Your skepticism is commendable, Minnie. But I'm afraid that, in this case, Jennifer Petkov really does appear to be a waste of humanity.

That "But wait, there's more" posting I did earlier in this thread was the result of my wondering whether there was more to the story as well. And so I did a search to find other news sources. Granted, one of those news sources I found isn't much better than Fox News – it's The Daily Mail.

But there's no disputing that Petkov put those obscene pictures up on her Facebook page (among other things) in order to taunt the family. She admitted it, and the pictures have been saved as evidence. It's probably a matter of a neighborhood feud that escalated – but that doesn't excuse a so-called adult woman's attack on a 7-year-old child that way.

So, yes, there are two sides to every story. Often there are even three sides. But the side that Jennifer Petkov has shown is not a pretty one. Although now she's contrite about the whole thing, as reported in this news update. And also this.

-- Nephele

Provided she does not bring any pets with her, of course.

Nephele Curse #433: May the pets of Jennifer Petkov run away and find a new home with kinder people. But not before Petkov's pets shit in her bed.

-- Nephele
P.S. Correction to Curse #432 -- that should've been Obion County.

I'd not be the least bit surprised if anyone ends up visiting that womans' address with an alimunim bat and a bad attitude.

I like that the reporter counter trolled them and called their truck a white-trash hearse, though on the subtle side.

Anyways, that update Neph posted is satisfying

Who cares? Stupid person says stupid things. I don't see the breaking news here.

I think that poking fun at and tomenting a terminally ill 7 year old is more than stupid. It's CRUEL.

As Minnie pointed out, I do think there could be more to the story. For one, the fact the family claim that their daughter is in the final stages of Huntingtons rings with untruth to me. Mainly because I've seen plenty of video footage on the news over the years of children with the disease, and they just don't look like Kathleen. She's smiling and hugging her father in those images, which must have been fairly recent. A few years ago, over here, there was a huge to-do in the news about a man who claimed to have euthanised his young son, who also suffered from Huntingtons, with a pillow. His wife claimed, however, that it was murder. Footage of their son before his death showed him to be much more listless and less capable than Kathleen appears to be. I am not denying that she's obviously terribly ill, and quite probably heading her way to tragically early death, but I can't help but think that the family may well have exaggerated her condition to gain more sympathy. And if they're willing to do that, I guess the cynical part of me does wonder what else there is to it.

BUT.

There is absolutely no excuse for their neighbour's behaviour. Regardless of whatever the feud is about (and if it is over a slow text message, then that's really damn pathetic), why did they feel it was acceptable to be taunting a dying woman, and then after her death, her young child? I can't help that if it were me who were pissed with a family who were dealing with an illness, I would just ignore them and get on with my life. Perhaps, perhaps her behaviour on the news report is just frustration from how the feud has continued on, but either way, if she wanted people to see her as something other than the "Devil" of whatever street it was called, cussing and saying that she gets satisfaction from it is hardly the way to go. I certainly do think the woman's behaviour is absolutely appalling. But I can't help but wonder, as Minnine pointed out, if there was more to the feud than has been reported.

I confess based on some of the posts made, I'm on the verge of falling down on my knees and crying out, "Who are you and what have you done with my friends from gnet?"

A number of questions are springing to mind, and a number of issues arise.

TPM's post was particularly thought-provoking.

This IS a neighbourhood dispute. So what, indeed, makes it so newsworthy? Ailahh, I understand what you're saying, but how does this outbreak of petty viciousness between neighbours differ from any other?

As more information comes to light it's clear that Jennifer Petkov has been extremely stupid and allowed the desire to retaliate for whatever's been going on there to get the better of her judgement. What she did was awful, and wrong. I note that Fox News is being less ambiguous about the little girl's condition, so I'm assuming that they have evidence confirming the diagnosis, and in that light what she said was, indeed, cruel.

But, once more - in the quest to get at the third side of the story - I find myself wondering what prompted her to do it. Once again, I found it telling that her husband states, in the interview in which he makes his retraction, that Jennifer's activities were a reaction to comments made about her. What comments? What, in the end, is going unreported in this hideous display of lynch-mob journalism?

And again, I find myself asking, WHY is it being reported? Is it that, having overstepped the mark, the Petkovs stupidly exposed themselves to the revenge of a neighbourhood who, clearly not liking them or wanting them in their back yard, knew what the inevitable results of media exposure would be and dropped the story in the laps of Fox News?

And, my caution from my previous post in this thread holds true. What Jennifer Petkov did was nasty. But let's look at this. Leaving aside activities in real life, I, for one, would be the first to admit that in the past I've made posts here which have been highly regrettable, and over-reactions to comments made. Other posts I've made here would, if taken out of context and thrown open to the cold light of media attention, would seem to be of exceptionally dubious taste. Would that therefore warrant my house being vandalised, or being threatened with an aluminium baseball bat? And if so, what about the rest of us? Are we all squeaky clean in that regard?

There have been a number of discussions in the past about "standing up for yourself". Some here have, in the light of those discussions, advocated taking our fight to our persecutors. Tell me - although she's overstepped the mark, how, exactly, is Jennifer Petkov NOT doing that?

And, my final thought. A couple of weeks ago, a thread here was locked for being a "hate" thread, even though at the point it was locked, the posters had been pretty darned even-handed.

Here, we have a thread which is generating some pretty strong opinions without a full story or us knowing the circumstances behind it. In what way is this NOT a "hate" thread? As you rightly point out, Nephele, the sources reporting this story are known for their slanted, drum-beating journalism. We normally treat them with extreme scepticism, but here, I only see them as the winners, because they are clearly prejudicing normally sensible people to take a stance which - I have to be frank - I find ugly.

Saying regretful stuff on a message board is one thing. Whatever beef these two have between each other, well the kid didn't do anything and didn't need to be dragged in, especially when theyre fucking dying. I don't care what kind of shit is going on behind the scenes, thats just an easy way to make yourself look like a total fuckass.

I'd say both sides are idiots, the family for not trying to cease-fire until their kid got roped in, and them for the whole kid-trolling part.

When you stand up for yourself in the court of public opinion you do so by being "the bigger man" and acting in a dignified manner. Ranting on Fox news is not this. She's just playing the bitch and letting the side down in public.

Plus, ye know, picking on a seven year old kid to get back at the kids parents is not cool.

That was more my concern, the kid. The PICTURES. What'd a kid do to her? IT'S A KID. Yes, it's the kid of somebody you're involved in a dispute with, but that's sick.



I think it was made newsworthy due to the fact that stupid woman cruelly brought a 7 year old into it. A 7 year old, and from the news article possibly terminally ill!

It's newsworthy because of the spectacle and the dress sense of the couple being good for Fox's agenda (them wearing the same clothes really didn't help....).

Found a few more articles!
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

Still not sure what the couple look like as I can't Youtube though...

Wait... the husband may be fried over it? That's gotta be illegal...

It reminds me a bit of the news coverage over that couple who got kicked off the bus because the woman was wearing a leash. The media loves to point out incidents with unusual people.

I also am not sure the involvement of a deathly ill child makes this newsworthy. It's sentimental, but not really relevant. It's one of those gossip-column things that inspires hate against a certain party thus fulfills the others who can get up in arms over the issue and vent their emotions.