Authorities: Tiger Woods seriously hurt in crash

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:37 am

spot;1269524 wrote: Go on then Jazzy, what does one have to do in order not to be a public figure? It's a term I've never quite understood.

public figure

n. A famous person whose life and behavior are the focus of intense public interest and scrutiny.

Link: Public figure Definition | Definition of Public figure at Dictionary.com

PUBLIC FIGURE - A term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668.

The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345.

A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. (1st Cir. 1980) 633 F.2d 583, 589, a standard ensuring that reasonable minds may differ on this subject.

Advertisements themselves are not usually sufficient to transform someone into a public figure. Vegod Corp. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 763, 770 [a person in the business world advertising his wares does not necessarily become part of an existing public controversy]; Rancho La Costa, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 646, 661 [advertising is not thrusting oneself into the vortex of a controversy].

Link: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm

If you require more information to make this clear, Spot, please let me know.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:38 am

Jazzy;1269530 wrote: public figure

n. A famous person whose life and behavior are the focus of intense public interest and scrutiny.

Link: Public figure Definition | Definition of Public figure at Dictionary.com

So what does one have to do in order not to be a public figure?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:56 am

spot;1269532 wrote: So what does one have to do in order not to be a public figure?
Maybe not take $100,000,000.00 a year to endorse products.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:59 am

spot;1269532 wrote: So what does one have to do in order not to be a public figure?

Public figure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:04 am

Jazzy;1269555 wrote: Public figure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:yh_rotfl

*EDITED

You have to admire her persistence!

He's asking, Jazzy, who it is that defines a "public figure". Is there a certain amount of exposure on public television?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:09 am

YZGI;1269550 wrote: Maybe not take $100,000,000.00 a year to endorse products.

Irrelevant.

The consumer is not forced to buy any product from any specific vendor therefore it's left up to the consumer to define "public figure" not the one doing the "selling".

For the record the very word "sell" does not exist because it's the buyer that creates physical/monetary change and no one else.

This leads to the conclusion that what luxuries people buy defines their intelligence and what people pay is what the product is "worth", in reference to luxury items of course. The rest is the illegitimate use of force to steal more resources than any individual needs, specifically!

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:14 am

K.Snyder;1269562 wrote: Irrelevant.

The consumer is not forced to buy any product from any specific vendor therefore it's left up to the consumer to define "public figure" not the one doing the "selling".

For the record the very word "sell" does not exist because it's the buyer that creates physical/monetary change and no one else.

This leads to the conclusion that what luxuries people buy defines their intelligence and what people pay is what the product is "worth", in reference to luxury items of course. The rest is the illegitimate use of force to steal more resources than any individual needs, specifically!
I disagree my blatanty logical grasshopper...

Main Entry: 1sell

Pronunciation: ˈsel

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): sold ˈsōld; sell·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English sellan; akin to Old High German sellen to sell, Greek helein to take

Date: before 12th century

transitive verb 1 : to deliver or give up in violation of duty, trust, or loyalty and especially for personal gain : betray —often used with out

2 a (1) : to give up (property) to another for something of value (as money) (2) : to offer for sale b : to give up in return for something else especially foolishly or dishonorably sold his birthright for a mess of pottage> c : to exact a price for sold their lives dearly>

3 a : to deliver into slavery for money b : to give into the power of another sold his soul to the devil> c : to deliver the personal services of for money

4 : to dispose of or manage for profit instead of in accordance with conscience, justice, or duty sold their votes>

5 a : to develop a belief in the truth, value, or desirability of : gain acceptance for sell a program to the Congress> b : to persuade or influence to a course of action or to the acceptance of something

6 : to impose on : cheat

7 a : to cause or promote the sale of b : to make or attempt to make sales to c : to influence or induce to make a purchase

8 : to achieve a sale of sold a million copies>intransitive verb 1 : to dispose of something by sale

2 : to achieve a sale; also : to achieve satisfactory sales

3 : to have a specified price

— sell·able ˈse-lə-bəl adjective

— sell down the river : to betray the faith of

— sell short 1 : to make a short sale

2 : to fail to value properly : underestimate

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:22 am

YZGI;1269564 wrote: I disagree my blatanty logical grasshopper...

..."to deliver or give up in violation of duty, trust, or loyalty and especially for personal gain"...

Your definition only holds true when one is forced to "deliver or give up in violation of duty, trust, or loyalty and especially for personal gain".

A "seller" is not forced to "sell" therefore a buyer represents his/her intellect by the products they buy by virtue of choice.

It's impossible for a buyer to convince anyone the item one has is worth less than the item having been payed for, by the buyer, because the person originally with the item defined it's worth by accepting payment. The same holds true vica versa.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:24 am

K.Snyder;1269569 wrote: Your definition only holds true when one is forced to "deliver or give up in violation of duty, trust, or loyalty and especially for personal gain".

A "seller" is not forced to "sell" therefore a buyer represents his/her intellect by the products they buy by virtue of choice.

It's impossible for a buyer to convince anyone the item they have is worth less than the item having been payed for by the buyer because the person originally with the item defined it's worth by accepting payment. The same holds true vica versa.
You still don't believe the word "Sell" exists? Oh well.

Besides I said endorse in my earlier post not sell.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:27 am

YZGI;1269550 wrote: Maybe not take $100,000,000.00 a year to endorse products.

bingo!

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:36 am

YZGI;1269572 wrote: You still don't believe the word "Sell" exists?...

I know the word "sell" doesn't exist :wah:

YZGI;1269572 wrote:

Besides I said endorse in my earlier post not sell.

Well there you have it. You've defined Tiger Woods as not being a public figure because you'd failed to associate his actions with any of the products he'd "approved" completely contradicting YZGI;1269550 wrote: Maybe not take $100,000,000.00 a year to endorse products. in response to ...;1269532 wrote: So what does one have to do in order not to be a public figure?

If you do not define worth, after all, by "the seller" what is there any relevancy whatsoever in the definition of "endorse" with respect to "the seller"?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:03 pm

K.Snyder;1269581 wrote: I know the word "sell" doesn't exist :wah:

Then it must be so.

Well there you have it. You've defined Tiger Woods as not being a public figure because you'd failed to associate his actions with any of the products he'd "approved" completely contradicting in response to

I have? Did I do it on purpose? He is a public figure because he chooses to take money to endorse products on publuc T.V., public radio, and public magazines to try and get people to buy these products so the companies will give him more money to endorse more products to the PUBLIC.

If you do not define worth, after all, by "the seller" what is there any relevancy whatsoever in the definition of "endorse" with respect to "the seller"?
I haven't been able to wrap my head around the last one so I can't answer it.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:29 pm

It would seem that in order to not be a public figure one shouldn't earn money through events that involve spectators - is that a fair summary so far? I think that's broad enough to include politicians as well as sportsmen.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:35 pm

spot;1269649 wrote: It would seem that in order to not be a public figure one shouldn't earn money through events that involve spectators - is that a fair summary so far? I think that's broad enough to include politicians as well as sportsmen.
Sounds fair to me.

I don't think anyone means them any harm, most are just having a harmless joke at their expense. It probably something to do about seeing people living the high life then seeing them have the same private problems that people with less money and influence have.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:46 pm

YZGI;1269653 wrote: Sounds fair to me.

I don't think anyone means them any harm, most are just having a harmless joke at their expense. It probably something to do about seeing people living the high life then seeing them have the same private problems that people with less money and influence have.

Less money and influence? Is it allowed to include less skill in that list?

So - to avoid this worldwide persecution by ignorant nobodies Tiger Woods should have become a middle-ranking executive and restricted his golf to the occasional weekend round with his workmates, is that it?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:48 pm

spot;1269669 wrote: Less money and influence? Is it allowed to include less skill in that list?

So - to avoid this worldwide persecution by ignorant nobodies Tiger Woods should have become a middle-ranking executive and restricted his golf to the occasional weekend round with his workmates, is that it?
It isn't meant to be persecution by me. Most on the radio around here have said it's none of our business also. But when famous people make mistakes it is going to be talked about.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:53 pm

YZGI;1269674 wrote: It isn't meant to be persecution by me. Most on the radio around here have said it's none of our business also. But when famous people make mistakes it is going to be talked about.

Apparently it's also going to be lied about and joked about. I don't like the lies and the jokes. Discussing news reports is one thing but this thread's something entirely different.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:56 pm

spot;1269679 wrote: Apparently it's also going to be lied about and joked about. I don't like the lies and the jokes. Discussing news reports is one thing but this thread's something entirely different.
So, any joke about someones transgressions is unacceptable to you?

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:27 pm

YZGI;1269682 wrote: So, any joke about someones transgressions is unacceptable to you?

Jokes about individuals? I find it distasteful. There's a gradient. Some events are discussed on the basis of news, some are just turned into a pillory. I've no problem when it comes to fact-based criticism.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:18 pm

YZGI;1269607 wrote: he chooses to take money to endorse products on publuc T.V., public radio, and public magazines to try and get people to buy these products

Which, by your definition, defines Tiger as being "the seller" from which I'd suggested to you that because it's up to people to buy those products does not rightfully constitute Tiger Woods as being a "public figure". It's all in my posts.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:24 pm

I would view it as being that Tiger's agent is a very astute business man.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:26 pm

Betty Boop;1269724 wrote: I would view it as being that Tiger's agent is a very astute business man.What do you mean?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:27 pm

spot;1269649 wrote: It would seem that in order to not be a public figure one shouldn't earn money through events that involve spectators - is that a fair summary so far? I think that's broad enough to include politicians as well as sportsmen.

Well, money most certainly has to be involved to create rants of jealousy and resentment otherwise what you have left is the element of nobility being conversely defined by the individuals that feel inclined to "gleefully pitch in" as you put it.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:38 pm

Ahso!;1269725 wrote: What do you mean?

The fact that Tiger has such an income and can command such a high fee to endorse products would be down to his agents skill at bartering. I doubt whether Tiger set out to become such a big star within the media world. Sports stars aren't just that any more are they, they are treated as celebrities and hounded by the press so the dirt can be dished. And whose fault is all that - the general public who love to read with glee what bad things have happened to others, not to sympathise but to mock.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:54 pm

Betty Boop;1269730 wrote: And whose fault is all that - the general public who love to read with glee what bad things have happened to others, not to sympathise but to mock.

I have to agree that people tend to take an evil glee in the misfortunes of others. (And I've been on both ends of that equation, so I'm not immune either!) But, if you are a celebrity, wouldn't that be a reason to be even MORE careful to set a good example?

One of the worst things about this sordid incident is that I considered Tiger one of the last "Positive Male Role Models" around. I was glad to hear kids talking about his accomplishments and idolizing him because I thought, "Good. He's a decent, hard-working, family-loving man and there's precious few of them these days." I surely liked it better than when they idolized "Insane Clown Posse" or "Fifty Cent!"

Now, however, he's just another womanizing adulterous rat. Thanks a lot, Tiger. You managed to disappoint millions of young men and give our whole gender a black eye at the same time.:-5

Turn in your "Champion" card, loser.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:11 pm

Saint_;1269737 wrote: I have to agree that people tend to take an evil glee in the misfortunes of others. (And I've been on both ends of that equation, so I'm not immune either!) But, if you are a celebrity, wouldn't that be a reason to be even MORE careful to set a good example?

One of the worst things about this sordid incident is that I considered Tiger one of the last "Positive Male Role Models" around. I was glad to hear kids talking about his accomplishments and idolizing him because I thought, "Good. He's a decent, hard-working, family-loving man and there's precious few of them these days." I surely liked it better than when they idolized "Insane Clown Posse" or "Fifty Cent!"

Now, however, he's just another womanizing adulterous rat. Thanks a lot, Tiger. You managed to disappoint millions of young men and give our whole gender a black eye at the same time.:-5

Turn in your "Champion" card, loser.:mad:Now that's cynical! I'm not into hero worshiping, its bound to create losers where there were only people. I know better than to tell children to look to anyone but themselves.

Personally, I detest golf anyway, and I've only seen the guy play on news clips. Its a game for gods sake and the people that play games are children in adult bodies most of the time. What do you expect?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:14 pm

Saint_;1269737 wrote: I have to agree that people tend to take an evil glee in the misfortunes of others. (And I've been on both ends of that equation, so I'm not immune either!) But, if you are a celebrity, wouldn't that be a reason to be even MORE careful to set a good example?

One of the worst things about this sordid incident is that I considered Tiger one of the last "Positive Male Role Models" around. I was glad to hear kids talking about his accomplishments and idolizing him because I thought, "Good. He's a decent, hard-working, family-loving man and there's precious few of them these days." I surely liked it better than when they idolized "Insane Clown Posse" or "Fifty Cent!"

Now, however, he's just another womanizing adulterous rat. Thanks a lot, Tiger. You managed to disappoint millions of young men and give our whole gender a black eye at the same time.:-5

Turn in your "Champion" card, loser.

You'll have to forgive me as I could care less if Tiger Woods were to electrocute pigs during monsoon season(Depending on the level of voltage that could be either humane or horribly malevolent!) so I haven't really read up on the latest but is it proven beyond question that he'd actually cheated on his wife?

I'd hate to think you hate the mans guts for having toppled a fire hydrant and chipped a tree.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:18 pm

K.Snyder;1269745 wrote: You'll have to forgive me as I could care less if Tiger Woods were to electrocute pigs during monsoon season(Depending on the level of voltage that could be either humane or horribly malevolent!)

Well, I work with children and I've seen how quick they are to mimic and emulate, so maybe I'm a bit more sensitive. I also have two granddaughters and I am becoming more concerned about the negative influences in our society daily.

so I haven't really read up on the latest but is it proven beyond question that he'd actually cheated on his wife? I'd hate to think you hate the mans guts for having toppled a fire hydrant and chipped a tree.

Yup. They seem to be coming out of the woodwork now. A newscast I saw this morning showed a guy who had interviewed caddies, other golfers, and groupies from the golf circuit and the general tone was, "You mean you guys just figured that out?"

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:26 pm

Ahso!;1269742 wrote: Its a game for gods sake and the people that play games are children in adult bodies most of the time. What do you expect?

That's a rather generalized statement. I personally find sports to be very healthy and admirable and my observations leads me to the conclusion in the exact opposite.

I expect everyone to be professionals, sports or no sports.

Just for the sake of curiosity why exactly have you come to the conclusion "the people that play games are children in adult bodies most of the time"?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:41 pm

K.Snyder;1268395 wrote: I'd vomit every day of my life waking up to a house like that!

What? :wah: What does that mean?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:09 am

K.Snyder;1269880 wrote: That's a rather generalized statement. I personally find sports to be very healthy and admirable and my observations leads me to the conclusion in the exact opposite.

I expect everyone to be professionals, sports or no sports.

Just for the sake of curiosity why exactly have you come to the conclusion "the people that play games are children in adult bodies most of the time"?Well most spectators are like the participants as well.

How does sports entertain? Its two opposing sides scheming to out smart the other, lay in wait for the opposition to make mistakes or be predictable to take advantage of, overcome and win. Sounds kind of like what Dexter does, doesn't it? Then theres all the symbolism and rituals involved.

It's exactly what you'd expect autistic people to become obsessed with. And if people don't think they fall into the autism spectrum someplace, look at how full these stadiums and other arena's are nearly everyday of the week. Indeed look at how we coax our offspring to become involved and congratulate them when we see them take to it so naturally and easily. muawwwwwww. And we compensate them handsomely when they become "professionals" at these games.

And in fact what autism is is a cessation or impediment of emotional maturity in the brain. Hence children in adult bodies.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:44 am

Nomad;1269897 wrote: What? :wah: What does that mean?

Would be impossible for me to live with myself knowing I had all of that, from which I didn't need, at the same time knowing people were starving.

I'd vomit

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:00 am

Ahso!;1269931 wrote: Well most spectators are like the participants as well.

How does sports entertain? Its two opposing sides scheming to out smart the other, lay in wait for the opposition to make mistakes or be predictable to take advantage of, overcome and win. Sounds kind of like what Dexter does, doesn't it? Then theres all the symbolism and rituals involved. Sounds identical to religion and parenting to me.

One huge difference, however, between "dexter" and sports is that a significant majority of athletes doesn't murder people

Ahso!;1269931 wrote:

It's exactly what you'd expect autistic people to become obsessed with. And if people don't think they fall into the autism spectrum someplace, look at how full these stadiums and other arena's are nearly everyday of the week. Indeed look at how we coax our offspring to become involved and congratulate them when we see them take to it so naturally and easily. muawwwwwww. And we compensate them handsomely when they become "professionals" at these games.If people "fall into the autism spectrum someplace" then why single out athletes?

Ahso!;1269931 wrote:

And in fact what autism is is a cessation or impediment of emotional maturity in the brain. Hence children in adult bodies.That's quite odd because I've always known everyone to be adults in children's bodies.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:18 am

K.Snyder;1269987 wrote:

If people "fall into the autism spectrum someplace" then why single out athletes? An athlete is what the thread is about, isn't it? Trying to remain on topic.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:20 am

Ahso!;1269995 wrote: An athlete is what the thread is about, isn't it? Trying to remain on topic.

So then you do feel that everyone "fall into the autism spectrum someplace" and not only athletes specifically?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:22 am

K.Snyder;1269996 wrote: So then you do feel that everyone "fall into the autism spectrum someplace" and not only athletes specifically?Yes!

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:56 am

Ahso!;1269997 wrote: Yes!

So then your conclusion, based off of your stated premises', is that everyone is "children in adult bodies" then

So then, quintessentially, there was no need for "that play games" in your statement "the people that play games are children in adult bodies most of the time" reading, "the people are children in adult bodies most of the time" from which I don't understand why you need "most of the time" when voicing "yes" in response to "everyone".

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:01 am

K.Snyder;1270013 wrote: So then your conclusion, based off of your stated premises', is that everyone is "children in adult bodies" then

Yes, to some degree.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:02 am

double post

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:03 am

Ahso!;1270016 wrote: Yes, to some degree.

Ok, good, because if such weren't the case would have been a grave insult to athletes and I couldn't have that. :yh_wink

:wah:

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:03 am

K.Snyder;1270013 wrote:

So then, quintessentially, there was no need for "that play games" in your statement "the people that play games are children in adult bodies most of the time" reading, "the people are children in adult bodies most of the time" from which I don't understand why you need "most of the time" when voicing "yes" in response to "everyone".Stop confusing yourself.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:05 am

Ahso!;1270018 wrote: double post

I deleted it..

I usually try and edit my posts as quickly as possible but sometimes it's not fast enough because I type like a monkey...

...Well,..a relatively intelligent monkey!

,..as far as monkey's are concerned of course!

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:07 am

Ahso!;1270021 wrote: Stop confusing yourself.

There's nothing confusing about it when I ask for clarification. You hadn't expressed yourself clearly so I have nothing to do with it.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:25 am

Tiger Woods and Barack Obama on Ill-Timed Golf Magazine Cover | Cleveland Leader

This cracks me up!

Attached files

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:28 am

Why is Tiger holding a fishing pole?

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:53 am

Ahso!;1270074 wrote: Why is Tiger holding a fishing pole?

Unfortunate timing: The Obama/Tiger Woods magazine cover - Devil Ball Golf - Golf Blog - Yahoo! Sports

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:04 am

Tiger in a real tailspin

Now it's nude photos and reports of up to five mistresses that are dogging Woods

Last Updated: 5th December 2009, 4:33am

As nude photos and a possible shoplifting record of one of Tiger Woods' alleged mistresses are now surfacing, the newest revelation is that Woods may have had up to five young mistresses.

The Woods sex saga is becoming even more sordid as the acclaimed golfer has gone from being known best as the greatest golfer of all time to the world's most famous adulterer in less than a week.

TV station WFTV in Florida reported yesterday that two more women have emerged and are speaking to lawyers, claiming to have had trysts with Woods -- one as recently as three weeks ago.

On Thursday, one of the original women linked to Woods -- 34-year-old club hostess Rachel Uchitel -- abruptly cancelled a news conference about her involvement with the golfer. Media speculation is that she was covertly paid off by Woods' handlers to stop the damage from spinning out of control.

But according to celebrity website TMZ, Uchitel actually cancelled the news conference because she fears for her life. TMZ quotes sources as saying that since Woods confided in Uchitel, she knows tawdry details about his secretive affairs and other details of his life. Uchitel is afraid someone will harm her if she spills the beans, TMZ says.

Meanwhile, the website RadarOnline announced semi-nude photos of 24-year-old Jaimee Grubb have surfaced. Grubb claims to have an ongoing affair with Woods and may have been the catalyst for Woods' late-night accident.

Us Magazine published a story in which Grubb said Woods warned her that his wife, Elin Nordegren, had discovered the affair and may be about to confront her.

CBS' Crimesider website is also claiming that Grubb has a sordid past.

The site says in 2004, she was arrested for shoplifting a coat at a Nordstrom store in San Diego and that the Capital One Bank filed papers against her in 2007 and 2008, claiming she owned the bank money.

Another woman, Kalika Moquin, 27, a marketing manager for The Bank nightclub in Las Vegas, announced she "hooked up" with Woods as recently as late October, Life & Style magazine has reported.

DETAILS EMERGING

As well, more details are emerging about the car accident that started the unravelling of the Woods' tale.

Neighbours have reported that they found Woods "lying shoeless and sleeping" in the street after careening his Escalade SUV into a fire hydrant and tree in the wee hours of the night in the toniest neighbourhood in Orlando.

Woods' antics have also raised the ire of the man who introduced Elin and Tiger together. Swedish golfer Jesper Parnevik was quoted as saying that he has "lost all respect for him, primarily as a man and a father."

The Woods family, meanwhile, is keeping silent. There are reports Woods and Elin Nordegren are getting emergency couple's counseling inside their Orlando mansion.

There are also reports a prenuptial agreement is in the works that would give Elin up to $80 million US if she stays with her husband for two more years.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:26 am

Odie;1270087 wrote: one of the original women linked to Woods -- 34-year-old club hostess Rachel Uchitel

What was she serving him a Sand Wedge?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:13 pm

Jazzy;1270092 wrote: What was she serving him a Sand Wedge?

dulled wedge now!:wah::wah:

Barman · Post by **Barman** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:36 pm

The count is up to EIGHT now, dirty swine.

Maybe he was giving them golf lessons?:-3:rolleyes: