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.

The difference is that Limbaugh took a stance as an anti-drug crusader while being a junkie , the conservative sex scandals have all involved people who spout family values and the sanctity of marriage.
Letterman on the other hand has been screwing around for decades and made no issue about himself sticking to sex within marriage.

Bristol Palins life became peoples business when her idiot mother touted her family as part of the campaign and spouted rubbish about their good old folksy family values......you betcha.

This was to be expected;

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...0.000000:b0:z5


I wish I knew the top ten reasons why women have sex. $5 will get you $10 money is one of them. That last comment actually made me go look and I found:

Love, pleasure, duty: Why women have sex: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/30...omen.have.sex/
I knew it, money would be one of the top ten. (Someone needs to explain to the Aussies you can get laid for much cheaper than that.) Then 3/4 of the way down I lost all faith in this study;
They actually had to do a study to learn this? I think it falls into the "No Chit Sherlock" category.

Someone mentioned Dave had cheated. I believe this was done before his current relationship.

Someone mentioned talking about Palin's sex life is fair game for Dave but Dave's sex life is off limits. Good point! Whatever gets a good rating for Dave is fair game from the looks of it.

Someone mentioned that American's are afraid of sex. Some are and some aren't. However, just like Dave, most if not all American's sex life or lack there of is none of anyones business. I did not know other countries were such sexual dynamos. I'm sure Boyle over there in Scotland is a real treat in bed. At least we know she can sing.

I find this whole thing quite boring to be honest.

Ha, speaking of Letterman and Limbaugh, the latter said that if any Republicans had sexual skeletons in their closets, now would be the time to bring them out--they would have to be afforded the same tolerance as Letterman.

Btw, this Stephanie Birkitt sounds like a real slut. And a high paid one at that. :nope:

Not a very flattering photo. :oops: