Dave is cheap!:rotfl2:

What's 2 million to him?

Yes I ahev when I lived in the US I couldn't get over the fact that you would have a violent action film on in the early evening and all the swearwords were overdubbed and any sex or nudity was taken out but hey you could watch a guys guts explode.

In Britain we have our hangups about sex too but I think in the US you are worse than us.

Saying that we seem to be having quite a few episodes at the moment with teachers and students and the sickes involving a nursery nurse and the kids she looked after.

And this is relevant... how exactly? It's not. How does this change the fact that he was being bribed/extorted by his supervisor? It doesn't. How is this a problem? It's not; if he's got the ability to make money off something like this, then let him. It's not illegal; there are plenty of other people on TV who do it all the time. Like I said, it's a personal issue- so he's got every right to decide what to do with it and how to treat it. If he wants to keep it private, fine. If he wants to make it public, fine. He's at least respecting the wishes of the employee by keeping her name private.

Doubt any woman would want to be a member of the "I Shagged Dave Club" in public.

First, my point had nothing to do with the employee.

Secondly, people who profit off of their public image invite public scrutiny, fair or not, consistant with the US' libel laws.

Third, anyone getting involved with a public figure risks publicity for doing so.

So yes, it's relevant.

Putting the ethical standards aside this type of behavior can cause all sort of difficulty in the workplace.

An example.......

A supervisor who does not keep a certain professional distance from his employees and considers them friends, can cause issues for those who are not considered friends. In the office enviroment the behavior is easily detected and animosities develop. The actions of 'friends' are looked upon as sucking-up, while those' not considered friends' are often ridiculed, or left out of important decisions. The end result is a toxic work enviroment, which is detrimental to the workplace, and all involved.

No, but mine did.

Well really anybody who has a public image is liable for scrutiny- even ordinary chumps like you and me-- fair or not. But defamation laws here are just as closely related to privacy laws, and according to our privacy laws, the dissemination (debate or discussion of . . . by public members) of private information in this manner is really in violation of said privacy laws because of the element of subjective expectations of privacy.

With that said, we must, in the interest of the law, focus on the main legal discussion at hand here: which is not about Letterman's sexual circle/chastity, but the fact that his supervisor attempted to extort him over his sexual circle/chastity. Issues of chastity are protected by privacy laws; extortion, as done against him by his supervisor, is not.

Yeah... and? This isn't news to us. This is an element of everyday life for us all. Well, all of us who have a social life anyway.

Not to us. Unless we're going to be sitting in court hearing the case anyway, in which case we'll be entitled to hear the details of the case and we won't be in violation of anything pertaining to privacy laws.

People who interject themselves into the public eye by way of profession are legally protected far differently, and less, than "ordinary chumps". Dude, where did I at all suggest that extortion is legal?

My issue was with this statement that you made:This has nothing to do with the extortion aspect of the case. You were apparently criticizing people for taking an interest in the NOW PUBLIC personal affairs in his life.

My point was that, oh well! That's what happens when you've made your image into your business. If things happen that tarnish that image, despite whether or not you THINK it should tarnish that image, that's the risk you take.

I have no idea why you've extrapolated that into the legality of the extortion case.Yeah, not really.

Having an active social life does not qualify one as a public figure, either legally or figuratively.You're changing the argument my statement was in response to in an attempt to make it irrelevant.

Look at the bright side, when Palin is on the show again, they'll have something interesting to talk about:haha::haha::haha:.

LOL... I cant picture a man that old... doing that...:dead:

No, they're not. They have the same rights as we do, they follow the same laws as we do. Now do they have business regulations and such from contracts? You betcha. But those are also bound by the law that the rest of us follow.

Where did I openly say that you suggested that it was legal? I didn't.

I criticize those who meddle in the business of others because they're nosy; I've got nothing wrong in taking an interest in it- just with snooping and being hypocritical by acting like a saint.

Not denying that.

Because the topic to begin with was about the extortion incident and law.

Public Figure: referring to any person who receives any particular amount of interest from others (Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus, 2003 Edition). If you have an active social life, then you are involved with other people in a regular, in-depth manner. So you are a public figure. Not legally or figuratively, by simple definition.

That's not true and you know it, just as you know that the public's "perception" hardly changes the extortion element of the legal side of the incident, as was the original point by me which you commented on in the first place.

Wrong. People considered to have sought the attention of the public have a completely different legal expectation of privacy and there are COMPLETELY different legal parameters that much be met for libel.

However, you're again clearly skipping over the point.It's the only thing you could possibly be challenging me on considering the nature of my comments. Perhaps you're distracting?I don't necessarily disagree with that, when stated that way.

But then again, my one sentence reply to that post only suggested that the reason for people's interest and "nosiness" is due to the fact that the individual is a public figure who has profited from his public image.I thought you just said that you never suggested that ...

Okay, distracting it is. :nope:Not by legal definition.

In fact, the very definition you quoted uses the word "particular" - which means that, as a phrase, the amount of interest would be defined by society. In fact, the legal term for that is "particularized determination".

Using the only benchmark we'd have for that, the legal system, we arrive with information from the following links:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti.../Public+Figure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

Sorry, pal ... no matter how active your social life is, you are not considered a public figure. Especially not in the OBVIOUS context of the phrase in this discussion.Actually, I think it is very true. It is possible that we both simply misunderstood what one another were saying, but I think that, since then, you've interjecting MANY things I didn't comment upon in my one sentence reply to your original statement.

Top 10 Reasons Letterman Never talked About His Sex Life

10. It's was nobody's business.
9. It's was nobody's business.
8. It's was nobody's business.
7. It's was nobody's business.
6. It's was nobody's business.
5. It's was nobody's business.
4. It's was nobody's business.
3. It's was nobody's business.
2. It's was nobody's business.
1. Prevent arguments in the Subsim GT forum.

Funny, his sex life is nobody's business so he doesn't talk about.

Bristol Palin's sex life is nobody's business, but that never bothered Dave...

Whoever said hypocrite was right. Ideologues just love to stand up for their own, don't they?

The only reason some people are trying to slam Dave on this is because he slammed Palin. If Dave were a raving neocon, these same people would ignore it.

This seems to fall under the heading: "get a life"

http://newssohot.com/bed_bugs/pics/tinhat.jpg

Who ignored Limbaugh's drug problem? Or the multitude of conservative sex scandals?

Scandals involving public figures are juicy stories regardless of the politics involved.

Thanks for proving my point, though - ideologues just love to stand up for their own.

Now that's 100% truth. I do hope that comes back to haunt him. The second he complains that his sex life should be private, or people shouldn't talk about it, the Internet will suffer another slowdown like it did after MJ died.

He did what he did and owned up to it in public. I give him credit for that. If it was a boss/employee problem, or a violation of company policy, I'm sure that will play out in the near future in the form of a lawsuit or firing.

The best thing he could do at this point is start joking about it. Milk it for a few jokes, make it a top 10 list. It'll become second page news after that.

Ad hominem and ridicule?

Thanks for playing. Too bad you didn't win anything, but we have some parting gifts..

(Two can play this game)

I agree. Frankly, neither situation really matters to me but I do enjoy observing the hypocrisies of people who are so incredibly adamant in their belief systems, regardless of what those systems are. Honestly, I tend to think that Letterman is a pretty tasteless guy, but then again, a lot of comedians are generally tasteless people.

The difference is that people like Letterman, while being tasteless, love to get up on their high horses and use humor to ridicule others of behaviors they themselves engage in. That's where the observations get fun. :cool:

Ad hominem? No. You may want to look up what an ad hominem statement is. Pointing out actual reasons that you're wrong is NOT an ad hominem attack. At no point did I say that you were wrong just because of who you are.

Ridicule? Maybe a little. But you earned it. The tin hat example has nothing to do with your belief system, but rather a particular belief which is absurd.

The idea that this Letterman scandal has ANYTHING to do with the neocons is, well, ridiculous, and based no where in facts. Hence, the ridicule.

Finally, the observation of the hypocrisy of ideologues is not an ad hominem attack, as it was merely an observation and not an invalidation of any statement.