Text 8245, 87 rader
Skriven 2007-12-16 14:43:34 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
   Kommentar till text 8200 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: George W. Bush
======================
Hello Michiel.

15 Dec 07 21:03, you wrote to me:

 MV> Hello Jeff,

 MV> On Friday December 14 2007 18:12, you wrote to me:

 RC>>>> Nonsense Mr Dossche, the price Diana paid was her fucking life,
 RC>>>> even after her split from Chaz, her fame as a Royal indirectly
 RC>>>> led to her death because of the paparazzi.

 MV>>> The same could happen to Paris Hilton.

 JS>>      Doubtfull. Reason being is that Paris Hilton looks for and
 JS>> acts
 MV> [..]
 JS>>      Diana seemed to have prefered to keep her private life as
 JS>> private
 MV> [..]
 JS>>      What do you think Michiel?

 MV> I think Ross Cassel is looking for a fight and is using his aversion
 MV> of royalty as a weapon. The main players this side of the pond have
 MV> stated repeatedly that they are not fond of royalty either, so why
 MV> keep on harping on it?

     I didn't consider royalty to be a major factor either. That is the
reason I didn't mention royalty at all in my response.


 MV> Having said that: My point was that the death of Diana had little to
 MV> do with t fact that she was royalty. It was an unfortunate incident
 MV> that could have happened to any celebrity. had she not married Prince
 MV> Charles, but David Beckham instead, the same could have happened. I
 MV> mentioned Paris Hilton because she has in common with royalty that her
 MV> fame was acquired through inheritance. Royalty inherits the title,
 MV> Paris Hilton the money.

    Agree to a point. Diana's link to royalty and her quest for privacy
made her the prey for the paparazzi. If Diana had married to Beckham
instead Prince Charles. I doubt she would have the victum of the paparazzi
to the degree that she ended up being. Being linked to Prince Charles the
paparazzi were likely looking for any "Dirt" they could get and at any
cost.

 MV> The public wants to read about celebrities. If there was no demand
 MV> from the public for tabloids, the paparazzi would be out of a job and
 MV> find something else to make money on.

    Agreed. People are interested in celebrities, their lives and their
actions. Any number of things can raise someone to celebrity status and
increase people's interest in them. With Paris it was her family name and
her often outragious actions. With Diana it was her link to Prince Charles
and English royalty. The more Diana wanted to distance herself from public
view the more the paparazzi wanted to know all and see all. The paparazzi
provide a service and will likely continue to do so as long as the public
interest is there. But with that service there should also be a degree of
responsibility for their actions. I have always thought that everyone has
some right to privacy regardless of their position or popularity status.


 MV> It has nothing to do with
 MV> royalty as such, celebrities of all kind are prey. Movie stars,
 MV> football players, and people who just have an awful lot of money and
 MV> show it like Paris Hilton. Every once in a while something goes wrong;
 MV> a celebrity can not handle the pressure and jumps off a bridge or
 MV> takes an overdose.

     If a celebrity fails under the presure and overdoses or jumps. That
is a direct reaction by that person to their celebrity status or lifestyle.
I don't see Diana as being in the situation. I see her sadly as the victum
of the paparazzi and bad judgement by her employees


 MV>  Or gets killed in a chase....


 MV> Cheers, Michiel

 MV> --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 MV>  * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Jeff

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - region14.us (1:14/5)