U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-17-2012, 08:19 AM
 
Location: Charlotte NC
11,722 posts, read 9,345,072 times
Reputation: 5230

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTfromCharlotte View Post
Do you really believe that she wore the graduation gown (which is not an outfit) all day and also coincidentally didn't wear underwear underneath and then also conveniently didn't cross her legs when the photo was taken (not only didn't cross them but left them pretty wide open)? The idea of this being an accident surely would have to have been the perfect storm of mistakes/actions. What kind of 18 year old girl would sit like that KNOWING she isn't wearing underwear when she obviously has to know that her gown has a big slit (no pun intended) up the front?

Typical 2012 parenting. Coddle coddle coddle. Kid screws up, gets called out on their screw ups, so people scream to sue instead of punishing the kid (I use 'kid' loosely).

Granted, reporting it in the news media was probably unnecessary, but isn't most of what they publish mindless idiocy anyways?

This, of course, is all my opinion.
Its been stated that she wasn't looking at the camera when it happened and there are no reports of nudity. Just because thighs were shown touching doesn't mean she didn't have on underwear.

When I gradauted HS and college I didn't put on my cap and gown until 5 minutes before graduation. Its not an outfit its a draping piece of frabric. Its real easy for a photographer to take a picture of a girls legs that puts her in a compromising position when sitting with a skirt on. Especially a HS student...

I think the black box and the initial report, which has been retracted, makes it easy for people to believe she didn't didn't have underwear on but I'm pretty sure she did...

Have you seen the unedited photo? Is it obvious she doesn't have on underwear? This is a prime example of how the news manipulates the public. The initial story was retracted but since it was sensational in title and description it framed your mind and now that they corrected it you refuse to believe it.

Last edited by Feltdesigner; 06-17-2012 at 08:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2012, 08:37 AM
 
183 posts, read 331,123 times
Reputation: 166
<Edited for hurt feelings>

Last edited by JTfromCharlotte; 06-17-2012 at 09:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2012, 09:05 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,016,830 times
Reputation: 22370
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTfromCharlotte View Post
YES, actually I have seen the unedited photo. A simple google search will give you several different websites with it...and in case it hasn't been said 100 times, she was 18 at the time of the photo.

Have you??
Why is this issue so important to you? It is probably going to end with a lawsuit. You do not have any more facts than the rest of us. You are speculating and drawing conclusions. You are slandering someone in public unless you can prove all your allegations--and you can't.

Why are you so vested in slandering and demonizing this girl?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2012, 09:18 AM
 
183 posts, read 331,123 times
Reputation: 166
<Edited for hurt feelings>

Last edited by JTfromCharlotte; 06-17-2012 at 09:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2012, 09:26 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,016,830 times
Reputation: 22370
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTfromCharlotte View Post
I'm not slandering or demonizing her. I'm simply stating my opinions on the issue.

And it's laughable that you are asking why it's so important to me- you're the one who has posted a dozen times now on this thread.
Sir, it is no laughing matter when someone is being slandered. I have posted here to remind others of that.

You can hide behind the ole "free to have an opinion" excuse all day. You have been very aggressive with your opinion and insistent that you have knowledge that this girl was intentionally exposing herself to the cameras and further have stated she has on no underwear.

No public good is being served by your need to demonize this girl. So why are you doing it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2012, 09:43 AM
 
12,578 posts, read 13,256,462 times
Reputation: 8896
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc0789 View Post
WSOCTV finally issued a retraction of this horrible story. Their reporting was atrocious and they should be embarrassed. Although their retraction could have been done with a little bit more tact, not repeating all their malicious rumors. That poor girl.

LAKE NORMAN HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK PHOTO STORY CORRECTION AND... | www.wsoctv.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnyKayak View Post
Your right, they even handle the retraction poorly.
I was reading it and was like ok so it must have occurred starting with incident they alleged in first paragraph.
They didn't have to go in full details or used more more discreet words.

They should have started with retraction first and last paragraph an apology.
If I was that girl I would sue for defamation.
I feel bad for her and student who has over zealous parent who started this mess.
The reporter who broke this should loose his job for bad reporting.
New reporting:
1- Ratings/sensationalism



































































2- Facts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2012, 09:43 AM
 
183 posts, read 331,123 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
Sir, it is no laughing matter when someone is being slandered. I have posted here to remind others of that.

You can hide behind the ole "free to have an opinion" excuse all day. You have been very aggressive with your opinion and insistent that you have knowledge that this girl was intentionally exposing herself to the cameras and further have stated she has on no underwear.

No public good is being served by your need to demonize this girl. So why are you doing it?

My apologies, I didn't realize that MY opinions and thoughts on the issue weren't allowed here. I'll sit aside while everyone else comments and acts as a keyboard warrior.

I'm sorry for stating my opinion on the matter and I apologize that it apparently offended you so much.

I'm also sorry that you can't understand that my aim isn't to demonize this girl or slander her. I'm sorry that you don't recognize that my resentment is actually aimed towards everyone who screams for a lawsuit every time someones feelings get hurt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2012, 09:59 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,016,830 times
Reputation: 22370
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTfromCharlotte View Post
My apologies, I didn't realize that MY opinions and thoughts on the issue weren't allowed here. I'll sit aside while everyone else comments and acts as a keyboard warrior.

I'm sorry for stating my opinion on the matter and I apologize that it apparently offended you so much.

I'm also sorry that you can't understand that my aim isn't to demonize this girl or slander her. I'm sorry that you don't recognize that my resentment is actually aimed towards everyone who screams for a lawsuit every time someones feelings get hurt.
LOL.

How about being sorry for slandering someone? It really doesn't matter if your intent was just to carry on a fireside chat when the things you said were at the very least verging on being slanderous, now does it.

There are times when lawsuits are legit and when a person has genuinely had their reputation sullied and good name slandered. This story very well might be one of those times.

not all lawsuits are frivolous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2012, 10:09 AM
 
2,603 posts, read 4,270,313 times
Reputation: 1954
If you look at the uncensored picture, she's clearly holding her the program, not lifting her gown. The thing causing all the stir is probably her thighs rubbing together.

I knew TV news sucks, but I can't believe they actually went with this story with the mom refusing to identify herself. All around irresponsible reporting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2012, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Fort Mill, SC
2,532 posts, read 2,939,059 times
Reputation: 1357
There are two sides to the story, which neither party has truly stepped up to discuss (i.e. the parent who reported it to the news and the student who was photographed). If JT feels the way he does, that is his opinion. If Ani feels the way she does, that is her opinion. Opinions do not have to match up. Either JT or Ani is wrong, but we do not know the truth since neither side has stepped up.

If a parent took offense to the photo, it has to be more than just a kid with two thighs touching showing panty. Whether it was intentional or not, I would have to believe the photo was more than two thighs touching. That is MY opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:39 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top