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." UNQUOTEOkay, I don't understand this at all. This is literally what I said in a post a long while back:

[...] Two years later he did acknowledge being her father [...]

If he denied it for two years, it means to me that after two years he did acknowledge it. You, however, then say this:

[...] and even if it was for only two years (it wasn't) [...]

...which is why I was asking for the source of your information. What you are quoting now only corroborates what I said in the first place, so why did you negate it in that post following mine?I still don't understand why you would ignore those questions though. Didn't you think I might have just read over that footnote? What's the harm in pointing it out to me if I don't see it immediately?

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.

I thought that the entire idea of a discussion was to state you opinion on a matter and compare it to other's opinions... Anyway, I agree with you as to why public apologies exist, but I not agree with what you say below:

[...] 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...).

I remember something you said about respecting the rights of others to have different opinions....?It might be a surprise to you, but what you state there is certainly not a universal law. It is your opinion and you are stuffing it in my face as if it were a fact, which it most certainly isn't.Having lived there for 22 years now, I know that in Holland people do not typically make demands like these. The Dutch public wants people to apologize publicly for public issues (economical, environmental and social problems), but hardly ever does it happen that they want public people to apologize publicly for stuff in their private lives. Generally, the Dutch public doesn't make public matters out of private matters, so therefore we don't need public apologies for private matters. By the way, I actually think that is true for large parts of western Europe. What we do have on occasion is public interest into public people's private life, but hardly ever the demand for a public apology about a public person's private matter.Concluding, that issue of yours that I need to learn might be true for where you come from, but here in holland we have very different norms and standards. Just accept that and move on.As for the Lisa case: I'm sorry for calling you cynical, that was inappropriate.

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." UNQUOTEOkay, I don't understand this at all. This is literally what I said in a post a long while back:If he denied it for two years, it means to me that after two years he did acknowledge it. You, however, then say this:...which is why I was asking for the source of your information. What you are quoting now only corroborates what I said in the first place, so why did you negate it in that post following mine?I still don't understand why you would ignore those questions though. Didn't you think I might have just read over that footnote? What's the harm in pointing it out to me if I don't see it immediately?I thought that the entire idea of a discussion was to state you opinion on a matter and compare it to other's opinions... Anyway, I agree with you as to why public apologies exist, but I not agree with what you say below:

You keep going on and on along this tangent. Why do you care if it was 2 years or 3 years or 1 year? What difference does it make? Don't you get that Jobs was already rich and he let his baby daughter go on welfare? Do you understand the enormity of what he did, how callously he acted?

I remember something you said about respecting the rights of others to have different opinions....?It might be a surprise to you, but what you state there is certainly not a universal law. It is your opinion and you are stuffing it in my face as if it were a fact, which it most certainly isn't.Having lived there for 22 years now, I know that in Holland people do not typically make demands like these. The Dutch public wants people to apologize publicly for public issues (economical, environmental and social problems), but hardly ever does it happen that they want public people to apologize publicly for stuff in their private lives. Generally, the Dutch public doesn't make public matters out of private matters, so therefore we don't need public apologies for private matters. By the way, I actually think that is true for large parts of western Europe. What we do have on occasion is public interest into public people's private life, but hardly ever the demand for a public apology about a public person's private matter.Concluding, that issue of yours that I need to learn might be true for where you come from, but here in holland we have very different norms and standards. Just accept that and move on.

Of course most folks don't really care what public figures do in their private lives, but that is certainly not a license to wantonly hurt others, so don't confuse the two.The fact remains that public figures world-wide do apologize for the wrongs they do in their private lives, so at least they believe apologizing to be necessary.And since you bring-up Europe, you do realize european monarchs and their families (your country included) have almost no privacy at all, so so much about your theory of separating public and private lives of public people.

As for the Lisa case: I'm sorry for calling you cynical, that was inappropriate.

Apology accepted.Now let's give this thread a rest, shall we?Cheers,- jahman.

You keep going on and on along this tangent. Why do you care if it was 2 years or 3 years or 1 year? What difference does it make? Don't you get that Jobs was already rich and he let his baby daughter go on welfare? Do you understand the enormity of what he did, how callously he acted?

I was merely explaining why I was asking for the source of your information...

Of course most folks don't really care what public figures do in their private lives, but that is certainly not a license to wantonly hurt others, so don't confuse the two.

Of course it's not a license, I never said that it is.

The fact remains that public figures world-wide do apologize for the wrongs they do in their private lives, so at least they believe apologizing to be necessary.

Not sure what world-wide you are talking about, but I hardly see it happening ever in Europe at all, let alone China and Russia where asking for an apology from party members seems to almost be a crime in itself. People in Europe tend to ask for apologies regarding public matters, not private matters of public people.

And since you bring-up Europe, you do realize european monarchs and their families (your country included) have almost no privacy at all, so so much about your theory of separating public and private lives of public people.

We do separate between private and public lives. Privacy means whether we know or not know what happens in somebody's private life. People have low privacy due to high public interest, which is what you are talking about now. Simple public interest is different than turning a private matter into a public matter however. The idea of a separation between public and private life is not even based on amount of privacy; it is based on the idea that some matters affect the public (public matter) and some do not (private matter).As such, the royal family for sure has a private life, for even if there is lots of public interest into their private life and as such we do know about all the love affairs of the princes (low privacy), we don't make these love affairs into public matters. This is unlike what happened in America with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, whose affair (what we would see as private matter) was made into a public matter.It can happen that love affairs (for example) are made into public matters, but this is only done if the Dutch public feels that it can disrupt international bonds or constitute social or economical issues. For example, the crown prince got married to Maxima Zorreguita, who is the daughter of Jorge Zorreguita. He had a high political function in the regime of Jorge Videla, at which time many people simply vanished into nothingness, much like happened in Stalin's USSR. Because of this there was moderate public unhappiness, because they didn't want Holland to be connected with this guy. As a matter of fact, Jorge was never allowed to come to Maxima's wedding. So, the commotion wasn't because we think that the crown prince misbehaved, but because Maxima is the daughter of a very controversial politician and the Dutch royal family could be associated with him because of this marriage, in the end staining the Dutch image.

Apology accepted.Now let's give this thread a rest, shall we?

That'd be the wisest option, for sure...