Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
cited by defendants, but we highlight it more for its insightful language than its precedential value. The district court in Rosanova v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., 411 F.Supp. 440 (S.D.Ga.1976), observed that “[d]efining public figures is much like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall.” When the case went up on appeal, the circuit court looked to the words of Justice Potter Stewart in remarking that “[although the public figure concept has eluded a truly working definition (footnote omitted), it falls within that class of legal abstractions where ‘I know it when I see it.’ ” Rosanova v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., 580 F.2d 859, 861 (5th Cir.1978) (quoting Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197, 84 S.Ct. 1676, 1683, 12 L.Ed.2d 793 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurr n. 3 (10th Cir.1983) . Of course it is absurd for Stephan to allege
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that restatement second of torts  323 and 324a correctly state pennsylvania law
B. recognizing restatement second of torts  428 but also discussing the inherently dangerous activities standard
C. recognizing kansas courts adoption of restatement second of torts  909 1977
D. recognizing that kansas supreme court would accept the final draft of the restatement second of torts  652e adopted in 1977
E. recognizing tentative draft of restatement second of torts  652e
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.