# Should Kelly Tilghman be fired for her lynch Tiger Woods comment?



## truebluefan (Sep 22, 2006)

Should Kelly Tilghman be fired for her lynch Tiger Woods comment?


----------



## Fourputt (Nov 18, 2006)

truebluefan said:


> Should Kelly Tilghman be for her lynch Tiger Woods comment?


Should she be what??????


----------



## Topflite_d2 (May 7, 2007)

Be fired. haha typo


----------



## 373 (Jun 9, 2006)

No... The nature of the situation was unfortunate, but not something to be construed as racist unless you are in the business of rabble rousing.

If Tiger and his management were still making an issue of it, I would say he is offended and go from there. I don't see that happening.


----------



## ActionJackson (Oct 22, 2007)

It was a poor choice of words there is no doubt there, but I don't think she meant it to be construed as racist. If anything she is guilty of not thinking before she speaks. Someone in the broadcasting biz certainly has to have a deeper vocabulary than that.


----------



## white_tiger_137 (Mar 23, 2006)

No. 

Anyone read the SI article on it? Apparently Farrell Evans thinks Tiger should feel guilty for not being offended. Like he's a traitor to black men everywhere. Thoughts on this side of the story?


----------



## Fourputt (Nov 18, 2006)

white_tiger_137 said:


> No.
> 
> Anyone read the SI article on it? Apparently Farrell Evans thinks Tiger should feel guilty for not being offended. Like he's a traitor to black men everywhere. Thoughts on this side of the story?


People have been saying that Tiger should be more race oriented since he became a pro, and he keeps telling them to back off. That is the real problem with this country. Kelly makes a remark that, while questionable, was never intended to be racist. Then this Farrell Evans (never heard of him) makes a blatantly racist remark and it's ok because he is seen as speaking up for the minorities. Tiger has been accused by all of the big names on this issue, and he generally just ignores them. It is just one of the things that I respect him for. 

Tiger has demonstrated time and again that he is determined to just be a golfer, not a political pawn. :thumbsup:


----------



## white_tiger_137 (Mar 23, 2006)

Yup. Shame on America for trying to turn every black man with global influene into a MLK.


----------



## ActionJackson (Oct 22, 2007)

First off it's not MLK it's MLK jr. Second, so you think MLK jr. had a negative effect on tolerance and society? Surely you could have come up with a better example, Al Sharpton? And assuming you're not in the African American community how do you know what they are trying to turn Tiger into? Furthermore do you think those that are trying to influence Tiger and other prominent African-American figures speak for themselves or for the race as a whole, I certainly would hope that you wouldn't make a blanket statement about an entire group of people.


----------



## ActionJackson (Oct 22, 2007)

S**t rolls downhill boys;

Editor Dumped After Noose Cover - AOL Sports


----------



## Fourputt (Nov 18, 2006)

ActionJackson said:


> First off it's not MLK it's MLK jr. Second, so you think MLK jr. had a negative effect on tolerance and society? Surely you could have come up with a better example, Al Sharpton? And assuming you're not in the African American community how do you know what they are trying to turn Tiger into? Furthermore do you think those that re trying to influence Tiger and other prominent African-American figures speak for themselves or for the race as a whole, I certainly would hope that you wouldn't make a blanket statement about an entire group of people.


I saw nothing that put Dr. King in a negative light. All I see is a comment supporting Tiger's decision not to become a pawn on the political side of this issue. I think you got your feathers a bit too ruffled over yet another innocuous statement. 

And yes, I believe some ARE doing it for the publicity and notoriety that they gain for themselves. Others may be totally altruistic in their feelings on wanting Tiger to show some concern. But that still doesn't mean that Tiger is any more or less than what he is, a man of mixed race who just happens to be the one of the most recognizable names in the world today. However you look at it, he seems determined to NOT let himself be used by others with *possibly* ulterior motives. 

His focus in on his golf, his family and his charities. Seems like plenty to me.


----------



## ActionJackson (Oct 22, 2007)

I think you are imparting emotion on to me where none exists, my feathers are not ruffled as I am simply attempting to ascertain the meaning of the comment by questioning it rather than making my own assumptions as you have appeared to have done with mine. Furthermore the use of the misnomer "yet again," implies that you believe I am looking for an excuse to become upset which means you are not looking at the comment objectively for what it us. I am not questioning Tigers non-response to this, simply observing it.


----------



## white_tiger_137 (Mar 23, 2006)

> First off it's not MLK it's MLK jr. Second, so you think MLK jr. had a negative effect on tolerance and society? Surely you could have come up with a better example, Al Sharpton? And assuming you're not in the African American community how do you know what they are trying to turn Tiger into? Furthermore do you think those that are trying to influence Tiger and other prominent African-American figures speak for themselves or for the race as a whole, I certainly would hope that you wouldn't make a blanket statement about an entire group of people.


Woah. Down boy. I have nothing but respect for MLK jr. I am not an African American. That does not make me politically and racially ignorant. 

The only thing I disagreed with was the pressure being put on Tiger. In my opinion he should not feel obligated to be a mouthpiece. As Fourputt has already said, between his golf and his family and his charities, I think he's got enough on his plate. I just don't think it's fair that he has come under attack.


----------



## Golfbum (Oct 14, 2006)

ActionJackson said:


> I think you are imparting emotion on to me where none exists, my feathers are not ruffled as I am simply attempting to ascertain the meaning of the comment by questioning it rather than making my own assumptions as you have appeared to have done with mine. Furthermore the use of the misnomer "yet again," implies that you believe I am looking for an excuse to become upset which means you are not looking at the comment objectively for what it us. I am not questioning Tigers non-response to this, simply observing it.


*What the hell does this have to do with the matter of Kelly Tilghman being fired? As a MODERATOR you should know enough to stick to the subject of the thread. In the past you have accused me of being ignorant to other members, now you are doing the same thing.*

My thoughts, no she should not be fired. But she should be replaced by Rich Lerner who does a hell of a better job beside Faldo.


----------



## ActionJackson (Oct 22, 2007)

Golfbum my comments my comments are directly related to the issue at hand, Tiger Woods was the center of Kelly's comment and the aftermath definitely has racial undertones. I'm simply laying Devils advocate if you engage in personal attacks and use of profanity again moderation action will be taken including the notification of the administrator, I hope to avoid such action and continue this conversation. I thank you in advance for your full cooperation.

***Back on topic please.


----------



## ActionJackson (Oct 22, 2007)

white_tiger_137 said:


> Woah. Down boy. I have nothing but respect for MLK jr. I am not an African American. That does not make me politically and racially ignorant.
> 
> The only thing I disagreed with was the pressure being put on Tiger. In my opinion he should not feel obligated to be a mouthpiece. As Fourputt has already said, between his golf and his family and his charities, I think he's got enough on his plate. I just don't think it's fair that he has come under attack.


That comment is more than fair and I can stand behind it but you can see that by not explaining yourself the comment about MLK could have been taken wrong by some? Much like Kellys comment was probably not racially charged? But really that isn't the point, perception is the only thing that matters when you are in the public eye. he question of should she be fired should not only consider the comment she made but at what cost is it to her employers? Once you stop becoming marketable and making money for your employer, then you need to be fired, whether what you said was wrong or right. We saw that with the Don Imus issue.


----------



## Golfbum (Oct 14, 2006)

ActionJackson said:


> Golfbum my comments my comments are directly related to the issue at hand, Tiger Woods was the center of Kelly's comment and the aftermath definitely has racial undertones. I'm simply laying Devils advocate if you engage in personal attacks and use of profanity again moderation action will be taken including the notification of the administrator, I hope to avoid such action and continue this conversation. I thank you in advance for your full cooperation.
> 
> ***Back on topic please.


Good Lord, there were no "*RACIAL* *OVERTONES*" involved in this matter until people like Al Sharpton become involved. What exactly is Sharpton's reasoning for becoming involved? I think to simply further his cause.

Tiger's agent stated that Tiger was not upset by the comments. So why would everyone else be upset?

As for personal attacks against you. Are you paranoid? I did not attack you personally in my post. Profanity? Since when is the word "H***" profanity? Been to church lately? That word is spoken in churches every where in North America.


----------



## ActionJackson (Oct 22, 2007)

Golfbum said:


> Good Lord, there were no "*RACIAL* *OVERTONES*" involved in this matter until people like Al Sharpton become involved. What exactly is Sharpton's reasoning for becoming involved? I think to simply further his cause.



And like it or not that is related to the topic, you would do a disservice to the discussion to ignore those facts.



> Tiger's agent stated that Tiger was not upset by the comments. So why would everyone else be upset?


A good question and one worth discussing.



> As for personal attacks against you. Are you paranoid? I did not attack you personally in my post. Profanity? Since when is the word "H***" profanity? Been to church lately? That word is spoken in churches every where in North America.


If you continue in this line of questioning and behavior the thread will be locked while I contact an admin. to let them make the final decision, this is your last warning, regarding this line of commenting. Thank you, I am enjoyng the discussion and I certainly would hate for you to ruin for everyone. Have a great day.

-Adam J.


----------



## Golfbum (Oct 14, 2006)

The fact is TIGER WOODS was NOT UPSET by Kelly's remarks. The FACT is people like AL SHARPTON made a big issue out of nothing. Why is it that African Americans can sing RAP SONGS about themselves and use RACIAL SLURS against themselves but if a white person says something like Kelly said it is a RACIAL SLUR? [/B]

Answer that one.


----------



## ActionJackson (Oct 22, 2007)

You have missed the point of my argument completely. First off you are being bigoted by grouping an entire race into one blanket statement and I am tempted to delete it but I want others to see you and it for what they are. The point you are not getting Golfbum is that I do not disagree with you on the topic I am merely attempting to get people to see that when you are in the public eye like Kelly you have to be careful. It doesn't matter if you meant it or not, and I do not thing Kelly's comment was racist. However I am not blind to the fact that other could have taken it the wrong way and I have no right to tell them that they should not be offended as you have asserted, the point is when you represent a company you cannot say anything that will bring them negative press or cause them to lose money, if you do then you should be fired, not because you are a racist because you are bad for business. 

***BTW I am editing your anti American remark, that is one blanket statement that is not only off topic but others here do not deserve to be subjected to it.


----------



## Golfbum (Oct 14, 2006)

ActionJackson said:


> You have missed the point of my argument completely. First off you are being bigoted by grouping an entire race into one blanket statement and I am tempted to delete it but I want others to see you and it for what they are. The point you are not getting Golfbum is that I do not disagree with you on the topic I am merely attempting to get people to see that when you are in the public eye like Kelly you have to be careful. It doesn't matter if you meant it or not, and I do not thing Kelly's comment was racist. However I am not blind to the fact that other could have taken it the wrong way and I have no right to tell them that they should not be offended as you have asserted, the point is when you represent a company you cannot say anything that will bring them negative press or cause them to lose money, if you do then you should be fired, not because you are a racist because you are bad for business.
> 
> ***BTW I am editing your anti American remark, that is one blanket statement that is not only off topic but others here do not deserve to be subjected to it.


Now you are calling me a bigot. Nice, really classy move right there. In no way am I a bigot and I am offended that you have called me one. You are showing a lot of immaturity with your comments. :thumbsdown:


----------



## white_tiger_137 (Mar 23, 2006)

Ok Action. You want her fired from a strictly business point of view. That makes sense. I don't agree with it but I can understand it.


----------



## truebluefan (Sep 22, 2006)

Thread locked...take a deep breath. 

AJ contact me via pm please.


----------

