[carlosjobim]

It's still a public event even if everyone is not invited. English lacks the word to differentiate between "public" as "no secret, out in the open" and "public" as in "free for all and gratis".

In this case we're talking about a public wedding as opposed to a secret wedding.

Thus: A normal wedding with a normal amount of invited guests is one of the most non-secret events to exist.

Asking for no photos is like participating in a big sports event as an athlete and demanding nobody takes photos.

[taylorius]

English lacks the word to differentiate between "public" as "no secret, out in the open" and "public" as in "free for all and gratis".

Try using a pair of words. Publicly announced vs publicly accessible.

[dylan604]

> Thus: A normal wedding with a normal amount of invited guests is one of the most non-secret events to exist

private !== secret

You seem to have this concept crossed in your thinking. Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private. Try getting into an event at Davos. Try getting into any well known event without an invitation. You'll see just how not public they are.

The fact that people think it is acceptable to post pictures of other people on their social sites says it all. This couple's request is not egregious. Just because you can't imagine not posting something doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same way. This is just another example to me of how few people think of others first, and only ever think about "me me me"

[carlosjobim]

> Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private.

That's exactly what I adressed in my comment above. You're explaining to me exactly what I've explained to you.

Public can mean something which has been publicized = made known to the general public. In this case it doesn't mean that everybody is invited.

You have a very hostile tone, for no apparent reason. Feel free to blow off steam if you need to, but try at least to understand the argument I'm making.

[sdoering]

If you only had made the argument you thought you made, but didn’t. And then not even made the effort to understand that the point your discussion partner made was actually in stark contrast to your point in the result they were arguing for.

You ended with:

> Asking for no photos is like participating in a big sports event as an athlete and demanding nobody takes photos.

A private, invite only, wedding isn’t comparable to a sports event that you described. Because this is by definition public. Why? Because anyone can buy a ticket to that event. That makes it open to the public. Yes, you need a ticket to enter. But it’s not invite only.

Imagine a big baseball/football/soccer event. The stadium is packed. Anybody can film to their liking. This is the public part. Now imagine the owners box way at the top. Not one of these humans down in the regular seats will be able to get up there. It’s invite only. That makes it private. Even if there are many people in that box.

But the owner (or in case of the wedding the couple getting married) chose who Would be allowed to partake in that event. And so, they also get to make the rules.

If you, with your attitude would be at a private event I was hosting, you wouldn’t be there long. Because you still need to learn the difference between public (in theory anybody can attend and the host doesn’t get to choose) and private (only the host chooses who can attend).

[dylan604]

"It's still a public event even if everyone is not invited."

You are not stating the same thing. You are saying that an invite only is not a private event. You've apparently misread the bit you quoted as it is a double negative; "> Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private". Just because people know about a private event does not mean the event is public. Knowledge of the event is not what makes it private. What makes it private is the host's restriction of who can attend.

Also, I'm not hostile. You're being defensive on an indefensible position and not liking the fact you are being called out for that position. There's a difference.