Yeah, if there were a pattern of that, I might agree. You’re taking a single data point and extrapolating way beyond reason. If you look at the rest of the texts, there’s nothing to suggest he treated her like you’re suggesting, and even if we didn’t have those other texts, there are just a million reasons why someone might’ve not gotten back until that third message. You’re chalking up what’s exceedingly likely just a coincidence (again, it’s an hour) to malice.
There’s literally even another text that reads: “don’t text me back till tomorrow morning. I have to many people around me right now”. Like this is an obvious problem for anyone cheating, let alone a celebrity. It was, again, the middle of a Wednesday; there’s no reason to expect Woods wasn’t just, like, a little busy for an hour. (Edit: I personally did this yesterday, realizing I outright forgot to reply.)
Of the things to get upset about with tiger woods, this communication thing is an odd one.
Someone makes a joke. You chuckle and go back to what you were doing, or you don’t chuckle and still go back to what you were doing. They send another message that makes you realize they expected a response and took your lack of response the wrong way, so you reply telling them you knew they were joking.
Not every message needs a reply, to say nothing of an immediate one. How would you have had him reply?
Nope, seems a bit wrong to me. I just don’t see that behavior in this interchange.
No one has alleged he’s that type of asshole, so I see no reason to assume he is. Not every period of silence is the “silent treatment”, and responding after someone apologized isn’t the same as not responding until they apologized.
Extramarital affairs are bad, but they’re not the same as punishing someone for a joke you don’t appreciate. And not responding to a text with a joke you didn’t find funny is only dubiously that.
Infidelity can be abusive if used as a tool of power, control, or harm. Not all hurtful or disrespectful acts are intrinsically abusive.
I take it you weren’t paying much attention during the whole thing?
Tldr: initial reports indicated that she hit his car and attacked him with a golf club before the crash. Police stated alcohol didn’t play a role in the crash. He denied any claims of domestic violence and says she smashed both of his back windows to help him out of the car.
We don’t know that’s what he did, there aren’t even timestamps on this. If I text you a joke now, and then don’t get anything back, and then I send you a follow-up text saying “I was just joking”, and then sometime after that you get back to your phone and see the joke and the follow-up, no one can assume you only texted because of the follow-up.
Maybe you got my first one and said “screw them” and waited for an apology, maybe you didn’t get the first one until after the second had been sent and saw them both together and replied to both, or maybe you saw the first and went “heh” but forgot to actually respond to me in the moment, and it wasn’t until after the second came through that you went “ah shit, right”
But only the receiver can know which is which.
Anyways! I don’t give a shit about Tiger Woods, I just hate miscommunication and assumptions of ill-intent, and I’ve seen first hand too many times a person who is more connected drawing all sorts of conclusions for what a silence might mean, or how mad someone must be, or reading into a gap that simply isn’t there. The receiver just is doing something, they’re not on their couch staring at their phone, and the sender is spinning out all sorts of stories to explain how they’re being ignored or attacked. It’s anxiety.
Where did I defend him? All I said was you are projecting. Which you are. So are the people you’re arguing with. He may have been leaving her on read because he was pissed like you say or he may have done it because he had other shit going on while he was texting her and got distracted. Either is a perfectly plausible explanation.
I don’t hate women. Tiger Woods is an asshole. You’re a hypocrite.
Because you’re presenting one side of it as if it’s the truth. Acting like “the silent treatment” is the only reason a person may be delayed in responding to a text is toxic as fuck.
The verb “seem” means to give a certain impression, appear, or look a certain way. It is used to describe how a person, object, or situation is perceived, especially when conveying a subjective feeling or an observation that may differ from reality.
It’s not about the time between the texts, it’s that he only responded when she apologized.
Yeah, if there were a pattern of that, I might agree. You’re taking a single data point and extrapolating way beyond reason. If you look at the rest of the texts, there’s nothing to suggest he treated her like you’re suggesting, and even if we didn’t have those other texts, there are just a million reasons why someone might’ve not gotten back until that third message. You’re chalking up what’s exceedingly likely just a coincidence (again, it’s an hour) to malice.
There’s literally even another text that reads: “don’t text me back till tomorrow morning. I have to many people around me right now”. Like this is an obvious problem for anyone cheating, let alone a celebrity. It was, again, the middle of a Wednesday; there’s no reason to expect Woods wasn’t just, like, a little busy for an hour. (Edit: I personally did this yesterday, realizing I outright forgot to reply.)
Of the things to get upset about with tiger woods, this communication thing is an odd one.
Someone makes a joke. You chuckle and go back to what you were doing, or you don’t chuckle and still go back to what you were doing. They send another message that makes you realize they expected a response and took your lack of response the wrong way, so you reply telling them you knew they were joking.
Not every message needs a reply, to say nothing of an immediate one. How would you have had him reply?
Do you reply to every message immediately?
Do you think not responding until your partner says the correct thing, in this case “babe I was kidding”, is healthy?
Nope, seems a bit wrong to me. I just don’t see that behavior in this interchange.
No one has alleged he’s that type of asshole, so I see no reason to assume he is. Not every period of silence is the “silent treatment”, and responding after someone apologized isn’t the same as not responding until they apologized.
He routinely drives drunk and has had multiple affairs.
But he’s not that type of asshole?
That’s certainly what I said isn’t it?
Do you have any reason to believe he’s the emotionally abusive type of asshole?
Doing something wrong doesn’t mean everything they do is wrong.
Hell, we have more evidence for him being the victim of abuse than the perpetrator.
HIs multiple extramarital affairs? You don’t consider cheating over and over again to be emotional abuse?
Oh we do? What are you referencing?
Extramarital affairs are bad, but they’re not the same as punishing someone for a joke you don’t appreciate. And not responding to a text with a joke you didn’t find funny is only dubiously that.
Infidelity can be abusive if used as a tool of power, control, or harm. Not all hurtful or disrespectful acts are intrinsically abusive.
I take it you weren’t paying much attention during the whole thing?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/11/why-tiger-s-not-talking-about-his-accident.html
Tldr: initial reports indicated that she hit his car and attacked him with a golf club before the crash. Police stated alcohol didn’t play a role in the crash. He denied any claims of domestic violence and says she smashed both of his back windows to help him out of the car.
We don’t know that’s what he did, there aren’t even timestamps on this. If I text you a joke now, and then don’t get anything back, and then I send you a follow-up text saying “I was just joking”, and then sometime after that you get back to your phone and see the joke and the follow-up, no one can assume you only texted because of the follow-up.
Maybe you got my first one and said “screw them” and waited for an apology, maybe you didn’t get the first one until after the second had been sent and saw them both together and replied to both, or maybe you saw the first and went “heh” but forgot to actually respond to me in the moment, and it wasn’t until after the second came through that you went “ah shit, right”
But only the receiver can know which is which.
Anyways! I don’t give a shit about Tiger Woods, I just hate miscommunication and assumptions of ill-intent, and I’ve seen first hand too many times a person who is more connected drawing all sorts of conclusions for what a silence might mean, or how mad someone must be, or reading into a gap that simply isn’t there. The receiver just is doing something, they’re not on their couch staring at their phone, and the sender is spinning out all sorts of stories to explain how they’re being ignored or attacked. It’s anxiety.
Ah, you’re all projecting and being defensive about texting. I see.
So are you.
Removed by mod
Where did I defend him? All I said was you are projecting. Which you are. So are the people you’re arguing with. He may have been leaving her on read because he was pissed like you say or he may have done it because he had other shit going on while he was texting her and got distracted. Either is a perfectly plausible explanation.
I don’t hate women. Tiger Woods is an asshole. You’re a hypocrite.
You’re all up my ass for no reason then.
Because you’re presenting one side of it as if it’s the truth. Acting like “the silent treatment” is the only reason a person may be delayed in responding to a text is toxic as fuck.
Do you understand what the word “seems” means in this context?
I’m going to help you out a little bit here:
😛