Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Tiger Woods car crash

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Tiger Woods car crash

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Why does it matter? I might be in the minority here, but just because he's Tiger Woods, doesn't mean he doesn't deserve any privacy.

    If he was cheating, that's between them. If they got in a fight, and she stratched him, and he doesn't want to press charges, that's between them.

    Every day I find another reason why I don't wouldn't want to be famous and rich.
    Agree 100%.

    Every time I listen to the news, people act as if Tiger needs to tell people what he was doing at 2 AM and how he crashed at such a low speed. Give me a break, if there are no charges being filed he does not have to tell anyone anything. Apparently, the Florida Highway Patrol is seeking a warrant to get more information which is a huge joke. Aren't there much better ways to spend taxpayer money?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Tiger Woods car crash

      Originally posted by Moses View Post
      Agree 100%.

      Every time I listen to the news, people act as if Tiger needs to tell people what he was doing at 2 AM and how he crashed at such a low speed. Give me a break, if there are no charges being filed he does not have to tell anyone anything. Apparently, the Florida Highway Patrol is seeking a warrant to get more information which is a huge joke. Aren't there much better ways to spend taxpayer money?
      to you!!

      You can't get a warrant for more information. FHP asked Tiger to come in and talk to them three times and he kept blowing off the appointment. All he has to do is go talk to them and it would be over and done with.

      What you fail to realize is that when the police are called, we MUST do a follow-up investigation. When someone calls for a loud stereo, we HAVE to come and investigate. When someone demands to see an officer at the scene of an accident with no damage and no injuries, we STILL have to come.

      It's your taxpayer money that is the reason for that. As part of taking taxpayer money to provide service, we have to follow up once we're called, for service reasons AND liability, no matter how seemingly stupid the call.

      That always kills me when people say, "Don't cops have anything better to do?" Fact of the matter is that we are public service and as such, when someone calls, we have to respond. We can't pick and choose what we investigate.

      I don't see you getting pissed at Tiger for wasting taxpayers money by having a fire engine, EMS, county deputies and highway troopers all having to spend time on something that apparently requires no public explanation.

      Originally posted by Since86
      Why does it matter? I might be in the minority here, but just because he's Tiger Woods, doesn't mean he doesn't deserve any privacy.

      If he was cheating, that's between them. If they got in a fight, and she stratched him, and he doesn't want to press charges, that's between them.

      Every day I find another reason why I don't wouldn't want to be famous and rich.
      Thing is, once it was brought it outside, it's was NOT between them. They just brought whatever happened, out into the public. On top of it, they just engaged considerable taxpayer dollars in trying to resolve...whatever..happened.

      I HATE TMZ and any kind of celebrity gossip show/etc. I think that they foster a fanbase of losers who have the intellectual capabilities of a warm bowl of chocolate pudding.

      That being said, far as I'm concerned, when a celebrity is in public, they are fair game, as long as some restraint is shown. But that rarely happens.

      In this case, Tiger has impacted his good samaritan neighbor's time and emotions (they seem intimidated by the attention), taxpayer money in emergency services and tied up investigative resources that would be better served elsewhere, by refusing to just give a general statement so the detective can close the case and move on.

      In this case, I think he does owe the public an explanation. He's impacted too many people and services not to do so.
      Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Tiger Woods car crash

        By Florida law he does NOT have to give the state police a statement. No one called in about a fight. They called in about a car accident. It's not like they were arguing in the street and someone complained. No one has even stepped in and said they heard anything, other than a car accident.

        The only thing Tiger, by law, has to give the police is his registration, insurance information, and drivers liscense. He has provided all three.

        The rest is his business, and his business alone.

        The only thing that is wasting tax dollars is a wild goose chase. Obviously they don't want any other investigation other than that. The media, and the police, are the ones pushing for more.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Tiger Woods car crash

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          By Florida law he does NOT have to give the state police a statement. No one called in about a fight. They called in about a car accident. It's not like they were arguing in the street and someone complained. No one has even stepped in and said they heard anything, other than a car accident.

          The only thing Tiger, by law, has to give the police is his registration, insurance information, and drivers liscense. He has provided all three.

          The rest is his business, and his business alone.

          The only thing that is wasting tax dollars is a wild goose chase. Obviously they don't want any other investigation other than that. The media, and the police, are the ones pushing for more.
          Um....what? Just to give you a little background, I majored in criminal justice in college. I have over 20 years experience in law enforcement.
          My cousin practices law in Indianapolis. Another cousin and my uncle are lawyers in Ohio. I have yet another cousin who's a lawyer in California. I have extended family who are officers in Illinois.

          I might just know a teensey bit about what I'm talking about.

          You're partially right in that he doesn't have to give a statement, but you never have to give a statement in any investigation, if you choose not to, Whether it's murder, rape, whatever. It's called the fifth amendment. Pretty well known.

          Problem for Tiger is that most larger police departments have an accident investigations unit, whose job is to find the exact cause of accidents, particularly ones that appear unusual, partially to make sure a crime did, or did not occur.

          All that appears to be going on is that they just wanted a statement so they can clear the case out. In any investigation, when things look simple on the surface, yet the victim/suspect/witness is uncooperative, and the circumstances of the accident are unusual, it raises suspicions and makes the investigator want to look at things more closely, especially where someone was badly injured, as is this case. Especially injuries that involves loss of consciousness.

          I can tell you from my experience, the facts of the case, as we know them, seem a bit unusual. I've never investigated an accident that occurred in such a manner.

          That's where the liability issue comes in that I mentioned. If something illegal happened and the police missed it, and then something similar comes up down the road, the finger fiscally and reputation-wise, is going to be pointed at the police, as to why they didn't fully investigate the matter.

          Let me give you a real life example that I actually was a part of;

          I had a couple involved in an accident who hit a lightpole. She suffered back injuries and had to be taken to the hospital. He was okay, but reluctant to speak with me. He eventually said that he wasn't paying attention and ran off the road. I had nothing to make me think otherwise.

          Case closed right? What business is it of mine to nose into things any further?

          Buuutt......

          Something didn't seem right about how badly she got injured and how he didn't.

          Turns out, long story short, SHE was physically abusive and he had hidden this out of shame. As he was driving, she went on one of her tantrums and started hitting him and screaming at him. When she didn't get the response she wanted, she said maybe they both needed to die....and grabbed the steering wheel and jerked it, causing them to hit the lightpole. The reason her injuries were more severe than his was because HE had an airbag to stop him from smashing his face. She DIDN'T because she was reaching across the car, causing the force of the impact to twist her torso and placing her not in front of an airbag, but rather, the area where the radio sits.

          So what could have been a simple accident turned out to be much, much more. All because the participants were asked to give a statement and the accident was reconstructed and the statements didn't match up.

          Maybe we helped stop a future homicide. Maybe not. But it helps no one to not do as full and complete of an investigation as you can.
          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Tiger Woods car crash

            I agree with you SE, the police have to look into this.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Tiger Woods car crash

              Like you said, he doesn't have to give a statement. Case closed. We can go over if's and but's all day and it won't change a thing.

              By law he only has to provide registration, proof of insurance, and a drivers liscense. He did all three.

              I know you're a police officer, and I have a lot of respect for you for doing it. But not everything is a police matter. Not everything needs drug out into the public. Some things are dealt with better in private. That is their choice to do so. If it escallates into something more, that is their fault. They are the ones that decided to keep it private. They alone are responsible for whatever may come after.

              Couples fight everyday and some of them turn violent, and it doesn't matter which sex is responsible for the violence. Yet not all of them turn into murder or attempted murder. I would say a very high majority of them do not.

              The Woods' family has let it be known that all they want is their privacy, which they are entitled to. Everyone, including the police/media, should respect that.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Tiger Woods car crash

                Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
                Turns out, long story short, SHE was physically abusive and he had hidden this out of shame. As he was driving, she went on one of her tantrums and started hitting him and screaming at him. When she didn't get the response she wanted, she said maybe they both needed to die....and grabbed the steering wheel and jerked it, causing them to hit the lightpole. The reason her injuries were more severe than his was because HE had an airbag to stop him from smashing his face. She DIDN'T because she was reaching across the car, causing the force of the impact to twist her torso and placing her not in front of an airbag, but rather, the area where the radio sits.

                So what could have been a simple accident turned out to be much, much more. All because the participants were asked to give a statement and the accident was reconstructed and the statements didn't match up.

                Maybe we helped stop a future homicide. Maybe not. But it helps no one to not do as full and complete of an investigation as you can.
                Scott,

                After the truth came out, were criminal charges brought against the female?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Tiger Woods car crash

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  I know you're a police officer, and I have a lot of respect for you for doing it. But not everything is a police matter. Not everything needs drug out into the public. Some things are dealt with better in private. That is their choice to do so. If it escallates into something more, that is their fault. They are the ones that decided to keep it private. They alone are responsible for whatever may come after.

                  Couples fight everyday and some of them turn violent, and it doesn't matter which sex is responsible for the violence. Yet not all of them turn into murder or attempted murder. I would say a very high majority of them do not.
                  So it's okay for people to be violent to one another, and or murder each other ..... as long as they WANTED to keep it private, huh? That's some pristine logic there. Of freakin course they want to keep it private if that's what's going on. Just because someone is in a situation like that and they say they want to keep it private .... sometimes that really means ... "I want out, but I'm afraid I'll get my *** kicked again if I say so". And you would deny the person who's job it is to help those people the right to do so?

                  My God, I hope you're never in charge of any police department.

                  Cop - Hey Chief, this lady said she walked into a metal door. She has nail marks on her face and splinters from a baseball bat on her forehead that caused the concussion she went to the ER for. I sense something fishy here.

                  Chief / Since86 - ...... so? She said she wanted privacy. Go home officer. Let her get hit with a crowbar next time, kapeesh? Meh, if she gets killed it's their business, not ours. They can handle it behind closed doors. Night officer.

                  --- You would run the worst police force on the planet.

                  -- Steve --
                  Last edited by Pacersfan46; 12-01-2009, 04:53 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Tiger Woods car crash

                    Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                    So it's okay for people to be violent to one another, and or murder each other ..... as long as they WANTED to keep it private, huh? That's some pristine logic there. Of freakin course they want to keep it private if that's what's going on. Just because someone is in a situation like that and they say they want to keep it private .... sometimes that really means ... "I want out, but I'm afraid I'll get my *** kicked again if I say so". And you would deny the person who's job it is to help those people the right to do so?

                    My God, I hope you're never in charge of any police department.

                    Cop - Hey Chief, this lady said she walked into a metal door. She has nail marks on her face and splinters from a baseball bat on her forehead that caused the concussion she went to the ER for. I sense something fishy here.

                    Chief / Since86 - ...... so? She said she wanted privacy. Go home officer. Let her get hit with a crowbar next time, kapeesh? Meh, if she gets killed it's their business, not ours. They can handle it behind closed doors. Night officer.

                    --- You would run the worst police force on the planet.

                    -- Steve --
                    I'm not even going to take the time to respond to something completely asinine.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Tiger Woods car crash

                      While PacersFan46 went extreme in making his point (and I do not know Since86 so I have no clue if he would run a good police station or not), I can not argue against your main point.. We are only kidding ourselves if we think that this was a "simply car crash". There is a much better chance more happened, and Tiger is focused on protecting him image just as much, if not more, then his marraige.

                      With that said, I can see where Since86 is coming from. I do think we as a public (Skaut I used to work in LE and I respect your opinion but I LOVE TMZ and gossip sites) can get overly involved with peoples life who has no impact on our own.

                      With that said, as a person who has been around law my whole life, Skaut is correct. If Tiger and his wife really did want this to remain a "private" matter then they should not have called the police into this. After that was a said fact (read after they choose to call a ambulance instead of just taking Tiger to the ER in her own car, not saying this was a good or bad move) then they have to deal with the consequences of their actions. The consequnces of calling the PD is that the PD is going to investigate, for reason Skaut already stated.

                      Lastly, I saw you quoted Tiger's lawyer when he said you only have to hand over your "license, registration, and insurance". Skaut already addressed this, but this is true in any and all cases. The reality is unless you have anything to hide why not just make a quick statement stating what really happened, and let the case be closed.

                      9 times out of 10, if people are reluctant to talk it is because they are hiding something. It is easy for us, as the general public to just say "forget about it". However, police departments have learned that it is the safer/smarter route to investigate everything, especially the ones that seem fishy. If you have nothing to hide, then a quick meeting with the police would not hurt anything.....unless of course you are having a hard time getting your story straight. (and/or you are embarrassed about being in this situation)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Tiger Woods car crash

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I'm not even going to take the time to respond to something completely asinine.
                        How is my post itself asinine? That is the decision you're saying should be made. Period.

                        If she had the golf club because she was attacking him, and he fled in the car only to crash because he was worried about what she was doing .... who's to say next time she doesn't actually hit him with it?

                        Yet you're saying to blow it off and give them privacy ... just because they asked for it. However you're right, your logic which is what my post was based off of ... is actually asinine. I'm glad you agree.

                        -- Steve --
                        Last edited by Pacersfan46; 12-01-2009, 05:22 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Tiger Woods car crash

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Scott,

                          After the truth came out, were criminal charges brought against the female?

                          Actually, they held off and submitted her for psychiatric counseling. Once we got to talking to her quite a bit, you could see there was something...off...about her. Since she took the brunt of the injury, they thought that might be the best route to help her.

                          It's not all about just putting people in jail, folks.

                          (On a side note, if we'd respected their privacy , a woman in need of help might not have gotten treatment.)

                          (Pacesfan, vapacer and UB, you put it a lot nicer than I was going to. I had to walk away from the computer. Some people don't get it, but respecting privacy is why domestic violence continues to thrive and hidden things that need to see the light of day stay hidden. Just look at the example I gave on my case)
                          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Tiger Woods car crash

                            it sure is a fine line in general, but having said that I wouldn't Classify this incident as domestic violence in the repetitive form of use, this is a fight about a alleged martial affair and a majority of these go un noticed by police and neighbours,I have heard couples fight in every town I have lived and 95% attract no formal intervention...

                            I am all for the eradication of domestic violence as it is a cowardly act in my opinion, but this was more of a fight and I can see what S 86 means with that regard..

                            the fact it's Tiger makes it news and change the whole game... if he never left the house no would would be the wiser...

                            If it's domestic violence, drug use or what ever, it can be illegal but yet so many people do it behind close doors, it's not right, but you can only solve/fix/charge what becomes public...

                            That is the sad reality...
                            Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Tiger Woods car crash

                              http://sports.excite.com/news/12012009/v3437.html

                              Tiger's Silence Is Nothing New
                              Dec 1, 6:39 PM (ET)
                              By DOUG FERGUSON

                              THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. (AP) -Whether he's standing on the tee or staying in his house, Tiger Woods calculates his every move.

                              The PR specialists who are making themselves available for expert opinion (and their own publicity) have mostly concluded that Woods is making a big mistake by hiding behind his silence over the car crash outside his home last week.

                              Not many would dispute that.

                              Keeping quiet only fueled speculation and innuendo that is not likely to end with the Florida Highway Patrol announcement Tuesday that Woods will be cited for reckless driving and fined $164, and its investigation is over.

                              Even so, no one should be surprised by how Woods and his management team are proceeding.

                              He has been handling things his own way since he turned pro.

                              Woods does not get into many media confrontations. When he does, the response is short and often distributed on paper.

                              After the famous GQ article in 1997, in which Woods was quoted as telling jokes with racial overtones in the back seat of a car, he issued a statement through IMG in which he confessed to the jokes. "It's no secret that I'm 21 years old and that I'm naive about the motives of certain ambitious writers," it said.

                              He was playing at Bay Hill when the article came out. The day after his statement, upon finishing his round, Woods rushed by a group of reporters and ducked inside a tent to sign autographs.

                              That was the first - and last - time Woods could be found in an autograph tent.

                              At his next news conference, a week later at The Players Championship, Woods repeated the line about being naive. When someone started to ask about the magazine article, Woods cut him off.

                              "I have already answered enough on that GQ article," he said.

                              His first big gaffe happened right after he turned pro in 1996, when he was playing on sponsor exemptions to get his PGA Tour card. Once he had the money he needed in four tournaments, Woods abruptly withdrew from the Buick Challenge, citing exhaustion. The problem was he also bailed on an invitation-only dinner in his honor to receive the Fred Haskins Award for being the college player of the year.

                              Woods offered only a statement - no mention of the dinner - and was roasted by players and tournament officials.

                              He finally responded with a guest column for a golf magazine in which he recognized his mistake.

                              "Even though I know I did the right thing in getting away, I should have stayed long enough to attend the dinner and then gone home," he wrote. "But hindsight is 20-20."

                              Those incidents were quickly forgotten after Woods' began an astonishing run into the record books with his watershed victory in the 1997 Masters. But then came another incident, perhaps the most publicized - until now.

                              A week after his Masters victory, Fuzzy Zoeller was quoted on CNN as suggesting Woods not have fried chicken on the Champions Dinner menu the next year. "Or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve," Zoeller said.

                              Zoeller apologized immediately. It took three days for Woods to accept the apology - through a statement. By then, Zoeller had lost his endorsement with KMart, and the popular two-time major champion was never the same. During the longest three days of Zoeller's life, Woods was said to be unavailable while meeting with Nike executives in Oregon.

                              More issues followed. More guarded responses.

                              The all-male membership at Augusta National? Woods managed to take both sides of the delicate issue, saying the club should have a female member while acknowledging the rights of a private club to set its own rules. It got so intense that The New York Times wrote an editorial urging Woods to boycott the Masters.

                              Through it all, he never got off script.

                              In a 2000 dispute with the PGA Tour over ownership of his marketing rights, Woods used a golf magazine to get across his complaints. When a reporter caught up with Woods in Spain and asked if he would ever leave the tour, Woods delivered another calculated answer without saying a word. He smiled and he shrugged. And then he walked away.

                              He met with PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem two months later, and they have been mostly allies ever since.

                              Even without time to prepare an answer (or statement), Woods has dismissed criticism of other issues - from throwing clubs to cursing to not helping tournaments by announcing earlier his intentions to play - with a short answer.

                              A year ago, his caddie was quoted by a New Zealand newspaper making disparaging remarks about Phil Mickelson. The night before his news conference at the Chevron World Challenge, Woods put out a statement saying he was disappointed in caddie Steve Williams, and that he had dealt with the matter and it was closed.

                              He took two questions the next day, no more. The issue never really came up again.

                              Woods so far has issued one statement on his Web site about the car crash - two days after the patrol first reported the accident. He said it was his fault, that he's not perfect. He praised his wife for acting "courageously." And he said it would remain a private matter.

                              Woods likely will go another two months before facing the media. Even if the story has lost its steam, questions are sure to come up.

                              If history is any indication, Woods still won't answer them.
                              --------------------------------

                              http://sports.excite.com/news/12012009/v3371.html
                              Tiger Car Crash: Nobody's Business But His Own
                              Dec 1, 6:15 PM (ET)
                              By JOHN LEICESTER

                              PARIS (AP) -In 2004, while golfing in Ireland, Tiger Woods found himself fielding questions from reporters more interested in his private life than his swing. They wanted to know if it was true that he was about to wed his fiancee, Swedish model Elin Nordegren.

                              Woods, just as he is now, hit those nosey folks into the rough.

                              "You guys would be the last people I'd ever tell," he said.

                              Good for him.

                              Woods has long made it abundantly clear that much of what he does off the golf course is nobody's business but his own. Regardless of how curious we may be about the mysterious circumstances surrounding his car crash last Friday, there's no reason that he should bare all in public now.

                              If Woods and Nordegren had promoted themselves as a model of marital bliss and made their fortune selling "10 Hints for a Happy Home" self-help guides, then we could legitimately claim an interest in knowing whether their marriage has hit the rocks and whether a husband-wife squabble prompted Woods to flee in his car at 2:25 in the morning.

                              But since Mr. and Mrs. Woods have always taken pains to largely keep themselves to themselves, they owe us nothing, not a peep.

                              Saying, as Woods has, that his accident "is a private matter and I want to keep it that way" may be unwise, because it invites the storm of guesswork, media digging and questions he is now facing. But silence most certainly is his right.

                              If Woods was motoring off for a late-night rendezvous with a steroid dealer, which no one is even remotely suggesting, then sports enthusiasts would be entitled to know that the world's No. 1 golfer is a fraud. But if Woods was simply unable to sleep, was still jet-lagged from his trip to China and Australia two weeks beforehand, had a hankering for a hamburger, had a bust-up, or whatever it was, there is no rule that says he has to explain himself publicly if no laws were broken.

                              "This situation is my fault, and it's obviously embarrassing to my family and me," he says. But he is not obliged to tell us why.

                              One of the more absurd arguments often made about the rich and famous is that being in the public eye also makes them public property. That spurious reasoning is especially applied to celebrities like Woods who make mountains of money from endorsements. In selling their name and image to advertisers, this line of thinking goes, they've sold out and that makes them ours.

                              Wrong. Purchasing a razor, drink or sportswear endorsed by Woods doesn't buy you a piece of the man, too. That Woods is on his way to becoming or has already become the first athlete to top $1 billion in earnings says plenty about how easily led consumers are. But it doesn't entitle them to know everything that Woods does behind closed doors.

                              Image consultants argue that if Woods' personal life is in turmoil, then it would be best that he come clean. Do a David Letterman.

                              But there are crucial differences between Woods and the talk-show host, who confessed on his show that he had had sexual relationships with women who worked with him.

                              First, Letterman has made a career of mocking politicians mercilessly, often for their sexual transgressions, so the television-watching public had a right to know that he is as equally weak as those he pokes fun at.

                              Also, Letterman said that someone tried to extort $2 million from him over the affairs. So his hand was forced. What worked for Letterman wouldn't necessarily work for Woods.

                              "It really boils down to what you want, what is best for you," says veteran British PR guru Max Clifford.

                              And then there's the issue of what this whole saga says about us, the gossip-gobbling public.

                              If we're honest, we'll admit that we want Woods to talk not because we think it will do him good but because we get a kick from seeing celebrities brought down a peg or two - down to our level, warts and all.

                              Ha! They may be rich, but they too have cellulite, affairs, divorces - they are no better than you or me, we think. It makes us feel better about ourselves knowing that no one, not even Woods, is an exception to the rule that all humans have flaws. Often, we don't even care whether the gossip columns are true, as long as they are titillating and make a train ride or a wait in the doctor's office pass more quickly.

                              So forgive Woods for not wanting to feed this unhealthy curiosity.
                              -----------------------------

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Tiger Woods car crash

                                Tiger's got all sorts of new trouble.....
                                PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X