Live and Lets Fly [merged]
Jan 24, 2018, 6:29 am
#121
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
I may well have missed recent activity, but I think the last action he took was sending in a demand letter to Aeroplan. Aeroplan acknowledged receipt but he hasn't said anything about having received a substantive reply yet. I wouldn't think that either party would be contemplating a settlement yet at this stage, but I could be wrong. I'm betting Aeroplan slow rolls but eventually responds basically telling him to pound sand.
Jan 24, 2018, 7:39 am
#122
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL PM; IHG PlatAmb; Hilton Dia; Marriott Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 7,320
I may well have missed recent activity, but I think the last action he took was sending in a demand letter to Aeroplan. Aeroplan acknowledged receipt but he hasn't said anything about having received a substantive reply yet. I wouldn't think that either party would be contemplating a settlement yet at this stage, but I could be wrong. I'm betting Aeroplan slow rolls but eventually responds basically telling him to pound sand.
Dec 28, 2018, 7:07 am
#123
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Commenters are trying to divine hidden meanings behind this post. Kind of interesting reading the comments, though not much by way of responses by the blogger.
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea....ensation-help/
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea....ensation-help/
Dec 28, 2018, 9:35 am
#124
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL PM; IHG PlatAmb; Hilton Dia; Marriott Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 7,320
Commenters are trying to divine hidden meanings behind this post. Kind of interesting reading the comments, though not much by way of responses by the blogger.
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea....ensation-help/
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea....ensation-help/
Dec 28, 2018, 6:08 pm
#126
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL PM; IHG PlatAmb; Hilton Dia; Marriott Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 7,320
Dec 31, 2018, 3:56 am
#128
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL PM; IHG PlatAmb; Hilton Dia; Marriott Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 7,320
Jul 16, 2019, 4:59 pm
#130
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 242
Matthew from Live and Let's Fly publicly shaming a child online
I saw this blog post earlier today from Matthew / Live and Let's Fly about a young child who he fairly describes as a "maniac".
I have no objections to the thrust of his article, the child's behaviour was totally unacceptable and the experience sounds awful.
What is more objectionable however is that he has chosen to publicly shame this child by posting ten pictures of him in the article with his full face visible. The child appears to be under 10.
Matthew outlines in the blog that he blames the parents and the child is not responsible, yet despite this he has decided to broadcast this child's picture all over his blog. No attempt is made to protect the child's privacy and the photos are not used only to illustrate the situation.
Now, everyone makes misjudgements sometimes, but in this case a number of people have questioned in the comments section whether it is appropriate to publicly shame this child without blurring his face to protect his identity. In every instance Matthew has defended his decision by saying things like this child has "forfeited his right to privacy." It's somewhat questionable logic for him to assert that this isn't the child's fault however the child has the capacity to forfeit his right to privacy.
My personal view is that this is necessary at best and frankly unethical. In some jurisdictions it would be illegal.
What does the forum think?
I have no objections to the thrust of his article, the child's behaviour was totally unacceptable and the experience sounds awful.
What is more objectionable however is that he has chosen to publicly shame this child by posting ten pictures of him in the article with his full face visible. The child appears to be under 10.
Matthew outlines in the blog that he blames the parents and the child is not responsible, yet despite this he has decided to broadcast this child's picture all over his blog. No attempt is made to protect the child's privacy and the photos are not used only to illustrate the situation.
Now, everyone makes misjudgements sometimes, but in this case a number of people have questioned in the comments section whether it is appropriate to publicly shame this child without blurring his face to protect his identity. In every instance Matthew has defended his decision by saying things like this child has "forfeited his right to privacy." It's somewhat questionable logic for him to assert that this isn't the child's fault however the child has the capacity to forfeit his right to privacy.
My personal view is that this is necessary at best and frankly unethical. In some jurisdictions it would be illegal.
What does the forum think?
Jul 16, 2019, 5:45 pm
#131
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
He’s advocating for physically beating the child who looks to be between 4-7 years of age.
Depending on the country, being documented for using “the rod of correction” on a child may be a fast-track to going to jail.
The photos do make the point that the kid really was all over where he shouldn’t have been.
I take more issue with his advocacy for violence against a child — and I won’t buy any excuse trying to deny that is what his blog is calling for too when it comes to the photographed child — than I do with the photographs, since the photos do indeed illustrate and make the story less deniable that the kid really was bouncing around where he shouldn’t be.
Given what I read, it sounds like he has a toddler of his own and goes to Germany at times. The “rod of correction” being used on a child — even one’s own child — may be illegal in Germany. Something he should keep in mind. No less so if his child is also a German citizen.
Depending on the country, being documented for using “the rod of correction” on a child may be a fast-track to going to jail.
The photos do make the point that the kid really was all over where he shouldn’t have been.
I take more issue with his advocacy for violence against a child — and I won’t buy any excuse trying to deny that is what his blog is calling for too when it comes to the photographed child — than I do with the photographs, since the photos do indeed illustrate and make the story less deniable that the kid really was bouncing around where he shouldn’t be.
Given what I read, it sounds like he has a toddler of his own and goes to Germany at times. The “rod of correction” being used on a child — even one’s own child — may be illegal in Germany. Something he should keep in mind. No less so if his child is also a German citizen.
Last edited by GUWonder; Jul 16, 2019 at 6:38 pm
Jul 16, 2019, 7:57 pm
#132
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Wow, way to online-bully a child - and for what? The clicks? Posting multiple un-censored pics of the kid? And then the name-calling..."demon-possessed? It may be legal but it's petulant and crass. I'd rather have that child in front of me than this blogger. The superficial manner in which he shames the child while pretending to blame the parents is pathetic.
Unfortunately, this kind of nasty, sanctimonious, bullying is par for the course with this blog. I understand the frustration with the situation and wouldn't have been happy either, but this was not the way to go about venting. He should have censored or blurred the face - really bizarre not to have done so, as it isn't pertinent to the "story". Though that doesn't help what he wrote.
Unfortunately, this kind of nasty, sanctimonious, bullying is par for the course with this blog. I understand the frustration with the situation and wouldn't have been happy either, but this was not the way to go about venting. He should have censored or blurred the face - really bizarre not to have done so, as it isn't pertinent to the "story". Though that doesn't help what he wrote.
Jul 17, 2019, 1:27 am
#133
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 242
He’s advocating for physically beating the child who looks to be between 4-7 years of age.
Depending on the country, being documented for using “the rod of correction” on a child may be a fast-track to going to jail.
The photos do make the point that the kid really was all over where he shouldn’t have been.
I take more issue with his advocacy for violence against a child — and I won’t buy any excuse trying to deny that is what his blog is calling for too when it comes to the photographed child — than I do with the photographs, since the photos do indeed illustrate and make the story less deniable that the kid really was bouncing around where he shouldn’t be.
Given what I read, it sounds like he has a toddler of his own and goes to Germany at times. The “rod of correction” being used on a child — even one’s own child — may be illegal in Germany. Something he should keep in mind. No less so if his child is also a German citizen.
Depending on the country, being documented for using “the rod of correction” on a child may be a fast-track to going to jail.
The photos do make the point that the kid really was all over where he shouldn’t have been.
I take more issue with his advocacy for violence against a child — and I won’t buy any excuse trying to deny that is what his blog is calling for too when it comes to the photographed child — than I do with the photographs, since the photos do indeed illustrate and make the story less deniable that the kid really was bouncing around where he shouldn’t be.
Given what I read, it sounds like he has a toddler of his own and goes to Germany at times. The “rod of correction” being used on a child — even one’s own child — may be illegal in Germany. Something he should keep in mind. No less so if his child is also a German citizen.
I agree that the pictures illustrate the situation well, but they would have illustrated it just as well if he hadn't shown the child's face.
Unfortunately, this kind of nasty, sanctimonious, bullying is par for the course with this blog. I understand the frustration with the situation and wouldn't have been happy either, but this was not the way to go about venting. He should have censored or blurred the face - really bizarre not to have done so, as it isn't pertinent to the "story". Though that doesn't help what he wrote.
