(+) I am so tempted to tell him bluntly what I think about him and that whole messy affair. But it's his personal business *sighs*.
(-) He activates the commenting system, right?
(+) Yeah.
(-) Meaning he welcomes any comment whatsoever.
(+) It's still his personal business. Is it ethical to leave a message that can be interpreted as interfering to one's private domain?
(-) Ethics are sometimes overrated. You can also view this as a dispute between your ethics and his ethics. I don't think his post is ethical, if you ask me. The ex wife can claim that the particular post is a character assassination of her, right?
(+) Yeah, I guess so.
(-) If it is on a public domain, intentionally, then it already belongs to public, unless specified otherwise. You know, photographs, songs, or any other copyrighted materials. Which doesn't apply to this case. He can't accuse people of violating his privacy.
(+) True, true.
(-) Remember, if you're a public figure, your figure becomes public *winks*.
(+) Hahaha... So, shall I proceed with that?
(-) Go on! Besides, it's about time somebody tells him that his reputation in his field doesn't grant him the privilege to publicly degrade the other party, who seems clueless. And let's not forget the poor kid.
The Public Figure
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
And that was the conversation between ... the internet law and order maker with whom?
Bill Gates?
;-)
I think there are reasons why one make distinction between the word "public" and "private".
Keep the private stuff private, if you know what I mean. Although I tend to disagree that everyone has all the right to become barbaric and all violent harrasing and crossing over other people's preference.
Again, unless it is decided to be publicly published.
;-)
>> Again, unless it is decided to be publicly published.
=================================
Precisely! If the writer puts real names (not initials, not even pseudonyms) of the parties involved, including his, I would assume that he brings his so-called private affair to public intentionally.
Can't agree more.
Although these days people tend to try getting more than what they are fed, meaning that when it is clear that it is anonymous, pseudonimous whatsoever, then people should just stop there.
Or not?
I guess that was also why the real name was published by the actor in your story, rather than having people silently stalking and following him. He fed them all, with, alas, rather too much information.
hahahhaahh.. i have to admit that i myself often get TOO curious about things - i just wish people won't find me nosy, kekekkeek.. it's just human, i guess. but i know my limit -- at least i hope i do!
So, did you finally bang him in the head?
Ooops
I meant to say, "Did you finally bang his head?"
Huahahahhaha.
NOT bang him in the head of course, oh noooo please not !!!
Whatever a person deserves for a characther assasination, shall not include any bangin' in his head.
LOL.
i think privacy is a luxurious illusion these days... ;)
to the blog owner: happy new year to you! :)
i didn't manage to stop by at your city during my recent trip... sorry i didn't email you. but i did send you an email before christmas... wonder if it also ended up in your spam folder? :p
Silverlines: Huahahahhah..!!! Maybe he enjoys it? ;). Naaahhh... he doesn't deserve my extra attention :p.
Memento: Gal! My bad, my bad. Happy New Year to you too! I'm looking through my mailbox again now!
if it's there, then it's for public.
who cares?
treespotter: glad somebody shares my view :D.
LOL @ public figure = your figure is for public... a very smart-ass statement :)
Post a Comment