> 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.
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).
Again, you seem to think that public/private need to be used at the same time. You can have a private event that is publicized so everyone knows it happens yet only those invited can attend. A royal wedding would be an example to keep it in the same realm as the topic. The entire planet knew when William at Kate were getting married, when it was, and where it was. If you tried to get into that event without an invite, you were turned away. If you continued to argue like you are in this thread, you'd probably be detained.
Why you think that a wedding needs a public announcement because of regulations is relevant or not is something I cannot see the point of making. It does not mean the event is open to the public. You seem to think that more words are needed in English to get the concept across, yet you seem to be the only one with the inability to grasp the concept.
I'm deliberately ignoring your diatribe on hosting events as it is totally unnecessary and brings nothing to the conversation.
The fact that the event is known about doesn't mean everybody is invited or it being appropriate to share pictures in a different public from the event.
Let's take some specific events: Weddings of British royalty. A simple peasant can't simply walk in and take a seat at a front row of Westminster Abbey, despite being the probably most public wedding.
Or other related example: When they televised the coronation of Elizabeth II the coronation was extremely public event, probably the most public event of that decade, however the actual moment where the crown was put on her head was purposly hidden from cameras behind the bishops robe for spiritual reasons.
And then consider: Weddings are often extensive celebrations, which take long, with lots of food, lots of alcohol. Many chances for unpleasant photos. Those who were there saw it, but a different public doesn't need pictures of drunk uncle Bill and the bride doesn't want the most public picture of here wedding to be the one where the dress isn't in order.
You continue to argue that I'm saying the exact opposite of what I've said. Are you arguing only for the sake of it?
> It does not mean the event is open to the public.
I have never said any such thing. It is public in the sense that it is publicized, as I've now mentioned countless times. The word "public" also means something that is "official" and out in the open. It doesn't always mean that it is something which the general public is invited to attend. A good example is the one you gave on the royal wedding. All weddings are public weddings in that very same sense.
> You seem to think that more words are needed in English to get the concept across, yet you seem to be the only one with the inability to grasp the concept.
Clearly there are more words needed, since you continue to understand the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
> Why you think that a wedding needs a public announcement because of regulations is relevant or not is something I cannot see the point of making.
"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.
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.