In other Maxwell news...

[Melissa19128]

Fill me in- who is Rebecca K.?

Rebecca aka Rebecca Eleventry!!!!!11! is a frequent commenter on the Maxwell blog. It is thought she has a crush on the Maxwell boys. Her family differs from the Maxwell's in that they play games and well... have FUN!

http://hiswayserves-hiswayserves.blogspot.co.uk/

[nelliebelle1197]

i'm not a stalker, just an fj fan. if you were a mile away from their house, you wouldn't drive by? i've been reading about them every day for a year on this forum and was curious to see the place you are all always talking about. i didn't say anything derogatory, knock on their door or take a picture.

Going to a public place like Treemom did where they put it all out there is one thing. The Maxwells are inviting you in and putting on a show. Sitting outside a perfect stranger's house is creepy as hell. That is crossing a line. I wouldn't drive someone's home. Yeah, I might got to a church where they are giving public seminar, but I would not go to their home. It's matter of decency and appropriate behavior. It's creep as hell, period.

[Whipple]

I agree with you. It creeps me out when people tell me that they Googled me and this is what they found. Like that is okay. I mean I've probably been Googled a ton but I don't want to hear about it. But then again I try to keep my Internet presence to a minimum and what people do find is uninteresting. Different from me, the Maxwells have put themselves out there. But there is no excuse. I'm not condoning stalking behaviors because people ARE responsible for their own behavior. The definition of stalking (cyber or other) requires some contact and harassment and is different from "Facebook Stalking" and Googling that a lot of people do. I mean who hasn't looked up an ex to see how awful or how great they look? That's why I shut down my FB.

I think sitting outside of someone's house crosses that line because family members could be aware of it and be made fearful. That is the definition of stalking. It's not stalkerish behavior, it's stalking in the real sense. Driving by someone's house once on the way to somewhere else could be okay if it's not an every day behavior. But what if it escalated and driving by wasn't enough and the person needed to stop next time and then stop and take pictures? And if I drove by the house specifically to see what the house looked like even if I was taking a circuitous route to somewhere else and saw someone playing outside, I would creep myself out and would feel terrible about it. So that is a risk I might not want to take even if I lived nearby. It's nothing that qualifies in the real sense but still not good.

BTW, here is a definition of cyberstalking that I found:

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/de ... erstalking

[griffin]

ohmygosh i drove by ONCE and stopped up at the corner to type a complimentary post. i couldn't type and drive at the same time. i didn't sit on their curb rudely gawking. why would i do that? i can't believe i have to defend myself to people who analyze their every move.

[treemom]

ohmygosh i drove by ONCE and stopped up at the corner to type a complimentary post. i couldn't type and drive at the same time. i didn't sit on their curb rudely gawking. why would i do that? i can't believe i have to defend myself to people who analyze their every move.

Then don't defend yourself. If it isn't a problem to you wtf do you care that others think it is creepy?

[nelliebelle1197]

get this. . i'm sitting out in front of their house. i was passing by leavenworth and couldn't resist. i thought they'd be further out of town but no. nice neighborhood. pretty average and looks lovely. good old uriah is in the drive and the front door is soaped with "happy birthday daddy". now back to your regularly scheduled program

You didn't stop at the corner per your original post.

[silverspoons]

I have driven by the sister wives homes tons of times but they were on streets I normally drive down. Until now that they live behind a gate, they lived in average Utah neighborhoods. I'll admit after the moved out of the Lehi homes I was driving by to get to eagle mountain where we have friends and family and I drove by a little slower(didn't stop) just to see the angles they filmed the house at and if the house was vacant(there were tons of cars still there months after the Vegas move so that wasn't hard to tell).

I think it is a different world now that average families in neighborhoods across the family are on tv. My husband has worked quite a bit this year in Centential Park where Polygamy USA was filmed. My husband doesn't watch much reality tv but he was working right next to Michael Crowley's house so he said she had to look over and see if the containers had been turned into bedrooms. He didn't stare, he didn't take pictures but how can you not be curious after a tv show leaves a cliffhanger. I'm glad I just have to drive by these homes to get to a store or a friend's house. I can't imagine living on a street that taped a reality show or that was posted on blogs all the time. They give our maps to stars homes and people drive by all the time. I would not get out and pose for a picture but driving by is a fact of life. Robyn from sister wives old townhome is on a street that is always having yard sales. I love yard sales so am I going to stop going to yard sales because it is Robyn's old house (not sure if her mom still lives there or even what her mom looks like)?

As for the Maxwells, I have always been surprised they made themselves so public. they could have easily had a PO box and sold the books and chore packets from their home. They clearly post their address and take so many pictures, they want to be known. I'm sure people would have figured out where they live but I would have been more private if I were Steve.

[WonderingInWA]

I don't find anything wrong with looking up a "famous" address and stopping by. I wouldn't go up and ring the bell or accost someone outside watering the lawn, but even that isn't an invasion of privacy according to the law. Haven't any of you seen the Google cars running around town taking photos of your house and street for Google Maps? It's a fact of life that people drive by our homes all the time. And if you're a "celebrity" or other public figure, it's just part of your "status". We are curious by nature.

Haven't we all had people come knock on the door that we don't know? To me, that's far more invasive than someone driving by my house and parking on the street. Look at my house? Yes. Expect me to interact with you? No.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I always kinda wonder if their real life neighbors read their blog, myself.

[Coconut Flan]

I always kinda wonder if their real life neighbors read their blog, myself.

That's one of my questions along with what the neighbors really think of them.

[Rescinded and Mended]

I think there is a difference in I wonder what their house looks like I am going to drive by and "I am sitting outside the house" or driving by more than once.

I agree with others, it seems creepy and over the line. That doesn't mean your intent was bad, but probably not a good idea for others to emulate.

I think the principle difference between meeting someone at a public event open to all and personally seeking out the same individual on private grounds is one of invitation.

I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that you, Emmiedahl and Alecto went to a Steve Maxwell event and called him out on his controlling, fundamentalist foolishness. It was an event that he invited the public to attend, and the three of you accepted the invitation and exposed him to a perspective that differed from his own. I admire this aspect of your meeting with him.

My concern is when the three of you took turns photographing each other touching Uriah - private property that didn't belong to you. I recognize that the pics were meant to be lighthearted and fun, but how can you, in all sincerity, complain that what griffin did was wrong, when she didn't even get out of her vehicle to set foot onto Maxwell property and touch anything? There just isn't any getting around the fact that none of you should have been touching the vehicle.

I don't personally see anything wrong with driving by private property owned by celebrities (however dubious the Maxwell claim to that title may be). Sitting out in front of the property in the interest of extended surveillance, ringing the doorbell, and actively seeking to interact with the owners and their property without their express invitation is where the problem lies. To me, those are all things that cross a line.

[MamaJunebug]

Then don't defend yourself. If it isn't a problem to you wtf do you care that others think it is creepy?

IIRC from our maps.google forays into trying to figure out the compound's logistics (good times, good times), the house is on a corner lot and there might be a stop sign but no light and the area is totally residential, so: griffin could have been stopped at the corner and more or less in front of the house while s/he posted the initial message.

Y'know, I'm not sure why I'm even weighing in here, except I was recently in Leavenworth, on a terribly dismal gray day, and on a trip that included a very sad event .... and I actually thought to drive by, just to see the 'hood in-person. However, given the event, the weather and my fra-jyle depressive state, it seemed like avoiding the House Of DryAsDust2.com was the prudent option.

As far as the 3 FJers taking photos whilst physically contacting Uriah The Bus, it reminds me of when BigDadJB and I went to see an unattended historical site which featured the chair of a notorious person in our family's history. BDJB laughed at the chair and sat in it. I was mortified, thought it was the most dangerous thing in the world to do, to let one's tuchus touch where a foul blister's tuchus had touched. BDJB laughed genially at me and said, "If you fear something, you give it power." .... Just thought of the GI's who sat in Saddam Hussein's thrones after taking over his many palaces - it was the same thing, I think. So while I would not pose in a silly faux-intimate way with Uriah The Bus if ever I were to see him/it, I might pose waving, like in garden-variety tourist snapshots that you show the folks back home, "And here's me at thuh Eye-full Tower ... and here's me with that bus Uriah ...."

I'm prattling. Time to go bbq!

[treemom]

I think the principle difference between meeting someone at a public event open to all and personally seeking out the same individual on private grounds is one of invitation.

I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that you, Emmiedahl and Alecto went to a Steve Maxwell event and called him out on his controlling, fundamentalist foolishness. It was an event that he invited the public to attend, and the three of you accepted the invitation and exposed him to a perspective that differed from his own. I admire this aspect of your meeting with him.

My concern is when the three of you took turns photographing each other touching Uriah - private property that didn't belong to you. I recognize that the pics were meant to be lighthearted and fun, but how can you, in all sincerity, complain that what griffin did was wrong, when she didn't even get out of her vehicle to set foot onto Maxwell property and touch anything? There just isn't any getting around the fact that none of you should have been touching the vehicle.

I don't personally see anything wrong with driving by private property owned by celebrities (however dubious the Maxwell claim to that title may be). Sitting out in front of the property in the interest of extended surveillance, ringing the doorbell, and actively seeking to interact with the owners and their property without their express invitation is where the problem lies. To me, those are all things that cross a line.

I don't think I complained. I just commented that sitting out side someone's house can seems creepy an over the line. I consider that way creepier than humping a bus. I also said (if you can read or choose to) that I don't think she had negative intentions, but it probably shouldn't be encouraged.

I am not looking to defend myself, I am pretty much done with that and it has been close to a year now. But I also get to continue to hold opinions and view things as different. Just because you see it one way doesn't mean I never ever get to voice an opinion on it. Nor did I compare the two other to say I wouldn't have sat outside their house. I still get to decide what I think I am willing to do.

And you know, even if I agreed with you, when precisely does the ticker run down on when I get to have an opinion again?

[Rescinded and Mended]

I don't think I complained. I just commented that sitting out side someone's house can seems creepy an over the line. I consider that way creepier than humping a bus. I also said (if you can read or choose to) that I don't think she had negative intentions, but it probably shouldn't be encouraged.

I am not looking to defend myself, I am pretty much done with that and it has been close to a year now. But I also get to continue to hold opinions and view things as different. Just because you see it one way doesn't mean I never ever get to voice an opinion on it. Nor did I compare the two other to say I wouldn't have sat outside their house. I still get to decide what I think I am willing to do.

And you know, even if I agreed with you, when precisely does the ticker run down on when I get to have an opinion again?

For what it's worth, treemom, I never said you couldn't complain, or even disagree with griffin's actions. That's your right if you so choose.

My only real complaint here was what, to me, appeared to be a matter of hypocrisy. I couldn't figure out why you were coming down on her for violating boundaries for driving by and sitting outside for a moment or two (if such was the time frame, only griffin knows how long she was there) compared to taking pictures with the Maxwell bus, which honestly was a boundary violation, albeit an entirely harmless one.

In terms of negative intentions, I also agree that there was nothing malignant behind this. During the Yuku days, there was a thread about a woman named Carrie. She was the one who was pregnant with twins. One kind-hearted poster went to see Carrie and give her a baby gift because she was worried about her. People disagreed with this because it was crossing a line. The poster took offense, I think, and quit posting at FJ. But I agree wholeheartedly that no matter how generous the intent, and regardless of what Carrie chose to post online about herself, Carrie didn't invite that poster or any of her other readers into her life.

I also agree that you do not need to defend yourself to me or to anyone else. My intent was not to take you to task for something that happened so long ago, but merely to point out that in griffin's situation, there's really not a strong case for boundaries being crossed here, and that there was definitely a difference between your two situations.

I think I may have come across as harsher than I intended, and for that I am sorry. I honestly don't think anyone in either situation meant any harm. This is simply me disagreeing with you and nothing more.

[nelliebelle1197]

And I completely disagree that the Maxwell conference misadventures were boundary-crossing in the same way as sitting outside someone's house. Uriah was parked in a church parking lot during a conference open to the public. They didn't poke around the Maxwell house to see Uriah. The bus and the conferences are part of the Maxwell business as is the blog - all fair game. Their house is not. They may work out of their home, but they do not hold conferences there or invite the world inside - their blog posts are less than what many put on Facebook. The posts are not intended as invitations to drop by.

The Duggar house and the Brown houses are fair game as well- they put it out there for all to see. Again, business. They have allowed cameras in and show the outside in a very identifying way. It is not even the in the same boat as the Maxwells.

[treemom]

I actually didn't think I was coming down on her. I was actually pretty mild compared to others who commented in a similar vein. I think it was the question "how can you in all sincerity...." that started the thoughts that triggered my post.

But fair enough...no big deal :).

[gardenvarietycitizen]

That's one of my questions along with what the neighbors really think of them.

Oh heck yeah. Not only that, but more extended family too.

What does Steve-O's brother who was shunned for playing along with the mainstream American Easter Bunny and egg hunt traditions on Easter think of the family now? What do those cousins think?

[Rescinded and Mended]

And I completely disagree that the Maxwell conference misadventures were boundary-crossing in the same way as sitting outside someone's house. Uriah was parked in a church parking lot during a conference open to the public. They didn't poke around the Maxwell house to see Uriah. The bus and the conferences are part of the Maxwell business as is the blog - all fair game. Their house is not. They may work out of their home, but they do not hold conferences there or invite the world inside - their blog posts are less than what many put on Facebook. The posts are not intended as invitations to drop by.

The Duggar house and the Brown houses are fair game as well- they put it out there for all to see. Again, business. They have allowed cameras in and show the outside in a very identifying way. It is not even the in the same boat as the Maxwells.

As is your right (to the bolded), and I completely respect that. But while it is true that Uriah was parked in a public location, I can't argue that it gives anyone the right to touch the bus in any way.

If your car is parked out in public, I don't honestly believe that I would have the right inspect, poke at it, or look through the windows, at least not without raising suspicion, even if I was nothing more than curious. I might even expect that you or someone else would call the police if you caught me in the act.

As for the Browns and Duggars, I do agree that they open their homes to the public (foolishly, in my opinion) as part of their reality TV job, and that as a result, people are more likely to drop by unexpectedly. But I also do not think that people should automatically assume that they have the right to drop in on them at all hours of the day or night. The house, the camera crews, even the carefully staged visitors - all occur at the discretion of their respective homeowners, and not without invitation.

If someone drops in unexpectedly, and the Browns and Duggars choose to let the unexpected visitors inside, then that's their choice. Unexpected visitors should not rationally believe they deserve entry simply because both families choose to show their homes on television.

[Rescinded and Mended]

I actually didn't think I was coming down on her. I was actually pretty mild compared to others who commented in a similar vein. I think it was the question "how can you in all sincerity...." that started the thoughts that triggered my post.

But fair enough...no big deal :).

Sorry, treemom. It's true I feel strongly about this, but I also feel bad that I made you feel bad. :(

I'm kind of a wimp that way, I'll back off now. :wink-kitty:

[nelliebelle1197]

As is your right (to the bolded), and I completely respect that. But while it is true that Uriah was parked in a public location, I can't argue that it gives anyone the right to touch the bus in any way.

If your car is parked out in public, I don't honestly believe that I would have the right inspect, poke at it, or look through the windows, at least not without raising suspicion, even if I was nothing more than curious. I might even expect that you or someone else would call the police if you caught me in the act.

As for the Browns and Duggars, I do agree that they open their homes to the public (foolishly, in my opinion) as part of their reality TV job, and that as a result, people are more likely to drop by unexpectedly. But I also do not think that people should automatically assume that they have the right to drop in on them at all hours of the day or night. The house, the camera crews, even the carefully staged visitors - all occur at the discretion of their respective homeowners, and not without invitation.

If someone drops in unexpectedly, and the Browns and Duggars choose to let the unexpected visitors inside, then that's their choice. Unexpected visitors should not rationally believe they deserve entry simply because both families choose to show their homes on television.

FWIW, I think it is jaw-dropping that the Maxwells put their address on the website for all to see. Steve must really be either too stupid or too cheap to realize how dangerous that can be. They post their address, and then they tell you when they are going out of town!

[MamaJunebug]

I seriously doubt the house goes unattended for more than a few hours at a time. The non-reversal boys live less than a 30-second walk away.

And whatever the unrelated neighbors might really think of the Maxie's, they seem to be on congenial terms, and it always pays to keep an eye on each others' homes, doesn't it.

I do wonder though at Steve's carelessness with his family's address on the Internet bruised is the man who forbids his children TV, radio and any close friends beyond their sibling group. To fling his uber-protected family's address out for the world to see *does* seem against type.

[Whipple]

Steve is really stupid for allowing his address to be posted. His family should not be a side-show. BTW, I am not condemning the person who stopped for a moment at the corner. Just saying that when I looked up the definition of stalking, sitting in front of someone's house is one of the "mild" stalking behaviors listed but I think that's because of all the exes out their trying to track the object of their obsession, not for curious detectives who want to know more about some religious nut and his maniacal grip on his family. I fall into the latter category. I always want to learn more about how people lives and it would be very innocent and not a threat to anyone if I did it. It should be detective work. I don't think that Steve should be bothered by it because he has put this on himself.

Still for just for myself, it is my own line because I am a type who feels guilty very easily so I have to know my limit. I do not object to others doing it. I didn't see the problem in the church parking lot either but I am not made of such sturdy stuff to do that.

People really want to save those girls especially because they are trapped and I think that is a very good, altruistic motive for stepping in to their lives and it is nothing to feel terrible about. A lot of us fantasize about something bad happening to Steve (from a natural cause of course) so the family can be free.

[Evilbad]

I guess I just don't see why people need to go by their homes, or figure out where these "celebrities" live online. Who cares? Yes they put a lot out there, but it's not an open invitation to come by and sit outside their house or try to "Spot" them in their neighborhood.

Maybe I'm just looking at it wrong, I don't know. I am big on not violating peoples' personal privacy, and I don't even like the whole paparazzi following stars thing. People should not have to go to such great lengths to just live at home. I don't particularly feel that I was too harsh about it, the whole bus humping thing was uncomfortable to me too. Sure, go and meet them, face to face, in a public forum, and confront them if you will. Don't touch their personal property. That lowers yourself to a level that, in my eyes, makes you no better than them, just on opposite ends of the spectrum, I guess.

[treemom]

Sorry, treemom. It's true I feel strongly about this, but I also feel bad that I made you feel bad. :(

I'm kind of a wimp that way, I'll back off now. :wink-kitty:

Oh I didn't feel bad. I thought you were being unreasonable in saying that I am not allowed to comment or have an opinion based on how you feel about my actions. I don't have the same feeling about them.....and I do feel like there is a difference between sitting outside of someone's house and humping a bus where no one else could see.

I never claimed my actions were the height of maturity. But they also were significantly less creepy than sitting outside someone's house in my opinion. And I think I can say and believe that honestly without being a hypocrite.

[treemom]

And griffin, I meant what I said earlier. If you don't have a problem with it, let this roll off your back. You did not commit a crime. At the very worse it was bad form. You don't need to defend yourself to us if you don't want.

I don't think anyone else should do this, but in this particular case there was no harm done and I am not quite ready to get out the pitchforks.