Tiger Woods in Car Accident

@Rockhead,

Quote:

his dog seems ok with him...

It aint a bitch

Quote:

Even as Tiger Woods remained hidden from public view on Tuesday in his home, or somewhere else, he has also begun to fade from view in his role as in his role as ubiquitous corporate pitchman for an array of products

When last seen in public, Woods was lying on the pavement in front of his home near Orlando on Nov. 27, moments after driving over a fire hydrant and crashing his Cadillac Escalade into a neighbor’s tree. The last time his corporate persona appeared on television was two nights later when, according to Nielsen, he was in a 30-second spot for the Gillette Company that aired during Nov. 29.

Since then, Woods has had plenty of television face time, but not the type that he or any of his sponsors could have enjoyed. Amid a growing number of reports of alleged extramarital affairs, Gatorade announced on Tuesday it was discontinuing its Tiger Woods Sports Drink

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/sports/golf/09tiger.html?_r=1

0 Replies

@spendius,

If you go back and read everything I've written on this thread - you will see that I am defending this wife. From the get-go her character, although she has not been alleged or even proven to have done anything wrong, (except lose her temper FINALLY) has been questioned.

Why? It's not fair. Was SHE cheating? Not that anyone knows or even alleges.
Do we know she didn't love her husband and only married him for his money?
No, and in fact, her visceral and emotional reaction to her discovery of his cheating would seem to indicate otherwise. It would seem to indicate that she was actually hurt. And why would she be hurt, unless she loved and cared about him and was possessive of his affections- and not just his money?

If it was about money for her, her reaction would have been much more blase. He'd have said, 'Keep you mouth shut so we can keep it rolling in,' and she'd have agreed to.

I'm on this thread because the psychology of it is fascinating - and I do feel sorry for him. I do think he was in a sense, 'created' by his father and his handlers and he's at point maybe where none of it means anything to him anymore. He probably also does have a sexual addiction, that would explain a lot because his wifeis the prettiest one. I hate to tell you - the rest of them are only surgically enhanced characatures of her. But he chooses them - why? Maybe he feels he doesn't deserve her. One aspect of sexual addiction is that the addict is unable to be intimate with the person he truly loves- so he acts it out with substitutes.

I was drawn onto this thread by the notion, oft repeated, that all women are whores. Specifically, the post I first responded to accused this girl of marrying Tiger Woods solely for his money. I feel that I have to defend this girl, and those like her. A woman is not a whore until proven otherwise.

In terms of threads about boats or sailing, and why I'm not on them, I have no real feelings to express, knowledge about or anything else to contribute to such a thread.

4 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

In terms of threads about boats or sailing, and why I'm not on them, I have no real feelings to express, knowledge about or anything else to contribute to such a thread.

You are a very wise person aidan, I wonder whether spendi "gets it"?

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

- you will see that I am defending this wife.

And you're stereotyping. You can't defend a wife simply on the grounds that she's a wife. You know nothing about the personal situation Tiger was in. To what extent was she denying him coinjugal rights? He was presumably supplying luxury accomodation and servants and status far ahead of anything she has been shown to deserve. I daresay she had become a trifle aloof to the local tradespeople on the basis of her position as Tiger's squeeze.

If you went back and read what I said you will see that I questioned whether a formal, legal arrangement over-rides biological responses. When it does you only have a religious theology to back up the claim. And then you have to accept the rest of the religious theology to which it is connected.

Quote:

Why? It's not fair. Was SHE cheating? Not that anyone knows or even alleges.
Do we know she didn't love her husband and only married him for his money?
No, and in fact, her visceral and emotional reaction to her discovery of his cheating would seem to indicate otherwise. It would seem to indicate that she was actually hurt. And why would she be hurt, unless she loved and cared about him and was possessive of his affections- and not just his money?

Come on Rebecca. This is a grown up thread. It's not a woman's magazine.

Quote:

I'm on this thread because the psychology of it is fascinating - and I do feel sorry for him.

The psychology of constructing an authentic currach is equally fascinating. As is all psychology including that involving people who have been "created" differently and with other handlers. And I don't feel sorry for Tiger in the least.

He has conquest built in. Otherwise he would never have done all that practicing and wouldn't be where he is.

I think you jumped on this thread to plough your own furrow just as I did. You seem to have a distaste for whoring which can only be the result of how your handlers created you. The hetaera of Ancient Greece were the most fashionable of the women and socialised with the elite. Later a prostitute married an Emperor. Sarah Bernhardt and Madame de Pompadour were pretty professional.

I won't say probably, as you do about Tiger, but possibly you're a bit miffed being caught picking one fruit off the religious tree and disdaining others which are not to your taste.

2 Replies

Beware Rebecca- when effemm wrote-

Quote:

You are a very wise person aidan, I wonder whether spendi "gets it"?

he was presumably thinking that you being American you would swallow that kind of drivel. That's what the flattery is for. He couldn't be habituated to the technique if he wasn't used to thinking it works which speaks volumes for the social circles he is used to.

He excuses himself from explaining what I might not "get" and obviously from explaining why I might not "get it". Or what "it" is. It's just a smear with no substance to it. He's been doing that sort of thing for five years on the evolution threads. A post written at 8 pm by someone who had 2 pints of beer the previous evening at 11 pm is deemed invalid because the poster is drunk and there's the end of it.

Here's a quote from Professor A. von Harnack relating to the epistle known as I Clement--

Quote:

To determine what the occasion and the nature of the quarrel and the purposes of the troublemakers were, one must disregard Clement's moralizing criticism and condemnation. When he warns against contentiousness and pride, against ambition, conceit and self-glory, when he characterizes the troublemakers as 'rash and self-willed individuals and calls the schism 'abominable and unholy', that need not be taken into consideration, for such reproaches are quite natural in the face of a definite schism.

The expression "need not be taken into consideration" basically means that contributions such as effemm's are trolling. By "quite natural" is meant in the same way that the grimaces that monkeys do when frustrated are quite natural.

If you do take such things into consideration you are never going to understand English intellectuals.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You are a very wise person aidan, I wonder whether spendi "gets it"?

I don't think so - he just negated my opinion by consigning me and it to the pages of 'womens' magazines' .

But the way he did it was very funny. I laughed out loud about it the whole time I was making my tea and toast. My dog just stood there looking at me- very confused. I bet she was thinking, 'What just happened in that room?,' when I walked out laughing and shaking my head. She followed me back in very warily (she and I are the only ones here- it's probably very confusing for her).

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

And you're stereotyping. You can't defend a wife simply on the grounds that she's a wife.

And you're not reading carefully. I said I was defending 'this' wife - not just because she's a wife, but because as far as anyone is able to see, she's held up her end of their contract.

Quote:

He was presumably supplying luxury accomodation and servants and status far ahead of anything she has been shown to deserve.

assumption

Quote:

I daresay she had become a trifle aloof to the local tradespeople on the basis of her position as Tiger's squeeze.

assumption

Quote:

If you went back and read what I said you will see that I questioned whether a formal, legal arrangement over-rides biological responses. When it does you only have a religious theology to back up the claim. And then you have to accept the rest of the religious theology to which it is connected.

I do happen to believe that a promise should be kept. Whether it's made with religious mores in mind or whether it's made purely as one human being to another - with respect for that other person's status as a human being.
And even if love and consideration aren't present- respect for that other person should be. As far as I can see, she respected her husband and kept her promise to him. He did not do the same for her. He admitted this and apologized for this. He also said she had done nothing wrong. As far as I'm concerned - that's the crux of the matter and how I can feel defensive of her position in this matter.

Quote:

You seem to have a distaste for whoring which can only be the result of how your handlers created you.

This is the part that made me laugh and laugh. Because it's true. Given that the two most influential handlers in my life were a teetotaling Baptist deacon father and a southern belle mother who taught deportment classes on Saturday mornings at the church (I swear - I am NOT lying) - yeah I was raised to at least have a cursory distaste for whoring...

( I can't stop laughing - that's gonna join my other two favorite lines from a2k to be my signature: 'I am a vegetarian and a chainsmoker. I'm not a trouble maker- I'm gay....and I have a distaste for whoring.'
*Note - I am NOT a vegetarian or a chainsmoker. I might be a trouble maker sometimes, but I'm NOT gay. Whoring is a more complicated issue for me...I just like the sound of these sentences together.

But only in myself. I can't bring myself to whore - but I have no trouble with anyone else doing that if that's what they feel led to do.

Quote:

but possibly you're a bit miffed being caught picking one fruit off the religious tree and disdaining others which are not to your taste.

Absolutely not. My religious credo allows and in fact, instructs me not to judge other people - to love them as I love myself, and to treat them as I'd have them treat me. That's what I try to do.
Which fruit from my religious tree do you see me disdaining?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

he was presumably thinking that you being American you would swallow that kind of drivel. That's what the flattery is for.

So he's right - you don't think I'm wise...

I think he meant by 'it' that I get that I'm not supposed to horn in on threads whose subject matter I know nothing about - like threads about boatbuilding and sailing.

I could be wrong though.

1 Reply

@panzade,

Overall, it seems to be a real bitch for Tiger. Smile

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

A woman is not a whore until proven otherwise.

I think that women are rarely ever "whores", in the limited pejorative sense it's used. They can be prostitutes just like men, but so can politicians, media people, actors, etc .

They are described that way by misogynistic people.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

If you went back and read what I said you will see that I questioned whether a formal, legal arrangement over-rides biological responses. When it does you only have a religious theology to back up the claim. And then you have to accept the rest of the religious theology to which it is connected.

If you can't do what's right for all the logical, right reasons, you just have to invent some hocus pocus ones to help folks along. When you look at it honestly and discover, as thinking folk have, that the hocus pocus rules never worked either, then you're right back where you started, some folks will always do things they shouldn't.

Come on, Spendi, this discussion isn't just for adults. It's for everyone who's ready to think, not just apply old fashioned band aids and poultices to serious issues.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

So he's right - you don't think I'm wise...

Don't worry about it, Rebecca. Your wisdom and straight shootin' shines stellar.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

They can be prostitutes just like men, but so can politicians, media people, actors, etc .

I didn't mention that the evil results that come from women/men acting as prostitutes pales far beyond insignificance compared to that of the other groups I mentioned and many I missed.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Come on, Spendi, this discussion isn't just for adults. It's for everyone who's ready to think, not just apply old fashioned band aids and poultices to serious issues.

There are no serious issues relating to the microcosmic case. It's just another day in the life of Joe Egg. It is the extension to the macrocosmic which comes about when Joe Egg is famous which brings the serious issues into play. And media sales of course. Money and sex.

It's as serious as serious gets. Do we have monkey troupe morality or do we have Christian morality? And what do these people who seek to teach evolution in schools and denigrate Christian morality have to say about it which doesn't make a proper intellectual piss his pants laughing?

2 Replies

@spendius,

With special reference to those lady members of school boards and young female journalists who seek nothing but the truth for science classrooms.

That goes beyond laughing.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

If you go back and read everything I've written on this thread - you will see that I am defending this wife. From the get-go her character, although she has not been alleged or even proven to have done anything wrong, (except lose her temper FINALLY) has been questioned.

Well. lets see now......she picked Tiger, she either did not figure out after marriage what he was doing with his time over all of these years or else she let him be a damn fool, and as soon as the **** hit the fan she went after Tigers money.......Ya, she is one Classy lady.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Do we have monkey troupe morality or do we have Christian morality?

History tells us that they are pretty much one and the same thing. You can posture that Christian morality is something to hold up as an ideal but that hasn't stopped the bloodletting, the Christian pedophile ministers/priests, the ... .

I guess it does differ from "monkey troupe morality" in one sense, the monkeys did away with the religious ministers.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Ya, she is one Classy lady.

What's Tiger net worth, 1 billion or so and she wants, what, 60 million -- now understand that I'm going on the rumors you've readily supplied [another indication of classy, I believe] --- That's a measely 6 percent.

"Tiger's money" -- you're still living in the dark ages, worldly guy, wherein all was the husband's.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

"Tiger's money" -- you're still living in the dark ages, worldly guy, wherein all was the husband's.

Given the pre-nup, yes, it is all Tigers money/

1 Reply

Tiger Woods in Car Accident

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know