or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee - Page 42  

post #739 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post


All he's saying is that it's not libel or slander. That's not an act of futility, that's just reality.

We all agree, it doesn't pass the test to be libel or slander, which is why Tiger isn't suing BC.  Instead, Tiger is using his position in the industry to influence the Golf Channel to discipline BC for his poor judgment.

post #740 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post


All he's saying is that it's not libel or slander. That's not an act of futility, that's just reality.

 

No, he is also saying that Brandel did not call Tiger a cheater.  And using words games to do so, since Brandel did it a weasely clever way.  But he clearly did it, IMO.

 

And something can be slander without being actionable slander.  Did Brandel say something without a factual basis?  Did it harm Tiger's reputation?  Just because Tiger doesn't have any legal recourse doesn't mean it doesn't fit these criteria.  It is obvious that slander in the legal sense is different than slander is the general sense because even in the legal sens there is one criterion for some people and another for other people.  Some of us just choose not to define our world by the vagaries of the legal system.

post #741 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post


All he's saying is that it's not libel or slander. That's not an act of futility, that's just reality.

 

No, he is also saying that Brandel did not call Tiger a cheater.  And using words games to do so, since Brandel did it a weasely clever way.  But he clearly did it, IMO.

 

And something can be slander without being actionable slander.  Did Brandel say something without a factual basis?  Did it harm Tiger's reputation?  Just because Tiger doesn't have any legal recourse doesn't mean it doesn't fit these criteria.  It is obvious that slander in the legal sense is different than slander is the general sense because even in the legal sens there is one criterion for some people and another for other people.  Some of us just choose not to define our world by the vagaries of the legal system.

 

This is the best comment on this thread in the last several pages.  A person can be slandered without having any recourse to legal action.  Brandel's underhanded and ill-advised article was a direct attack on Tiger's professional reputation, regardless of any ultimate financial considerations.  

post #742 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post


And something can be slander without being actionable slander.  Did Brandel say something without a factual basis?  Did it harm Tiger's reputation?  Just because Tiger doesn't have any legal recourse doesn't mean it doesn't fit these criteria.  It is obvious that slander in the legal sense is different than slander is the general sense because even in the legal sens there is one criterion for some people and another for other people.  Some of us just choose not to define our world by the vagaries of the legal system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

This is the best comment on this thread in the last several pages.  A person can be slandered without having any recourse to legal action.  Brandel's underhanded and ill-advised article was a direct attack on Tiger's professional reputation, regardless of any ultimate financial considerations.  

Well - the LAW of slander exists to try and govern the most serious kinds of verbal attack. If this situation falls below the bar of LEGAL slander, that says something.

All you and turtleback seem to be arguing is that people shouldn't say mean things about Tiger. Fine sentiments of course, in and of themselves.
post #743 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post



Well - the LAW of slander exists to try and govern the most serious kinds of verbal attack. If this situation falls below the bar of LEGAL slander, that says something.

All you and turtleback seem to be arguing is that people shouldn't say mean things about Tiger. Fine sentiments of course, in and of themselves.

You really don't see a difference between saying "mean" things about a professional golfer and calling him a cheater?  IMO the worst thing you can say about a golfer (short of pedophile, rapist and racist) is they are a cheater given the importance personal integrity plays in the game.

post #744 of 762
Sure - I see a difference - but I have no idea where fourputt or turtleback would draw the line. I am genuinely struggling to see where the demarcation lies between "things I don't want to hear about Tiger" and "things that shouldn't be said about Tiger".

If you don't believe, me, just look at how much store has been placed on BC's "bad faith" towards Tiger. BC's history of second-guessing Tiger's swing changes, strategy, performance or whatever all gets cast up as evidence that BC is a bad man.

If the line dividing mean comments from wrong comments is so clear and distinct - and Brandel crossed it here - then none of his earlier comments (if they didn't cross the line) should be relevant. That's exactly the same argument as one that says a professional golfer is entitled to push the limits of the rules, without being assumed to be someone who would cross the line into deliberate infringement.
post #745 of 762
That is your problem-You dislike Tiger already so youre inclined to go along with it.

What you dont seem to get is that for others it isnt about Tiger-the reaction would have been the same-Not as strong, but in the same direction-Had Brandel labeled anyone else a "cheater." It is simply not a word you use in golf unless it is WELL deserved, and nobody has proven it is here.

His earlier comments are relevant because they show a pattern of attack.-When you are used to being one level of mean, going up a level or two doesnt seem like much-Even if that second level is across the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

Sure - I see a difference - but I have no idea where fourputt or turtleback would draw the line. I am genuinely struggling to see where the demarcation lies between "things I don't want to hear about Tiger" and "things that shouldn't be said about Tiger".

If the line dividing mean comments from wrong comments is so clear and distinct - and Brandel crossed it here - then none of his earlier comments (if they didn't cross the line) should be relevant. That's exactly the same argument as one that says a professional golfer is entitled to push the limits of the rules, without being assumed to be someone who would cross the line into deliberate infringement.
post #746 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

That is your problem-You dislike Tiger already so youre inclined to go along with it.

What you dont seem to get is that for others it isnt about Tiger-the reaction would have been the same-Not as strong, but in the same direction-Had Brandel labeled anyone else a "cheater." It is simply not a word you use in golf unless it is WELL deserved, and nobody has proven it is here.

His earlier comments are relevant because they show a pattern of attack.-When you are used to being one level of mean, going up a level or two doesnt seem like much-Even if that second level is across the line.

You might be right.

But you too stand as a perfect example of someone who dislikes BC so much that it makes it easier (perhaps too easy) for you to declare his commentary indefensible, rather than simply debateable.

Look at the way you're using BC's earlier comments, which didn't cross the line, as evidence to show that he's happy to cross the line into unfair comment. If someone applied that logic to Tiger, I think you'd be incandescent.
post #747 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post


You might be right.

But you too stand as a perfect example of someone who dislikes BC so much that it makes it easier (perhaps too easy) for you to declare his commentary indefensible, rather than simply debateable.

Look at the way you're using BC's earlier comments, which didn't cross the line, as evidence to show that he's happy to cross the line into unfair comment. If someone applied that logic to Tiger, I think you'd be incandescent.

I don't like everything Miller or Faldo have to say but they know enough and have enough respect for the game of golf to stop short of implying a golfer is a cheater unless there is substantiated proof.

 

You don't have to like or dislike BC to recognize that he overstepped the boundary between responsible and irresponsible journalism.

post #748 of 762
Bullshit.-I dont care one way or the other for BC. Im simply pointing out that a man who regularly approaches the line with negative comments may not be the best judge of where the line is-Or be able to recognize when he crosses it.-After all it's just a itty little bit more "mean" than his other comments, right?

As for Tiger, not only do you think wrong.-But thats a straw man altogether.-Furthermore youre simply resorting again to making guesses about my personality and attempting then to use those guesses against me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

But you too stand as a perfect example of someone who dislikes BC so much that it makes it easier (perhaps too easy) for you to declare his commentary indefensible, rather than simply debateable.

Look at the way you're using BC's earlier comments, which didn't cross the line, as evidence to show that he's happy to cross the line into unfair comment. If someone applied that logic to Tiger, I think you'd be incandescent.
post #749 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Bullshit.-I dont care one way or the other for BC. Im simply pointing out that a man who regularly approaches the line with negative comments may not be the best judge of where the line is-Or be able to recognize when he crosses it.-After all it's just a itty little bit more "mean" than his other comments, right?

As for Tiger, not only do you think wrong.-But thats a straw man altogether.-Furthermore youre simply resorting again to making guesses about my personality and attempting then to use those guesses against me.

Come now. It's a bit late for the guy who's railed against the imbalance of Chamblee's reporting to retake the middle ground. I call shenanigans on "I don't care one way or the other."

My point about Tiger wasn't a straw man. It's using exactly the same logic as you, and others, are applying to BC in this thread. If you decide you don't like the logic applied in that situation, that's not enough to call it a straw man argument. It should be enough to reconsider your arguments though. Stick to the "pro golfers don't grass" line.
post #750 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

Sure - I see a difference - but I have no idea where fourputt or turtleback would draw the line. I am genuinely struggling to see where the demarcation lies between "things I don't want to hear about Tiger" and "things that shouldn't be said about Tiger".

If you don't believe, me, just look at how much store has been placed on BC's "bad faith" towards Tiger. BC's history of second-guessing Tiger's swing changes, strategy, performance or whatever all gets cast up as evidence that BC is a bad man.

If the line dividing mean comments from wrong comments is so clear and distinct - and Brandel crossed it here - then none of his earlier comments (if they didn't cross the line) should be relevant. That's exactly the same argument as one that says a professional golfer is entitled to push the limits of the rules, without being assumed to be someone who would cross the line into deliberate infringement.

 

No one can possibly be this obtuse.  NO ONE is equating his previous statements about Tiger's swing, swing changes, strategy , performance, etc. with the charge of cheater.  They are brought up to show a pre-existing bias and a fundamental lack of good faith on Chamblee's part.  

 

And FWIW, logic does not mean what you seem to think it means.

post #751 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

Sure - I see a difference - but I have no idea where fourputt or turtleback would draw the line. I am genuinely struggling to see where the demarcation lies between "things I don't want to hear about Tiger" and "things that shouldn't be said about Tiger".

If you don't believe, me, just look at how much store has been placed on BC's "bad faith" towards Tiger. BC's history of second-guessing Tiger's swing changes, strategy, performance or whatever all gets cast up as evidence that BC is a bad man.

If the line dividing mean comments from wrong comments is so clear and distinct - and Brandel crossed it here - then none of his earlier comments (if they didn't cross the line) should be relevant. That's exactly the same argument as one that says a professional golfer is entitled to push the limits of the rules, without being assumed to be someone who would cross the line into deliberate infringement.

 

You have really missed the target here.  You see, the difference is that unlike so many who judge him, I don't confuse Tiger's off course issues with attempts to besmirch his professional reputation.  They are separate issues, and he has paid a stiff price for his dalliances.  I try not to let that influence my comments on the rules gaffs.  I don't defend his apparent lack of knowledge about the rules of the game.  I consider it rather bad form for one to call himself a golfer and not know some of the truly basic rules procedures, and that is doubly true of Tiger or any other player who makes golf his profession.  

 

However, making a mistake on the rules and being penalized for it is a long way from cheating.  They are not even in the same universe for discussion purposes.  Saying that Tiger showed bad judgement - even that he was rude and boorish - when he disputed the ruling is a fair and reasonable criticism.  Equating that with cheating is not.  

 

I'm not waving a banner for Tiger.  If I'd had his year with the rules issues, I'd be hiring a USGA rules official for a tutor and make certain that I'm on the right track going forward from here.  

post #752 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

No one can possibly be this obtuse.  NO ONE is equating his previous statements about Tiger's swing, swing changes, strategy , performance, etc. with the charge of cheater.  They are brought up to show a pre-existing bias and a fundamental lack of good faith on Chamblee's part.  

And FWIW, logic does not mean what you seem to think it means.

The sentence I bolded in your statement? That's all I'm saying. No more, no less. But the so-called demonstrable lack of good faith is PRECISELY the argument that people are using to undermine the case for BC's opinion being fair comment. If a commentator with no "previous" as regards Tiger had made the same comments, you'd need to find another justification to accuse them of bad faith. I don't doubt you'd scrape one up - but that's another debate.
post #753 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

You have really missed the target here.  You see, the difference is that unlike so many who judge him, I don't confuse Tiger's off course issues with attempts to besmirch his professional reputation.  They are separate issues, and he has paid a stiff price for his dalliances.  I try not to let that influence my comments on the rules gaffs.  I don't defend his apparent lack of knowledge about the rules of the game.  I consider it rather bad form for one to call himself a golfer and not know some of the truly basic rules procedures, and that is doubly true of Tiger or any other player who makes golf his profession.

 

However, making a mistake on the rules and being penalized for it is a long way from cheating.  They are not even in the same universe for discussion purposes.  Saying that Tiger showed bad judgement - even that he was rude and boorish - when he disputed the ruling is a fair and reasonable criticism.  Equating that with cheating is not.

 

I'm not waving a banner for Tiger.  If I'd had his year with the rules issues, I'd be hiring a USGA rules official for a tutor and make certain that I'm on the right track going forward from here.

Excellent point especially the last line........on aside note he no trouble knowing the rules when he had that 500+ pound loose impediment removed for him by the gallery...but I digress.

post #754 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfisher View Post
 

Excellent point especially the last line........on aside note he no trouble knowing the rules when he had that 500+ pound loose impediment removed for him by the gallery...but I digress.

 

Quote:
Upon seeing his situation, Tiger asked the rules official, Orlando Pope, if the boulder was a loose impediment. The Rules of Golf define a loose impediment as a natural object such as stones, leaves, and twigs, provided they are not fixed or growing, are not solidly embedded and do not adhere to the ball. The definition of a loose impediment puts no restrictions on the size of the natural object. Tiger was told yes, the boulder was a loose impediment. Provided it can be removed without unduly delaying play, the Rules allow a loose impediment to be removed without penalty except if the player’s ball and the loose impediment are in a bunker or a water hazard.

 

It wasn't that he knew the rule on that case, its the fact he had the foresight to ask an official for a clarification. I would like to see the rule changed that if the object can't be moved by a single person than it is not a loos impediment, but that is for a different thread. 

post #755 of 762
It is not late-The only way it is late is if you have been wrongly judging my feelings the whole time. Call shenanigans all you want-You are wrong. Ive said before I have no problem with BC being critical-He just overstepped theline in this case.

I agree that you dont know what logic is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

Come now. It's a bit late for the guy who's railed against the imbalance of Chamblee's reporting to retake the middle ground. I call shenanigans on "I don't care one way or the other."

My point about Tiger wasn't a straw man. It's using exactly the same logic as you, and others, are applying to BC in this thread. If you decide you don't like the logic applied in that situation, that's not enough to call it a straw man argument. It should be enough to reconsider your arguments though. Stick to the "pro golfers don't grass" line.

That is not the argument being used-You are wrong again. But since this appears to be the only topic that interests you-And your level of discourse is getting repetitious-Im done now and will let others carry on if they wish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

The sentence I bolded in your statement? That's all I'm saying. No more, no less. But the so-called demonstrable lack of good faith is PRECISELY the argument that people are using to undermine the case for BC's opinion being fair comment. If a commentator with no "previous" as regards Tiger had made the same comments, you'd need to find another justification to accuse them of bad faith. I don't doubt you'd scrape one up - but that's another debate.
post #756 of 762
Birlyshirly. If you are ever in Grand Rapids Michigan over in this side, I would like to buy you a pint my friend.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
This thread is locked  
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee