On another very good blog people seemed to be having orgasms that Snake Lake deigned to write them a letter that basically said nothing.
This is the same Snake Lake who basically said anything that the BUG told her to.
It made me think and wonder- I have watched as each year TLB recedes more and more into the darkness of time and distant memory.
Will there soon be a day, post BUG, when only a few historians care?
Are we chasing ourselves in our pursuit of the truth?
66 comments:
I will still care until I can put my mind to rest with some confidence as to why Tex and Katie went that crazy- at that house...
and why they did it again the next night- to those poeple...
and then it just stopped??
I admit to being a culprit in this example :)
The thought of the actual family members corresponding with us directly made me very woozy with the thought that maybe we are going to get to a point someday where we can have direct dialogue and answers from those actually there...
which might help me get to understanding....
I think that 99% of the ex-family members would like to just forget that stuff even happened.
They may have not even revealed their participation in the manson family to their spouses or children. To steal pictures off their Facebook account, Twitter account or any other social network, is abominable.
It could cause social repurcussions that could ruin lives.
Isn't that what happened to Clem a while back?
These people don't want to be "outed". What they did 40+ years ago when they were young was stupid, and they don't want to be connected to it.
If Diane Lake has to "write a letter" to a blog administrator and ask that pictures of her during an important protest in her life be removed, and that her family not be descimated, that's pretty pathetic.
I don't know this evil liz, but I hope that she reconsiders her stance in the future. What she's doing may not be illegal, but it's definitely immoral.
Just let sleeping dogs lie.
These people aren't going to spring forth suddenly and spew information about the case that we don't have. It's just not going to happen.
thousands of folk retain a curiousity about TLB. These sites all serve a function. You can agree or disagree with what Liz does, but what purpose does it serve to degrade and insult her, other than to satisfy your own need to feel superior. She does nothing illegal, and a good number of people appreciate her efforts. You can rail sanctimoniously till the cows come home, but we live in a free speech/free enterprise country. Hopefully that is never going to change.
Leary7, I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was immoral. Two totally different issues.
There is a lot of curiousity about this case, but does that curiousity justify ruining lives? Isn't there enough info that dates back 20, 30, 40 years ago to satisfy even the most thirsty voyeur?
Let me ask you...how would you feel if you had been involved in something unsavory years ago, but had repented and tried to hide that from people you met, knowing that the knowledge of where you had been or what you had done would make you a social leper?
And then someone came along and ruined it for you. Blew the whistle on you. Wrecked everything you'd built up for the last 40 years.
Would you be so supportive of the person who did that then?
Think about that for a while before you champion some old broad you don't even know in real life.
Does someone have the right to write about Oswald's daughters? Or Ted Bundy's daughter? Of the children of the Boston Strangler?
If someone's life is connected to fame or infamy do they then forfiet their right to privacy?
This has, of course, been debated in the courts for years. And it seems the line does keep shifting.
Personally, I feel most of the members of the Family, by their actions (sitting on the corner, shaving their heads etc) chose to embrace infamy and thus did forfiet their right to privacy. But others, like Dianne and Ella Jo and such probably deserve a bit more leeway. And of course the kids deserve total hands off, except if like with the Monfort boys and Lady Dangerous they make themselves public figures.
Ah, ethics. They're a bitch.
Let us remember Eviliz doesn't post their current names or locations or occupations or what they had for breakfast. Yeah, she does post pictures of what they look like now, 40 years after most of these folks willingly paraded themselves in front of the cameras for CM's sake. Believe it or not, she also withholds info/pics if the folks involved ask her to. Doesn't sound very immoral to me.
Leary7, now you're getting into a whole new arena.
The children of murderers should be left alone. Period. They've suffered enough indignity.
And the family members sitting outside the courthouse, threatening, shaving, chanting, singing...who were they?
Sandy, Squeaky, Brenda, Cappy, TJ, Gypsy...along comes Bruce...
Yes I have to concede that they threw up their drawers in public, so it's up to chance as to their future.
Especially Squeaky and Sandy. They have done a variety of things to attract attention for their savior, Charlie.
So I guess for those people, it's no holds barred.
But there are other victims in this case, family members who did nothing wrong.
Diane Lake is a good example. She was dumped off by her parents, exploited as a young girl, finally got the counseling she needed and tried to straighten her life out with a new family.
She did nothing wrong.
All I'm saying is this. If a family member wants to keep the cross burning and continues to wage war to get Charlie out of jail...then yes...it's a green light as far as stealing their information and making it public.
The news media would do the same.
But...the news media is not the one outing Diane Lake...it's evil liz.
All I'm saying is maybe a little thought should go into the picture grabbing to entertain followers.
These minions are not going to have the answers to our questions, so just let them be.
Leary said:
>>>>"The ONLY debate here is what constitutes good taste vs bad taste".<<<<
We established that fact 12 posts ago! Are you seriously just realizing that fact now? Maybe you missed my post where I stated clearly-
"Beyond that Suze- You put words in my mouth. I NEVER said Liz did anything ILLEGAL. I accused her of acting in bad taste".
I continued-
"Unfortunately, being sleazy and exploiting people by using their family photos for a cheap thrill, is quite legal".
Leary if you're going to pick up on things this slowly, you're just wasting my time.
Leary, my take on you is this-
You're obviously in desperate need of a friend. Seriously dude, don't you have a family, a loved one or anything else to do besides defend "Evil Liz" tooth and nail? Anything else? Heck-- Even the administrators of Liz's blog, have invested less effort on this than you. Zero actually. Are things really this devoid for you? Cripes!
It's clear that what Liz does regarding photos, is in bad taste. How long are you going to carry this on? You're actually bringing MORE negative attention to Liz, by continuing to defend behavior, which is to any normal person "tasteless". Wouldn't it be better for Liz, to just admit that fact, and let this die? Do you really think keeping this topic alive is helping her? You're talking in circles man, trying desperately to defend bullshit behavior. Bullshit behavior, is bullshit behavior, no matter how much bandwidth or time you waste, or negative attention you bring on Liz. This stopped being about Liz a long time ago. This is now about a lonely, desperate man, talking in circles for attention because he can't admit he's wrong.
Leary said-
"I just wish folk would do it with more civility and less insults".
I got nasty with Suze, because she "peed in my cornflakes" for no reason. I got nasty with Ken, because he accused me of being JimNY. These may not feel like insults to you. They were insults to me. Since I was on the receiving end, I'd say it's my call. If someone insults me, I'll insult them back. You sir, are just annoying beyond belief. My advice, get a life.
Hippichick40, I know that evil liz doesn't divulge info on the family members she posts pictures of, but the unfortunate thing is that if she lifts a picture off a Facebook page or some other social media, which shows the family member in a public setting, with an identifying landmark in the background, people hone in on that.
"Oh that's where she lives." Then they take it from there.
That's not right.
And...as I said in a previous post, not ALL of the family paraded around in front of the courthouse. There were a lot of people, including Diane Lake, that didn't do that and really had no choice about even being with the family until after the raid.
What I'm saying is this: Is there nothing sacred enough in this world that it should be left untouched? Nothing?
Is ripping off a picture from someone at a family gathering so your readers will be salivating worth the ruination of lives??? Come on now!!!
You would think it was immoral if it was happening to you.
Leary said:
>>>>"One can howl at the moon all night, it ain't gonna change the reality of dawn".<<<<
Cripes dude, take you own advice. YOU can howl at the moon all night, and it's not gonna change the reality of dawn! lol
Morning will come, and Liz's actions regarding photos will still be sleazy. You're entertaing though, I'll give you that much. I'm not sure what's worse-- the desperate idiot with way too much time on his hands, OR the fool engaging him. That doesn't speak to well about me. But at dawn, I'll still be right at least.
Sorry-- that's "too" well of me-- not "to" well of me.
Melee said-
"I don't think that evil liz did anything illegal, but I do feel it's immoral".
Well said. Maybe you can share some of your brains with the rest of the group.
Melee asked Leary-
"What constitutes good taste and bad taste? Why don't you define that for us?"
You're definitely asking the wrong person. This guy wouldn't know "taste" if it fell out of the sky, landed on his face, and started to wiggle. He's invested tons of time defending "tasteless" behavior already. Now he's talking about his personal relationship with Oswald's daughter on a Manson board. I'm sure he and "Lee Harvey" had similar taste and morals. None.
You see, Leary, kids surf the Internet and Google their and their parents' names.
Dianne Lake (I use her as an example, but I surmise the same is true for many others) has not told her children about her previous life.
So outing ex Family members like her by publishing photos that may reveal family members and geographical locations may mean that all their hard work in keeping from their kids the sordid details of what they have tried so hard to conceal have been in vain.
Look what I found, Mummy? What's your picture doing here? Is it true that you consorted with those murderers? Did all those drugs? Had sex with all those guys and gals? That they called you Snake because of your pelvic gyrations? You get the idea.
Now I'm willing to guess you wouldn't want your kids to be asking you you questions like that? And it's not like Dianne is a convicted felon or anything.
And you call me an asshole.
Frank
So melee & Dickhead, you attack Liz with abandons here on the Col's blog but neither of you has acknowledged that ColScott himself has not only posted pics of Fam but has allowed the identity of one to be revealed - which Liz has not done.
What's the matter, are you afraid of the big bad Col?
okay, I will try one last time.
In 2000 when Bush ran there were a ton of articles on his daughter's underage drinking. Was it fair to the girls? Probably not. But their father was running for president and so the were in the public eye.
Twelve years from now, when her father isn't even president, if the youngest Obama girl is at a college keg party and guzzling a beer and someone takes a photo of her it will be in every paper.
That's just the reality of the world we live in. If there is public interest, some form of the media will respond to it.
There are no photos of Mary Brunner on Liz's site. Why? Probably because Mary realized as both a Manson girl and mother of Manson's kid, she would always be infamous and so she has stayed off of facebook and such.
Is it fair to Dianne or Ella Jo or some of the less notorious members of the Family. Probably not. But the fact remains they were part of the infamous Manson family and testified at one of the two most famous murder trials of the 20th century. There remains a fascination with them.
The kids arguement is a whole other ballgame. But the reality remains that in today's hyped up media crazed world, not only if you are famous or infamous, but even if you are just related to fame or infamy, there is a chance you will be scrutinized at some point. I agree it is unfair, but it is just the reality of the world we live in.
I refuse to engage in any dialogue with you Dickhead, other than just to say your name fits.
And Frank, I called you an asshole because you insulted me several times unprovoked. That is what we call people like that where I come from.
peace yourself
all I ever was trying to say in this discussion was that the 'good taste/bad taste' debate seems almost irrelevant to me - like howling at the moon.
in the world we live in, if there is a market for something, somebody will respond to that market. There is a new Manson site started four or five months ago that has had nearly 50,000 visits, so obviously there is a market for Manson info.
Somebody...Liz, the COl, somebody, is going to respond to the market. And rightous, sanctimonious and angry folk are going to vilify them for their choices and methodologies.
I suspect, if he could read all this, Charlie would be amused.
I have already commented on this before, but it came to mind how one person commented on Eviliz blog something to the effect that LLIZ and DIanne might one day become good friends ...um lets get real people Dianne basically wrote to the blog asking in a nice way stop posting peoples grandchildren, children, family and friends pictures-I highly doubt anyone from the old family days who has moved on would want to be "friends" friends dont post these kinda things
Suze said-
"So melee & Dickhead, you attack Liz with abandons here on the Col's blog but neither of you has acknowledged that ColScott himself has not only posted pics of Fam but has allowed the identity of one to be revealed - which Liz has not done.
What's the matter, are you afraid of the big bad Col?"
When I enter this site, I do not see present-day photos of "family" members in the sidebar, displayed like a trophy case.
If Colonel has made any real effort in that direction, ie photos, it is before my time here. The threads I've seen here, are comprised mostly of dialogue. Dialogue consisting of Colonel's observations, opinions, and fodder for thought and discussion. This blog and Liz's blog have a different focus. It's more cerebral.
Moreover, the letter from Bobby has a different purpose and context, than the letter from Dianne. Bobby's letter appears to me, as a "mass mailing". It's an update, to friends and supporters. Evidently, Colonel is on that friends/supporters mailing list, and has been for some time.
Your question is apples and oranges Suze. But yes, if I encountered "Liz behavior" from Colonel, I would speak my mind. I haven't seen it, during my time here. If Colonel is focusing on present-day photos, he's obviously not very good at it.
Leary said-
"I refuse to engage in any dialogue with you Dickhead"
I could only be so lucky. Unfortunately, we both know that's impossible. You're obviously a man who must have the last word, and whom obviously has absolutely nothing better to do.
Dianne and Ruth were both young children when this went down. They were babies actually. Do you have daughters? Obviously not. If you did, you would understand how young 14 actually IS. They were victimiized once at 14-15 years old, and now they're being victimized again. Yes Leary-- Any CHILD under 16, in a situation like this, is a victim, NOT a criminal. I would contend 18 actually. You're obviously ingorant, if you can't recognize that fact. I don't have to listen to stories about president's daughters and a million other examples, to know right from wrong. So please, keep your promise and shut the funk up already. You're defending poor behavior, and it's un-becoming a man of your age, assuming you're over 21. Some of these folks were never even convicted of any major crimes.
Leary said-
"There is a new Manson site started four or five months ago that has had nearly 50,000 visits".
There are several Manson sites with very ample followiings, which do not sink to this tasteless behavior. In fact, all the other sites for the most part. This behavior is not necessary to operate a successful blog. That's been demonstrated. I have no idea how many visitors Cats gets in a year, but she has much more class than Liz. Maybe you should consider moving-up the food chain a few notches.
Leary, it's clear that the dickhead as an agenda, and it has nothing to do with decency. I'm done.
Leary7, you make some good points and I have to agree with you regarding the media sucking the life out of celebrities. That's just the way it is. The more famous you are, the more "in your face" the media is.
But this is a different scenario. I posted this on a previous thread, but will reiterate to make sure it's read.
The media gets paid for all their invasive snooping. That's how they make their living. It's how they pay their mortgage, feed their families, taking vacations, etc. Just like bus drivers, plumbers, carpenters or rocket scientists.
Evil Liz, on the other hand, doesn't make a living off snooping into people's private lives. She just does it to satisfy a varied crowd of followers. Sure it's interesting to see what these people are doing now....but all I'm saying is, she should ask permission first. Then everyone is on the same page.
You made a comment about how if they want privacy, stay off Facebook. And you have a point. But...are they not allowed the privilege or freedom of so many others, sharing photos with family & friends? Should they all just hide forever? Aren't they entitled to a life?
I would hardly call Ruth or Diane Lake celebrities. As Dickhead said, they should be considered victims instead.
As I said before, certain members of the Family have given up their right to privacy, such as Sandy, Squeaky, Gypsy, Linda K. and anyone else who has given TV interviews, etc. Those people have sought out attention, and therefore they are at the mercy of anyone who wants to "out them" to the public current day.
I'm only speaking of other non-notorious members who just wish they had never made the mistake of joining the family, and wish it would just go away.
Do you see where I'm coming from?
Melee- I do
I sort of posted the same thing as far as who is fair game in my opinion...
but at the end of the day- maybe I shouldn't be making those calls either....
I recently ran into George and Cindy Anthony at a resort and took a few pictures of them checking in and walking in front of the pool...
I never tried to sell or do anything with the pictures until it was widely spread news, and had been outed elsewhere- and even then all I did was post them on one of these sites- so people would know I wasn't making it
up...
Now I felt very badly for her parents, and so I felt the had the right to a private vacation- and they weren't guilty of anything themselves that I am aware of...
But even if it was Casey herself- I would not have been the one to announce where she was...
so according to my own actions and feelings- I guess it isn't fair to pick and chose who in the family deserves invasion of privacy and who doesn't...
I think you and D-head do have a point to be made here about posting there private pictures and information...
it is just that a few of them were so smug and so cocky and defiant in the faces of suffering people who had lost love ones...
sometimes it is simply the thirst for revenge and the wish to see them feel a little of the suffering whih makes me feel like they should have some discomfort as well...
but that just reflects on me...
I think when it comes to this stuff- my bark is worse than my bite...
Of all of them I respect Nancy and Sandy the least in this regard- but they are older women now, and I wouldn't personally do anything to cause them pain in any way... I would feel too bad about myself regardless of what they have done..
But- I can talk a good game on here :)
melee, will you, like the dickhead remain silent on the Col's vile post on Dianne, while at the same time criticizing others?
Suze-
First off, you don't even spell your own name correctly. It's spelled "Suzie". Evidently, your parents weren't that sharp either, but let's move forward.
Suze said-
"The Col recently (Just scroll down his front page a tad, or is that too cerebral for you) posted a video of Dianne that could threaten a good group's quest to right a medical wrong. He titled it "Snake Lake Talks about Arousal, Her Vagina".
If you don't think that's in bad taste (a phrase you just love) then you are dumber than even I suspected".
That WAS in bad taste. I agree. But consider this-
That story had already "broke" over at Liz's place. The information had already been revealed. Secondly, that thread was not exactly greeted with roaring applause or interest here. It's a different audience. If you subtract Matt and Liz themselves, only 3 or 4 folks bothered to comment, and one person's view of the thread, was VERY critical. Lastly, the Colonel's blog does not "revolve" around photos, videos or "outing" people. It just doesn't. I'm not saying the Colonel has never done anything in bad taste. That goes without saying. But it's not a prevailing theme here. If I have to explain that fact, you're obviously not much smarter than the person who named you.
You want me to rate the "big three" blogs, in terms of ethics for you? Here goes-
Liz is a bottom feeder. Colonel is a few notches above her behavior. I'm sure he's not cruising facebook all night searching for photos. Cats is at the top. She's a few notches above the Colonel. Does that give you more perspective? The conversation just keeps growing, and including more people. My original intent, was simply to state that Dianne contacted Liz with a goal in mind, a purpose.
By the way-
Anyone who calls Frank an asshole, is obviously a fool. Frank is one of the most intelligent, polite men online. The fact that Frank has supported my argument to any degree at all, speaks volumes. One "Frank" is worth 4 "Leary's", and 10 "Suze's" in blogville. Any idiot will tell you that much.
I do, Melee. I see your point and respect it. And thank you for presenting it in a civil manner.
the only thing I would offer up for consideration is that it might not neccessarily be true that Liz is not doing this for money. She may be building up her blog base and then sell her site at some point. Or she could build up her base then become a pay site. I really have no idea. But I still contend Liz is just responding to the marketplace.
But thank you again Melee for the civility. The 'who is notorious and who isn't' analysis of the Manson Family is an interesting one.
With you 100% Suze. I'm done here too. I love a good debate with intelligent people but as this thread has shown that is hard to come by.
St. Circumstance: it is just that a few of them were so smug and so cocky and defiant in the faces of suffering people who had lost love ones...
sometimes it is simply the thirst for revenge and the wish to see them feel a little of the suffering whih makes me feel like they should have some discomfort as well...
_____________________
I agree St. Circumstance, that those family members who laughed at murder at the trial and made a mockery of justice, threatening anyone who would listen...those are the ones I'm talking about that don't deserve privacy. I have no problem at all with any photos of them being stolen and displayed.
It's just the ones who didn't do that.
Leary7, I don't know that much about blogs, but I can't imagine someone buying one, when you can set one up fo free.
Anyway, I'm done here too. I presented my opinion on this subject, and pretty much said all there is to say on it.
I could be completely wrong...wouldn't be the first time nor the last. But it seems to me that Liz not only scours Facebook for pictures but befriends children or other relatives of these former "Mansonites" with false pretenses. It appears to evident that at least one of the kids that she duped sent her an unflattering message on Facebook that she seemed to be proud enough of that she uses it - or at least did - as her picture for her login.
But then again, I don't know if any of this is true...just what I have been told and then I saw her pic and it seemed to make sense. I no longer go to her site because after I saw her pic...it really, really brought things into perspective.
If this is true - who in the heck can argue that she is morally and ethically right in her methods. "A means to and end" ???
Sweet Nat, I heard the same thing. I believe it was Nancy Pitman's son who sent her a message on Facebook to f*ck off, and now the uses that as her avatar.
I don't know that much about Liz, but I find this, in itself, disgusting that she is proud of herself for causing pain to someone's child.
There is just no excuse for that.
"and pretty much said all there is to say on the subject".
Exactly.
I think the point I was trying to make was that I have chosen simply not to judge Liz. What I see...
what she does is not illegal.
if she wasn't doing it somebody else would be.
since it is controversial, people are going to either love her for it, and many do, or hate her for it.
I simply give her credit for doing what she believes is within the bounds of decency and then standing in the line of fire.
I have total respect for folk who find what Liz does reprehensible, I just don't have any tolerance for those who attack with vile degradation. What purpose does that serve other than to make the attacker feel superior.
Liz will do what she does, the Col will do what he does, and the rest of us will continue to howl in the night.
I'm just happy that I can die in peace now that my personal worth has been established by an enraged psychopath who calls himself Dickhead.
Tis an amusing world.
Leary7: I simply give her credit for doing what she believes is within the bounds of decency and then standing in the line of fire.
_______________
Leary7, without sounding redundant, how is hurting a child "within the bounds of decency"?
It must really suck to learn at the tender age of 18, 19 or 20, that your mother is a Manson family murderer.
It's likened to when Charlie found out about his real mother. The one that didn't want him.
I'm not defending Nancy Pitman, or anyone else convicted or murder.
Let the chips fall where they may. When you take a life, you give up your freedom.
All I'm saying is, if those people go on to procreate, then it affects their progeny too.
And while Nancy, et al, can stand and be judged guilty, their offspring shouldn't have to. They have friends that will snicker and spread rumors, maybe bully them .
You can argue that if Liz didn't do it, someone else would. And maybe you're right. But maybe you're wrong.
I've visited many blogs, but haven't seen the outpouring of recent photos of family members anywhere else.
I thought I already cleared this up with you. Some of the family members just don't deserve this.
I see that Liz has another photo of Babs on her site. Babs didn't hurt anyone. Why steal her photos off Facebook? It's heinous.
Bottom line is this: if you want to continue to bow at the alter of Liz, that's your choice, but I'm hoping by my comments, that certain people will open their eyes and realize that if they stop supporting this nonsense, it will eventually stop.
I will say that there have been threads on Liz's blog that have been quite interesting. Photos of places that the family lived, interesting off the wall stuff that maybe everyone didn't know, and that's okay.
It's the constant photos I'm talking about.
I mean, how many photos of Ella Jo Bailey can we see?
Here's Ella Jo in January of 2011, here's Ella Jo in February of 2011, and here she is again in March of 2011.
What are you gonna say about that? "Oh, nice photo, she looks a month older? She still has all her teeth."
Come on now. If Liz wants to build a good solid blog, then concentrate on some interesting stuff.
I hope she never posts a photo of someone in a coffin. That would suck!!!
"if she didn't do it, then someone else would????"
Oh okay, so that makes it right and decent. Thanks for pointing that out.
"I think the point I was trying to make was that I have chosen simply not to judge Liz"
No one is judging Liz for doing this. They are against her acts and her blog...but not against her. Just because you don't agree with us does not make you superior because you are not "judging." Stop taking everything so personal.
Maybe she can post the autopsy photos of Susan Atkins.
The organs on the scales, the broken ribs, the scooped out innards & brain.
That oughtta bring a lot of "oohs and ahhs" among her strange, rubber-necked crowd.
As George Carlin once said to explain the halting of traffic at a horrific car wreck:
"please bring the bodies a little closer so we can see".
Ignorant people- How is eviliz befriending family kids with false pretenses when she uses the name eviliz? what is false about that? she uses HER name, not a fake one like everyone thinks. if it was "fake" i dont think she wold use eviliz. all the former family members know who she is and about her blog, whats fake? and all of you bitch about how terrible it is for what she does? you are equally as guilty for looking. if no body looked she wouldnt do it. And how funny it is you are all bitching about it on Colonels site who outted clem and told everyone the name of the band he was in? i assume clem is fucked now from ever getting another job with a band. eviliz posts pictures not info. and i do recall the Colonel also posting a recent picture HERE of nancy pitman. you people need to check your facts before you get on your soap boxes. yeah lets go bitch about what she does on a site that did the same only worse, gave out clems job.
I don't post very often - it's exhausting arguing with tenacious posters who are not open to reviewing their own preformed judgments - but all this is getting a little out of hand.
Sidv: I very much doubt evlliz is the name on the good woman's passport. I also doubt that "all the former family members know who she is", or that she has much contact with any of them other than complaints. A great many people were connected at one time or another with the family - Spahn in particular had a constant flow of people drifting in and out - and many of these will be in active or subconscious denial re their misspent youth.
Also we need to bear in mind that outside these blogs few people know or care about the family. This was particularly noticeable at the time of the 40 anniversary, when the killings went pretty much unnoticed in the real world. People in these blogs live in a kind of prurient bubble of Manson activity and paraphernalia, but the real world has no such interest.
Eviliz came on to the scene relatively recently. I remember her appearing on Cats' forum 'TruthonTatelaBianca' (TTLB) and it's clear from her postings when she appeared that she knew very little about the case, although she asked a lot of questions and was a good learner. Cats has principles, and does not print all the photos she has - eviliz has no such scruples, as we know. So, because she was ripping off everything Cats posted. Cats kicked her of TTLB.
So, when liz got started she ripped off lots of photos from Cats and other sites. As no one else wanted to touch some of the kind of stuff she was posting people who had photos themselves started sending them to her and her site took off. I guess it's seen as the place to go for photos, although if you dig deep into Cats and the Col's blogs they probably have richer if less sensational collections of pictures.
All this is my take, and I am open to correction.
you people need to check your facts before you get on your soap boxes
Something about pots and kettles here. I think you'll find (or would it is was still around) that Clem was outed by Brett on the Manson Family Today Board. Col Scott was reporting on a story that had already broken.
Furthermore, the fact that Col has done some nasty stuff too doesn't make it acceptable.
BTW, newspapers and magazines are able to get away with publishing salacious stories and photos of celebrities on the grounds that it is in the public interest. Many have been fined recently for going too far - look at what is happening to the Murdoch empire in the UK.
Publishing pics of Nancy, Cappy and Kitty, etc., with in some cases their children and grandchildren can never be in the public interest. as I said above, outside these blogs most people neither know nor care who they are. But they (and more especially their own families) have as much right to live unmolested as we do. 'Right' as in articles 1 and 12 of the Declaration of Human Rights (article 19 notwithstanding).
To say that it's OK because the law is unenforceable is like saying murder is OK if I don't get found out. In practical terms I get away with it, but the moral and ethical imperatives not to kill are still there.
Leary: I never insulted you at all - it's not my style. My original posting re Cappy and her Granny was not aimed at you at all, but you are so self-centred you see everything with you as its epicentre. Go back and read the record. There is a subtle difference between what a reader infers and a writer implies, and in this case you may have chosen to wear the cap because you thought it fit. That's outside my area of responsibility.
Sorry about the long rant.
FrankM
sid insofar as bitching about it Cols site I did post comment on Eviliz about the Dianne Lake situation basically the same thing I am posting here-my message said it has to be reviewed by the admin before it can be published-and thus was NEVER posted! so Im not gonna try to repost it again and again obviously if someoen doesnt agree with the admins of eviliz blog their comments arent posted so when someone brought up the topic I did post it here
damn, I wanted to stop posting here but can't let that one slide, Frank.
Clearly you see yourself as some kind of zen mild mannered moralist.
But when you post a quote from me and then write "I don't know what these people have in their heads instead of brains"...that is an insult. And don't insult people's intelligence by saying you didn't mean me. That is chickenshit.
And when you say 'you write allot of crap' and you are not 'specially bright' that also is insulting.
You seem to live in this delusional world where you think if you say something is true than it is. I've been around enough to know when I have been insulted.
But you're right about one thing - this has gotten way past the point of being silly.
the old saying goes "all is fair in love and war". The Manson story was about love, and war (just ask Leno's stomach).
I simply chose not to judge Liz. There is allot of grey area there and grounds for debate. But as Suze says, if someone has an agenda and an abundance of anger (not you Melee, I enjoyed your stuff) then it is akin to pissin into the wind trying to have dialogue.
I don't post often on this blog. After reading the 40 comments here, I wanted to jump in and post my thoughts on this topic. But, ya'll have left me with quite the headache.
@sidv: Clem is still getting gigs.
People ought to be truthful about their past, their real name, and so forth. Yes, including with their children. Yes, including in public and with employers.
If you're in a band, or attend a public protest, you are a public figure, and you're gonna be photographed. Deal with it.
Dianne nicely asked Liz to remove certain photos, since it would be problematic for her charitable cause. Liz did so. IMHO that was a good thing to do... not because I approve of lying, sneaking and hiding, but because the cause is / was greater than the individual participants. It was justified.
But hey, you don't wanna be a public figure, the DO NOT do public things! I don't have any problem with posting a person's FB picture, or any other photo... you don't like it, then hey, don't put yer photos on the internet. Any photo put online can be reproduced by anyone, in any medium. People who don't know that must've slept thru the past decade.
Children, addresses, and other things which might cause harm are off limits. The family members did not make the decisions to be public. They did not make the choices in behavior.
AC I don't agree with you. I'll use Diane Lake as an example.
Diane was a young, underage girl when her parents abandoned her, leaving her with a group of people who practiced rape and violence on a regular basis, led by Charles Manson. I can't imagine what her options were to leave that group, when even the adult members had a hard time leaving.
You say people ought to be honest with others in later life about their past. But we're talking about a past so heinous that it's abominable. I have no idea if Diane divulged her past to her spouse or children, but I certainly wouldn't blame her if she didn't. I, for one, would NOT. Sometimes it's better to keep silent about anything that might cause nightmares in young children.
Diane Lake had nothing to do with murder. She had nothing to do with crawling to the courthouse, carving an "x" in her forehead, threatening to kill the jury, attorneys & judge, as well as anyone who would testify against Charlie. The people who did are the ones who threw away their rights long ago. Not Diane.
You say it's okay to post FB pictures of anyone as long as they don't post addresses. Well guess what? If the picture includes a familiar landmark in the background, it's not hard to figure out where people live. Also, if their children's friends have been over to the house, you don't think they recognize that person? Then...the cat's out of the bag.
Why should Diane Lake and her family suffer the possibility of being "social lepers" because some blog adminstrator has nothing better to do but search Facebook 24/7 to see what pictures she can dig up? Doesn't she have anything else more interesting to say?
If it happened to her, she might have a better understanding how it feels.
AC says:
Children, addresses, and other things which might cause harm are off limits.
And it's precisely because Dianne herself was a child when all this came down that she too should be off limits.
FrankM
I think part of revealing pictures of old family member with their children and grandchildren isnt just to "show they have moved onto a better life" but its like a slap in the face saying HAHA we can find you anywhere you go-because the majority of the pictures posted have snotty comments on how the people look today or their living standards-and having seen pictures of some of the online MAnson bloggers most have alot of balls to laugh on some old manson family members and how they "look" today
I think we are also missing the point that maybe these people did not post their pictures online. Since blog administrators (or anyone else) may "friend" family of the former Manson members and that person may have posted a pic of their friend, mom, grandmother, etc.
I understand if I post something online, it is out there to be used. But from what I have read, that is not always the case - blog administrators are tricking kids into "friending" them and then scouring for pictures on their and their friends sites. I think that is the big difference.
If they were just picking up pics from open sites of the former Manson family member - okay, good for you and great research - but what I have understood from previous comments, this is described as something completely different.
As mentioned above, this is not illegal - but come on! Just because "everyone" else is doing it (or as Leary said, if they don't do it someone else will), does not make it right. Isn't that what we say to our kids time and again.
MAry is correct these pictures were not intended to be posted to everyone but family and friends in FB-.Sadly once they get on a blog they are here for good Evilliz may have deleted Dianne LAkes picture with her granddaughter ( because it upset Dianne not because she wrote trying to be BFF with LIZ) but if you look in Google Images that pic of Dianne Lake granddaughter still there so damage is already done-I mean what next-bloggers will start trying to friend grandchildren now saying "HI Im old friend of your grandma " add me please-Im sure this kinda shit has already gone on
I'm not sure about the legality or illegality of taking pictures off Facebook and posting on a blog, but I do know that anyone can lodge a complaint with Google about any blog (Report Abuse button at top), and if there are enough complaints and they are warranted and valid, Google can take the blog down.
Now that Diane is aware that her pictures are being stolen, it might get around to others. I guess it all depends on how much it bothers the person whose picture was stolen.
Any blog adminstrator who stole pictures off former Manson Family members' Facebook, or their children's Facebook, might want to make sure admin has permission to post.
well it seems like noone who was involved or lived at the ranch wants to post anything and if they did they have already done tv interviews-but the other ones who have tried to stay out of the limelight only seem to emerge when personal photos of their families come out-maybe this is some tactic-to get them to respond which is kinda cheap- show some babies pictures to lure out old members to finally RESPON- bad taste big time
wonder if it was bad taste to dance around the courtroom while moms who lost there kids sat and watched??
wonder if it is bad taste to make a video and spew defiance when your " family" has just killed innocent people
wonder if it was bad taste to let kids live in the dirt, with no food and no medicine, and Clem fondling there genitalia???
Ruth and Diane got a really bad deal- they deserve some chance to have a normal life...
maybe one or two more as well...
but the rest of them chose what they did ,and how they lived. they mocked everyone and everything they didn't agree with, and made a joke of the deaths- in front of the grieving families...
I wouldn't personally put there info out there-
but dont shed a tear either
we are fascinated by this because of the freak nature of what happened...
freaks did this...
and people like to stop and look at freaks...
such is life
you want to put pics up there- stare at me :)
I'm an handsome devil and here to do the handsome devils work :)
stop bitching about Liz-
people want to see what she is showing...
I promise
Since when is sharing ideas and thoughts bitching, Saint? I am trying to exchange thoughts and ideas to learn...I for one did not mention Liz. Sometimes I think you go from one extreme to the other
I am just saying that Liz has been the brunt of many posts here and why??
she puts that up because peeps want to see it,and you cant argue with the results because her sight has grown faster and bigger than any other...
I am sorry- but I like and use all of them and it is the truth..
I dont agree with it- but I like to look and you know what- aside from a few of them- who really sheds a tear of sympathy for this particular group of people???
They were very bad people- and they wanted this very badly at one time...
Barbara was and still is at every parole hearing and on every TV show that will take her...
I remember one letter from a family member on Liz's blog who asked for privacy and cried the blues and in the same letter gave her an estimate of when her book was coming out...
What is the outrage all about really??
everyone here has a curiosity about the case- and we all want to know more...
So over there they have a way that they think they can give us more....
and some wont like it- and some will...
but anyone who has a fascination with Charlie Manson and wants to lecture anyone else on good taste
lol....
I love you mary
"but anyone who has a fascination with Charlie Manson and wants to lecture anyone else on good taste
lol....
I love you mary"
once again, I find myself understanding you....YIKES! Touche!
she puts that up because peeps want to see it and you cant argue with the results because her sight has grown faster and bigger than any other...
People want to see child porn - many more than want to see pics of Manson family members. Should Liz be putting that up too? Then her sight [sic] would really grow.
What is the outrage all about really??
Have you really not understood? Have you no moral compass at all? Can you not see that when Dianne was with the family she was a child of 13/14 and that she was lucky enough to get away from it all? And you think it's fine to rake it all up and get her own family into the limelight too.
who really sheds a tear of sympathy for this particular group of people??? They were very bad people ...
How can you generalise like this? The people around Manson were of all kinds, and they were all individuals in their own right. How can you simply dismiss them as 'bad people'?
Pass the aspirin, please.
FrankM
St C one more point Eviliz is a blog apparently run by several people who get info and photos so noone is picking on LIZ in particular so stop overreacting like some teenage boy trying to impress his girlfriend it makes you look foolish
I dont worry about looking foolish- it is part of my charm...
I think I said several time - no actually Frank- I said EVERY time that Diane/Ruth are different for all the reasons you pointed out..
but if people want to chase Sandy, and squeaky and Nancy around for the rest of eternity- I wouldn't do it- but will NEVER feel sorry for them if others do..
If you think it is reprehensible to do- then dont go her site...
but to sit here and demonize her because her view of what is interesting to people is not as classy as yours is a waste of time..
She doesnt care
She wont stop
People will still visit
so what good does it do for people to sit in a room and talk about her or anyone else???
Why do people on these sites attack and attack???
there are many sites- move on if you dont like one of them. None of us are better than any other of us...
why not just stick to the case- and let each of us worry about each of us...
I for one retired after Leary- he and Monkey took the fight out me...
I no longer have anything to add that isn't a comment directly related to the post on the site I am bloggin in...
If you want to tear apart Liz- me- each other- have at it...
It wont help you or me figure out the things about TLB we want to know...
But Frank- With the exception of the two young ones we agree on- the rest of the people she posted pics of were indeed bad people and if we were going to argue over this- I would be glad to have you point out any one of them- I could list you the bad things they have done...
but we wont argue- because I like most of what you write...
and agree with most of what you are saying now... I dont want to see those whose innocence was taken away from them be chastised...
I jsut dont want to see people to attack each other period...
fighting over each other is really not why 95% of people come here, and I really dont want to do it...
With you two or anyone else
So I apologize for getting my nose in it...
Good luck with the Aspirin- I am going to get a beer and smoke a bowl
:)
I'll bet ColScott giggled like Anderson Cooper watching all of you take the bait on this.
Excuse delete - I accidentally posted before time.
But Frank- With the exception of the two young ones we agree on- the rest of the people she posted pics of were indeed bad people and if we were going to argue over this- I would be glad to have you point out any one of them- I could list you the bad things they have done...
The problem with using a word like 'bad' is that when we use it it about people it tends to become a value judgment that says as much about the person speaking as the person so described.
I suppose we do need to distinguish between absolute and relative 'badness', and I would be wasting my time here arguing with anyone with deep religious convictions. However, I would contend that badness is not an innate quality of people, rather used to describe some of the things they do. During a lifetime most of us do things that we consider bad, in some cases shameful, but balance these out by other 'good' things that redeem them.
Furthermore, judgments as to how 'good' or 'bad' something is basically come down to a question of arbitrarily choosing a 'line on a cline', that is deciding where on the continuum that runs from unforgivably bad to unimprovably good to place that thing. It's a bit like asking someone to look at refracted light projected on a wall and to separate where yellow begins at the red end of the spectrum and ends at the green. Unsurprisingly, opinions differ on both of these.
I would think that most people in the family (how I dislike this word) did both good and bad things, in varying balances, but I don't know how many did things that were irredeemably bad. And as I have said above, badness (like beauty) is as often as not in the eye of the beholder. But it is clear that if we look at all the names of people in the pages of this and other Manson related blogs we find that -proportionately - very few suffered custodial sentences, which is society's barometer for qualifying things as 'bad' enough for civil action.
My point, then: actions can be judged bad, not people; opinions differ and although some people do believe in absolute moral badness ('evil'), I'm not one of them.
And of course, all the above are just opinions ...
FrankM
So the I dont want to argue sentence meant a-lot to you huh? lol
If some people think that anyone who was ever associated with the Manson Family has no rights, no matter if they were involved with murder or not, no matter if they threatened anyone or not, no matter if they broke the law to get Charlie out, no matter if they were there by choice or not, no matter if they wanted to leave, but couldn't, no matter how helpless they felt....then think about this.
What about their families? Is it okay to steal pictures off people's personal pages on Facebook to entertain a few bloodthirsty thrill seekers and the result is ruining the families lives?
Jobs lost, friends lost, everything lost.
Is it worth it?
And Barbara Hoyt is not a bad person. So she goes to parole hearings. So what? That doesn't make her a bad person.
Did you ever think that she's trying to make things right for once? To make sure these killers such as Bruce Davis, Tex Watson & Charles Manson don't get out? To make sure that young people don't get an idea that this "lifestyle" was glamarous and should be repeated? To make sure that not one other girl suffers the indignities that she suffered under Charles Manson? The beatings & sexual abuse!!!
Why don't you think about that?
you reap what you sew...
she could have done something when it mattered...
She was a sex craved love-slut like the rest of them...
nobody told any of them to stay there and take it...
Charlie was a very bad guy- and he did do a-lot of these things you say.... so what did they stick around for???
most of them were runaways to being with- what they forgot how to leave when they didn't like the way things were going??
did someone drag Barbara Hoyt fat-ass out to the desert by her hair in the first place?? dont remember anyone saying Charlie marched them all out to the ranch or to the desert at gunpoint...
They all went the way they did because at first it was fun
PERIOD...
just like every one of us had those choices and peer pressures a that age... some people we knew drew the line, and others crossed it...
these were the poeple who decided to cross the line in many ways
they went for the fun, and fuck everything and everyone else..
it was very funny for quite awhile...
they made that choice to live the way they did and with who they did...
after enough time - they realized it wasn't that funny any more...
Oh you mean this guy is mean ???
I never bought the mind control stuff for one minute... they all knew what they were doing- and they thought they were pretty special when they were doing it...
enough people left- the ones who stayed- chose it because they dug it...
Then they realized there would be many prices to pay in many ways- and then it was ohhhh no not me - it wasn't my fault...
and because Charlie is old and they are young and because he was con and they lived next door..
sympathy lol not me...
they all know they made the choice- they were weak... the sex the drugs the total disregard of responsibility...
it was more fun
Now they want to forget- and some people wont let them...
too fucking bad
they dont deserve JACK SHIT in my opinion...
except FOR THE LAST TIME THERE CHILDREN...
well you pushed- so lets be honest
there children..
I give them the respect they deserve and I would not exploit them myself in any way- its there shitty parents I could give a frogs fat ass less about..
But how much respect did they give there own children???
malnourishment
sunburned and exposed to the extremities
living on floors and mattresses in rooms with human excrement just feet away- and hygiene standards you wouldn't trust with your pet if you cared about them enough
known child molesters and rapist living among them...
guns and drugs prevalent 24/7
the constant possibility of being arrested and separated from the child....
Yet they stayed
But It offends you that I speak ill of there parents??
If Sharon Tate were my relative I swear to god I would spend every penny I own hunting down and making life as miserable as possible for every last one of these no good mother fuckers I could find...
but I still would leave there kids out of it :)
is that breaking it down for you now like you were 5 years old???
do you want to ask me again about my moral compass, or if I think its ok to post pics of there kids???
can you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth??
because I can see at least one more of you genius' asking me for the 6 time if it is o.k to post pics of there kids...
or telling me I am reflecting on myself for calling scumbags bad people...
or and old bat and old bat
have a good weekend guys...
we can fight when I get back from Marco Island....
I will be more tan and more relaxed...
and you will still be preaching about morals while defending some of the most useless bastards in American History...
St. you have bastardized everything that we hold dear.
I will retort tomorrow.
Re St C’s last posting:
[Barbara Hoyt] was a sex craved love-slut like the rest of them […snip…] you will still be preaching about morals while defending some of the most useless bastards in American History
It’s nice to see some reasoned, objective arguments, isn’t it? But I shall comment anyway.
Again, again and again you talk about ‘they’, ‘they’ and ‘them’. Let’s look at some of the points in the [snip] section above.
nobody told any of them to stay there and take it...
so what did they stick around for???
most of them were runaways to being with
what they forgot how to leave when they didn't like the way things were going??
They all went the way they did because at first it was fun PERIOD...
they went for the fun, and fuck everything and everyone else
they made that choice to live the way they did and with who (sic) they did...
after enough time - they realized it wasn't that funny any more...
they all knew what they were doing- and they thought they were pretty special when they were doing it...
Now they want to forget- and some people wont let them...
too fucking bad they dont (sic) deserve JACK SHIT in my opinion...
Well, I think that’s probably enough to make the point.
St C. – you just can’t pluralize like this. It makes no sense. You’re talking about a group of individuals and the only meaningful way to discuss them is individually.
And yes, they do have rights. We all have rights. Adolph Hitler had rights. It’s by accrediting them rights that we show ourselves to be civilized and protect the society we cherish.
FrankM
Frank M, you are one well spoken dude
I agree that killing people is pretty "bad"
(except apparently when they're "bad guys"... whatever that means)...
...but personally I don't have any problems whatsoever with all "the sex the drugs the total disregard of responsibility..." sounds pretty harmless really.
Just my opinion of course :-)
Post a Comment