Letterman scandal

[desertgal]

Your sarcasm detector is broken.

Nah, it just needed new batteries. Sorry about that.

 

[Cicero]

I'd just like to bring this up. Creepy stuff? As far as I know, he had intercourse with them. Unless you're a genetic experiment gone terribly, terribly wrong, I have some news for you about how you got here.

This is not about how the stork got a hernia delivering you. It is about:

The creepy stuff Cicero is referring to is not sex ... it's not even consensual sex ... it's not even sex with co-workers per se (although that starts to get a bit dicey). It's about having sex with an employee ... a subordinate. Not cool. And in some instances not allowed by policy.

Letterman's audience response to his actions is applause.

 

[applecorped]

They were jealous.

 

[Cicero]

They were jealous.

More like zealous.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trouble reading?

I'm speaking of double standards (different sets of rules for different folks), not contradictions.

False analogy then. Find a post of mine with this supposed equal incident I had a different standard for so we can see what a false analogy you are making.

 

[Just thinking]

From the get-go my arguments were made on the issue that dating subordinates is unprofessional and at times, against company policies. I even emphasized the difference between co-workers vs. employees. This was presented in post 73.

... it's just the idea of one's employees becoming romantically involved that raises eyebrows. Remember, employees, not co-workers. Big difference. It can cause much talk and second guessing when raises and promotions come due. It's just unprofessional.

To which you replied on my point Remember, employees, not co-workers. Big difference. with ...

Yeah, if he wasn't a TV star.

What does his being a celebrity have to do with it? Your comment leans heavily to saying that his stardom allows for some leeway in his behavior. That's an outright double standard. Plus, sexual harassment has nothing to do with the idea of being romantically involved with one's subordinate; two totally different issues that may have common ground at times. And then, you go on to support this duality with ...

Now a personality like O'Reilly, trying to get a producer to talk dirty on the phone, that is creepy. The public would see that as work place harassment. Friendly non aggressive David Letterman having sex with coworkers? Not so much.

Wow ... not only do have some exclusive insight as to all that happened between Letterman and his affairs, but Bill O'Reilly as well. And of course, Letterman being somewhat left-of-center vs. O'Reilly on the other side makes the case and point a slam dunk in your mind. Remember, I'm speaking of Boss/Subordinate ... not co-workers, not harassment. (You seem to keep forgetting that key point I have to repeat over and over.) So I say ...

I just love those double standards. But what's worse, is how some spin them into looking as not such a bad thing ... eh?

And of course, still thinking it's just a co-worker thingy or harassment thingy, you go on with ...

People date coworkers. If they didn't there would a lot less dating in the world. Find a post of mine with this supposed equal incident I had a different standard for so we can see what a false analogy you are making.

And there you have it. Celebrities get a different point of view under which we should examine workplace behavior, along with arguments you make where one you find creepy, the other harmless.

 

[GreyICE]

This is not about how the stork got a hernia delivering you. It is about:

Letterman's audience response to his actions is applause.

No, I don't think so.

the creepy Letterman admitted he did creepy stuff with Late Show employees.

He did 'creepy stuff' with late show employees.

It is cute that others can rationalize your posts better than you can, but I think that quote stands on its own.

 

[DDWW]

Well, now we know:

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=435037&GT1=28102

David Letterman apologized to his wife on Monday's "Late Show," saying she had been "horribly hurt by my behavior."
The late-night host vowed to repair his relationship with his wife, Regina Lasko.
"Let me tell you folks, I got my work cut out for me," he said, according to an early transcript of the program released by CBS.

My wife wonders (hopes) if Regina asked but one question; "Were they worth half of everthing you own?"


DDWW

 

[Cicero]

No, I don't think so.

Oh, well, that takes care of that then. You were not aware of the unwritten rule that you don't **** where you eat. OK.

He did 'creepy stuff' with late show employees.

Letterman's own words: "This guy knows creepy stuff about me." He could have said "this guy thinks he knows creepy stuff about me." So you must be arguing with Letterman about his own assessment of his assignations.

It is cute that others can rationalize your posts better than you can, but I think that quote stands on its own.

Rationalize? The creepy Letterman hits on his own employees for sex because he has low self-esteem issues that make it too scary for him to have had assignations with women who are accomplished in their own right and wield some power. No charge for the analysis.

 

[Jungle Jim]

My wife wonders (hopes) if Regina asked but one question; "Were they worth half of everthing you own?"


DDWW

Pre-Nuptial Agreement, maybe?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the get-go my arguments were made on the issue that dating subordinates is unprofessional and at times, against company policies. I even emphasized the difference between co-workers vs. employees. This was presented in post 73.
...

Why is it so hard to consider a woman might be attracted to David Letterman and not be a victim?

You have this whole argument of some guy victimizing poor little girls. I find that insulting.

Sometimes women are victimized by male bosses. Sometimes men and women meet at the workplace and date and happen to be in different positions of power. You have to look at these incidents case by case. There is no blanket, stupid little girl victim vs big bad boss man. That is as insulting to women as claiming there is no problem ever.

So far we still have no evidence whatsoever that Letterman didn't just have mutually consensual sex with coworkers.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why is it so hard to consider a woman might be attracted to David Letterman and not be a victim?

You have this whole argument of some guy victimizing poor little girls. I find that insulting.

Sometimes women are victimized by male bosses. Sometimes men and women meet at the workplace and date and happen to be in different positions of power. You have to look at these incidents case by case. There is no blanket, stupid little girl victim vs big bad boss man. That is as insulting to women as claiming there is no problem ever.

So far we still have no evidence whatsoever that Letterman didn't just have mutually consensual sex with coworkers.

Seconded.

 

[Dorian Gray]

But they don't run Windows. You really don't want bugs in mission-critical application manipulating sensitive... data.

You don't understand... when a sex robot hangs for 22 minutes on a loading screen, it's a good thing.

 

[Just thinking]

Why is it so hard to consider a woman might be attracted to David Letterman and not be a victim?

You have this whole argument of some guy victimizing poor little girls. I find that insulting.

Sometimes women are victimized by male bosses. Sometimes men and women meet at the workplace and date and happen to be in different positions of power. You have to look at these incidents case by case. There is no blanket, stupid little girl victim vs big bad boss man. That is as insulting to women as claiming there is no problem ever.

So far we still have no evidence whatsoever that Letterman didn't just have mutually consensual sex with coworkers.

Seconded.

Both of you are not reading a damn thing I say.

 

[Dorian Gray]

My wife wonders (hopes) if Regina asked but one question; "Were they worth half of everthing you own?"


DDWW

Your wife is friggin hilarious, since Dave's only been married for a year and all of the fraternization with employees happened way before that. But, hey, that's what happens when people let their little heads do the thinking.

 

[Cicero]

Your wife is friggin hilarious, since Dave's only been married for a year and all of the fraternization with employees happened way before that. But, hey, that's what happens when people let their little heads do the thinking.

Letterman has been dating Lasko since 1986. They got married in March, 2009. That's only six months. They have have a five-year-old son, Harry. Letterman's assignations with his crew were occurring long after Harry was born.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The definition of, "I don't agree", is not, "you didn't read what I said".

From the get-go my arguments were made on the issue that dating subordinates is unprofessional and at times, against company policies. I even emphasized the difference between co-workers vs. employees. This was presented in post 73.

Post #73:

Originally Posted by Skeptic
I think they admired his bravery for admitting it so openly. It takes guts to do what he did. I, for one, don't see why it has to be that either he pressured them or they were "gold-diggers" who thought this would advance their career. What if they both simply had fun without thinking of threatening, or using, the other person? Certainly nothing that came out so far suggests otherwise, so far as I know.

True as all the above may be ... it's just the idea of one's employees becoming romantically involved that raises eyebrows. Remember, employees, not co-workers. Big difference. It can cause much talk and second guessing when raises and promotions come due. It's just unprofessional.

To which you replied on my point Remember, employees, not co-workers. Big difference. with ...

I was referring to both coworkers and employees as well as subordinates. Perhaps that wasn't clear. Why can't someone date their boss? You again are implying all women who are attracted to their bosses must be victims.

What are you thinking? We live in a caste system?

It depends on each case. Yes, a boss could victimize a female employee. If you believe the movies, a boss can victimize a male employee as well. But that doesn't mean every woman attracted to her boss is a victim. Do you think Melinda Gates is a victim?

What does his being a celebrity have to do with it? Your comment leans heavily to saying that his stardom allows for some leeway in his behavior.

No, stardom typically makes one attractive to a potential sexual partner. It's a fact of life. That adds weight to the odds the women had no issues dating Dave.

That's an outright double standard. Plus, sexual harassment has nothing to do with the idea of being romantically involved with one's subordinate; two totally different issues that may have common ground at times. And then, you go on to support this duality with ...

Yawn..... The only double standard here is coming from your tunnel vision.

I do believe I know quite well what sexual harassment is. Bill O'Reilly calling up a female producer and talking dirty was apparent harassment. We don't know if Letterman harassed anyone but so far it looks as though he didn't.

Wow ... not only do have some exclusive insight as to all that happened between Letterman and his affairs, but Bill O'Reilly as well.

I am going by the evidence we have, not the speculation the news is reporting. No female complained about Letterman that we know of. He's attractive. His on screen persona is one of a nice guy.

O'Reilly was sued for harassing a co-worker. She had tapes of the calls. They were really creepy. He paid her off. He wrote a book before the calls took place that had an identical scene to the phone sex. Al Frankin read the passages on air more than once. It's really creepy. Bill has a thing about loofas and touching breasts in the shower.

And of course, Letterman being somewhat left-of-center vs. O'Reilly on the other side makes the case and point a slam dunk in your mind. Remember, I'm speaking of Boss/Subordinate ... not co-workers, not harassment. (You seem to keep forgetting that key point I have to repeat over and over.) So I say ...

So I don't agree with you on an unrelated topic and you think it's my politics? It's absurd.

What about Darth Rotor? Is it his politics as well?

And of course, still thinking it's just a co-worker thingy or harassment thingy, you go on with ...

Yes, that appears to be what you are doing. Since you think you are correct, you imagine we must be misreading your posts.

And there you have it. Celebrities get a different point of view under which we should examine workplace behavior, along with arguments you make where one you find creepy, the other harmless.

I do believe O'Reilly and Letterman are both celebs.

 

[mgidm86]

I'm a Letterman fan, but sadly, these "revelations" come as no real surprise.

They do for me, I always figured he was gay.

 

[Just thinking]

The definition of, "I don't agree", is not, "you didn't read what I said".

Post #73:

I was referring to both coworkers and employees as well as subordinates. Perhaps that wasn't clear. Why can't someone date their boss? You again are implying all women who are attracted to their bosses must be victims.

What are you thinking? We live in a caste system?

Not a caste system ... but perhaps you don't see the issues that can easily arise from such behavior. And no, you never made it clear that subordinates were considered by you because every time I mentioned that fact, you kept going back to the term co-workers. But back to the main point ... it raises suspicions (even if unfounded) by fellow employees when it comes to things like raises, promotions, job duties, etc. It's a very poor work environment practice ... which is prohibited/strongly discouraged in many companies. A good analogy would be a college professor dating one of his students --- just how do you think other students in the class will feel when it comes to grades. Or a judge dating a defendant. (Imagine yourself suing someone only to find that the deciding judge in your case is romantically involved with that person --- you would move for an immediate mistrial once that information became common knowledge. Even with no evidence of judicial bias.) Those in power over people cannot avoid having biased feelings over those he/she is romantically involved with. And if you think these issues (totally unrelated to sexual harassment and totally irrelevant as to whether anyone reports such bias) aren't real, then this discourse will serve no further purpose after this post.

It depends on each case.

FALSE

Now I see why this issue is not going to be resolved between us. You keep bringing up sexual harassment ... I'm speaking of something totally different, and unless we are going to debate the same thing, this dialog is useless.

Yes, a boss could victimize a female employee. If you believe the movies, a boss can victimize a male employee as well. But that doesn't mean every woman attracted to her boss is a victim. Do you think Melinda Gates is a victim?

And this above quote by you is all the proof I or any other clear thinking individual needs to see that you aren't reading/understanding what I am saying. And as for Melinda Gates ... neither of us knows all the information needed to make a final decision. And as for what her allegations have to do with this discussion of ours, I haven't a clue.

No, stardom typically makes one attractive to a potential sexual partner. It's a fact of life. That adds weight to the odds the women had no issues dating Dave.

Irrelevancy ... in one of its purest forms.

Yawn..... The only double standard here is coming from your tunnel vision.

When you're ready to discuss the issues I've brought up, you'll perhaps begin to understand ... and stop yawning as well.

I do believe I know quite well what sexual harassment is. Bill O'Reilly calling up a female producer and talking dirty was apparent harassment. We don't know if Letterman harassed anyone but so far it looks as though he didn't.

And I do believe I know the issues quite well. Bill was never convicted of sexual harassment, the allegations were dropped for reasons unknown. The key word being unknown; and if you wish to fill in the holes of his case with reasons you feel meet your agendas, then you can debate these analogies with yourself.

I am going by the evidence we have, not the speculation the news is reporting.

Hardly ... look how you've convicted Bill. (See bolding below.)

No female complained about Letterman that we know of. He's attractive. His on screen persona is one of a nice guy.

Again ... more irrelevancy.

O'Reilly was sued for harassing a co-worker. She had tapes of the calls. They were really creepy. He paid her off. He wrote a book before the calls took place that had an identical scene to the phone sex. Al Frankin read the passages on air more than once. It's really creepy. Bill has a thing about loofahs and touching breasts in the shower.

Now I guess it's my turn ... YAWN (BTW ... can you prove Bill paid her off ... I'll start the clock ticking on that one. Go!)

So I don't agree with you on an unrelated topic and you think it's my politics? It's absurd.

Pot ... meet kettle. You may now add pure hypocrisy to your list.

What about Darth Rotor? Is it his politics as well?

He agreed with your comment against my comment.

Yes, that appears to be what you are doing. Since you think you are correct, you imagine we must be misreading your posts.

As yet ... I have little evidence of that being the case (you fully understanding my point) --- which, by-the-way, no one has been able to dismiss as not being true. At this point, I'll allow you to reconsider your opening comment ... The definition of, "I don't agree", is not, "you didn't read what I said". It's becoming all too clear that is exactly what is happening.

I do believe O'Reilly and Letterman are both celebs.

If only scientists could have at their disposal the amount of evidence you supply me with in proving my point. You missed my final comment by a full mile.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not a caste system ... but perhaps you don't see the issues that can easily arise from such behavior.

As a woman who has worked my entire adult life at many different places of employment, I've experienced sexual harassment. I am not ignorant. Once again, I disagree with you and you discount my opinion claiming it must just be an uninformed decision. Well it isn't. I just happen to think the majority of women are capable of having an attraction and/or relationship with men regardless if those men are their superiors on the job.

Some men are creeps. Some women are meek and easily victimizable. The vast majority of each are not.

... it raises suspicions (even if unfounded) by fellow employees when it comes to things like raises, promotions, job duties, etc. It's a very poor work environment practice ... which is prohibited/strongly discouraged in many companies.

Yeah, that happens. If a relationship takes off, it is not uncommon for one of the parties to end up resigning to avoid the appearance problem.

A good analogy would be a college professor dating one of his students --- just how do you think other students in the class will feel when it comes to grades.

Classes are short term. It's easy enough to wait until the class is over.

Or a judge dating a defendant. ...

Now you are getting off topic. People develop relationships with the people they work with. It's a fact of life. If you want to include every potential interaction between men and women where a conflict of interest is possible, that is well beyond this discussion.

I said, though you disagree, that there are cases of bosses abusing their power position. That isn't right. But you seem to think that just because that can happen no one should ever date their boss. That's stupid. Why not? Just because someone else doesn't like it? I think not.

Not every woman needs protection and you are insulting us to think we do.

Now I see why this issue is not going to be resolved between us. You keep bringing up sexual harassment ... I'm speaking of something totally different, and unless we are going to debate the same thing, this dialog is useless.

You seem to think that because abuse can occur, one must never go there. That implies all women are little girls in need of protection.

And this above quote by you is all the proof I or any other clear thinking individual needs to see that you aren't reading/understanding what I am saying. And as for Melinda Gates ... neither of us knows all the information needed to make a final decision. And as for what her allegations have to do with this discussion of ours, I haven't a clue.

Allegations? Are you not familiar with the marriage of the richest man in the world to one of his subordinates?

Who would you expect Bill Gates to marry? I am not the least bit surprised he'd marry one of his employees. The guy was a workaholic. What other women would he ever get to know except women he met on the job?

Irrelevancy ... in one of its purest forms.

It's irrelevant that women probably were attracted to David Letterman? So if they were attracted but didn't work for him they weren't victims but if they were attracted to him but they did work for him they were?

When you're ready to discuss the issues I've brought up, you'll perhaps begin to understand ... and stop yawning as well.

Same translation you used before: If I disagree I must not get it.

And I do believe I know the issues quite well. Bill was never convicted of sexual harassment, the allegations were dropped for reasons unknown.

Reasons unknown? You're kidding, right?

Hardly ... look how you've convicted Bill. (See bolding below.)...(BTW ... can you prove Bill paid her off ... I'll start the clock ticking on that one. Go!)

Yes, look indeed:

CBS News: The out-of-court settlement came on the eve of a courtroom fight over audiotapes

The New York Daily News, citing unidentified sources, reported that O'Reilly had agreed to pay Mackris anywhere from $2 million to $10 million. Separately, the New York Post said it was believed that O'Reilly paid "multimillions of dollars" to settle the suit.

WA Post

The deal likely involves payment of millions of dollars to Mackris, since the two sides were discussing an offer of well over $2 million when negotiations broke down, say sources close to O'Reilly...

...Fox believed Mackris had tape recordings of the long, highly detailed conversations alleged in the suit, but Morelli never confirmed that, saying only that they had concrete evidence. O'Reilly and his attorney, Ronald Green, never denied that the Fox commentator had used such language, but said he never broke the law and questioned whether Mackris was truly offended or was taking words and phrases out of context....

..."I was put in a position with a man that, whenever he would call me at work or at home, work-related, he would say jump and I'd say how high and I would jump," Mackris told CNN earlier this month. "I'm not used to saying no to this man on any level. I had said no to him and no to him and no to him and no to him and no to him and no to him about his saucy language. . . . He had threatened that anybody who ever would speak of it would be raked through the mud. . . . I was absolutely threatened."

Now how about you show us the evidence against Letterman?

Pot ... meet kettle. You may now add pure hypocrisy to your list.

Have you imagined somewhere I've attributed your opinion here to your politics? Because I don't recall doing that.

He agreed with your comment against my comment.

And yet he is likely to favor conservatives over liberals while you claim favoring liberals over conservatives is the only thing that shapes my opinion here.

As yet ... I have little evidence of that being the case (you fully understanding my point) --- which, by-the-way, no one has been able to dismiss as not being true. At this point, I'll allow you to reconsider your opening comment ... The definition of, "I don't agree", is not, "you didn't read what I said". It's becoming all too clear that is exactly what is happening.

What's clear is you'd like to argue ad homs instead of the issues. Perhaps you cannot make your case based on the issues.

If only scientists could have at their disposal the amount of evidence you supply me with in proving my point. You missed my final comment by a full mile.

So you are saying O'Reilly and Letterman are not celebs? Huh?