I sigh as well, because I can't get through to you that you shouldn't reason with your head in matters where you should instead feel with your heart. That's our difference, distilled down to its essence. Cheers, - jahman.

Yes, I agree. Likewise, I can't get through to you that although I think with my head, that doesn't mean I can't simultaneously feel with my heart. In this specific matter, I gave priority to my head. You disagree with my choice, like I disagree with yours. However, because of your choice, do I assume that you have no frontal lobe? No! So why must you assume that I have no heart, accusing me of the fact that I have no empathy for the girl despite my best effort to convince you of the opposite? Let's get back to the heart of the matter (no pun intended) and do some pure feeling with the heart, but you'll see that even if we do use the same approach, our opinions will still differ, for I find the outcome here more valuable than the initial issue (so I'm in agreement with Ernie here). Although she had a rough start, she got back together with her dad and lived happily ever after. That's a positive emotion that I feel is far more valuable than the negative emotion of the start of her life. In the end, it seems she forgave him, the one that he wronged, so why can't you? The conclusion, I think, is that we both simply find different things more important in this matter, and we look at it in different ways. All we can do now, is respect each other's opinions and part ways, don't you think?

...So why must you assume that I have no heart

Of course you have a heart! It's just that in this case you're not using it.

...it seems she forgave him, the one that he wronged, so why can't you?

Because he didn't apologize to me (or you). That's the whole point of a public apology! Why do you think other public persons apologize publicly? Or are they all misguided? (And Jobs was a very public person, so hiding behind the mantra of "but I want to keep my private life private" doesn't cut it). BTW the fact that she forgave him doesn't mean the wrong was undone.

The conclusion, I think, is that we both simply find different things more important in this matter, and we look at it in different ways.

Yes, that's clear: I find a public apology important, and you don't. But when I point this out to you, you get upset. If you were standing in front of his daughter she could say to you: "He did this to me and you dind't care, he was still your idol (and perhaps you still pought his products)". And she would be right. If a friend of yours does something evil to somebody else, does he have to apologize to you? And what if that person is not your friend, but is somebody you admire? What then? Are all public personae wasting their time offering public apologoes to their fans, followers, admirers, voters? Think about it.

All we can do now, is respect each other's opinions and part ways, don't you think?

I can only respect your right to a different opinion. Opinions themselves are not worthy of respect, only people are. Cheers, - jahman.

EDIT: First, there was a huge post here, but I deleted all of it. It is just not worth it, since this is never going to work out. We can keep dragging it on and on, but the fact is that I will never understand why you take this issue so incredibly personally in the face of global issues that are vastly more important. Although I can guess why you do that, I rest my case. As they say, the heart doesn't listen to reason. Thanks Rafal, for posting whatever you did, even though I'll never know what it was since you deleted it. It made me delete my post also.

del

Ben,I have the post you deleted, and there is nothing new.There is one question I made that is central to this thread and that you can't (or are unwilling to) answer central to *your* understanding:Why do famous folks make public apologies when they misbehave to others in their private lives?Nothing you write makes any sense at all unless you answer this one, simple, question most everybody knows the answer to, except seemingly you, even though I have tried explaining it to you.Cheers,- jahman.

This is the first time I see you specifically asking that question. If you did so previously, you hid it very well. Otherwise, I will have just read over it and for that I'm sorry. To quote you:"There is one question I made that is central to this thread and that you can't (or are unwilling to) answer central to *your* understanding:"Which is funny you should say that. I have also repeatedly been asking a question which you seem unwilling, or unable to answer: What is your source for the info you get about Steve Jobs?Anyway, you keep going on about why public people apologize in public, and it seems obvious enough that they do so to convey to the public that they are sorry for what they did (and on a more cynical note, to save their reputation amongst their fans). I still don't see that as the core issue in this discussion though. What I see as the core issue, is to whom the apology is directed in a private matter. But maybe I misunderstood you all along when you were talking about this, so let me try something out here...I have been under the impression that when you say "public apology", you mean an "apology to the public". Now, however, I realize that you could have meant this slightly differently. Perhaps you meant a "public statement regarding a private apology"?So let me nuance my earlier statement, and move it to a public setting instead of a private setting. To word my nuanced belief: I don't care if they apologize in public, I care to whom the apology is directed when they do. As I see it, a public apology can be one of three things:1) "I'm sorry to all for what I did".2) "I'm sorry and I apologized to him/her. All is well now".3) "I'm sorry - person name here -. I'm sorry for what I did... etc".Number 1 is what I assumed you were talking about all along. But, I don't want to hear number 1. In number 1, he is apologizing to everybody, me included. I don't see and will never see why he should apologize to me (and you), when he did nothing wrong to me (or you). I see the point even less when I don't even know the person that is apologizing. Still I get an apology from him, while I wasn't even aware of his existence.Number 2, however, is a whole different story. In that he says that he is sorry, that he apologized in private to whomever he wronged, and that everything is okay now. That's something that I will want to hear, for that tells me that he actually is sorry about what he did.Number 3 is more or less number 2, except that he apologizes in public to the person he wronged, instead of doing so in private. I'm less of a fan of this than of number 2, because I think it takes more guts to face the person you wronged in private first and apologize to him or her then and there, then say so in public. But at least the apology is directed solely at the person he wronged, not also you and me.So, which one of the three are you talking about? If it's number 1, then I still don't understand why you need an apology directed at everybody. I just can't get into my head the reason for why you would want him to apologize to you for what he did to somebody else. So, if this is what you meant, try explaining it again, because I obviously missed your previous explanations.If you mean number 2 or 3, then we were in agreement all the time.Wow, another long post. I really can't keep 'em short, can I -.-'

...Anyway, you keep going on about why public people apologize in public, and it seems obvious enough that they do so to convey to the public that they are sorry for what they did (and on a more cynical note, to save their reputation amongst their fans). I still don't see that as the core issue in this discussion though. What I see as the core issue, is to whom the apology is directed in a private matter.

No, the issue is that for a public person there really are no private matters, especially when you do something wrong. That's what being a public person means. Most folks on this planet are in agreement with this. And there is nothing cynical about an apology to your fans if your apology is sincere.

...I have been under the impression that when you say "public apology", you mean an "apology to the public". Now, however, I realize that you could have meant this slightly differently. Perhaps you meant a "public statement regarding a private apology"?

You are playing with words now, but yes, that's what I've been saying, and that is a public apology. There are of course many other types of public apologies out there, but I have always said that he needs to apologize publicly for his private actions to her.

So let me nuance my earlier statement, and move it to a public setting instead of a private setting. To word my nuanced belief: I don't care if they apologize in public, I care to whom the apology is directed when they do.

Fair enough, but know your beliefs place you in a special group as most of us do care about the wrongs public persons do in their private lives, precisely because we don't want to admire creeps.

As I see it, a public apology can be one of three things:1) "I'm sorry to all for what I did".2) "I'm sorry and I apologized to him/her. All is well now".3) "I'm sorry - person name here -. I'm sorry for what I did... etc".Number 1 is what I assumed you were talking about all along. But, I don't want to hear number 1. In number 1, he is apologizing to everybody, me included. I don't see and will never see why he should apologize to me (and you), when he did nothing wrong to me (or you). I see the point even less when I don't even know the person that is apologizing. Still I get an apology from him, while I wasn't even aware of his existence....So, which one of the three are you talking about? If it's number 1, then I still don't understand why you need an apology directed at everybody. I just can't get into my head the reason for why you would want him to apologize to you for what he did to somebody else. So, if this is what you meant, try explaining it again, because I obviously missed your previous explanations.If you mean number 2 or 3, then we were in agreement all the time.Wow, another long post. I really can't keep 'em short, can I -.-'

It is most definitely "Number 1" in your taxonomy above. We all feel bad if somebody we admire lets us down and we do expect an apology ("I'm sorry for what I did") for the relationship (admirer, fan) to continue.Cheers,- jahman.

No, the issue is that for a public person there really are no private matters, especially when you do something wrong. That's what being a public person means. Most folks on this planet are in agreement with this. And there is nothing cynical about an apology to your fans if your apology is sincere.You are playing with words now, but yes, that's what I've been saying, and that is a public apology. There are of course many other types of public apologies out there, but I have always said that he needs to apologize publicly for his private actions to her.Fair enough, but know your beliefs place you in a special group as most of us do care about the wrongs public persons do in their private lives, precisely because we don't want to admire creeps.It is most definitely "Number 1" in your taxonomy above. We all feel bad if somebody we admire lets us down and we do expect an apology ("I'm sorry for what I did") for the relationship (admirer, fan) to continue.Cheers,- jahman.

You quoted everything but his question. Don't mind me...

Danny: He did it again, didn't he. He probably is making everything up as he goes.Three things:1) You assume all the time that everybody is with you, yet we are the only two people currently active in this discussion...2) Even though I tell you time on time again, I feel you don't get my point. Otherwise, you would not have said this:

Fair enough, but know your beliefs place you in a special group as most of us do care about the wrongs public persons do in their private lives, precisely because we don't want to admire creeps.

I'm not sure how you jumped from me saying "I don't need to have the apology directed at me in addition to the person that was wronged" to "you don't care about what the culprit does". What you say there makes me believe that you feel that I seemingly do not care if somebody apologizes or not, no matter at whom it is directed.So for some reason, you mix up "caring about whether an apology is given" with "I don't need an apology directed at me personally". These are very different things. Caring about at whom an apology is directed is not the same as caring about whether an apology is given at all.You clearly want the apology to be directed to you also, and that's fine by me (you make this clear by choosing number 1 in my previous post). But for me, this is not necessary. I'll be equally content when an apology is given that is just directed at the person(s) who was/were wronged (number 2 in my previous post). When you give an apology, it means that you are sorry for what you did. Now, saying sorry to anybody than the person you actually wronged (doesn't matter whether it is psychological or physical pain), seems irrelevant to me. That is my point. To give an example:In this situation, there are three people. (1) Me, (2) somebody that got beaten up, and (3) the guy that just now beat the hell out of the other guy (2). Whether the "beater" is a public or private person is irrelevant, since my reaction would be the same to both situations. So, I think we agree that the one that got beaten up needs an apology in any case, for he was wronged. When I see that the apology is given, then I know that the "beater" is sorry for what he did, and I'll be happy. I don't need the "beater" to apologize to me in addition to apologizing to the one he beat up, however. How you can now conclude that because of this I do not care about the person that got beaten up is beyond me.That example brings us to a second thing: I do not make a distinction between public and private people: I say they are all people, full stop. I take as much interest in public people as I take in generic strangers (meaning: hardly any at all). I do take interest in companies, bands, or people's work, but not in them personally. I only really take a personal interest in family and friends. We seemingly differ greatly in this regard.3) Please answer my questions also. Don't be so selective about which to answer and which not. It really gives the feeling that you are being dishonest. Given the liberty you take in assuming how I must feel about certain things and whether I care or not about persons, it somewhat undermines your whole debating style. Now follow some questions of which I hope you will give honest answers:- Do you only care about what public persons do in private, or also what private persons do in private?- And here's another one: if you see that a stranger hits somebody else on the street, must the culprit apologize to you in addition to apologizing to the guy he hit?- And what if a guy wrongs an animal for example? What happens then?Finally, you have been all along in the discussion been incorrectly tying up the things I say with how I supposedly feel (offending me in the process). The problem is, you can't possibly know how I feel about anything, because I never even touch the subject of about which persons I care or not. Still, you will decide for me that I am this and that, and no matter what I say, you remain adamant that you, of all people, are correct. I really find that it borders on arrogance to do this.

This is getting to take too much of my time and you are playing too much with words.Until you understand the general case of why public personae apologize in public for the wrongs they do to others in their private lives, it's really pointless to discuss the particular case of Steve Jobs.Additionally, saying "he probably is making everything up as he goes" equates to calling me a liar, so if you want to continue this discussion you will also have to retract and apologize.Cheers,- jahman.

Additionally, saying "he probably is making everything up as he goes" equates to calling me a liar, so if you want to continue this discussion you will also have to retract and apologize.Cheers,- jahman.

You do seem to be pulling this info from nowhere.Once again, what's your source? You've been asked four or five times already; I'm interested on reading up on Steve a little bit (I have a paper to write ).

You do seem to be pulling this info from nowhere.

So what's this?Cheers,- jahman.

This is getting to take too much of my time and you are playing too much with words. Until you understand the general case of why public personae apologize in public for the wrongs they do to others in their private lives, it's really pointless to discuss the particular case of Steve Jobs. Additionally, saying "he probably is making everything up as he goes" equates to calling me a liar, so if you want to continue this discussion you will also have to retract and apologize. Cheers, - jahman.

Apparently you take my opinion for "playing with words". Well leave it then. The problem is that you separate human beings into public and private human beings, and I do not. To quote myself:

I do not make a distinction between public and private people: I say they are all people, full stop. I take as much interest in public people as I take in generic strangers (meaning: hardly any at all). I do take interest in companies, bands, or people's work, but not in them personally. I only really take a personal interest in family and friends. We seemingly differ greatly in this regard.

You apparently do make a distinction between public and private people, as you have said so yourself on several occasions. So that's it, there it stops. Once you have a different definition for public and private people, there is a difference in what people should do if they are one or the other. And we will never manage to convince each other. No, I even can't comprehend your line of thinking, for it seems so strange to me that you would treat a human being differently based on the amount of other human beings that know it.And jahman, that is not the source that I have been asking for. At one point I state that it took Steve Jobs 2 years to make amends with Lisa (according to a magazine article I found), but you specifically negated this fact. Where do you get your info regarding this fact from, then? I ask you four times, and four times you give no answer whatsoever. And now you are all upset because I suggest you have no source? And want me to apologize for that? Seriously, you could have seen this coming from miles out...But here's what really surprised me: you could have given me a reason to apologize simply by finally answering the question in that very post and give me the source. Needless to say, even that you don't do. No, you only get upset. Seriously, I would have apologized if you had just given me your source, but now you just lost my respect. How can I ever believe a thing you say?What really makes this funny and strange at the same time, is that I have already said you are probably fabricating stuff way earlier in this thread (#43,I therefor have to conclude that you don't have a source and have been fabricating), but you get upset now. To me that means you haven't even bothered to read my posts in their entirety, otherwise you probably would have get upset earlier. Or, of course, you don't understand half of what I'm saying.Seriously, you can forget an apology, just like I will probably never hear you apologize to me for saying I have no empathy and that I'm untruthful.

Apparently you take my opinion for "playing with words". Well leave it then. The problem is that you separate human beings into public and private human beings, and I do not.

Public apologies exist because the public demands them, so your constant reference to what you in particular think is beyond pointless and places you in the fringes.

... (repetitive arguments redacted)And we will never manage to convince each other. No, I even can't comprehend your line of thinking, for it seems so strange to me that you would treat a human being differently based on the amount of other human beings that know it.

Again you place yourself in the fringes: Most folks set leaders to a higher standard because they don't want to follow morons. As I keep repeating, there is a reason most folks demand public apologies from public personae.

And jahman, that is not the source that I have been asking for. At one point I state that it took Steve Jobs 2 years to make amends with Lisa (according to a magazine article I found), but you specifically negated this fact. Where do you get your info regarding this fact from, then? I ask you four times, and four times you give no answer whatsoever. And now you are all upset because I suggest you have no source? And want me to apologize for that? Seriously, you could have seen this coming from miles out...

The facts are rock solid: Jobs

1. Steve Jobs is famous and was a tech leader. Check!
2. Ignored his daughter for years. Check!
3. Even though he himself was adopted. Check!
4. Even lied about being infertile. Check!
5. There was no public apology. Check!
6. I call him out. Check!
7. You call me cynical (???!!!). Check!

There is no dispute regarding the facts. Your constant insistence on sources is nothing but a blatant bait-and-switch tactic to get off-track from having to accept that in the RW public people are expected to apologize for their wrongs in their private lives.The very proof of your deceitfulness is:

1. You acknowledge I provided a source. Check!
2. You acknowledge you read that source. Check!
3. Yet you keep asking for my sources! Check!
4. You say "He probably is making everything up as he goes", Check!

And the proof, for all to see here, is you said: "Did you finish reading the wikipedia page you linked to? because I did". That Wikipedia page (points to Lisa Brennan) says:QUOTESteve Jobs initially refused to acknowledge paternity, swearing in court documents that he could not be Lisa's father because he was "sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child. (2)"UNQUOTEwith the (2) reference right under your nose pointing to the Fortune Magazine article titled "The Trouble with Steve Jobs " that (5th para. down) says:QUOTEFor two years, though already wealthy, he denied paternity while Lisa's mother went on welfare. At one point Jobs even swore in a signed court document that he couldn't be Lisa's father because he was "sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child." UNQUOTEThis reference has been there all along in the Wikipedia article you acknowledge having read so you could not have missed it.Q.E.D.Note:As an aside, mis-stating facts while "swearing in court" i.e. lying under oath, in the U.S. is the crime of perjury, a serious offense that is defined as a felony under federal law and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.

But here's what really surprised me: you could have given me a reason to apologize simply by finally answering the question in that very post and give me the source. Needless to say, even that you don't do. No, you only get upset. Seriously, I would have apologized if you had just given me your source, but now you just lost my respect. How can I ever believe a thing you say?

You yourself know the facts as stated above to be true, but since you have no valid arguments to rebutt the fact that folks at-large demand apologies from public personae, you now digress into all sorts of tangents of what you personally believe. Bait and switch!

What really makes this funny and strange at the same time, is that I have already said you are probably fabricating stuff way earlier in this thread (#43,I therefor have to conclude that you don't have a source and have been fabricating), but you get upset now. To me that means you haven't even bothered to read my posts in their entirety, otherwise you probably would have get upset earlier. Or, of course, you don't understand half of what I'm saying.

As I said, there are no facts in dispute. All I was doing was ignoring your bait-and-switch and stick to the issue you need to learn: Public personae need to apologize publicly for any mishebaviour in their private lives. (Now repeat after me 1,000 times...).

Seriously, you can forget an apology, just like I will probably never hear you apologize to me for saying I have no empathy and that I'm untruthful.

Ahem, did you or did you not call me cynical when replying to my very first post? Maybe it is you who should apologize?Now go back to your post where you quote Jobs getting all teary-eyed about his son and contrast it with the reality of having abandonned his daughter emotionally and financially for her so important fisrt years of her life, especially knowing how painful that is because he himslef was adopted, going to the extreme of even perjuring himself in court about being sterile, and you call me cynical? (See here.) Most mainstream folks would have said "Gee, I was unaware! Wow! Thanks for letting me know!", but no, your reaction is calling me cynical. You're definitely on the fringes.It is obvious you don't understand the subject at hand, so go learn the hows and whys of public apologies and then when you return to the mainstream, if you want, we can continue discussing.- jahman.