection and dissapointments, and yet, somehow, they managed to refrain from killing themselves.

To which, you responded:

Quote:

Are those people you know also thirteen?

Then as an explanation of that response, you stated:

Quote:

I'm not saying anything. I was just doubtful of your opinion. Is that not allowed?

So that means that A) You are doubtful of "my opinion" that the numerous people with ADHD I know are not killing themselves. OR B) Your response about "thirteen" was because you didn't think I knew any 13 year olds, and were trying to call me out.

Quote:

if we believe one of those initial news articles (forgot which of the first two links) one of them said that one of the last things "Josh" said to Megan was something along the lines of "yeah, the world would be better without you." Is that casual chatting? ... Also, [a]ccording to a police report, Lori Drew said she wanted to know what Megan was saying online about her daughter and had "instigated and monitored" the fake account. This is from the first article linked in the initial post of this thread. So, it isn't simply "say what you will about things happening in her home" because the woman, according to police report, did know exactly what was going on.

A lot of information has come to light since the first article came out. You'll find a fairly good synopsis in the link I posted announcing no charges would be filed. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/03/intern ... index.html And like I said, we can't prove Lori Drew did anything except casual chatting. Other people posted on the account, especially near the end. The whole "better off without you," message is only alleged, as it was unable to be located by the FBI analysts. And we can't prove Mrs. Drew sent it or knew about it even if it was sent.

Maybe I should also clarify that, yes starting a fake account to see what the kids are talking about, is a wierd behavior, and I don't in any way think it was a good thing to do. But divorcing from 20/20 hindsight, I don't think there is anything to prove she intended harm or could have forseen it.

http://imagechan.org/img/images/online%20advice.jpg

Neat.

This will be interesting to follow.




*E*

It's good to know the mother will be facing charges.

No, it's not, the potential consequences for regulations of the Internet are astonishing. Scary doesn't even begin to describe what the Government could do.

This case will either result in no conviction and be a footnote, or it could change the way the Internet works, and thus change world history.

Well it says mother and daughter violated terms of service. Even if she just went through this whole thing and got probation I would be happy. There has to be something done about this sort of thing. From what I understand deliberately driving someone to suicide in RL and not online can be a crime. Why can't this?

It's not the exact same thing as the cheerleader who's mother hired a hit man to take out the competition but it's in a similar vein. Parent should not be getting involved in childish rivalries and doing things like emotionally messing with a child so their own kid can benefit. I have actually seen a mother joke along with her daughter about how her daughter was teasing someone. Keep in mind it's not criminal but what kind of example is that parent teaching. What about this mother who helped her daughter mess with a persons head? Something (i don't know what) should be done so society can say this type of behaviuor by an adult is not acceptable and it's not all fun and games.