Tiger

[Miles]

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.

I too think we are free to discuss what has been released into the public domain. The real concern is that is seems people all over world are demanding more from Tiger, and I think that's just embarrassing.

[CameronBornAndBred]

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

[Lavabe]

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

Post of the Day!!

[Johnboy]

Q: What's the difference between a golf ball and an SUV?


A: Tiger Woods can drive a golf ball 350 yards.

[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'.

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...

Eh. Depends on your clubs, but yeah, I could see that. However, depends on the way you're swinging as well. If I'm taking a short stroke at a snake, you're right, the weight of the club head is the most important aspect. However, if I'm hauling off and taking a full swing, the much longer shaft on the 3-iron is going to give you a MUCH greater club speed at point of impact. At some point on the curve, club head speed outweighs the minimal gain in weight (F=ma^2 after all ;) ). Either way, an iron or wedge is definitely the way to go over a driver. I might go for my carbite lob wedge. The face on that sucker is like sandpaper. Not only would you get major impact damage, you'd also scrape all the skin and hair off. Gooey. ;)

[CathyCA]

Here's a fun Tiger game:

http://www.break.com/games/tiger-woods-wife-outrun.html

[CathyCA]

A new golf term:

Tiger: a short drive that hits a tree.

[Lavabe]

A certain bearded fellow has been absent from this thread.

[bjornolf]

A certain bearded fellow has been absent from this thread.

Santa?

[ArkieDukie]

A certain bearded fellow has been absent from this thread.

Santa?

Ho, ho, ho!

[Rolvix]

A new golf term:

Tiger: a short drive that hits a tree.

That was really quick!

[CameronBornAndBred]

[ArkieDukie]

I thought this skit was pretty funny, but several domestic violence awareness/prevention groups were offended.

[ArkieDukie]

Q: Why did Tiger hit a fire hydrant and then a tree?
A: He couldn't decide between iron and wood. ;)

[Rolvix]

Q: Why did Tiger hit a fire hydrant and then a tree?
A: He couldn't decide between iron and wood. ;)

Hahahahaaha
Good one.

[YmoBeThere]

They keep crawling out of the woodwork...

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

[/quote] Elin's lawyer is going to have a field day with this case. I wish I was her attorney.[/quote]

Wow! I didn't know all that stuff. In--ter--esting! You'll be MY lawyer fer sher if the OP ever steps out of line! Although I guess we shouldn't bank on vacationing in the South of France or anything. We'll be celebrating our 50th in September. He appears to have had blinders on for the last 49! I haven't had my golf clubs out of the attic in 15 years.
Love, Ima

[Very Duke Blue]

Elin's lawyer is going to have a field day with this case. I wish I was her attorney.[/quote]

Wow! I didn't know all that stuff. In--ter--esting! You'll be MY lawyer fer sher if the OP ever steps out of line! Although I guess we shouldn't bank on vacationing in the South of France or anything. We'll be celebrating our 50th in September. He appears to have had blinders on for the last 49! I haven't had my golf clubs out of the attic in 15 years.
Love, Ima[/quote]

true love for sure,

[cl15876]

Elin's lawyer is going to have a field day with this case. I wish I was her attorney.[/quote]

Wow! I didn't know all that stuff. In--ter--esting! You'll be MY lawyer fer sher if the OP ever steps out of line! Although I guess we shouldn't bank on vacationing in the South of France or anything. We'll be celebrating our 50th in September. He appears to have had blinders on for the last 49! ....
Love, Ima[/quote]

I think that is simply AWESOME!!! I've met the OP and I doubt the blinders were there, it is some good ol' fashioned honor, respect, integrity, commitment and faithfulness which I respect immensely! It always amazes me that indiscretions in judgment are always rationalized away as a result of something other than plain common sense and not putting oneself in situations that will result in temptation, ruin and other sacrifices to be compromised! It's kind of like a saying a buddy of mine said a long time ago, "Go hang out at the barber shop long enough and eventually you will end up getting your hair cut" (substitute place and things with what you don't want to happen and it will if you keep doing it long enough, ... guess Tiger and many other public/private figures are yet another reminder of this truth), so why not be true to oneself in the first place and spare yourself and those that end up getting hurt the misery). Obviously you and the OP have found and maintained something very special for quite a long time which is absolutely WONDERFUL!!!! You two are another example and inspirational reminder that this society and culture is still not as corrupt or without morals, etc. as the media or others (who want to make themselves feel better about their sins) would try and lead us to believe!

[rockymtn devil]

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.

Cathy covered this pretty well, so I'll just add a quick thought. The entirety of the Constitution, and the rights we as individuals derive from it--including the right to privacy--rests on one underlying principal that is missing from this analysis: the State Action Doctrine.

The Constitution protects individuals from governmental entities. It does not protect us from private entities, including the media. For example: if people are protesting something on my front yard, I'm free to tell them to get the hell off my property. Why is this not a violation of their 1st Amendment rights? Because I'm not the government and the 1st Amendment doesn't protect them from me. The Constitution limits only governmental conduct (with the possible exception of the 13th Amendment).

With respect to Tiger (or anyone), the right to privacy relates government intervention into our lives and not intrusion by private entities (other laws, such as trespassing prohibitions, may operate in that function). That isn't to say, however, that basic moral ideals shouldn't prevent certain levels of privacy from being invaded.

And the answer to your question at the end of the post is yes. Do you have to answer? No. But that's different.