Paris Hilton is single again

[Flasch186]

what a waste of oxygen she is.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051001/.../people_hilton

[sabotai]

From the article:

"I'm sad to announce that I've called off my engagement. Over the last couple months I've realized that this poon is too good for married life. We remain fuck buddies, and I'll always love him. I hope people will put me on the cover of all of their magazines because of this," Hilton told the magazine

[Tom E]

She'll always have the herpes to remind her of her youth...

[Solecismic]

There are some European phenomena Americans just shouldn't try to copy.

I have absolutely no idea what Paris Hilton has done that interests the tabloids. Paris is our version of Princess Di.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I have absolutely no idea what Paris Hilton has done that interests the tabloids. Paris is our version of Princess Di.

Could you explain that analogy?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Paris is our version of Princess Di.

Well, sure, if Diana were a trashy narcissistic slut.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There are some European phenomena Americans just shouldn't try to copy.

I have absolutely no idea what Paris Hilton has done that interests the tabloids. Paris is our version of Princess Di.

Wow.

[Galaxy]

"Latsis gave the 24-year-old hotel heiress a 24 carat, $5 million diamond engagement ring. It was not immediately clear what would happen to the ring."

Must be nice to be born into money, and spend it at will.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Could you explain that analogy?

The Brits have their royals - a bunch of relatively unintersting people who spend fantastic amounts of money, don't have jobs, and generally make public nuisances of themselves.

Princess Di was young, a bit of a slut and as vapid as a cup of slightly warm tea. And the press glommed onto her like their lives depended on it.

Paris Hilton is American royalty. Same character traits, same wealth. She's young, the press follows her. She has no talents, nothing she does is remotely interesting.

Yet Paris is a much trashier version. The Brits loved Di. Most of us can't stand Paris. If we're going to have royalty, we have to do a better job.

[st.cronin]

I think of Paris Hilton as a porn star, not a Hilton.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Princess Di was young, a bit of a slut and as vapid as a cup of slightly warm tea. And the press glommed onto her like their lives depended on it.

uhhh, what kind of shitty made for latenite TV movies have you been watching that gave you this impression? Gotta say I think you're WAYYYY off base here.

[st.cronin]

dola

Paris Hilton has much more in common with Tara Reid than Princess Diana.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

uhhh, what kind of shitty made for latenite TV movies have you been watching that gave you this impression? Gotta say I think you're WAYYYY off base here.

I've never watched a movie about her. Just an overwhelming impression I've gotten from many, many media reports over the years. Much of it could be tabloid crap seeping into the mainstream, though I don't read the tabloids. I remember thinking she was a bit of a slow wit when she was interviewed. Her kids are disasters, definitely poor genetics at work there.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

uhhh, what kind of shitty made for latenite TV movies have you been watching that gave you this impression? Gotta say I think you're WAYYYY off base here.

I think you are the one that's wayyy off base since you were wayyy too young and have no idea of what happened in the 1980s when all this shit was going on.

[GreenMonster]

I didn't see this one coming. I really thought Paris and Paris would be togather forever.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by GreenMonster

I didn't see this one coming. I really thought Paris and Paris would be togather forever.

You probably watched Jake and the fat man, didn't you.

[Lorena]

Would Paris be this famous if she wasn't a Hilton?

As far as the Princes Di - Paris Hilton comparison, I remember Princess Di as a humantiarian and not a slut... but that's just me.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I think you are the one that's wayyy off base since you were wayyy too young and have no idea of what happened in the 1980s when all this shit was going on.

i was also way more intelligent and worldly than your average kid, so I'd dispute that Bucc. I don't think you can conclusively say that without knowing me.

I agree with Dodgerchik, I think the prevailing view on Princess Di is "humanitarian" more than it is "vapid skank." A

And Di lived plenty of years into the 90's too don't forget.

[Buccaneer]

But Jim (and I) was referring to the early-mid 1980s when she became all the rage and was on the cover and entertainment news constantly worldwide for months and years on end. Her image did improve in the 1990s once she dumped the dork but the analogy of Paris and pre-marital Di is not that far off.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But Jim (and I) was referring to the early-mid 1980s when she became all the rage and was on the cover and entertainment news constantly worldwide for months and years on end. Her image did improve in the 1990s once she dumped the dork but the analogy of Paris and pre-marital Di is not that far off.

ooh. well in that case you have a point. we were talking about two different things then

[Easy Mac]

so you're saying that if Paris gets dumped by an ugly guy with big ears and bad teeth that she'll be beloved by everyone. She's not extraordinarily hot, but I'll take one for the team. Just give me some scope to wash off my delicates when I'm through.

[Galaxy]

[quote=Dodgerchick]Would Paris be this famous if she wasn't a Hilton?

QUOTE]

Nope.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick

Would Paris be this famous if she wasn't a Hilton?

As far as the Princes Di - Paris Hilton comparison, I remember Princess Di as a humantiarian and not a slut... but that's just me.

No, but she also wouldn't be famous if she wasn't a porn star.

[gottimd]

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick

Would anyone care if she disappeared from the face of the earth?

Fixed and nope.

[Tekneek]

Di was no genuis, but she certainly seems to have been of much higher quality than Paris Hilton. There is very little comparison to be made.

Paris Hilton is famous for amateur sex videos that her ex-boyfriends have sold. Diana was, by all accounts I've ever seen, a virgin when she married Charles. I'm not sure where the allegation of 'slut' comes from, but I am interested in reading any of that evidence. If you're talking about what happened after she was married, consider that she was married to a man who continued dating his pre-marriage girlfriend who he was not allowed to wed. In my mind, adultery is really hard to hold against someone when their spouse is doing it too.

[Fonzie]

Thank heavens! Fly away, little bird. Be free.

[bhlloy]

I'm certainly no supporter of the British monarchy or Diana, but comparing her to Paris Hilton is a little bit low.

On one side, mother of two kids who messed about a bit because her sham of a marriage was falling to pieces and she was incredibly lonely. Since done a ridiculous amount of work for charity and hounded to death by the paparazzi.

On the other, spoilt little rich girl who has made porn movies, spent and flaunted a ton of money and enjoys the notoriety and fame she gets from being a slut.

Not a particularly good or accurate analogy from where I'm standing. The only connection I guess is that neither had to work for their money?

[Solecismic]

I guess we can agree to disagree on Diana's reputation prior to and in the early stages of her marriage. Upon which the comparison was made. Remember, Paris is only 24.

The children do seem to be shining examples of brats who have never had any strong parental influence. That doesn't work in Di's favor, either.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The children do seem to be shining examples of brats who have never had any strong parental influence. That doesn't work in Di's favor, either.

you can't blame Di for that. The kids are damn royals. One of them is the future heir to the throne of England (for whatever good that is today). They've never had to work for anything or want for anything. Of course they're spoiled. I don't think Di could have ever done anything about that. And she wasn't exactly unwilling to take that all on herself either, all that money and prestige.

[bhlloy]

Harry yes. William I'd say certainly not.

I'm willing to cut the kids some slack. They lost the only person who really cared for them - by all accounts Charles is no father.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I guess we can agree to disagree on Diana's reputation prior to and in the early stages of her marriage. Upon which the comparison was made. Remember, Paris is only 24.

By all means, share what you know. I haven't seen any accounts that say much more about her other than being a sub-par student.

Paris is 24 and still romping around doing dumb shit. Diana was married when she was 20. When Di was 23, she had already given birth to two sons. Paris is 24 and still romping around doing dumb shit.

Di's children were 15 and 12 when she died. I think the situation with the children is the result of a broken home. If you want to blame Diana, you have got to blame Charles equally for it. Paris isn't from a broken home. What excuse does she have for her antics?

[Ben E Lou]

The analogy makes perfect sense to me. Neither one was remotely noteworthy for anything substantitive, yet the media continues to write stories about them.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

The analogy makes perfect sense to me. Neither one was remotely noteworthy for anything substantitive, yet the media continues to write stories about them.

This isn't a topic I want to overthink, but the idea that Paris is somehow the American version of royalty is what people are objecting to. Royalty are famous for who they are; Paris is famous for the way she behaves. Royalty, while often derided in the press, are accorded a measure of respect from the public that Paris will never, ever, ever get.

I don't disagree with the analogy on the grounds that Skydog has posted, but it's somewhat different in substance from what Sol posted earlier.

[Tom E]

Princess Die--er Di--was Overatted...IMHO

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Royalty, while often derided in the press, are accorded a measure of respect from the public

Ah, I guess that's the part I missed. I have zero respect for royalty, and didn't realize that anyone else was silly enough to have any, either.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Ah, I guess that's the part I missed. I have zero respect for royalty, and didn't realize that anyone else was silly enough to have any, either.

Royalty has obligations which may seem silly to you but which goes well beyond anything that will ever be expected of Paris. Diana's wedding was on TV, and watched by lots and lots of people. It is impossible to imagine that happening with Paris.

I'm not a fan of royalty myself, you realize.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Royalty has obligations which may seem silly to you but which goes well beyond anything that will ever be expected of Paris. Diana's wedding was on TV, and watched by lots and lots of people. It is impossible to imagine that happening with Paris.

I'm not a fan of royalty myself, you realize.

Like I said, we can agree to disagree about Di's early life and whether the comparison is apt.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Royalty are famous for who they are; Paris is famous for the way she behaves.

I'm sure we all know/knew several girls who behave the same way as Paris does, yet they aren't famous. Paris IS famous for who she is...she's a Hilton. Tabloids couldn't wait for her and her sister to grow up...readers always want to know what the rich are up to. Just turns out that she enjoys the attention and doesn't have a clue how to handle it...unlike her sister.

I'm sure Bill Gates' kids will be going through the tabloids in the next 5-10 years...mark my words.

[Tekneek]

Jim, you keep saying we can disagree, but you have never bothered to offer up the evidence used to justify your claims about Diana. It's all well and good for me to walk around calling women sluts, but I should actually have a reason for it if I want people to take it seriously. I could just say I disagree with anyone who can't offer substantial evidence to back up these kinds of claims.

As far as Bill Gates' kids go, I wouldn't bet on it. If they fall somewhere on the autism spectrum, as I have read somewhere, they are likely to be quite boring to the vast majority of people.

[Raiders Army]

While I don't think that Princess Diana was a looker, the Prince certainly married up. He's fucking ugly.

[albionmoonlight]

I make no representations as to Princess Di/Paris Hilton.

However, the general proposition that American Movie Stars = British Royalty is so axiomatic to my way of looking at the world that I was suprised to log on and see the idea challenged here.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

However, the general proposition that American Movie Stars = British Royalty is so axiomatic to my way of looking at the world that I was suprised to log on and see the idea challenged here.

Paris Hilton != American Movie Star

I don't think it works that way with current "stars", but I can see your point with the 'classic' stars from the 'big studio' days. I just don't see that with any current 'American Movie Stars.'

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Jim, you keep saying we can disagree, but you have never bothered to offer up the evidence used to justify your claims about Diana. It's all well and good for me to walk around calling women sluts, but I should actually have a reason for it if I want people to take it seriously. I could just say I disagree with anyone who can't offer substantial evidence to back up these kinds of claims.

As far as Bill Gates' kids go, I wouldn't bet on it. If they fall somewhere on the autism spectrum, as I have read somewhere, they are likely to be quite boring to the vast majority of people.

Same thing as your assessment of the Gates and autism thing. Maybe rumor, maybe malicious gossip, maybe truth. I read (and it was long before Al Gore invented the internet as we know it) that she was a hard partier and most definitely not a virgin at marriage or a faithful partner afterward. I read it enough times that I believe it.

I would not testify in a court of law to it. I have no evidence, which would really require that I had been the one shagging the princess, wouldn't it? There's a lot of gossip out there. I honestly don't give a damn if people don't take the claim seriously. I don't earlier.

That's why I don't complain about all the money celebrities bring in. Nasty unfounded rumors accompany that money. People invade your privacy. Strangers believe that you're a slut without evidence.

We have celebrities to satisfy our desires to say nasty things about people. My mistake here is not realizing so many people still bought into the whole old-time royalty thing. The Brits have royalty (and we have our old-time movie stars, and the Democrats have the Kennedys) to have a model group to look up to. Recent events have made the royals anything but models or idols.

I thought Diana was more a celebrity than an old-time royal. Hence the comparison to Paris Hilton.

Today's society has reduced the royals to celebrities. It's common, these days, to answer the question "who is your role model" with "my mom" or "my dad." In the old days, many people answered with the name of a movie star or a president. Or in England, a royal.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

My mistake here is not realizing so many people still bought into the whole old-time royalty thing.

Or the myth that they were/are virtuous, old-time or new-time. It's still amazing the number of people wanting to put their faith into celebritism.

[Tekneek]

Big difference, Jim. I don't say Bill Gates' kids may be on the autistic spectrum to attack them or make them seem any less of a good person. You would be surprised how many people are on the autism spectrum and don't even know it. Calling someone a slut does not compare to what I said.

It is not so much that I "buy in" to anything. If you could point me to a reputable archive of information that makes the same claims you do, I would read it and see if I reach the same conclusion. You don't have to look very hard to find those goods on Paris Hilton, yet you say Diana was on the very same level. Why is it not so readily available and obvious? If it is, please show me.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Big difference, Jim. I don't say Bill Gates' kids may be on the autistic spectrum to attack them or make them seem any less of a good person. You would be surprised how many people are on the autism spectrum and don't even know it. Calling someone a slut does not compare to what I said.

It is not so much that I "buy in" to anything. If you could point me to a reputable archive of information that makes the same claims you do, I would read it and see if I reach the same conclusion. You don't have to look very hard to find those goods on Paris Hilton, yet you say Diana was on the very same level. Why is it not so readily available and obvious? If it is, please show me.

No, far worse. The autism label is much more damaging, because of its connotations. The public doesn't give a damn about spectra. Calling someone a slut is nothing compared to calling him autistic.

Now, if I made a medical diagnosis and called her a nymphomaniac, that would be just as bad as the autism thing. But I didn't. I am not a psychologist. Behavior is a choice and can be corrected, unless you have a mental disorder.

I already told you that there's no reason to take my gossip as anything more than it is. If you believe Diana was a good little girl, that's cool with me. For the last time, we can agree to disagree.

[Tekneek]

Sure thing, Jimbo. If you say so.

EDIT... Just for the record, I said "If" they fall on the spectrum, anyway. Not that it matters. I'll leave you to be the expert on celebrity sex lives.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

You don't have to look very hard to find those goods on Paris Hilton, yet you say Diana was on the very same level. Why is it not so readily available and obvious?

Ahem...

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I read (and it was long before Al Gore invented the internet as we know it) that she was a hard partier and most definitely not a virgin at marriage or a faithful partner afterward. I read it enough times that I believe it.

Not to mention that there are far more magazines and tabloids specializing in celebrity personal lives now than there was 25 years ago. Unless you expect Jim to sent you a stack of early 1980's magazines and tabloids, you're asking for something he can't give you.

[Schmidty]

I plan on naming my first son Gary Super8 and my second daughter Havana Ramada.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Ahem...

Not to mention that there are far more magazines and tabloids specializing in celebrity personal lives now than there was 25 years ago. Unless you expect Jim to sent you a stack of early 1980's magazines and tabloids, you're asking for something he can't give you.

Ok. I suppose it is plausible that nobody has written on the Internet about all of her 'activity', but there is a surprising amount of information out there relating to lots of other things that went on prior to the Internet (as we know it today).

Not that it really matters. He has revealed that, as far as he knows, no evidence of those things with Diana even exists. Even to his defense, you call out the tabloids that may or may not have been telling the truth. Somehow this is exactly the same as Paris Hilton, who we know for certain has "sex tapes" out there and made her name off of them. Apparently, being famous for "sex tapes" is roughly the equivalent of marrying Prince Charles. Since it was becoming Princess Diana that made Diana Spencer famous.

Beyond that, being called a slut and being seen in "sex tapes" that were sold and then 'leaked' all over the Internet is not nearly as demeaning as being on the autistic spectrum. I'm sure those parents with kids diagnosed on the spectrum just hope and wish they could have a celebrity slut instead.