Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/11/09
I think its time to leave him alone. LEAVE TIGER ALONE!!
12/11/09
Ruined? Hardly. Sure, he lost his sponsors and endorsements but even if him and his wife split, he'll still have more money than he could ever spend in his or our lifetimes.
12/11/09
It can buy LOTS AND LOTS of whores, but it can't buy happiness, or people's respect.
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
Jaimee: ... we can watch desperate housewives again haha
Tiger: oh god
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
I have no problems with the jokes and stuff here on Gizmodo, but this is tabloid level. Do you guys really want to go there?
12/11/09
12/11/09
I mean, think of how anyone - Giz reader, Giz writters - would feel not only having their personal stuff posted on the Internet, but also being mocked for them.
I know this isn't professional journalism nor I expect it to be, but I though there were some ethical guideliness... apparently I was wrong.
12/11/09
12/11/09
Maybe I was delusional or something, and I know those are hard choices (to publish or not)... but somehow I thought Gizmodo was the type of blog I was not going to find this sort of stuff.
I'm still a Giz fan and all, but the fact that publishing a guy's private messages disgusts me won't change.
You know, one thing is to go ahead and talk about your private life by your own will... but it's a totally different thing to have your private life out there without consent - which seems to be the case, forgive me if I'm wrong.
I read and checked the New York Post source, but that doesn't make less disgusted. It's about what was done, not who did it.
But nevermind... I have a personal stance against the whole celebrity culture.
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
I dunno if the reply had anything to do with my comment, but just to make things clear...
It had nothing to do with the sexual content (or lack thereof).
I wasn't offended by the content.
Really. I read through way worse stuff around. And must admit I actually wrote way worse stuff than those messages.
The thing that got me disgusted is the act of PUBLISHING Tiger Wood's personal stuff. It wouldn't matter to me if it was similar to some very raunchy literature with tits and ass or even worse stuff, or if it was some very innocent love messages.
It's the right of privacy that so many people defend but couldn't careless when it comes to a public figure I'm talking about.
It'd be the same to me if the messages published were his romantic case with his lover, or a discussion with his mom about when he's visiting her (though I'm pretty shure something like that would never make the news).
I'm all for openly discussing taboos... probably even more than the average guy. But privacy is one thing I'll always defend.
Like, I'd have no problem at all if the guy decided himself to publish the messages to the press, on a book or whatever... in fact, I doubt I would even read the whole thing and post a comment about it since celebrity stuff never really catches my interest.
What caught my eye though, is the fact that someone dug the info and felt it was alright to publish it. Something that, if happened to me, would result in lawsuits and everything in my power to prevent from happening to others.
12/11/09
With newspapers, you see different content in different areas. Opinion is contained to columns, rumors are usually confined to one page, business news is in a strict area, etc., etc.
There are no such dividers in blog setups. Gossip gets the same play as breaking news gets the same play as analysis.
So since there are no sections to put things into, and everything you post will at some point be at the top of the page, do you not post something that's tabloid level? Or do you post it and let it be at the top, until other posts drive it down into oblivion?
At the moment, it's still anything goes in the blog world, for better or worse.
I'm waiting to see how everything shakes out.
12/11/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/11/09
jk... about the rocks and bridge. The other stuff did happen.
12/12/09
12/10/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/11/09
12/10/09
It's wuuuuuuvv.
Or in this case, an overly romanticized, poorly thought out tidal wave of ahhs, and sighs, lightly garnished with fantasy, teasing with the possibility of happiness, folded up and neatly hidden away in the secret drawer marked "extramarital affair". (Actually, aside from the "extramarital affair" part, that actually sounds like a relationship worth having.)
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/11/09
12/10/09
At least this shows me that I'm better at friendly text/IM chatter than Tiger Woods, and don't seem to gravitate towards people who make me want to scoop my brainstem out with a white hot metal spork.
12/10/09
And while this isn't really you chasing the car, it's pretty close:
[www.break.com]
12/10/09
I do not look like a cartoon J.J. Walker.
12/10/09
I am long winded and overly specific and I can still keep my bloody messages under 160 characters with minimal tweaking if I have to.
The difference between "you" and "u" and is negligible to all but morons.
12/10/09
Isn't BenQ a Taiwanese company? There's your answer.
12/10/09
12/10/09
What have we learned: 1. don't cheat down. 2. don't text or sext whilst cheating. 3. the bimbo with the nice rack is hit-able only once.
12/10/09
12/10/09