I had asked, in a couple of my previous posts, why journalists were so upset that Tiger Woods would not entertain questions during his public statement yesterday. Of course, I thought the statement to be unnecessary but a sad inevitability as well. But anyway, my point was that there wasn’t much golf-related to ask Tiger and the rest of the stuff with his personal life was nobody’s business but his family’s….so what did these people want to ask Tiger that could be relevant and not tabloid?
ESPN.com writer Jason Sobel has boldly ventured forth, and actually listed 10 questions that he’d have liked to ask Tiger. Now, luckily for Jason and the rest of the world, it just so happens that I have the answers to most of his questions, and I’m willing to provide them completely free of charge. So quit thanking me profusely and read the damn answers already…..
(Sobel’s questions in bold type, and my answers, bold as they may be, in regular type…..)
Q: Where was Elin?
A: None of your damned business.
Q: What happened on Nov. 27, 2009?
Well, whatever is deemed to be public record is available from the respective police dept. Beyond that, the details of the events are none of your damned business.
Q: Why the prolonged silence?
Didn’t much feel like talking, and was pretty busy with rehab. In case you don’t know, rehab people run a pretty tight ship.
Q: How come questions weren't allowed?
Because I said so. Feel free not to attend my future press conferences or golf events if you are too miffed by this.
Q: What is his addiction?
A: Ever heard of doctor-patient confidentiality? Well, doctors have to adhere to it but patients have a right to it. So I guess my answer is, “None of your damned business”.
Q: Will there be changes in Team Tiger?
Are you willing to reveal to me the intricate goings on regarding any and all sensitive impending policy decisions and management changes etc at ESPN? No? I guess, what I’m saying is that my answer is, “None of your damned business”.
Q: Why hold the speech at PGA Tour headquarters? Why leak driving range photos?
Why not? And wouldn’t you allow that driving range photos are better than driving photos under the circs? Would you not put your best foot forward?
Q: When will he return to competitive golf?
OK, finally a legitimate question.
But it was answered. Tiger said he is not sure when he’ll return. Sorry that he couldn’t schedule his rehab around your desire for a firm timeline to make money off his talent.
Q: Has he been suspended by the PGA Tour?
Another legit, and actually great, question. But one that could have easily been posed to the Commish, Tim Finchem, who has been chatting up a veritable storm to you guys of late…I mean, on TV, in print, you name it…
Q: What would Earl say?
A: Sigghhhh….at the risk of sounding repetitive, but in the interest of preserving the integrity of what principles of newsworthiness may remain….”NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS”.
Thank you, Thank you….
Print this post
31 comments:
I LOVE it! Keep up the good work.
I tried to post an article linking to the first sane piece from the mainstream media I have seen but it did not show up. Perhaps your comments sections filters posts with links. Anyhow it is from Roland Martin and you can find it on CNN's website and it is titled "Tiger you owe me nothing". The comments section of the CNN article are interesting, while there are many who agree with the article, I finally got some insight into the people who think he owes everyone an apology. Most of them are batty and their logic is akin to those who think that letting gays have equal rights is "discriminating against heterosexuals".
Actually, David, several columnists had written things on the lines of "Tiger owes the public no apology" etc....even some ESPN.com guys...but they all had takes on what he should have said and done, in a public way, nevertheless.
I don't follow Roland Martin (or CNN) much at all but a couple of times in the past I have seen him to be a dumbass on TV, so I'm a bit leery....anyway, if he made sense in this instance then that's a good start I guess...
Also, I think you are correct in surmising that most reasonable people really do not care, but why would that stop the media? Most people don't give a flying fuck about balloon boy either but that story had more prominent coverage, and legs, than the fact that Cheney basically admitted to, indeed bragged about, ordering torture.
I missed those articles you mention, most of what I have seen is outraged sports writers and talking heads. Re: Roland Martin, I'm not a fan either, I just thought he happened to be right in this instance.
So here's my question. I only saw a few snippets of the Tiger press conference but it was one of the most awkward and painful debacles I have ever witnessed. And I understand it went on for 14 minutes.
Why would a person so driven, so competitive as Tiger, buy into the need to do that? I understand it with the preachers and the politicians, they are usually whores, and they know that if they want to stay on the pulpit or in office that they have to go through the obligatory mea culpa, usually with their wife at their sides.
But Tiger didn't need to. Indeed, it's my opinion that if he had responded immediately instead of letting it fester he could have limited himself to a very short statement.
Bottom line, did he do this because some PR person told him he had to for all his endorsements? Why did he buy into this need for public self-humiliation?
Davis,
The cynical would believe that it was driven only by PR mavens to begin restoring his public image.
But his statement, as I posted about before, came across as one of the essential requirements of something like a 12-step rehab program.
The step of apology, the humiliation that must accompany the admission of hurtful wrong-doing, the acceptance of that reality, is a big part of 12-step-like programs.
/David
sorry for mis-spelling your name
I was almost going to mention that but did not. I think you are right. And I guess it disappoints me even more if he bought into that. If he genuinely has a problem with sexual addiction and wants to overcome it, I am fine with that. But I am extremely skeptical of the usefulness of AA type programs, I am sure you are more than familiar with the fact that there is no evidence they are effective. And I think we have a good bit of science and psychology that suggests there are probably better ways to overcome such challenges.
Of course if it works for him, perhaps who are we to judge? My issue is that people should not be lead to believe this is the path they have to follow.
OK dude. Easy on the sweeping statements.
I was not aware, let alone "be more than familiar" that there is "no evidence that (12 step) programs are effective". Care to enlighten me on where all this negative data might be found?
From what I have read and heard, these programs are, as any other psychological counseling programs, better effective for some than others...I dont think anyone claims 100% effectiveness for these, or for any other, therapeutic rehab programs.
Secondly, where is the "science and psychology that suggests there are probably better ways to overcome such challenges" as you say. And what challenges would they be--that which you presume?
Why do you think people have to think this is the path they have to follow? The message here is, well, should be anyway, that when one has a problem one seeks help. That is all. The specifics of the problem and the help are between the patient and the doc, that is all. Of someone takes more away from this in specifics, that is nobody's fault but their own.
1:25 PM
I will have to break this into two posts to get past your blogs maximum word limit.
You: OK dude. Easy on the sweeping statements.
Me: I don't believe I made any "sweeping statements". "Dude" :p.
You: I was not aware, let alone more than familiar that there is "no evidence that (12 step) programs are effective."
Me: Since your blog is full of links to skeptical and scientific websites I made an assumption that you would be aware of it. Sorry about that :p.
You: "Care to enlighten me on where all this negative data might be found?"
Me: I think the better question is where is the data that they are effective? There is none and when AA's claims of success have been analyzed, those studying them have concluded that AA can't prove they are one iota more successful them a person who just decides to stop drinking on their own with no help whatsoever.
I will provide some links at the end of my comments.
You: From what I have read and heard, these programs are, as any other psychological counseling programs, better effective for some than others...I don't think anyone claims 100% effectiveness for these, or for any other, therapeutic rehab programs.
Me: Nor did I suggest anyone claims 100% effectiveness, and I specifically acknowledged that if it helps him, fine. What I specifically expressed concern about is that people who suffer from addictions not be falsely lead to believe that such programs are necessary or effective. In the same way that a person who suffers from cancer will hopefully be lead to excellent doctors using cutting edge methods, as opposed to homeopaths and magic water, I hope that people suffering from addictions are able to obtain the best care possible.
You: Secondly, where is the science and psychology that suggests there are probably better ways to overcome such challenges" as you say.
Me: Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that modern psychology probably doesn’t advocate teaching people that:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
Is the best way for people to take control of their lives. Might one who wants to overcome addiction instead want to believe that they have power over their own lives?!
You: And what challenges would they be--that which you presume?
Me: Not sure what the point of your challenge on this point is. I simply stated that I think there are probably betters ways of overcoming such challenges. Any by challenges I mean most addictions and mental issues. In my own life for example I battled depression. I am enormously thankful that instead of visiting a new age woo practitioner, or a 12-step program, I was lucky enough to meet an outstanding cognitive behavior psychologist, who instead of teaching my how "powerless" I was, and how "only God" could help me, taught me sound principles for how to learn to think differently to overcoming depression. (Mind over Mood is an excellent book I would recommend for anyone who suffers from depression).
You: Why do you think people have to think this is the path they have to follow?
Me: I think it's all about education. The reason for being a skeptic is to evaluate claims based on evidence. However our society is not exactly a society of skeptics and as such many myths are accepted as fact. These myths in turn can result in tremendous damage to people. Just as with my cancer example earlier, I just want don't want people who suffer from addictions to blindly believe that they have to enter a 12-step program when there might be much better alternatives.
You: The message here is, well, should be anyway, that when one has a problem one seeks help. That is all. The specifics of the problem and the help are between the patient and the doc, that is all.
Me: yes and no. It's critical that when one has a problem they seek help. But that's *not* all. It’s equally critical that they seek help from those best qualified to help them. And it's often difficult for people to know who that is, even when they have as much money as Tiger.
Last thing. I did not nor do I proclaim to know what is the best for Tiger. I do know however, that based on the little I saw of his performance, that if we are right, he appears to have entered some type of 12-step program. And I have strong doubts about the efficacy of such programs. More specifically, I suspect there are much better choices.
Now for your links. First, this is hardly a subject I pretend to be an expert on, I simply have an opinion on it based on what I have read, and my own skeptical belief system. The most recent article I read was in Free Inquiry but you would have to find a copy of it. You can find it referenced in the first link. Also, as I stated earlier, the onus is on AA to prove their program is effective, I believe these links merely suggest there is no evidence it is, but I don't claim that they "prove it". I do know that other studies and articles have been written about this and perhaps someone more knowledgeable will see this and comment.
Exposing the Myth of Alcoholics Anonymous by Steven Mohr from It is referenced here:
http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/04/cult-of-alcoholics-anonymous.html
Some other things I found from quick Google search.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1084198
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005032.html
There are also some references to some of the studies that have been conducted here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous
You: Why do you think people have to think this is the path they have to follow?
Me: One last comment on this as I am not sure I have explained myself adequately. I am simply saying that many urban myths can reach a level of "fact" in our society, at which point people blindly believe them. There are countless ones, some harmless, some quite harmful. A good example is the oft repeated myth that we should "drink 8 glasses of water a day". (http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/8glasses.asp)
Well AA is our proverbial 8 glasses of water a day. And I was simply stating that people may "think they have to follow it" because they have been lead to believe it's a fact that AA works.
If they were instead told that it has a 5% success ratio, which is no higher than people who just decide to quit on their own, then people might do further research, no?
One more. Again, this is an opinion piece, but this is not an easy subject to find info since AA is more of a religion than a treatment method, and as such there has been very little real testing.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=490
Last link for the night and probably the best one so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous
David,
1) Given that none of us knows what specific issues Tiger is undergoing therapy for, let alone what his rehab and therapy entails, your entire rant on AA is, at best, misplaced.
2) Just because Tiger's apology resembled something that rehabbers do in 12-step-LIKE programs, it doesn't mean that he is not also consulting psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, and medical professionals of all kinds. You assumption that he is subscribing to 'woo' or that therefore he may drive scores of other addicts to 'woo' is baseless.
3) Don't redirect my question with some other question that you proclaim to be more apt, and then answer it with stuff that you consider to be conclusive data supporting your belief. That is called ' the straw man argument'.
So my question remains, where is the evidence that 12-step programs (and this includes a spectrum that is far broader than just AA, by the way) are all conclusively NOT effective?
And where are these "good bits of science" that offer better cures (and ones that, I assume, have been conclusively and without reproach, been demonstrated to be effective---seeing as that seems to be an important issue for you).
4) If someone decides to embark on a course of therapy or rehab based solely on their guesses and wild inferences from a celebrity's TV statement, then that is their prerogative and problem.
I am not advocating AA, or any other 12-step program for that matter, nor am I advocating any intervention based on or connected with organized religion. I could not care less what form of help people take.
My point was, and remains, that people who may be seeking solutions to their addiction problems should consult with medical professionals (and this includes mental health professionals) and take their advice. And if a medical professional advocates a regimen that may include some things that are also parts of some 12-step programs, then it is not your place or mine to question it---ESPECIALLY without the complete details of what that the regimen entails or the complete medical and psychological history of the person for whom it is being prescribed.
First review I found on PubMed here
of course i'm too lazy to do a full scan through the lit but this is not up to bs, you can search out the studies yourselves...
Thanks DM, but I am really not interested in deep reading or a debate on the subject of 12-step programs. I think my last comment summarizes my take on this entire thing....
In 2 parts:
You: Given that none of us knows what specific issues Tiger is undergoing therapy for, let alone what his rehab and therapy entails, your entire rant on AA is, at best, misplaced.
Me: My "entire rant" consisted of one sentence: "But I am extremely skeptical of the usefulness of AA type programs, I am sure you are more than familiar with the fact that there is no evidence they are effective."
Any additional discussion of AA took place after you challenged me to back up that assertion.
You: Just because Tiger's apology resembled something that rehabbers do in 12-step-LIKE programs, it doesn't mean that he is not also consulting psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, and medical professionals of all kinds.
Me: I agree.
You: You assumption that he is subscribing to 'woo' or that therefore he may drive scores of other addicts to 'woo' is baseless.
Me: Yes, it is my *assumption* that he is subscribing to *some* woo (if indeed is apology was sincere), that is my opinion of 12-step programs. I did *not* say that he is driving scores of other addicts to woo.
You: Don't redirect my question with some other question that you proclaim to be more apt, and then answer it with stuff that you consider to be conclusive data supporting your belief. That is called ' the straw man argument'.
Me: No, that's not a strawman argument. A strawman argument would be along the lines of you saying you believed AA is useful and me responding with "so why are you against personal responsibility".
My original statement: "I am extremely skeptical of the usefulness of AA type programs ...there is no evidence they are effective." Your response: "Care to enlighten me on where all this negative data might be found?" My response: "I think the better question is where is the data that they are effective?"
You: So my question remains, where is the evidence that 12-step programs (and this includes a spectrum that is far broader than just AA, by the way) are all conclusively NOT effective?
Me: Again, my original statement was "I am extremely skeptical of the usefulness of AA type programs ...there is no evidence they are effective." Now pay close attention. There is a difference between stating that one is skeptical because there is no evidence that something *is* effective and stating that "there is conclusive evidence that they are NOT effective". I did not claim the latter, that would be proving a negative, which is impossible. You are challenging me to prove something I never claimed in the first place, and that is impossible to prove to boot. That is why in our first exchange I suggested the better question to ask.
Finally, I did provide you with several links for you to review that talked about the statement that I did make, that there is the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of AA and 12-step programs. I find it unusual that you don't acknowledge any of them, and then challenge me to prove an unprovable statement I never made in the first place. And then accuse me of indulging in a strawman argument to boot! I did my best to answer each of your questions cordially and to explain my statements.
You: My point was, and remains, that people who may be seeking solutions to their addiction problems should consult with medical professionals (and this includes mental health professionals) and take their advice. And if a medical professional advocates a regimen that may include some things that are also parts of some 12-step programs, then it is not your place or mine to question it---ESPECIALLY without the complete details of what that the regimen entails or the complete medical and psychological history of the person for whom it is being prescribed.
Me: We are not in total disagreement, I emphasized that what is most important is what works for Tiger. However are others allowed to have an opinion or make an assumption as long as we state that it is such, or only if it agrees with you? In your blog post titled "can you feel the Tiger hatred" is full of assumptions, even about other peoples inner motivations. And one of your comments is:
"I am quite disappointed that Tiger is even holding some sort of an apology presser tomorrow. I knew it was inevitable---but I am disappointed nonetheless."
Evidently it's just fine for you to be disappointed that Tiger engaged in an apology presser, but it’s wrong for me to state that I'm disappointed that he bought into the philosophy of a 12-step program, even if the reason for my disappointment is the opinion that they are not effective, and demeaning to people.
You get the last word.
Replacing a poor debating point with a corrected one is not a strawman argument. You are in over your head here with this entire discussion. Game set and match to David.
CONGRATS! World referee of all things, some guy going by the online moniker of Thomas, has awarded you the game, set and match. He, like you, doesn't believe either that "Replacing a poor debating point with a corrected one is not a strawman argument".
Firstly, I had obviously forgotten that you guys were the final arbiters in what is a poor debating point and what is a correct replacement for it.
Secondly, since you like to cite Wiki, here's the Wiki entry for strawman argument:
To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
You see, for people in the rational world, replacing a debating point with a superficially similar one that you find to be more convenient/apt/correct/whatever is the very definition of strawman.
Enjoy you victory, dude.
Sucked back in...
You referenced Wikipedia so I looked it up. You omitted the next sentence:
"Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument."
Secondly, in my opinion, that which you claim was a strawman did not meet the first criteria you quoted either.
Alas, I don't consider debating you a "victory" "dude". Not even close. Just an encounter with an angry sarcastic anonymoustache person on the Internet who becomes insulting the moment he disagrees with someone.
David,
I believe you may be mistaking snark and sarcasm for 'angry' and 'insulting'.
I don't believe I have, in any of these exchanges, insulted you personally (such as, for instance, called you angry or accused you of being insulting).
If I wanted to be insulting, I would have just ignored your comments, or made an ad hominem attack on you instead of debate your points.
So anyway, sorry if you felt insulted, that was not the intent. Look around this blog---it is all about wise-ass cracks and sarcasm.
Also, in a good faith effort, I will take the time to clarify my position one last time:
I really regret going into the details of 12-step-like program issue. It has frustrated me that it has repeatedly diverted attention from the central point (on which I have tried to refocus at the end of my answers) that Tiger's seeking help is not a bad sign for addicts out there who may be looking to recover. What Tiger may or may not have done in his rehab is immaterial precisely because none of us know the details. What matters is that people think it is OK to get help. You are obsessed with the 12-step aspect of it----I keep re-iterating that people should rehab under professional medical advice, whatever that entails.
You are correct in saying that you only claimed that "there is no evidence they are effective"
I asked you the question about negative data for a reason----and I'll admit here that I made a mistake in opening that line of discussion as it really wasn't pertinent, and then made a second mistake in not articulating that whole aspect much better. Which is---the fact is that a lot of people who go to AA, and other 12-step type programs, do get better. Even your links show this. The point, however, is that it is hard to quantify the role of the program, of the participant's mindset, and of a number of other factors in the recovery---and so one has to be guarded in one's conclusions about the efficacy of such programs. Even the data you link clearly state that it seems to work for some people much better than others----that there is more to be understood here. Behavior is affected by many factors, and so it is no surprise that such studies are very difficult to nail down conclusively. To me, therefore, it is just as important to see of someone has demonstrated such approaches conclusively to be useless.
The reason I debated on those lines, and asked you my questions was two-fold:
1) That your initial statement came across to me as a sweeping bipartite statement----that 12-step programs are not effective and that there are better ways to address such challenges. BTW, you have still not addressed the second part, i.e. given me any evidence in published literature, by way of science or psychology, that there are better proven and established ways to tackle such issues.
So in the absence of established, proven alternative strategies, why is it so wrong for someone to parttake in rehab that may also involve some aspects of some 12-step programs (if prescribed as part of rehab by a doctor, something that I have kept stressing)? Such strategies could potentially help some people---if someone believes it will help them and that belief actually helps them get better, what's the problem?
And, again, I was careful to stress that any rehab regimen should be conducted under the aegis of medical professionals---not that people should blindly go sign up for AA or whatever.
2) Your statement, and I quote, "What I specifically expressed concern about is that people who suffer from addictions not be falsely lead to believe that such programs are necessary or effective. In the same way that a person who suffers from cancer will hopefully be lead to excellent doctors using cutting edge methods, as opposed to homeopaths and magic water, I hope that people suffering from addictions are able to obtain the best care possible."
So yes, you didn't say 'drive scores of addicts to woo' but you expressed concern that Tiger's statement could lead people to the equivalents of homeopaths and magic water.
I thought, and still think, that this is an overreaching conclusion. Hence my statement in response, "If someone decides to embark on a course of therapy or rehab based solely on... etc etc etc"
As re your response to this statement, I never told you not to make or put forth your opinion. In fact, I think I have provided a pretty generous forum and platform for you to air your many objections relating to 12-step programs.
I never challenged your disappointment in whatever aspect of Tiger's statement. But you went further and opined that Tiger's statement could lead addicts to the equivalents of homeopaths and magic water. I just told you, in frank terms of why I disagreed with your stance on that issue.
Part 1
Thank you for your response.
You: I really regret going into the details of 12-step-like program issue. It has frustrated me that it has repeatedly diverted attention from the central point (on which I have tried to refocus at the end of my answers) that Tiger's seeking help is not a bad sign for addicts out there who may be looking to recover. What Tiger may or may not have done in his rehab is immaterial precisely because none of us know the details. What matters is that people think it is OK to get help.
Me: I could NOT agree more, especially with the last sentence.
You: You are obsessed with the 12-step aspect of it----I keep re-iterating that people should rehab under professional medical advice, whatever that entails.
Me: Throughout this discussion, it seems to me that you are projecting, and reading things into my statements which I am not saying. As an example, I have agreed with you on several points repeatedly. As I did above. Yet you keep debating me as if I am not.
Even after my first very brief statement which started this debate, and before you even responded, I followed up my statement with "Of course if it works for him, perhaps who are we to judge?" (admittedly there should not have been a "perhaps" in there). Yet again and again you take me to task as if I am judging Tiger, when I never did any such thing.
And again, my initial comment on AA was a total of one sentence. Everything since then has been in response to your challenges. Yet again you "project" and tell me that I am "obsessed' with AA. I think you may have that backwards ;-).
You: Which is---the fact is that a lot of people who go to AA, and other 12-step type programs, do get better. Even your links show this. The point, however, is that it is hard to quantify the role of the program, of the participant's mindset, and of a number of other factors in the recovery---and so one has to be guarded in one's conclusions about the efficacy of such programs. Even the data you link clearly state that it seems to work for some people much better than others----that there is more to be understood here. Behavior is affected by many factors, and so it is no surprise that such studies are very difficult to nail down conclusively. To me, therefore, it is just as important to see of someone has demonstrated such approaches conclusively to be useless.
Me: Pay close attention :p. Once again, I agree with you.
You: So in the absence of established, proven alternative strategies, why is it so wrong for someone to partake in rehab that may also involve some aspects of some 12-step programs…
Me: Again, I have not said that it is "wrong", but that I personally am not a fan of them. There *is* a difference. If you would stop thinking that I am saying it is "wrong" perhaps we would no longer have anything to debate :-).
Part 2
You: Your statement, and I quote, "What I specifically expressed concern about is that people who suffer from addictions not be falsely lead to believe that such programs are necessary or effective. In the same way that a person who suffers from cancer will hopefully be lead to excellent doctors using cutting edge methods, as opposed to homeopaths and magic water, I hope that people suffering from addictions are able to obtain the best care possible."
So yes, you didn't say 'drive scores of addicts to woo' but you expressed concern that Tiger's statement could lead people to the equivalents of homeopaths and magic water.
Me: No, I did not say that in any way shape or forum, nor did I ever even think it. How you can read that statement you just quoted and think that is what I was saying I do now know.
You: I thought, and still think, that this is an overreaching conclusion. Hence my statement in response, "If someone decides to embark on a course of therapy or rehab based solely on... etc etc etc"
As re your response to this statement, I never told you not to make or put forth your opinion. In fact, I think I have provided a pretty generous forum and platform for you to air your many objections relating to 12-step programs.
Me: Methinks you may think a little highly of yourself. This is a blog. People (usually) comment on blogs. It never occurred to me that when someone comments on one of my blogs I am "giving them a generous platform".
You: I never challenged your disappointment in whatever aspect of Tiger's statement. But you went further and opined that Tiger's statement could lead addicts to the equivalents of homeopaths and magic water. I just told you, in frank terms of why I disagreed with your stance on that issue.
Me: Again, I never said that, suggested it, or even thought it. Now perhaps my language was unclear. I don't think it was but I’ll acknowledge the possibility, especially since it's easy when writing for the writer to assume that other people reading it are "inside of his head", and also when commenting about things in sequence it is easy for the reader to assume that the writer is tying a subsequent statement to a previous statement when that is not the intention. So to reiterate, at no time was it EVER my intention to suggest that *Tiger* would be "leading people to woo" or any such thing.
Lastly, you are correct that I have not provided you with info about other programs. I think we had enough to cover as it was, and I didn't nor do I want to get involved in trying to back up what at the time was only a passing statement on my part. So you can consider yourself the winner on that point :-).
Best Tiger apology yet ;-).
http://www.cracked.com/blog/what-tiger-woods-apology-should-have-been/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrackedRSS+%28Cracked%3A+All+Posts%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Yep. That article was the best yet! Funny, and sadly also sums up the situation pretty damn well. I have always believed that a lot of the Tiger bashers came from a complete ignorance of what his world must have been like growing up, as well as what his world must be like everyday. Doesn't excuse his behavior, but most people are still quite clueless about exactly how much of a phenom he really is.
This article also got me thinking.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/hassan-yousef-hamas-leade_n_481527.html
"A senior Hamas leader publicly disowned his son Monday...Monday's announcement means the family now considers their son to have never existed and will never speak to him, or about him, again."
Maybe people involved in sex scandals here could try that tactic and apply it to their infidelities.
:-)
David,
Interesting....in a way, that IS exactly how a lot of celebrities deal with their infidelity problems, isn't it? Or try to, anyway....
Post a Comment