XGay Greg and DeDe - The Magic Continues - Part 6

[theCR]

The name of the child was posted in one of the posts can somone remove it?

[Vex]

I love how their 'costly' service to the lord includes eating at McDonalds.

He can't afford a speedstick, but he can afford to dine at the place where a freaking macaroon costs $1.95. Costly!

[salex]

I have a coworker who plans a yearly trip cross-country by only stopping at a specific chain's gasoline stations, so maybe XGG&DD do the same and plan their daily trips around McD's. Why not Starbucks, though? Don't they have free WiFi? I don't much care for smelling like coffee the rest of the day, but it beats smelling like three-day old fry oil.

I can think of a few reasons.

Demographically, people at Starbucks are less likely to throw a shake at a car-- they are more likely to respond both straightforwardly or sarcastically directly to xgay if he loudly holds some anti gay Skype. He may also be "boycotting" them because of the sexy mermaid and the support for gay marriage.

But, I think the biggest reason would be that Starbucks does not have a Dollar Menu.

[RainbowSky]

Hee may think Starbucks and trying to promote his anti-gay message could be a really, really bad idea. Also, McDonald's is a lot more tolerant of people being asshats as long as you don't get into it with people than Starbucks. At least ime.

[Curious]

The name of the child was posted in one of the posts can somone remove it?

I just redacted the child's name out of 3-4 posts. Can we please be a little more vigilant guys? Thanks in advance :)

[Morton Fan]

I just redacted the child's name out of 3-4 posts. Can we please be a little more vigilant guys? Thanks in advance :)

I'm not one of the offenders ;), but I'm just curious why it's ok to post the names of, say, the Duggar's kids but not Greg and Dede's? I'm sure it's been addressed somewhere, I'm just wondering. Thanks:)

[ILoveJellybeans]

I think its because his dad (who is the one mainly responsible for his care) is not the one putting this information on the internet, but the Duggars and the blogs we follow are from parents who do have custody of their kids choosing to put their children's names in public.

[nelliebelle1197]

Oh good, at least they appear to be saying they intend to take the boy back. Now whether that's a ploy or not, and whether the vehicle holds up are different stories, but at least they appear to recognize the deadline...

I just don't know if I would celebrate this child being stuck in a broken down car. I am not sure why that is such good news.

[Curious]

I'm not one of the offenders ;), but I'm just curious why it's ok to post the names of, say, the Duggar's kids but not Greg and Dede's? I'm sure it's been addressed somewhere, I'm just wondering. Thanks:)

The Duggar's put their kids out there for public consumption. As do most of the folks that we follow, whether it's on TV or via their public blogs they have chosen to give us way more information than we could ever want about their minor children, so we allow their names to be used here.

DD's son is not in her custody full time and he's not really a public figure in the same way that most of the people we talk about here are. This kiddo probably still has a chance at a normal life, despite his whackadoodle mom and her stillgay new husband. It's going to be bad enough for him to google them in a few years, without seeing his own name splashed out there as well.

Most members are pretty sensitive when commenting about minors, in general and tend to direct the comments more toward the parents, but when the minors are not actually in the public eye we try to shield them a little bit more by redacting. It just seems like the right thing to do.

Just FYI, we will sometimes redact adult names that are not in the public eye, as well, depending on the topic and where the information was from. Once in a while someone finds something some place public, but somewhat obscure and since we are a rather popular site, we try to take into consideration how someone would feel if they found their name/information tied to whatever topic we are discussing just because they happened to post about their encounter with whomever we happened to be talking about. (I hope that makes sense) I can't think of an example off the top of my head or I'd link to it, to show you what I mean. It doesn't happen very often.

[Curious]

I think its because his dad (who is the one mainly responsible for his care) is not the one putting this information on the internet, but the Duggars and the blogs we follow are from parents who do have custody of their kids choosing to put their children's names in public.

heh I should have read one more post and saved everyone my verbosity :wink-kitty:

[Morton Fan]

The Duggar's put their kids out there for public consumption. As do most of the folks that we follow, whether it's on TV or via their public blogs they have chosen to give us way more information than we could ever want about their minor children, so we allow their names to be used here.

DD's son is not in her custody full time and he's not really a public figure in the same way that most of the people we talk about here are. This kiddo probably still has a chance at a normal life, despite his whackadoodle mom and her stillgay new husband. It's going to be bad enough for him to google them in a few years, without seeing his own name splashed out there as well.

Most members are pretty sensitive when commenting about minors, in general and tend to direct the comments more toward the parents, but when the minors are not actually in the public eye we try to shield them a little bit more by redacting. It just seems like the right thing to do.

Just FYI, we will sometimes redact adult names that are not in the public eye, as well, depending on the topic and where the information was from. Once in a while someone finds something some place public, but somewhat obscure and since we are a rather popular site, we try to take into consideration how someone would feel if they found their name/information tied to whatever topic we are discussing just because they happened to post about their encounter with whomever we happened to be talking about. (I hope that makes sense) I can't think of an example off the top of my head or I'd link to it, to show you what I mean. It doesn't happen very often.

That makes total sense. I just didn't know if there was a sort of policy in general (i.e. names from Facebook posts shouldn't be mentioned, but blogs can) or something like that. I get it now; thanks for replying!

[Morton Fan]

I think its because his dad (who is the one mainly responsible for his care) is not the one putting this information on the internet, but the Duggars and the blogs we follow are from parents who do have custody of their kids choosing to put their children's names in public.

Thanks for clearing it up; that makes sense to me!

[BornOKThe1stTime]

It's like the boo boo I made on my Razing Ruth post. Her probable "real" name is being used freely on another site. I'm a newbie and got confused that it was being used on FJ. My post got thoroughly redacted, which I now fully understand because RR hasn't self-identified by her "real" name. Currently, there is major scandal about what may be RR's "real" identity. I respect FJ for taking the conservative legal road until allegations have been proven or disproven.

Especially with minors, unless their parents have openly "outed" their real names, it is better for us on forums to keep their identities private.

[Full enough quiver]

Wasn't the kid due back today?

[flyawaystray]

Dede picked the son up on the first, so ten days would be tomorrow, as far as I am aware.

[church_of_dog]

I just don't know if I would celebrate this child being stuck in a broken down car. I am not sure why that is such good news.

The whole situation is a mess as re the boy; that is a given. I was just finding encouragement in their apparent reference to the plan to return to DC (presumably to return the boy to his home) as opposed to the other alternative that had been speculated about, namely that they might intend to keep the boy longer in violation of the custody order. Was not implying that the rest of the situation isn't still bad news.

[uber frau]

I almost hope they don't take him back on time and her rights to unsupervised visitation are taken away.

At what point will he be considered to be officially kidnapped and at what point (if any) do COS and law enforcement get involved?

[ILoveJellybeans]

I hope the little boy gets taken home.

[Vex]

I almost hope they don't take him back on time and her rights to unsupervised visitation are taken away.

At what point will he be considered to be officially kidnapped and at what point (if any) do COS and law enforcement get involved?

I might be wrong but I think that the father could file a missing person's report if they didn't return him home within 24 hours. It might be even less than that, but I'm not sure about the laws regarding minors and/or suspected parental kidnapping.

[formergothardite]

She can't wait to get married because it is like a sleep-over every night with your best friend.

The thing that makes sleep-overs so much fun is that they are a special event, not a normal every day thing. Marriage can sometimes be like sharing a bed with a friend that you are thinking about smothering with a pillow if they try to take all the covers again. Marriage can be wonderful, it can be fun, but it isn't anything like a sleep-over, at least IME. Especially once you throw some small kids, household bills and sleep deprivation into the mix.

[Arete]

I might be wrong but I think that the father could file a missing person's report if they didn't return him home within 24 hours. It might be even less than that, but I'm not sure about the laws regarding minors and/or suspected parental kidnapping.

No, you do not have to wait 24 hours for a minor. If they are supposed to be back at noon, the grandparents can report him missing at 12:01 PM. Doesn't matter if he is with his mother, it is a breach of the custody agreement and would be considered parental kidnapping.

[southerncharm]

All of that really depends on their custody agreement, and how it's worded. It would be unusual for police to track them down and arrest Dede and Greg for kidnapping, and forcibly remove the kid. The grandparents really could only file a missing persons report if the child is missing, which doesn't seem to be the case. They might not LIKE where the kid is, but they do have an approximate location, and even if it is just Facebook or their "radio show" there are regular updates on his condition.

(The police would react very negatively if the grandparents or anyone filed a missing persons report on someone who was not actually, really truly, missing)

For Dede to be guilty of parental kidnapping there are certain factors that would have to exist in their custody agreement, or judgement handed down by a judge. Keeping a kid a day or two over the agreed upon time doesn't always fall into that category. And even if it does, isn't usually something the parent would go to jail for.

(A very similar situation happened to me. Ex didn't return kid after a visit. I went nuts, but there was almost nothing I could do to solve the problem immediately. Child was eventually returned. And months later I got a revised custody agreement in court. But it took going back to court. And he wasn't guilty of any crime.)

Of course, the situation could be different than mine. We just don't know the specifics.

[Koala]

It's interesting that Greg and Dede haven't been on their own show for the last 2 nights. I am hoping that is a sign they are taking the little guy home.

[nelliebelle1197]

I might be wrong but I think that the father could file a missing person's report if they didn't return him home within 24 hours. It might be even less than that, but I'm not sure about the laws regarding minors and/or suspected parental kidnapping.

Depending on the state, they might be able to file a report if they are just a few minutes late. Tardiness would be contempt of court and both could be arrested for custodial interference.

[Cartmann99]

It's interesting that Greg and Dede haven't been on their own show for the last 2 nights. I am hoping that is a sign they are taking the little guy home.

Me too!

Have they said anything more about remaining in Baltimore to continue the Big Mac Ministry? I'm just wondering if the pastor will allow them to continue to stay with her family without Dede's son. I'm betting her patience is wearing very thin with these two, and without Dede's son, I could see her asking them to leave.