Tiger

[YmoBeThere]

This may be inappropriate...so I won't type it.

[Miles]

This may be inappropriate...so I won't type it.

PM me instead.

[CameronBornAndBred]

This may be inappropriate...so I won't type it.

Well your telepathy needs work because I still have no idea what your thinking.

[CameronBornAndBred]

This may be inappropriate...so I won't type it.

PM me instead.

I'm gonna keep practicing my telepathy skills for a while.

[Miles]

This may be inappropriate...so I won't type it.

PM me instead.

I'm gonna keep practicing my telepathy skills for a while.

[bjornolf]

This may be inappropriate...so I won't type it.

PM me instead.

PM me too.

All anybody talked about yesterday on the radio was the phone tape of him asking ONE of his alleged mistresses to change her voicemail so it didn't have her name on it. They also had on Brandon Lang, the famous handicapper. He used to live and work in Vegas in hospitality, and he knew all the players and caddies back then. They ALL knew about Tiger's MANY brushes with the ladies and most were shocked that he hadn't been caught before this. He's betting that there were a LOT of women out there that Tiger was fooling around with during his marriage. He KNEW of at least a couple, but said that from things others told him, there were probably a lot more. Now they're saying that the house was wrecked, and that she caught him texting another woman and busted up his phone, then went after him, destroying him and the house and that's why he took off and hit the tree.

[CathyCA]

But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don't share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.

I agree with what Tiger has written here. However, what Tiger fails to realize or acknowledge is that the expectation of privacy ends when one steps outside the four walls of his or her own home. Tiger unzipped it outside the four walls of his own home. Therefore, he should not be surprised at all in the public's interest in his indiscretions. He is the one who set these events in motion. His arrogance is astonishing.

I think that Jesper Parnevik said it best: "I'm kind of feel a little sorry for Elin, since me and my wife are at fault (for) hooking her up with him," Parnevik said. "We probably thought he was a better guy than he is. I would probably just have to apologize to her and hope she uses a driver next time instead of a 3-iron."

Elin did to Tiger what a lot of people wished that Hillary would have done to Bill.

I still think that somewhere in all of this, alcohol was involved.

[bjornolf]

I think that Jesper Parnevik said it best: "I'm kind of feel a little sorry for Elin, since me and my wife are at fault (for) hooking her up with him," Parnevik said. "We probably thought he was a better guy than he is. I would probably just have to apologize to her and hope she uses a driver next time instead of a 3-iron."

Purely from an objective point of view, the somewhat ironic part of his statement is that as a professional golfer, one would think he would know that you could do a LOT more damage to a person with a 3-iron than a driver. Drivers are made out of fancy ceramics and are hollow now, and their shafts are very flexible. You could hurt somebody pretty bad, but you probably wouldn't kill them. The head of the club would cave in on impact with someone's skull. The heads of 3-irons, however, are still made of solid metal and are designed to be heavy. If you REALLY want to mess somebody up, a 3-iron is probably the go to club in your bag. Just sayin'.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I think that Jesper Parnevik said it best: "I'm kind of feel a little sorry for Elin, since me and my wife are at fault (for) hooking her up with him," Parnevik said. "We probably thought he was a better guy than he is. I would probably just have to apologize to her and hope she uses a driver next time instead of a 3-iron."

Purely from an objective point of view, the somewhat ironic part of his statement is that as a professional golfer, one would think he would know that you could do a LOT more damage to a person with a 3-iron than a driver. Drivers are made out of fancy ceramics and are hollow now, and their shafts are very flexible. You could hurt somebody pretty bad, but you probably wouldn't kill them. The head of the club would cave in on impact with someone's skull. The heads of 3-irons, however, are still made of solid metal and are designed to be heavy. If you REALLY want to mess somebody up, a 3-iron is probably the go to club in your bag. Just sayin'.

No no no no no. As I posted elsewhere, the Sand Wedge is the club of choice to do maximum damage. It has the heaviest, densest head of any club in the bag. It is always what should be used when trying to kill snakes...

[Lavabe]

No no no no no. As I posted elsewhere, the Sand Wedge is the club of choice to do maximum damage. It has the heaviest, densest head of any club in the bag. It is always what should be used when trying to kill snakes...

Here is where we need captmojo. I mean, the First Mate knows all about killing snakes.

Wherever you are mojo, I hope all is well!!

[Miles]

I wish I could say I'm baffled at the paparazzi and the general public attitude that they have a right to know what happened, but I'm not. We live in a world today where networks compete for advertising dollars with celebrity gossip shows, where the gossip magazines are front and center at point of purchase displays and art, music, and more thought-provoking magazines are bottom-shelf material, it's a world where you can become substantially wealthy by losing your shit on a video blog and ironically begging for people to leave Britney alone. Our obsession with celebrities is disgusting and to believe we have the right to know intimate details about their lives is alarming.

Many people I've read or heard speaking, claim that Tiger's right to privacy ends when he leaves his own home, most then follow-up with some bullshit logic that he's a superstar and he asked for this. Sorry folks but that is complete crap. I may not be a lawyer, so I'm not familiar with any precedents out there but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would disagree with anyone that says his right to privacy ends when he leaves his home. If the expectation of privacy ends when someone steps outside the walls of their home, then what is left? Do we mean then that peoples' thoughts, beliefs and feelings are only sacred when they're at home? Does that mean that I have the right to eavesdrop on every conversation someone has and ask them probing questions about what they're doing, what they're thinking and who they're talking to? The answer is no.

Tiger is also one of the greatest athletes we've had the pleasure to watch perform and entertain. He married a model and is a gajillionaire. Tiger is a douchebag, and if all accounts are true then he is a lying misogynist and probably could use a decent session or two or dozen with a counselor. When I add this up, the only sum I come to is that he's a human being just like you and me. None of these attributes preclude a right to privacy in this matter. Get over it folks. Move on.

[Miles]

I think that Jesper Parnevik said it best: "I'm kind of feel a little sorry for Elin, since me and my wife are at fault (for) hooking her up with him," Parnevik said. "We probably thought he was a better guy than he is. I would probably just have to apologize to her and hope she uses a driver next time instead of a 3-iron."

Purely from an objective point of view, the somewhat ironic part of his statement is that as a professional golfer, one would think he would know that you could do a LOT more damage to a person with a 3-iron than a driver. Drivers are made out of fancy ceramics and are hollow now, and their shafts are very flexible. You could hurt somebody pretty bad, but you probably wouldn't kill them. The head of the club would cave in on impact with someone's skull. The heads of 3-irons, however, are still made of solid metal and are designed to be heavy. If you REALLY want to mess somebody up, a 3-iron is probably the go to club in your bag. Just sayin'.

No no no no no. As I posted elsewhere, the Sand Wedge is the club of choice to do maximum damage. It has the heaviest, densest head of any club in the bag. It is always what should be used when trying to kill snakes...

I don't play golf Ozzie, but I thank you in advance for this bit of advice. I'm sure I'll be out on the course one of these days or I might just decide to keep a sand wedge in my car from now on.

[Lavabe]

I still think that somewhere in all of this, alcohol was involved.

Call me crazie( ;) ), but I'd rather hold off on such speculation until anything concrete is produced.

[colchar]

According to the report linked below, their pre-nup has been torn up and redone. It seems Tiger has upped the original $20M figure (she was to get that is she stayed married to him for X number of years) to $60M.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/7 ... ports?bn=1

[gadzooks]

I still think that somewhere in all of this, alcohol was involved.

Call me crazie( ;) ), but I'd rather hold off on such speculation until anything concrete is produced.

Hell, I don't think alcohol is needed to explain any of the events of that night. Rage and panic make people do all kind of crazy things.

[CathyCA]

I still think that somewhere in all of this, alcohol was involved.

Call me crazie( ;) ), but I'd rather hold off on such speculation until anything concrete is produced.

Hell, I don't think alcohol is needed to explain any of the events of that night. Rage and panic make people do all kind of crazy things.

I'm speculating that alcohol was involved when he initially stepped out on Elin. You know, the social lubricant. . .

[colchar]

I wish I could say I'm baffled at the paparazzi and the general public attitude that they have a right to know what happened, but I'm not. We live in a world today where networks compete for advertising dollars with celebrity gossip shows, where the gossip magazines are front and center at point of purchase displays and art, music, and more thought-provoking magazines are bottom-shelf material, it's a world where you can become substantially wealthy by losing your shit on a video blog and ironically begging for people to leave Britney alone. Our obsession with celebrities is disgusting and to believe we have the right to know intimate details about their lives is alarming.

Many people I've read or heard speaking, claim that Tiger's right to privacy ends when he leaves his own home, most then follow-up with some bullshit logic that he's a superstar and he asked for this. Sorry folks but that is complete crap. I may not be a lawyer, so I'm not familiar with any precedents out there but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would disagree with anyone that says his right to privacy ends when he leaves his home. If the expectation of privacy ends when someone steps outside the walls of their home, then what is left? Do we mean then that peoples' thoughts, beliefs and feelings are only sacred when they're at home? Does that mean that I have the right to eavesdrop on every conversation someone has and ask them probing questions about what they're doing, what they're thinking and who they're talking to? The answer is no.

Tiger is also one of the greatest athletes we've had the pleasure to watch perform and entertain. He married a model and is a gajillionaire. Tiger is a douchebag, and if all accounts are true then he is a lying misogynist and probably could use a decent session or two or dozen with a counselor. When I add this up, the only sum I come to is that he's a human being just like you and me. None of these attributes preclude a right to privacy in this matter. Get over it folks. Move on.

I generally agree with what you've said here. I don't think his privacy should be invaded, especially by the idiots in the media, but I think we are free to discuss anything that has been released into the public domain (after all, we're not responsible for releasing it). Here is a link to an article that supports your comments:


http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnis ... 1-sun.html

ETA: Here's another take from the same paper. I usually like Strobel's columns but I think he is completely off base with this one. Then again, he is a journalist so I guess we shouldn't really be surprised by his ridiculous comments.

[DukeUsul]

I really don't give a shit about Tiger or his wife.

[gadzooks]

I'm speculating that alcohol was involved when he initially stepped out on Elin. You know, the social lubricant. . .

Eh, maybe, though I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if the attention of groupies is plenty 'nough lubricant for guys like him. He's famous, he's good looking, I am sure that women come on to him *constantly* and it's a huge rush--and I think for some of these guys, they have egos big enough that they think that the rules don't really apply to them and it's just their right to sample the wares.

[CathyCA]

Many people I've read or heard speaking, claim that Tiger's right to privacy ends when he leaves his own home, most then follow-up with some bullshit logic that he's a superstar and he asked for this. Sorry folks but that is complete crap. I may not be a lawyer, so I'm not familiar with any precedents out there but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would disagree with anyone that says his right to privacy ends when he leaves his home. If the expectation of privacy ends when someone steps outside the walls of their home, then what is left? Do we mean then that peoples' thoughts, beliefs and feelings are only sacred when they're at home? Does that mean that I have the right to eavesdrop on every conversation someone has and ask them probing questions about what they're doing, what they're thinking and who they're talking to? The answer is no.

The "right to privacy" which is not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut ruled that the right to privacy was found in the "penumbras" of the Constitution. [Penumbra--I love that word!]

In my paragraph several posts above, I mentioned an "expectation of privacy." That's quite different than a right to privacy.

In the context of family law, adultery is a crime in some jurisdictions, including North Carolina and Florida. It's rarely prosecuted as a crime, but the laws are there nonetheless. There is also civil adultery, which gives rise to a cause of action for alimony. And, in North Carolina, there is the tort of "criminal conversation," which is neither criminal, nor is it a conversation. Criminal conversation is a civil action to obtain damages from a third party for committing adultery. In counseling my North Carolina clients, I always advise them upon contemplating separation and divorce to "keep it zipped" until we get the proper releases signed in order to avoid, um, "exposure" to claims for alimony, criminal conversation and alienation of affection.

So long as you're engaging in sexual relations with your spouse in the confines of your own home (or any other place where one could reasonably expect privacy--hotel room, condo at the beach, etc.,) then you can expect privacy.

Tiger (can we now call him Cheetah?) Woods engaged in hanky panky with someone other than his spouse. When he stepped out on Elin, he gave up his expectation of privacy. Whatever his paramours want to say to their friends and the press is fair game, and there is nothing that Tiger can do to stop that. Elin's lawyer is going to have a field day with this case. I wish I was her attorney.