EPTThis makes me sick - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
CobbleStones
United States89 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On November 17 2007 06:07 CobbleStones wrote: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Megan_Meier <- this is probably for youLOL | ||
|
nostarcraftnoobs
7 Posts
On November 17 2007 05:45 XaI)CyRiC wrote: You're right. We should just give up on people with sensitivities because they'll get mistreated by someone eventually. Making fun of and taking advantage of the mentally ill? That's fine, it'll happen sooner or later. Beat up a bum on the street? No big deal, some asshole out there will do so someday. Arabic boy getting picked on and called a "terrorist" by classmates and getting treated unfairly by teachers and parents? It's understandable since most people are too ignorant to know the difference between an Arab terrorist and an Arab who is simply an American citizen. Person who has an eating disorder? Person who has learning disability? Person who is short? Person who is fat? Person who is ugly? All fair game for ridicule and abuse, because, hey, lots of ignorant people do it. Don't fight it, that's life. people who enjoy others being abused. are fucked people. insensitive i-dont-care-people. are fucked up people. lets hope for more people that care about others. people who try to make this world a better place to live in. | ||
|
MoNKeYSpanKeR
United States2869 Posts
| ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On November 17 2007 06:00 Funchucks wrote: "Amid all these positives, Tina says, her daughter decided to end a friendship with a girlfriend who lived down the street from them. ... Part of the reason for Megan's rosy outlook was Josh" Every indication in the article is that it was the other way around. The events seem mostly to be in chronological order in the article: Megan meets "Josh", Megan ends her relationship with her friend, "Josh" says "I don't know if I want to be friends with you anymore because I've heard that you are not very nice to your friends." on Oct. 15 in response to ending this relationship, then the flamewar and suicide the very next day on Oct. 16. It is not perfectly clear. I'll look for other sources. The single mother, for this story, requested that her name not be used. She said her daughter, who had carpooled with the family that was involved in creating the phony MySpace account, had the password to the Josh Evans account and had sent one message - the one Megan received (and later retrieved off the hard drive) the night before she took her life. "She had been encouraged to join in the joke," the single mother said. The single mother said her daughter feels the guilt of not saying something sooner and for writing that message. Her daughter didn't speak out sooner because she'd known the other family for years and thought that what they were doing must be OK because, after all, they were trusted adults. This portion is from the witness, arguably a neutral point of view on what happened. It seems to suggest that the account was not created to make Megan feel better about herself, but was intended as a "joke". If true, it's irrelevant when the account was created, as it would have clearly have been made not with Megan's interest in mind. Let's also not forget that the "friend's" parents told this girl to not tell anyone about the account, obviously an attempt to cover it all up. One other thing to consider. | ||
|
MoNKeYSpanKeR
United States2869 Posts
Plus, like 5 years ago, i'd probably try and hit that. So her self esteem issues cant be that bad, jesus christ. My brother is 14 and he also said he would hit that, so i think this is fake. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On November 17 2007 05:58 XaI)CyRiC wrote: Victim's parents: Possibly negligent and could have been more attentive and supportive of their own child. "Friend's" parents: Concocted an elaborate ruse to conspire against a teenage girl, not their own child, with the intent of fucking with her. This while knowing that the teenage girl has self-esteem issues (making her more likely to respond to a fake "hot boy"), and is taking meds for depression. One is careless, one is deliberate. One is an understandable mistake (trying to get her to sign off to protect her, letting her add a random guy on MySpace after assuring they'd closely monitor the MySpace account), the other is an intentional attempt to mess with her (went through all the trouble of making fake account, making multiple messages, etc.). Is it any wonder everyone's focusing on the "friend's" parents instead of the victim's? Let's put it this way: Parent A: Takes their clumsy kid who loves candy to a park and warns the kid to be cafeful and stay away from the pond. In a moment of carelessness by Parent A, the kid wander off near the pond. Parent B: Sees Parent A's kid, knows that the kid is young, foolish, particularly clumsy, and attracted to candy decides to place candy on a rock in the middle of the pond, and encourages the kid to skip across a few other rocks in the pond to get to it. If the kid slips on one of those rocks because he's particularly clumsy and ends up cracking his head open and dying, which parent are you going to put most of the blame on? Which parent's actions are going to be discussed as reprehensible more? If the kid is killed by Parent B's baseball, who are you putting most of the blame on? I just don't think messing with someone on myspace constitutes a crime. People should definitely know better than this and the fact that Megan's parents let her continue with what they could easily tell was an obsession is, if anything, an equally deciding factor in her death. If the friend's parents are charged with a crime, then Megan's parents should be charged with gross negligence (or something like that). | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On November 17 2007 06:17 MoNKeYSpanKeR wrote: That was retarded, but it seems like a short story written by an over imaginative teenager, if you can show me an actual article i will beleive it, but if her mom was as "vigilant" as she supposedly was and observed her mypsace like she siad she did, it's veyr unlikely that could of ever happened. Some shit just doens't add up. PLus the fact it's written like a book, not a news report. It is. The article is a terrible rambling disaster, when you try to wring the hard facts out of it. I thought it was clearly written that the girls stopped being friends on Oct.14. The first unfriendly Josh message was on Oct.15, and the suicide on Oct.16. But it isn't clearly written. Sure, it might be true. Or the first event might have been a week before, or two months before, past the six weeks she knew "Josh". Who fucking knows? I didn't even know I didn't know, because that article jumps timeframes halfway through sentences. It looks like more serious journalists are getting involved, so maybe we'll get the whole story eventually. | ||
|
HumbleZealot
Canada508 Posts
On November 17 2007 06:00 Funchucks wrote: "Amid all these positives, Tina says, her daughter decided to end a friendship with a girlfriend who lived down the street from them. ... Part of the reason for Megan's rosy outlook was Josh" Every indication in the article is that it was the other way around. The events seem mostly to be in chronological order in the article: Megan meets "Josh", Megan ends her relationship with her friend, "Josh" says "I don't know if I want to be friends with you anymore because I've heard that you are not very nice to your friends." on Oct. 15 in response to ending this relationship, then the flamewar and suicide the very next day on Oct. 16. It is not perfectly clear. I'll look for other sources. I'm not so sure about that... "Amid all these positives, Tina says, her daughter decided to end a friendship with a girlfriend who lived down the street from them. The girls had spent much of seventh grade alternating between being friends and, the next day, not being friends, Tina says. Part of the reason for Megan's rosy outlook was Josh, Tina says. After school, Megan would rush to the computer." There is no clear indication that "Josh" came before the break up and I doubt "he" did. Even if the account was created before, it clearly states that their relationship was already strained, which would explain why the "friends" family decided to create a fake account to find out what Megan was thinking (which is already morally wrong and a disgusting act by the parents). At the same time it is true that there's not really any evidence to prove 100% that the account was made after, so I suppose until or if we can get more sources we won't know for sure. Either way though, it doesn't change the fact that the other family triggered Megan's suicide so I'd really like to know why you're trying to downplay their despicable act? | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
First of all, anyone who thinks an "attractive" kid can't have major self-esteem issues is really naive. Just because a bunch of dumb teenage boys are always trying to get in your pants, you should feel great about your life? Secondly, I don't think that this suicide demonstrates that Megan was atypically fragile, or emotional, or whatever. Sure, there's plenty of kids who would never have killed themselves even if subjected to worse things. But first of all, as some people claimed, she believed that this humiliation was coming not just from "Josh" but from a large number of her peers. That's much harder on anyone, than one person's disapproval. Secondly, she was a fucking 13-year-old girl, no doubt with raging hormones and some (relatively common) emotional problems. There are millions of girls who are 13 who have similiar issues. I really don't see how you can chalk this up to her being such a uniquely fragile kid. There are plenty of kids who are suicidal (some even attempting suicide) who grow up to be emotionally stable adults. | ||
|
bine
United States2352 Posts
On November 17 2007 06:25 mahnini wrote: I just don't think messing with someone on myspace constitutes a crime. People should definitely know better than this and the fact that Megan's parents let her continue with what they could easily tell was an obsession is, if anything, an equally deciding factor in her death. If the friend's parents are charged with a crime, then Megan's parents should be charged with gross negligence (or something like that). These parents sound 10 times less negligent than most. They were monitoring her myspace, and the mother was in contact with Megan while the incident was going on. It's very clear here that the parents instigated all of this. There's no reason to believe that someone somehow took over their myspace account and ridiculed all of them, and you are all forgetting that it's not that she killed herself because she found out he was fake. She killed herself because everyone knew what was going on and after the joke was over they all started making polls about how she was a fat slut or whatever. There's just no way around it. It was clearly a hoax the whole time, undeniably so. | ||
|
HumbleZealot
Canada508 Posts
On November 17 2007 06:27 Funchucks wrote: It is. The article is a terrible rambling disaster, when you try to wring the hard facts out of it. I thought it was clearly written that the girls stopped being friends on Oct.14. The first unfriendly Josh message was on Oct.15, and the suicide on Oct.16. But it isn't clearly written. Sure, it might be true. Or the first event might have been a week before, or two months before, past the six weeks she knew "Josh". Who fucking knows? I didn't even know I didn't know, because that article jumps timeframes halfway through sentences. It looks like more serious journalists are getting involved, so maybe we'll get the whole story eventually. It never says or clearly implies that anywhere in the article, where are you getting this from? | ||
|
ilovejonn
Canada2548 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On November 17 2007 06:34 HumbleZealot wrote: It never says or clearly implies that anywhere in the article, where are you getting this from? I thought it was clearly written that the girls stopped being friends on Oct.14. The first unfriendly Josh message was on Oct.15, and the suicide on Oct.16. But it isn't clearly written. Sure, it might be true. Or the first event might have been a week before, or two months before, past the six weeks she knew "Josh". Who fucking knows? I didn't even know I didn't know, because that article jumps timeframes halfway through sentences. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
The article is one-sided and poorly written. Unless and until some better reporting is done, there's no telling the true role of adults in this tragedy. I hit the end of my road. Thanks for the discussion. | ||
|
bine
United States2352 Posts
On November 17 2007 06:46 Funchucks wrote: Anyway, I'm done restating my points for people who only skim my long posts before they object, in long posts that they will only skim. The article is one-sided and poorly written. Unless and until some better reporting is done, there's no telling the true role of adults in this tragedy. I hit the end of my road. Thanks for the discussion. I can say one thing for you, at least you know when you've lost. | ||
|
kefkalives
Australia1272 Posts
| ||
|
Pressure
7326 Posts
wow thats so messed up. | ||
|
bine
United States2352 Posts
The story made it onto CNN, so apparently it's legit. Watching it now. edit: not much in that video. Maybe there's an article somewhere but I gotta go. | ||
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
On November 17 2007 01:28 Ceril wrote: I hope they acknowledge themselves as christians, because they sure have things coming for them with the 'do unto others' clause. What the heck...  | ||
| ||
