Paris Hilton hasn't a clue.

"We" seem to be taking the high road today.

You see more whales on the low road that runs along the coast though.

as Bill did, that you are baiting? Seems to me that the two of you are employing "pack" behavior. Don't break your arms high-fiving each other.

... all similar behavior, no matter who does it... is baiting?

A pat on the back for you !!!

re-read the thread to see who is admitting something. It ain't me.

Anyway, there's no point to this. Try the Outer Banks,

I thought you were asking... Are you admitting?... but now it has been admitted?

Way to go for obviously ignoring the question about the overall definition of the behavior with an obviously fallacious statement that the behavior is now admitted.

BTW... your comment about "pack" behavior was hilariously highlighted by DM's first post of the day. High five to you DM!

You said you were getting of the ride (inferring I was baiting)

I asked if I should change bait.

I could have said I wasn't operating a ride, but I've learned it does no good to say I'm not, when you think I am,

I played your silly game.

You won't play mine.

Boo Hoo!

More sleepless nights.

BTW I don't know what game you THINK you were playing, but it wasn't mine.

BTW I don't know what ride you THINK I was operating, but it wasn't mine.

Did not!

Did to!

MOM!

Make Eddie stop looking at me.


Got to go, got less important things to do.

For a man who makes his living from pop culture, it strikes me suddenly that you (Ed) don't like it much.

Strange.

That made zero sense!

... guess I spoke over your head there.

See, in english, the word "we" can indicate a collective or an individual. You used it in a dual context that JP was questioning.

Do I need to go on?


As for the Pop Culture reference? Paris has cultivated her fame on a pop culture presence. A cult of personality if you will. Her mainstream recording and movie roles came after her fame and the question of her true talent is still in question. In short, she is famous for being famous... and has cultivated this notoriety. She is a pop culture icon. No?

You made your most public claim to fame drawing comics. Especially characters who have become Pop Culture icons.

In short, both you and Paris have made your living in popular culture and entertainment.

Now, whether you agree or not... I see pop culture as driven by the spotlight. "Pay attention to me" is the driving mantra and the very criteria that measures success or failure more so than income in many ways. You have expressed disgust at the negative attention that Hilton is receiving. You have said that no one is pure and no one should fiddle while Paris is burning, so to speak. Turn the spotlight off when her chips are down (or have you been complaining all along that she never deserved her cultural status to begin with?).

Either way, you have expressed she should not be a topic of discussion, or at least not her misfortune. I question whether that would be her point of view. She has already used her incarceration to make at least one dramatic phone call to the likes of Barbara Walters, generating enormous buzz. She has apparently parleyed this experience into a million dollar interview as soon as she gets out of the pokey. It looks like she is going to be wealthier and more famous than before if she plays this right.

In short, I'm at a loss as to your position. In terms of pop culture success, she may end up doing better than ever. Is it that you think it disrespectful to pay attention to her current situation? Is it that you think she should not deserve the attention and possible financial success? Either way, it strikes me that even though you worked in pop culture you don't seem to understand how it works. That it is a double edged sword and if you are sharp enough you can turn any publicity and turn it into good publicity.

JMO

One can say, for instance, "On a clear night we can see lots of stars." That means myself and others can see them. It does not mean everyone can see them; obviously people who are impaired in some way may not be able to see them. I used the word in that sense, perfectly correct, clear and acceptable English. I don't know how it works in Canadian.

Don't lecture me on English usage, Grim. I speak, read and write the language very well; better than most. In fact I have done so professionally.

As for your other muddled attempt at a slam, that is just what it is. It's perfectly clear why it I was saying, regardless of your distortions. Why don't you play your games somewhere else?

I have done many things professionally as well, yet my claims to insightful experience never seemed to impress you. Now why should I give you credit in this instance? However, since you are an expert in english, is the word "we" not multi-purpose in the manner I described?

so get off my case.

Bye.

Not to mention many electrons.

Now they'll accuse us of "pack" behavior...or something.

They're all just a "pack" of cards!

I don't know if the lecture and use of "royal" might be better described as pretentious rather than muddled.

don't get him started again.

Yes, the system may be screwed up, but were laws changed to accommodate the situation or was the law applied as it is written? The original penalty for the offense is 90 days in jail as I understand. Miss Hilton received 45, and with good behavior it looks like she will be out in 23. Since she entered jail around 10 p.m. she actually gets credit for the whole first day as well. Considering all the demands by the general public for the law to be tuff on crime it would appear Miss Hilton got off pretty easy.

I assume that the reason why you (James) mention conjugal visits is because you think the law should be tuff on crime. If that is true do you believe Hilton was treated too leniently or too harshly? Or does it depend on the person and the situation? If that is the case then did the judge treat Hilton any differently than any other case? If he did then your suspicions of attention seeking may be correct but that would take some research of the Judges' past decisions to confirm.

About the conjugal visits? Just how often and under what circumstances do those actually occur? I have known several acquaintances who have been in jail or prison but the subject never came up. Is the practice really that common or unfairly given as a right and not a reward?

Does anyone here know if conjugal visits actually do occur?

When they are sentenced to 23 or 45 days?

what does the length of sentence have to do with it?

Probably as much as a some pervert getting conjugal visits does to Paris being able to hug her parents.

In order to have conjugal visits the visitors must be strip searched (body cavity)

I'm guessing that in order for Paris (or any other prisoner) to have "physical contact" the visitor would have to be strip searched.

OR

They just say

"NO physical contact"

So what's wrong with wanting to hug your parents?

I'm standing by waiting to be corrected.

Perhaps "we" should all have a group hug.

I'm not actually challenging you to prove it... I'm saying your hypothesis depends on the one point.


If there is no provable bias and you still believe Hilton was treated unfairly, then what you actually have a dispute with is not the judge but the law in question. So the question in my mind then, is do you think the law is too harsh? 90 day maximum, cut to 45 days and released with good behavior in 23 days? This, in your opinion is unfair?

Another question... how do you think Hilton's case should have been dealt with? What was the appropriate sentence for being caught driving on a suspended license because of DUI not just once, but two times? Is her defense that she was ignorant of her legal status to drive an acceptable excuse?

Justice has to be even. I guess you'd be happy if all whites and blacks convicted were sentenced the same according to the law, but whites released after 5 days served and blacks had to serve the complete sentence. That's what your argument justifies. Why? Because it allows bias. So now we know how you look at what's "justice".