Because he's the tournament host and that event made the most sense from a timing standpoint for his only tune up before the majors. I mean, it's fine not to know any of this, but maybe don't accuse people of domestic violence if you have no idea what you're talking about? And this isn't about Tiger. It's about anyone.AustinCountyAg said:
lol tiger fanboy out for blood. I'd didn't "assume" anything. That why I said "maybe the reason he isn't playing this week". I even put a question mark at the end because I am simply guessing.
geez. calm down Patrick Reed. No need to get so fired up
also if everyone is assuming he only plays the majors here on out why did he play the genuises a few weeks back???
lol. good gosh buddy. chill pill. I never accused him of domestic violence. anywhere. You're too emotional. Between this and the LIV thread you need to check your blood pressure.JCA1 said:Because he's the tournament host and that event made the most sense from a timing standpoint for his only tune up before the majors. I mean, it's fine not to know any of this, but maybe don't accuse people of domestic violence if you have no idea what you're talking about? And this isn't about Tiger. It's about anyone.AustinCountyAg said:
lol tiger fanboy out for blood. I'd didn't "assume" anything. That why I said "maybe the reason he isn't playing this week". I even put a question mark at the end because I am simply guessing.
geez. calm down Patrick Reed. No need to get so fired up
also if everyone is assuming he only plays the majors here on out why did he play the genuises a few weeks back???
I mean, you thought this was worth starting a thread and then called me names when I took issue with the only reasonable interpretation of what you are suggesting. But clear it up for me. What is it you're not surprised by? What "illegal" activity do you think he engaged in? How was he "naughty?" The only basis for invalidating the NDA in your article is the "Speak Out Act" which prevents NDAs in the event of sexual assault and harassment. Is that not what you're referring to? Come on, man, you brought this all up, don't back down now.AustinCountyAg said:
there's is a difference between me not being surprised if he did something illegal, and accusing him of something. don't twist my words and make assumptions.
I don't have a ton of time to go back and forth, because I am fixing to leave work, but here I will try to explain this.JCA1 said:I mean, you thought this was worth starting a thread and then called me names when I took issue with the only reasonable interpretation of what you are suggesting. But clear it up for me. What is it you're not surprised by? What "illegal" activity do you think he engaged in? The only basis for invalidating the NDA in your article is the "Speak Out Act" which prevents NDAs in the event of sexual assault and harassment. Is that not what you're referring to? Come on, man, you brought this all up, don't back down now.AustinCountyAg said:
there's is a difference between me not being surprised if he did something illegal, and accusing him of something. don't twist my words and make assumptions.
So you have "no idea" what he's done and take domestic violence very seriously and would never accuse someone of that. But you also "wouldn't be surprised if the accusations are proven true" and you "give the benefit of the doubt to his ex." Curiously missing is what the "accusation" is. The only "accusation" in the article pertains to the "Speak Out Act" which only applies to sexual assault and harassment, which apparently you wouldn't be surprised are true and even give the benefit of the doubt on. Sure sounds like you are suggesting he may guilty of sexual assault.AustinCountyAg said:I don't have a ton of time to go back and forth, because I am fixing to leave work, but here I will try to explain this.JCA1 said:I mean, you thought this was worth starting a thread and then called me names when I took issue with the only reasonable interpretation of what you are suggesting. But clear it up for me. What is it you're not surprised by? What "illegal" activity do you think he engaged in? The only basis for invalidating the NDA in your article is the "Speak Out Act" which prevents NDAs in the event of sexual assault and harassment. Is that not what you're referring to? Come on, man, you brought this all up, don't back down now.AustinCountyAg said:
there's is a difference between me not being surprised if he did something illegal, and accusing him of something. don't twist my words and make assumptions.
I have no idea what illegal activity he possibly did which the accuser is accusing him of. Hence, why I didn't accuse him of anything like you said I did. You said I accused him of "domestic violence", I didn't. Hell, we don't even know if his ex is. It could be a simple small harassments, something petty? Who knows? So that's why I got upset and defensive. Domestic violence is a big deal, so didn't put words in my mouth involving that bub.
I started the thread because it seems* like a yearly thing that Tiger is involved in some type of scandal.
However, I personally* wouldn't be surprised if the accusations are proven true because of his previous behaviors. That was my point. He's sent naked lewd pics, multiple cheating scandals, strippers, DUI, tampon joke, etc. He has a history of making stupid, terrible, decisions. For me personally, for now, I will give the benefit of the doubt to his ex.
Could this story be the reason why he isn't playing this week? Maybe, maybe not? I have no idea. But him not playing this week and the timing of the story imo could possibly play a role. The players is a big tournament, I'd think he would like to play it if he is healthy. Tournament host or not, it's a bigger deal than the genesis.
Yeah, the lack of any specific allegations of misbehavior coupled with the request to know *precisely* what information she can relay, photos she can disclose, etc. suggests she wants to profit from her time with Tiger and wants to make sure she is in the clear when she does so.aggiebonzo said:
Sounds like she is trying to write a book and cash in on her relationship with Tiger Woods
touche. I forgot the question mark at the end.hph6203 said:
Your thread title is an accusation FYI.
watty said:
I've read two articles on the deal and they include so much legal mumbo jumbo that I literally have no idea what's going on, haha
jonj101 said:
Did anyone else get crazy vibes from this woman the minute she was publicly shown with Tiger?
Yesterday said:watty said:
I've read two articles on the deal and they include so much legal mumbo jumbo that I literally have no idea what's going on, haha
Sounds like she is suing the trust that owns that house(which the beneficiary is Tiger and his kids) because she can't sue Tiger himself due to a non disclosure agreement. However, she is also asking a judge to allow her to sue Tiger directly, despite the non disclosure agreement, claiming some sort loophole that she's a sexual assault victim.
