It’s easier to refer to it as “the public domain” which incorporates everything from court records, self admission, comments from friends/ family or others (heresay) public comments etc.
This language bothers me, however popular it may be in the alcoholism biz.
The implication is that you are still an alcoholic whether or not you drink. Under such a definition, what defense is there against a charge of being an alcoholic?
I am aware of the whole popular paradigm which makes alcoholism a “disease” and consumption of alcohol to excess the manifestation of that disease. I don’t want to pursue that notion here.
I simply want to point out that “behaving alcoholically” is a meaningless and unnecessarily pejorative term.
There is drinking to excess. There is a wide spectrum of assorted behaviour patterns. Assigning a behaviour pattern to alcoholism in the absence of inappropriate consumption of alcohol is ludicrous, even if some personality types also have a drinking problem, and even if the patient was a drunkard in the past.
Are you asking if Mr OReilly currently drinks to excess, if he has drunk to excess in the past, if he’s ever been drunk, or if he exhibits behaviour patterns which have also been noticed in people who are currently drinking to excess?
Not all objects in the public record are in the public domain. They may have copyright on them.
Easier is seldom also right.
As E-Sabbath wrote, public domain is a technical word pertaining to copyright status. It does include government documents, with a couple of very technical exceptions, but also includes documents that were published before 1923 as well as those documents that have fallen out of copyright. It would not include any news articles or books or web postings in O’Reilly’s lifetime. It is separate from the public record and would be the wrong term to use in this context.
The public record is the proper term. It indicates exactly what Colibri meant, that the knowledge has been put out into the public in some form. Public record is also used to mean government records that are available to the public view so it has a technical sense as well. However, usage has long expanded on this technical sense to mean all records available to the public whatever their source.
Now it’s absolutely true that you shouldn’t try to judge the personal lives, positive or negative, of people in the public eye by their public personas. I’ve argued this in posts for years. And using a incident in which someone was caught being angry on air is the worst possible evidence. Probably every person who has ever appeared regularly on television has one of these in his or her history.
What used to make this a fitting GQ question was that it had a factual answer, of the sort Colibri tried to focus on. Probably hundreds of celebrities are known to admit to alcohol abuse, drug or medicine addition, stays in rehab, or other indications of alcoholism or some similar problem. It’s not impossible that such an admission exists for O’Reilly. No one has yet come up with one, so it may not be true in his case. But it’s a proper question to ask, if you skip the diagnosing bull.
Watch. Now we’ll get people arguing whether O’Reilly’s real problem is anger management. :smack:
If anyone would know the answer, it would be Keith Olbermann. And he’s never brought it up on his show.
And let’s face it-it most likely would have come out if Bill-O WAS a drunk. After all, everyone knows about Rush’s addictions. So I highly doubt it. The man’s just an asshole.
(Anger management? I think THAT’S a given.)
People found out about Rush’s addictions only when they resulted in a federal indictment. It isn’t a federal crime to be an alcoholic.
Bill is not an alcoholic. He beats his kids and wife because they keep saying he is when it’s not true. Can ya blame him? :mad:
People found out about Mel Gibson’s alcoholism when he was arrested for drunk driving and later admitted to his problem. So I fail to see why the fact that “it isn’t a federal crime to be an alcoholic” has anything to do with whether there might be some public evidence that someone has a problem with alcohol.
Do you agree that there is some degree of difference between:
-
There might be some public evidence that someone has a problem with alcohol, and
-
It most likely would have come out if O’Reilly were an alcoholic (explicitly using Limbaugh as an example)
What difference does this make with respect to the OP?
No shit, me too.
Dude, I was addressing Guinastasia’s argument in the post immediately before mine.
Let’s keep Obama out of this.
No one’s ever even made a clinical diagnosis that GWB was an “alcoholic” – we have only his self-reporting that he came to the conclusion he was drinking more than was healthy, and I’ve always suspected that was mainly Laura nagging him about stumbling in too late. Either way, the most hardcore drinking for a decade or two would hardly permanently deprive someone of the ability to speak. Guys like Richard Harris and Peter O’Toole and Jeffrey Bernard drink like fishes for decades and remain wildly eloquent. I suspect your neurolgoical diagnosis is a bit shaky.
LOL, I was wondering that myself, I was like when did Barry O’Bama go crazy on camera?
And I was addressing your statement about it not being a federal crime to be an alcoholic.
And I said it was a crime to be an alcoholic where?
And if he IS a lush, then why didn’t it come out during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by producer Andrea Mackris? :dubious:
For what it’s worth Bill has said on his radio show that he does not drink.
I read through that before too and couldn’t find anything (though he mentions her having a drink).
However, if I were plaintiff, I wouldn’t go out of my way to allege anything that would support a diminished capacity defense.