"New" Old Photos from 2002

[fsquared]

Originally Posted by Sanokun

I don't think the issue is because they are new.

It's more with the personal nature of these pics...It looks like she's with a private get together with her family.

I wouldn't compare these pics with other "unauthorized" pics of her.

I would compare and rank these pics up there with the bikini beach pics of her and the picture of her carrying her baby daughter. Pics that she probably would be upset over that they got out.

However I'm kinda torn if we should delete the link or not...

While it was clearly a party, I wouldn't put it quite in the same category as pictures taken by, say, paparazzi getting in her face or sneaking behind the bushes at a beach. She clearly posed for them (though for her friend, not for an explicitly public dissemination).

It's funny, I don't think most people blink an eye anymore about posting pictures of a random party they were at on flickr or facebook. I guess those other people are all "anonymous", that's the difference, isn't it?

If anyone is really concerned (though it's clearly water under the bridge in terms of dissemination), I suppose you could contact the flickr account holder (who is probably that guy in the picture), and ask him if he has permission, and/or send a PM to the alizeeofficiel MySpace.

[Solaris]

Jeez guys! I take back what I said about deleting it.

[brad]

i hardly think she would mind about these pictures, there are only 10000 pics of her on the internet, and unless there are other pics that i am not seeing or something, i can't see where she would care one way or another about these ???

[lefty12357]

I guess I wouldn't worry about it at this point. Leave the thread and the link. But maybe we should continue to refrain from posting the actual pics.

[kdn]

Originally Posted by Rocket

I always knew that under that squeaky clean facade beat the heart of a bad girl.

huh? may I ask where that comes from?

other than her privacy, what's so bad about these pics?

[espire]

Originally Posted by Snatcher42

"If somebody wants to respect the privacy of a celebrity, then they should simply pay no attention to these pictures."

I obviously didn't pay no attention to them. So I don't respect Alizée's privacy? Not trying to argue the point, I don't know honestly. See the second half of that message, about not knowing how to feel.

Alright, I understand. I'm really posting nonsense tonight...

Again, I was in the wrong. What is closer to what a logical version of my thoughts would be something like "do what you wish, but do not interfere with the wishes of others."

What I'm saying is that if somebody is so bent on protecting Alizée's privacy... They have full rights to respect her privacy in their own way by not looking at the pictures, but they should not prevent others from doing so. No, Snatcher, you're not invading her privacy, because we don't know what she thinks of this, and being a celebrity does change things. Remember the Prime Directive, people!

[fsquared]

Originally Posted by Rocket

I'm not that all surprised. I've watched her interviews and seen public pics of her and they are so contradicting. I always knew that under that squeaky clean facade beat the heart of a bad girl. All in all I have more respect for her now than I did when she was being groomed by Farmer.

I'm not taking any disagreement with your post, Rocket, but I think personally that in general, the real privacy invasion tends to come not just from the pictures themselves, but rather the analysis and innuendo that is attached (e.g. tmz, perezhilton, etc.). What we've done in this thread is pretty harmless, but say, if it were Aug. 22, 2002, Voici, with a headline "Mylene's squeaky-clean girl looking stoned at wild birthday bash!!!", I think that's where the real damage is done.

[Deepwaters]

Originally Posted by Rocket

I always knew that under that squeaky clean facade beat the heart of a bad girl.

She got a tongue piercing. She got a tattoo. She married Jérémy. Case closed.

Of course, there's bad and then there's bad -- "bad" in the sense of disobedient, and then "bad" in the sense of malicious or nasty. If she weren't the first, she couldn't be an artist. But that doesn't mean she's the second. Most authorities to whom obedience is supposedly owed have lost the ability to tell good from evil; disobedience to such creatures isn't bad, it's good.

I don't know that she's stoned in any of these pictures, though. I'd be very surprised to learn that she never has been, but in those particular pics there's nothing to show it.

One thing I'm finding, and this is probably my own situation/perception, but any of these old pictures, whether candid like these or posed and modeled, don't resonate with me the way the new ones do. I'm conscious of the fact that this is Alizée before I was aware of her.

[Un-rêve]

Originally Posted by Snatcher42

I'll never be able to prove this, but I think the beach pics were a deliberate leak (or more precisely, she knew the paparazzi was there).

I saw a programme on the Papparazzi a while ago and they were gonna take pics of a celebrity on the beach but she spotted them. She made a deal with them and said you can take pictures of me as long as you only publish
the best ones.

I have to admit a couple of those beach photo's that were first released of Alizée looked pretty proffessional. I think it was about a year or so later alot more were leaked. They were all gorgeous photo's but I don't believe Alizée wanted those ones published as her family was in them aswell.

[Sanokun]

Originally Posted by espire

Remember the Prime Directive, people!

lol wtf!

"As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation."

Are you really refering to this?