this tiger mea culpa just plain creepy..

aboutready, tell us about your daughter's sexual history once again.

speaking of creeps, right on cue

waiting to hear why he plans to go incognito to the se gathering......why?

because he is a coward with little moral fiber, jimse, sort of like someone else we know.

Who, someone whose husband breaks something and expects someone else to fix it?

hfs...let's hear it...why not just go and say, hey it's me?????????.....not doing that suggests you're embarrassed

if creepcomm broke its keyboard nobody would fix it

for the final f'ng time, let's review. my comment about the toilet seat was that if you rent you'd be amazed at what expenses you're not responsible for, including toilet seats. this was a rent/buy comment, not a can i afford a toilet seat comment.

thedeuce
1 minute ago
ignore this person
report abuse if creepcomm broke its keyboard nobody would fix it

Actually, I would fix it myself.
Same if I broke my toilet. (we'll, I'd replace it myself)

Now how about we look at aboutready and what happens in her family when a family member breaks a toilet seat. See above (for the "final" time).

Oh, and no aboutready, it wasn't a rent vs. buy comment. It was you expressing your family's scorn for StuyTown owners Tishman Speyer.

Blame blame blame is your DNA. You don't even know why you are angry anymore and it doesn't seem to matter as long as someone else can be at fault.

So, the man who follows every comment, won't answer why he is afraid to introduce himself. What can we conclude other than that you are embarrassed by what you do on this site?

Why are you embarrassed?.....

jim, perhaps you didn't read a few weeks back.
I'm not here for popularity.

hfscomm, i'm not angry. you are.

I got that. But that suggests you do not care what people think about you. But...being afraid to introduce yourself at a se gathering suggests quite the opposite.

Some of your stuff is kinda funny, obsessive but funny. But some of it is utterly inappropriate and really pitiful. I think you know the distinction. I think you're embarrassed. And you have confirmed that by indicating that you would go to the party , but would not reveal your name.

you can..you know..clean up your act

"I know you are but what am I?"

What a child.

hfs, i hope things work out for you. you have major issues, none of which seem positive. good luck.

Jim, you aren't that bright, are you? Is that the best logic you could come up with? Only one possible scenario?

Hfs....Sorry, but this is kinda funny. You've had this 'me against the world", i don't care what anyone thinks thing going for ages....but now you've stumbled big time by saying you're embarrassed to introduce yourself. Sorry, that's obviously what it means.

wow, i just went through the comments. you have a problem with my comments about tishman? the people who are defaulting left and right? not just PCV, but today or yesterday an announcement of a huge walk away of debt for a large number of DC properties? give me a f'ng break.

:)

I don't know why everyone is assuming it's a man.

I picture a big, brassy upper middle-aged (or "of a certain age") woman. Woman, not lady, not girl, not broad, not gal, woman. As in "woman's sizes". With clown-dyed hair in a "hairdo". With big gaudy gold-tone jewelry (brooches and the like) on a big gaudy novelty-colored dress suit or pants suit or the like. And vaudeville makeup to match, of course. Lives in a scared-white-woman neighborhood like Yorkville or one of those beige areas on the eastern side of midtown.

Powdery makeup that accentuates every wrinkle and sag.

I SAID I was embarassed? Where did I SAY I was embarassed?

hey creepcomm, you know bodily fluids will ruin your keyboard, right? and only you to fix it. wet, sticky broken keyboard.

i'd be embarassed if i spooched all over my keyboard stalking people on streeteasy

hsf, we're embarrassed for you. you're embarrassing. nobody likes you. sad. uncomfortable.

How about this poster's take on you, aboutready, who begins by quoting you in the carpet thread.

jsmith9005
ignore this person
report abuse

"romary, again, PLEASE READ. i don't have an issue now. none"

Then why were you cursing everyone out in this thread? Here's just a sample of your diatribe:

"how the f did you take "a glimpse of their living room" without their consent?"
"how do you have a rats ass clue as to why they don't have floor coverings? "
"you're a tard. "
"btw, you're still a tard. no compassion."
"once again you're absolutely full of shit matt. absolutely. "
"maybe one day you'll have a kid with asthma. happy days!"
"do you get it now? your kid can be a fucking obnoxious loud nightmare "
"Matt, you are such an asshole. such an asshole."
"btw, you're a jerk of the highest order."
"good f'ng lord the assumptions here are crazy. maly, same for you."
"give me a f'ng break"
"and really. what an assholic thing to write"

yes, feel free to pick someone who doesn't like me. btw, did i tell you that calling me a whore puts you right up with those comments, and even more so because it's personally directed?

you are SUCH a hypocrit. stunningly so. you no, it's not acceptable to call someone a whore just because you find it fun. it's actually at some point possibly libel.

Hypocrite has an 'e' at the end of it.

Thanks again for the legal opinion.

yes i know, and i knew.

thanks for playing.

How much was your husband's tax arrears just before you paid it off after getting married? You never actually told us the amount.

lord, you're obsessed. you have no idea of what was involved. two years of some poor guy trying to support himself while at columbia grad school. at the time columbia considered parents living in upper rural vermont to be close enough to commuting to not allow housing.

and the tax arrears story is meaningless. it's just a silly story, that had ZERO implications, we were able to buy a place the next year. so get over it.

but i am glad that as a couple we were able to take care of everything. i don't think hsf would understand that concept.

Lets get back to the thread topic, shall we? Tiger is an uber-successful alpha male fulfilling his biological imperative to sleep with as many fertile young lovelies as possible. There is nothing wrong with what he did. Throughout world history, kings, sultans and chieftans have kept harems. The desire to mate with many and increasingly attractive women is THE reason men strive to be successful, as Freud could tell you. The male sex drive is in fact responsible for much of the world as we know it.

To finish the thought, the only thing Tiger did wrong was get married. Their is NO REASON in the world an athletic, fit, 33 yr old billionaire should be married! I mean, George Clooney basically lives Tiger's lifestyle - travel the world, meet new hottties, and nail them. But he acclaimed for it, and Tiger is a cad. Why? Because Tiger made the mistake of getting married.

hugh, i made exactly the same point to my husband. even the clooney analogy. but he pointed out that tiger NEEDED to get married for his own selfish reasons. wanted the trophy wife. probably considered it one of the trappings of success.

so what tiger really did wrong was being tiger. nobody forced him to get married. he thought he could have it all.

Good points, About Ready.

I bet aboutready's favorite line in Tiger's speach was "I felt I was entitled".

speech!

A couple of years ago, the new york review of books did a piece on Diana, ten years later, and the books about her since her death.

I always thought one of the most interesting lines in the piece was about what ultimately broke Diana emotionally: Charles was of the opinion that monogamy was only for the bourgeois. It had materialism, entitlement, and a sophisticated English class-consciousness all wrapped up in this dysfunctional mess of a thought. It was delicious -- and intellectual because it was in the NYRB.

Diana had better pr people- she was no less aristocratic than Charles. as for tiger he wanted the virginal young bride and kids in a marriage and hos on the side as well.

More correctly, di was from the aristocracy which traditionally had not been monogamous. As long as the elder sons were fathered by the husband. Di was a descendant of both Sarah Churchill and the infamous duchess of devonshire. Charles and the current rf are German princelings and heavily influenced by the examples of qvic who much enjoyed mar relations with Albert. K george v was also famously devoted to queen mum.

This country pays way too much attention to its celebrities.

"hotties"...??????????

One of these women I saw on tv was so awful, so trashy, so over make-upd, so basically hideous that liason could only be explained by unbridled, blind testosterone. ....yikes

riversider...it's worse in europe...ever seen hola or hello magazines?...and at least we are mostly spared a fascination with the idle rich

"all wrapped up in this dysfunctional mess of a thought."

So, Charles repudiation of monogamy is dysfunctional? Then explain to me why monogamy rarely appears in nature. Even among those bird species we formerly thought of as monogamous, DNA evidence now tells us that about 60% of offspring are fathered by someone other than the male partner! (Those little bird sluts!). The DNA evidence of our human ancestors tell a similar story. Monogamy is a relatively recent cultural invention (2,000 yrs or so) that will soon die out.

hugh wrote : Monogamy is a relatively recent cultural invention (2,000 yrs or so) that will soon die out.

So...if "recent" is 2000 years or so, then your prediction that monogamy will die out "soon" means within say 2000 years....just trying to follow along

Hugh: Reread my comment. You're reading it wrong; I'm not talking about what you're talking about. It is the collision of Diana's victorian aspiration with Charles' victorian aristocratic entitlement punctuated by a true tragedy that makes this all so dysfunctional.

It is even more interesting when you put 10023's comments about Diana's aspiration being fake on top of it. Layers and layers of self-conscious aspiration, denial, delusion, and dysfunction that only a celebrity of this scale could pull off.

I wonder if respectable Tiger in a bland golf shirt can even match the storyline. Who knows: it was enough to stop the market from trading.

Jim said: "So...if "recent" is 2000 years or so, then your prediction that monogamy will die out "soon" means within say 2000 years....just trying to follow along".

Your silly comment can best be disposed of by anology: If I see a frail 90 year old man, and say he is going to die soon, do you think he will live another 90 years? Look at the declining rates of marriage in the west, and the even quicker decline of marriages that do not exhibit infidelity. The old Christian institution of monogamous marriage is quickly dying out. Remember that the jews in the time of the bible held multiple wives, as do muslims today. While I don't expect Christianity to die out any time soon, I do think Christians adherence to the call to marriage will soon be similar to the take up amongst Catholics of the Pope's call to not use birth control or engage in pre-marital sex: nearly zilch.

Skinny: Apologies if I misconstrued your meaning. You obviously are far more aware of the inner workings of British Monarchy than I, and that is clearly the focus of your post. One thing I will take issue with, although I confess to being a novice on the topic of Chuck and Di, is that you assert she had some sort of Victorian aspiration. It seems unlikely to me. She seems to be just another modern woman, freed by our societies adoption of easy divorce to flee a marriage that didn't satisfy the minute-by-minute evolving concept of what makes a woman happy. And once a woman concludes that the man whom yesterday was the greatest guy ever but today "doesn't fulfill her needs", the crass reality is tha the tingle generator beneath her skirt sets its sights on someone else (as Diana did multiple times, while married). Segue back to my original point about monogamy being unnatural...

Okay, I could be wrong her as work precluded careful examination of Page Six, People and their hardcover equivalents but my impression was that Chuck wasn't into hos and was almost monogamous in his way--to Camilla. If he had the cojones he would have said f u to the powers that be and married her in the first place thereby denying a lot of people (chiefly Diana and their children) a lot of heart ache and the gossip editors their great bonanza of the late 20th century. The only thing Prince Charles had in common with Tiger Woods is that his mistress(es) was considered much less attractive by the rest of the world than his wife. Charles was not true to his vows but he was not a "sex addict" so much as he was a "Camilla addict" and from all reports they seem to be living happily ever after.

Oh Liz, come on -- this was the New York Review of Books. I'm entitled to bring it up without shame. It's literaryism.

I, frankly, never read the books either. As Tom Townsend said:

I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism. That way you get both the novelists' ideas as well as the critics' thinking. With fiction I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it's all just made up by the author.

"his mistress(es) was considered much less attractive by the rest of the world than his wife."

LOL. That is very much a woman's perspective: Tiger's mistresses had one extremely attractive quality that Elin could never possess: To Tiger they were unplowed territory.

Have you heard about "organic viagra"? It's called "new p*ssy"...

Hugh...do I take it you're supporting Romney for POTUS?.....

Bill Clinton ...

I agree with Hugh .........
Oh, and Tiger and Prince Chuck aren't comparable. Prince Chuck has been a one-woman man his entire life. He married Diana mainly because he was forced to by convention. But he wasn't balling ladies in every port like Tiger's been doing ... He's been amazingly faithful to Camilla his entire life (tho he made that initial error of not marrying her when the marrying was good).
Hmm. I wish Queen E would retire and let Chuck be king ......
But back to Tiger ----- there was always a smarmy fake-Boy Scout air about the dude.

A good commentary on the whole sorry spectacle: www.tribecascribe.wordpress.com

alanhart
about 8 months ago
ignore this person
report abuse

I don't know why everyone is assuming it's a man.

I picture a big, brassy upper middle-aged (or "of a certain age") woman. Woman, not lady, not girl, not broad, not gal, woman. As in "woman's sizes". With clown-dyed hair in a "hairdo". With big gaudy gold-tone jewelry (brooches and the like) on a big gaudy novelty-colored dress suit or pants suit or the like. And vaudeville makeup to match, of course. Lives in a scared-white-woman neighborhood like Yorkville or one of those beige areas on the eastern side of midtown.

Powdery makeup that accentuates every wrinkle and sag.

for the final f'ng time, let's review. my comment about the toilet seat was that if you rent you'd be amazed at what expenses you're not responsible for, including toilet seats. this was a rent/buy comment, not a can i afford a toilet seat comment.