PDA

View Full Version : Letterman is CREEPY


Show Me the Wire
10-02-2009, 04:20 PM
I agree with Imus, Letterman is creepy. Letterman’s pseudo-intellectual audience is creepy.

The man is confessing he committed terrible deeds, sexual harassment and infidelity, and the audience laughs and applauds the terrible deeds. The audience demonstrates inappropriate behavior throughout the whole confession. The creepy audience laughs and applauds about acts of physical, mental and emotional injury heaped upon Letterman’s subordinates, as well as, the mental and emotional anguish inflicted on his family.

I never believed the propaganda about lLetterman’s audience being sophisticated and hip. His audience last night proved they are just creepy, like the sexual harassing host.

ddog
10-02-2009, 04:25 PM
That's way over your and IMus head it seems.

The perfectly logical response in that situation is nervous laughter/silence/some thinking it may be a gag of some type.

In that audience do you expect them to run up on stage and give him a hug or a reproach.

You really need to bone up on your crowd/mob dynamics.


The "audience" has a certain role, i am shocked you seem so puzzled and seek to draw such cosmic blather from that situation.

I really am.

Until/if he is charged it's not SH.

Show Me the Wire
10-02-2009, 04:30 PM
It was the applause that pushed it into creepy. Nervous laughter I understand. I watched last night and there was genuine laughter (laugh track?) and applause, along with some nervous laughter.

Creepy as can be.

ddog
10-02-2009, 04:35 PM
I am saying, there was an expected response before they showed up.

Yeah, some maybe got a kick out of thinking about a degraded woman, I don't think he has a lock on that audience though.

A comic without "edge" or a little creepy is one I sure want to avoid.
I am not a Letterman fan. The only time I see him is on Youtube that is sent to me. These MSM comics don't do much for me, never have.

I didn't see the whole deal, but applause could have been affirming him coming out with it , being honest about it in front of the audience.

Essentially bringing the audience to the "inside with him".


Comic - tragic.

Rookies
10-02-2009, 08:09 PM
I agree with Imus,

LMFAO ! Imus ? He's the poster boy for CREEPY. :lol: His weird pic is set beside the definition in Wikepedia/Encarta!

As for Letterman, he screwed up. Did he screw up before he got married? Time will tell. But, he wasn't a Catholic Bishop downloading child porn or a Republican I'm a hoe Senator trolling for little boys in washroom stalls or a perverted film maker raping underage little girls. It was consensual sex between adults. End of story... at least before he faces the music with the Mrs.

Colin Cowherd today said it was an incredibly savvy performance to out it himself, before the store was broken on him.

As for the audience ? They had no clue that it wasn't part of his schtick. I suppose that accounts for the laughter. For the record, I rarely watch Letterman.

rastajenk
10-02-2009, 08:14 PM
Aye yi yi, circle the date, I think I agree with the dog for once. I didn't see it live, have seen some clips on the news today and embedded in some blogs, and I don't think the audience knew what to do. They were put in a tough spot, kind of like an Andy Kaufman bit: is this real...what the hell is going on?

They're certainly not as creepy as some of Polanski apologists that have been seeking some headlines.

That's about all I got.

Show Me the Wire
10-02-2009, 08:32 PM
Rookies:

So it is okay to justify bad behavior by pointing out bad behavior of another sort?

Sexual harrasment has nothing to do with marital status or religion. It is about denigrating women in the workplace and violating a standard contractual clause in CBS' contracts.

The audience applauding for that creepy behavior is creepy.

cj's dad
10-02-2009, 08:41 PM
Isn't it amazing how doggie boy can always and I mean always educate we mere mortals into thinking that what seems so effin easy to grasp is in fact deep intellectual analysis.

Thank you so much Doggie for your insight into Letterman's late night audience!!

Rookies
10-02-2009, 08:49 PM
Rookies:

So it is okay to justify bad behavior by pointing out bad behavior of another sort?

There's not even close to any moral relativism here between Letterman and these other cretins, but you know that. One was an inappropriate behavious, the others are crimes... two of which are very, very serious crimes.

Sexual harrasment has nothing to do with marital status or religion. It is about denigrating women in the workplace and violating a standard contractual clause in CBS' contracts.

On this point, I agree. Anyone with a power relationship should not be engaging in sex, even with consensual adults. Happens in thousands of work places however. Wasn't smart, but I've already said that.

The audience applauding for that creepy behavior is creepy.
It's odd, but they got feinted out on this incident. Didn't know what to do. Again, I wouldn't lead your argument with one of the all time creepy persons.

Show Me the Wire
10-02-2009, 08:53 PM
ddog and Rookies have a valid point about the audience being not being sure I think any intellectual person like Letterman would have foreseen, this particular announcement couched in comedic vein, the dicey position this would cause for the audience.

If someone had common sense, there would have been an announcement prior to Letterman's disclosure about the confession's serious nature. Also, the timing is suspect. He disclosed his sexual demeaning of women co-workers' after his monologue.

I proffer the lack of announcement, the timing of the disclosure and the comedic tone of the confession's delivery had been designed to take advantage his audiences' creepiness.

BTW Rookies you made the moral relativism comparison, not me. And you bring it up again by distinguishing inappropriate behaviours from iegally defined crimes.

Greyfox
10-02-2009, 09:24 PM
Social pressure does strange things to audiences or individuals in groups.
The way Letterman presented it was "as if" a funny story was coming.
After all that is what they were expecting.
My guess is that after, several were kicking themselves for not standing up and walking out.
In the rearview mirror, we all have situations in life where we wish that we had stood up against the group mind.

Rookies
10-02-2009, 09:26 PM
BTW Rookies you made the moral relativism comparison, not me. And you bring it up again by distinguishing inappropriate behaviours from iegally defined crimes.

Of course, because I think that Letterman's situation is so far down the moral continuum from the other recent events. FYI, this one happened yesterday in Canada simultaneously to Letterman's announcement:
A prominent Roman Catholic bishop praised for his compassion and humanity in dealing with victims of sexual abuse in Nova Scotia now faces charges related to child pornography.


In August, Bishop Raymond Lahey, head of the Diocese of Antigonish, concluded an historic $15-million settlement with parishioners who had been sexually abused as children. On Saturday, he suddenly resigned his position, citing only the need to take time for “personal renewal.”

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/10/01/catholic-bishop-who-resigned-faces-child-porn-charges.aspx##ixzz0SpcJOSVa (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/10/01/catholic-bishop-who-resigned-faces-child-porn-charges.aspx##ixzz0SpcJOSVa)

Disgusting and a 7th ring in Hades should await him.

So I wonder, other than the usual prurient interest with the entertainment / sports world, why the keen interest in Letterman's issue ?

LottaKash
10-02-2009, 09:33 PM
Of course, because I think that Letterman's situation is so far down the moral continuum from the other recent events. FYI, this one happened yesterday in Canada simultaneously to Letterman's announcement:
A prominent Roman Catholic bishop praised for his compassion and humanity in dealing with victims of sexual abuse in Nova Scotia now faces charges related to child pornography.


In August, Bishop Raymond Lahey, head of the Diocese of Antigonish, concluded an historic $15-million settlement with parishioners who had been sexually abused as children. On Saturday, he suddenly resigned his position, citing only the need to take time for “personal renewal.”

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/10/01/catholic-bishop-who-resigned-faces-child-porn-charges.aspx##ixzz0SpcJOSVa (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/10/01/catholic-bishop-who-resigned-faces-child-porn-charges.aspx##ixzz0SpcJOSVa)

Disgusting and a 7th ring in Hades should await him.

So I wonder, other than the usual prurient interest with the entertainment / sports world, why the keen interest in Letterman's issue ?

How about discussing, one disgusting thing at a time....:jump:

Show Me the Wire
10-02-2009, 09:39 PM
So what. What does your posting do besides deflect the issue regarding the method Letterman used to disclose his sexual abusive behavior of women employees?

You are justifing demeaning behavior towards women by an intellectual person, Letterman, because other people do terrible deeds too.

Am I calling for his head? No. Am I defending Polanski or the Canadian Bishop?No. Their terrible deeds are irrelevant to Letterman's terrible deeds unless you are trying to excuse Letterman's sexually abusive behavior.

Besides my original point was his audience re-acted even creepier. The applauding was disgusting.

Rookies
10-02-2009, 09:44 PM
You know I'm not. But, one is way, way less significant than the others. The others did terrible things, Letterman didn't. He did stupid things, which his now wife needs to absolve him and CBS needs to consider whether he violated any policy.

Again, the audience whiffed. They weren't expecting his tale.

Show Me the Wire
10-02-2009, 10:09 PM
You know I'm not. But, one is way, way less significant than the others. The others did terrible things, Letterman didn't. He did stupid things, which his now wife needs to absolve him and CBS needs to consider whether he violated any policy.

Again, the audience whiffed. They weren't expecting his tale.

Okay, I agree the other two did more significant damage. But Letterman's culpibility was never my point. Let me put it this way. The creepy part was the presentation and response, not that acts themselves.

Based on your cogent point about the audience being blindsided, we should agree Letterman used the wrong venue to disclose his terrible deeds.

A press conference is a more approptiate place and time, than after the monologue in a comedic setting.

My point is Letterman is not a fool. He intentionally disclosed his terrible deeds in an inappropriate venue, counting on receiving the rection from his core supporters, the audience. This is why in my opinion Letterman is creepy and the audiences' response was creepy.

His sexual acts are not creepy (demeaning but not creepy), but the style of the disclosure and the elicited response are creepy.

Greyfox
10-02-2009, 10:24 PM
Based on your cogent point about the audience being blindsided, we should agree Letterman used the wrong venue to disclose his terrible deeds.

A press conference is a more approptiate place and time, than after the monologue in a comedic setting.

.

:ThmbUp: You nailed it. He "used" his audience knowing that group dynamics would water it down.

sally
10-02-2009, 10:40 PM
Never really liked Letterman--now I like him even less...

What a horrible thing to put your wife and kid through-- she needs to divorce the creep and take all his money--

I never understand the countless wives of prominent people who "stand by" their husbands after being put in that position-- unless they plan on emptying the bank account, -- where is their self-esteem????

Rookies
10-02-2009, 10:59 PM
Okay, I agree the other two did more significant damage. But Letterman's culpibility was never my point. Let me put it this way. The creepy part was the presentation and response, not that acts themselves.

Based on your cogent point about the audience being blindsided, we should agree Letterman used the wrong venue to disclose his terrible deeds.

A press conference is a more approptiate place and time, than after the monologue in a comedic setting.

My point is Letterman is not a fool. He intentionally disclosed his terrible deeds in an inappropriate venue, counting on receiving the rection from his core supporters, the audience. This is why in my opinion Letterman is creepy and the audiences' response was creepy.

His sexual acts are not creepy (demeaning but not creepy), but the style of the disclosure and the elicited response are creepy.

Hmmmm... Creepy ? I don't think so. I don't think this meets the definition of the word. But, having thought about it some more, certainly Machiavellian. This is unfortunately the way of the world today. Very few own up to their mistakes and responsibilities or to reinforce your point, they try and obfuscate to mitigate their errors/crimes/ by changing venues/ responses like chameleons.

When I was young, people (pols/athletes/businessmen) fell on their sword when they did something wrong and/or inappropriate and were found out. Today, it is rare that this happens. Moreso, followers/supporters base their opinion on whether it's somebody (normally) on 'their side' or their opponents.

Show Me the Wire
10-02-2009, 11:11 PM
Yes, you did reinforce my point. As for creepy. I felt creeped out by it.

Greyfox
10-02-2009, 11:16 PM
Hmmmm... Creepy ? I don't think so. I don't think this meets the definition of the word. .

I am not a University professor.
If I were, and if I were teaching a morality class of any type, I could get mileage out of the video tape showing Letterman's "confession"(?).
There is tremendous room here for discussion. Probably several hours of analysis. This is a gold mine for moral values in a University or College setting.
1. What did he do wrong, if anything, on his show?
2. What did he do right, if anything, on his show?
3. Does he show remorse? Or detachment?
4. Did he use and abuse his audience?
5. Should he have "confessed"(?) on public TV?
6. Should he stay on TV?
7. What is his future as a "funnyman?"
8. If you were an audience attender how would you have reacted?
and so on.

You may not see him as "creepy."
Until you can argue different, and I'm an open-minded guy,
I see him as a "Creep." Being a Creep and being Creepy of course can be different.

Show Me the Wire
10-02-2009, 11:22 PM
Greyfox:

:ThmbUp:

Very thoughtfull questions for analysis. Looking forward to Rookies response.

Rookies
10-02-2009, 11:37 PM
Nor am I an expert on Letterman, Greyfox.

I believe he has kept his private life, quite private. I also believe that:
a) he's been in a long term relationship with one woman, but didn't marry her until recently;
b) has had weird (creepy) stalkers in the past;
c) was supposedly blackmailed in this instance in a kinda creepy way, by a producer of investigative journalism.

Does it matter IF the affair took place prior to a formal marriage ? I ask only because there is a lot of hair splitting and hard positions on matters in this very forum if marriage is involved v.s. simply a relationship.

Was it appropriate to use the bully pulpit of his show to discuss this issue ? Maybe, but it is probably correct that he should of held a press conference/ public discussion BEFORE he met his audience. Because, he blindsided them. They were thinking shtick and it was real life !

I don't consider this a minor thing, but given many other recent public events of a moral nature, I guess I don't see the same significance as some here do. What will happen to him in the future, will happen.

Imus, Stern, Marv Albert, etc. all went to purgatories for a time for various offences, but all are back in the entertainment world today.

Greyfox
10-03-2009, 12:15 AM
[QUOTE=Rookies
Does it matter IF the affair took place prior to a formal marriage ? I ask only because there is a lot of hair splitting and hard positions on matters in this very forum if marriage is involved v.s. simply a relationship.

Was it appropriate to use the bully pulpit of his show to discuss this issue ? Maybe, but it is probably correct that he should of held a press conference/ public discussion BEFORE he met his audience. Because, he blindsided them. They were thinking shtick and it was real life !

I don't consider this a minor thing, but given many other recent public events of a moral nature, I guess I don't see the same significance as some here do. What will happen to him in the future, will happen.

Imus, Stern, Marv Albert, etc. all went to purgatories for a time for various offences, but all are back in the entertainment world today.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with what you are saying above. I would even add,
if the affairs took place before or after his recent formal marriage, that is between husband and wife, and God, ultimately. I'm not the judge.
We have no idea what their agreements are.
That's not a problem.
Women aren't as stupid as men might like to think they are. They know. It is the men that think that they don't know that are stupid.
I still see him as a "Creep,"not for the "SINS" that he supposedly "confessed" to, but the manner and medium in which he "used" to confess them.
He may not be "creepy," but he's a "Creep, par excellence"

Rookies
10-03-2009, 09:02 AM
I have no problem with what you are saying above. I would even add,
if the affairs took place before or after his recent formal marriage, that is between husband and wife, and God, ultimately. I'm not the judge.
We have no idea what their agreements are.
That's not a problem.
Women aren't as stupid as men might like to think they are. They know. It is the men that think that they don't know that are stupid.
I still see him as a "Creep,"not for the "SINS" that he supposedly "confessed" to, but the manner and medium in which he "used" to confess them.
He may not be "creepy," but he's a "Creep, par excellence"

Perhaps.

But, as you have stated, we don't know all the facts of the particular circumstances of Letterman's relationship with his former live in friend, now wife. As you well know, some women ( even if they are WIVES) have told their husbands/partners, that they're not interested in sex anymore, so in effect... " Be my guest- as long as you don't do anything to screw things up. "

This scenario may not be in play here, but maybe it was Letterman's power relationship. Again, good & bad. Good, because it's internal, rather than a very, very prominent public figure going out in public. Bad, as SMTW as stated, precisely, because it's a power relationship at work and he is obviously the one with all the power.

On the subject of men & women, so much has been written. This I agree with, by personal observation of some younger friends. The more the man-husband gets away with, the more his defences go down, thinking that he is both all powerful and ominscient in terms of the pursuit of sex. To not think that the woman-wife won't find out reveals you for a fool and idiot. Given Blackberry's, Cell Phones, Pagers, e-mail of today, they find out quickly!

And then... down goes Frazier ! :ThmbDown:

He did for sure, carefully, thoughtfully calculate revealing this to his TV audience in a manner which had not been set up. He could have even come on BEFORE the show and tipped them that he had something to say that wasn't a gag, but deadly serious for him.

He didn't and very unwise for somebody with pretty good smarts. He was even surprised why some where laughing or cheering. That was his fault, as was whatever he did to get him into this small, personal mess.

Tom
10-03-2009, 11:09 AM
How about discussing, one disgusting thing at a time....:jump:

They can't do it. They have to flip everything. Like children......Johnny did it too! Waaaaaaaa! :lol:

mountainman
10-03-2009, 02:16 PM
The man is confessing he committed terrible deeds, sexual harassment and infidelity, and the audience laughs and applauds the terrible deeds.

Infidelity a 'terrible' deed? Does that mean america is populated by 'terrible' people? Or merely half populated? Or does it depend on which statistics you read?

ezrabrooks
10-03-2009, 02:35 PM
Infidelity a 'terrible' deed? Does that mean america is populated by 'terrible' people? Or merely half populated? Or does it depend on which statistics you read?

Mark...not like you to post gibberish.. You know you got a show to do..

Ez

Show Me the Wire
10-03-2009, 05:36 PM
Infidelity a 'terrible' deed? Does that mean america is populated by 'terrible' people? Or merely half populated? Or does it depend on which statistics you read?

Terrible deed his own words, not mine. The terrible deed is sexual harrasment of women underlings. Nothing to do with infidelity, except for his spouse.

You must have missed the earlier posts where I stated this, "Sexual harrasment has nothing to do with marital status or religion. It is about denigrating women in the workplace and violating a standard contractual clause in CBS' contracts."

I am assuming you inadvertantly missed the gist of my prior posts.

mountainman
10-03-2009, 06:04 PM
Terrible deed his own words, not mine. The terrible deed is sexual harrasment of women underlings. Nothing to do with infidelity, except for his spouse.

You must have missed the earlier posts where I stated this, "Sexual harrasment has nothing to do with marital status or religion. It is about denigrating women in the workplace and violating a standard contractual clause in CBS' contracts."

I am assuming you inadvertantly missed the gist of my prior posts.

Thanks. It was unclear to me from the way you worded it. But the bold-type portion of your post seems likewise ambiguous. You seem to be saying that the violation of a cbs contract is tantamount to breaking the law.

Show Me the Wire
10-03-2009, 08:42 PM
Thanks. It was unclear to me from the way you worded it. But the bold-type portion of your post seems likewise ambiguous. You seem to be saying that the violation of a cbs contract is tantamount to breaking the law.


Not really sure what isn't clear. Violating a contractual relationship is breaking civil law. That is if CBS chooses to enforce the contract.

Letterman's actions places CBS in a bad situation.

A case could be made Letterman broke criminal laws by performing rape. If the sex act is coerced Letterman could possibly be charged with rape.

Tom
10-03-2009, 08:56 PM
I'm rooting for the defendant - hope he has a sharp lawyer and turns it on old Davey boy.

Top 10 Reasons to Buy Soap-on-a-Rope! :lol:

Rookies
10-03-2009, 10:36 PM
Not really sure what isn't clear. Violating a contractual relationship is breaking civil law. That is if CBS chooses to enforce the contract.

Very unlikely. Letterman is their top cash cow by far.


Letterman's actions places CBS in a bad situation.

Hardly. Corporate bootlickers are always afraid of their own shadow.

A case could be made Letterman broke criminal laws by performing rape. If the sex act is coerced Letterman could possibly be charged with rape.

WTF ? SMTW, do you think that if that had remotely happened, in anybody's mind, it would have come up a loooong time ago ? After all, Letterman is like a sports athlete. He can be taken advantage of easily for huge $$$$. So, I'm going to speculate I D F T S.



Reply sent

Rookies
10-03-2009, 10:39 PM
I'm rooting for the defendant - hope he has a sharp lawyer and turns it on old Davey boy.



There's a shock ! You being on the side of blackmail & extortion. :lol:

mountainman
10-03-2009, 10:46 PM
You must have missed the earlier posts where I stated this, "Sexual harrasment has nothing to do with marital status or religion. It is about denigrating women in the workplace and violating a standard contractual clause in CBS' contracts."



No. You're attempting to revise what your wrote. This post doesn't equate the violation of Letterman's contract with culpability in civil court, but instead with a serious crime. Which is nonsense. His conduct may well violate cbs policy but stilll fall short of sexual harassment in a criminal context.

Tom
10-04-2009, 12:43 AM
There's a shock ! You being on the side of blackmail & extortion. :lol:

Being from Canada, you might not be familiar with our legal system. Here,we do not just hear one side of the story. The other guy has yet to speak.

Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 12:44 AM
No. You're attempting to revise what your wrote. This post doesn't equate the violation of Letterman's contract with culpability in civil court, but instead with a serious crime. Which is nonsense. His conduct may well violate cbs policy but stilll fall short of sexual harassment in a criminal context.


What are you talking about? My initial point and the point reinforced in my post with Rookies was the creepiness of the audience's response to Letterman's comedic spin on his terrible deeds. Sexual harassment is a terrible deed. What he did at least is sexual harassment.

As poof here is main quote from my initial post, "I agree with Imus, Letterman is creepy. Letterman’s pseudo-intellectual audience is creepy.

The man is confessing he committed terrible deeds, sexual harassment and infidelity, and the audience laughs and applauds the terrible deeds. The audience demonstrates inappropriate behavior throughout the whole confession. The creepy audience laughs and applauds about acts of physical, mental and emotional injury heaped upon Letterman’s subordinates, as well as, the mental and emotional anguish inflicted on his family."

Where in that original thought do you come up with the garbage about my revising what I wrote? Nothing is ambiguous.

Show it to me and everyone else where I revised my words to mollify your concerns.

Read the subsequent posts in their correct context, without inserting imaginary words in my post to validate your erroneous conclusions.

About the rape, think about it, if a husband can be prosecuted for raping his wife, why can't a superior in the work environment be charged with rape? If one of the women has the courage to come forward to claim she was coerced i.e. raped the DA should consider a criminal case.

If you like the creep, defend him, but not at my expense. If you think recieving sexual favors from subordinate women in the work place is acceptable, you are mistaken.

Does Letterman's case strike a nerve?

Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 12:52 AM
No. You're attempting to revise what your wrote. This post doesn't equate the violation of Letterman's contract with culpability in civil court, but instead with a serious crime. Which is nonsense. His conduct may well violate cbs policy but stilll fall short of sexual harassment in a criminal context.


BTW my bolded response was to your point (post 27) saying infidelity, itself, is not a terrible deed. Again nothing ambigous there. I plainly stated marital status, meaning infidelity, is not the problem, but the taking advantage of subordinates for sexual favors is the problem. Denigrating women underlings is the problem. Clear enough for you?

Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 12:58 AM
Rookies:

Letterman's action’s definitely puts CBS in a bad situation. If they look the other way it opens CBS up for lots of monetary damages. They open themselves up to the argument they condone sexual harassment in the work place or promote the environment. Also as you said he is a cash cow.

That is what I meant about CBS difficult situation.

Rookies
10-04-2009, 09:37 AM
SMTW

I hear your point. In my humble opinion, you are way over selling it.

Although not yet subject to legal disclosure, it would appear that the Facts are:

a) Letterman had consensual sex with adult woman employee(s);
b) None of those women complained;
c) A CBS Producer, apparently in deep financial trouble, heard about it and sought to blackmail Letterman and extort funds to solve his financial problems.

My Opinion:

a) From the information thus far, there was no sexual harrasment.
b) From the infomation thus far, both Lettermand AND the woman may have violated CBS policy. On this point, I don't know what the policy is, nor do you. Some corps are very strict as to inter office relationships, some have less defined policy, some have nothing at all.

But this criminal case is between Letterman and his (alleged) blackmailer, not with this woma/en. There may be some titillating things the blackmailer pulls out of his bag of tricks to embarass Letterman. So be it. That's the road Letterman chose to end it.

As to whether he should, beyond any written CBS policy, have consensual relations with known employees, in hindsight- not. But again, given his stature and his deep privacy concerns, is he expected to act like a priest ? ( Sorry- very, very bad analogy ! ) But you get the point.

mountainman
10-04-2009, 03:07 PM
but the taking advantage of subordinates for sexual favors is the problem. Denigrating women underlings is the problem. Clear enough for you?

Not clear at all. A problem for who? Are you sitting in moral judgement of Letterman? Or stating that he has broken the law?

Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 04:01 PM
Not clear at all. A problem for who? Are you sitting in moral judgement of Letterman? Or stating that he has broken the law?


I see you can not make your point about me revising my opinion. Take this is in the spirit it is written. I m engaging in a discussion about the appropriateness of the venue Letterman used to disclose his terrible deeds (his own words not mine) and the audience's reaction.

Where do you read I am passing moral judgment on Letterman regarding his infidelity, if his deeds took place after his marriage? The issue was the venue and his comedic tone about his behavior.

If you don't think infidelity emotionally injures a person just ask Elizabeth Edwards if it does or does not. Also, I not sure Letterman’s spouse would agree with your position that infidelity is a little harmless fun.

I've got news for you, read the existing laws and court rulings about what type of behavior constitutes sexual harassment in the work place. You will see a picture of Letterman as the poster boy.

CBS specifically has a contractual clause prohibiting the behavior practiced by Letterman. Do you think that clause is there because CBS has high morals? No, it is there to protect CBS from lawsuits resulting from such behavior.

Obviously it is a problem for Letterman, because it is serious enough for someone to attempt blackmail. If you understand blackmail, you have to accept there had to be a serious problem the subject of the blackmail would not want disclosed.

If you want to continue down the track of rationalizing infidelity as a little harmless fun or that having sexual relations with women underlings is acceptable work place behavior, go ahead. But I am not going to participate in your parade.


Your lack of understanding regarding the implications of sexual relations with women subordinates, and the definition of work place sexual harassment may be a problem for you.

Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 04:09 PM
SMTW

I hear your point. In my humble opinion, you are way over selling it.

Although not yet subject to legal disclosure, it would appear that the Facts are:

a) Letterman had consensual sex with adult woman employee(s);
b) None of those women complained;
c) A CBS Producer, apparently in deep financial trouble, heard about it and sought to blackmail Letterman and extort funds to solve his financial problems.

My Opinion:

a) From the information thus far, there was no sexual harrasment.
b) From the infomation thus far, both Lettermand AND the woman may have violated CBS policy. On this point, I don't know what the policy is, nor do you. Some corps are very strict as to inter office relationships, some have less defined policy, some have nothing at all.

But this criminal case is between Letterman and his (alleged) blackmailer, not with this woma/en. There may be some titillating things the blackmailer pulls out of his bag of tricks to embarass Letterman. So be it. That's the road Letterman chose to end it.

As to whether he should, beyond any written CBS policy, have consensual relations with known employees, in hindsight- not. But again, given his stature and his deep privacy concerns, is he expected to act like a priest ? ( Sorry- very, very bad analogy ! ) But you get the point.

Are you familiar with the applicable U.S.statutes and interpretations of those statutes to make such an emphatic statement that no sexual harassment occurred?

Office policy is different than laws and has no impact on the enforcement of laws.

There are many different variables in play. There are contractual laws between Letterman and CBS, there are U.S. federal laws against work place sexual harassment, there are civil lawsuits between Letterman and the women.

It is not as simple as you imply. We will just have to see how it plays out, won't we.

Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 04:13 PM
I hear several of the women are going to sue Letterman for having them dress as Sarah Palin as foreplay :lol:

Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 04:44 PM
Seems many people have an issue with Letterman's comedic presentation of his confession regarding his terrible ddeds.

A qoute from an article written by Brett Michael Dykes:

"Much of the buzz around David Letterman’s late-night revelation keeps circling back to one question: Why was the studio audience laughing? Viewers who watched it on TV or online immediately took to Twitter to express everything from bewilderment to outrage over the audience's reaction. Shawn Ryan, creator of the FX show "The Shield," opined, "What a fascinating confession/comedy act from Letterman. Audience didn't know how to respond at parts." Another Twitter user going by the handle "Brain" stated, "Letterman audience clapped when he said he had sex with staffers...... [bolding added]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091002/en_ynews/ynews_en938;_ylt=AopumpgXnAmb9hYr738JbaF0fNdF

As I postulated, in my earlier posts, the applause really pushed it into creepiness.

mountainman
10-04-2009, 04:45 PM
Read the subsequent posts in their correct context, without inserting imaginary words in my post to validate your erroneous conclusions.



What context(s) could conceivably clarify posts that mix moral and ethics-based accusations, confuse civil and criminal culpability, put forth a layman's legal opinion as fact, equate the violation of workplace policy with the commission of a serious felony, and- to top it all off- liken forced marital rape to consensual sex with subordinates?

Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 04:56 PM
What context(s) could conceivably clarify posts that mix moral and ethics-based accusations, confuse civil and criminal culpability, put forth a layman's legal opinion as fact, equate the violation of workplace policy with the commission of a serious felony, and- to top it all off- liken forced marital rape to consensual sex with subordinates?

The context is clear. All posts whould be read in the context Letterman, by his own admission, did terrible deeds, and specifically the venue he chose to disclose these deeds and the audience's reaction to these deeds..

Once again, I did not make any accusations based on morals or ethics. If you are naive on sexual harassment laws, contractual disputes, etc., do not assume everyone is as naive.

mountainman
10-04-2009, 05:01 PM
If you want to continue down the track of rationalizing infidelity as a little harmless fun or that having sexual relations with women underlings is acceptable work place behavior, go ahead. But I am not going to participate in your parade.


Your lack of understanding regarding the implications of sexual relations with women subordinates, and the definition of work place sexual harassment may be a problem for you.

So if I objectively opine that Letterman's transgressions don't constitute rape, that means I view his behavior as 'harmless fun?' Say what? Are you serious? By the way, I've supervised MANY women at work and never had an issue arise.

mountainman
10-04-2009, 05:06 PM
Once again, I did not make any accusations based on morals or ethics. If you are naive on sexual harassment laws, contractual disputes, etc., do not assume everyone is as naive.

There you go again, implying legal expertise that your posts simply don't support.

Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 05:10 PM
So if I objectively opine that Letterman's transgressions don't constitute rape, that means I view his behavior as 'harmless fun?' Say what? Are you serious? By the way, I've supervised MANY women at work and never had an issue arise.

Look who is trying to revise what they wrote. How can you objectively opine about anything if you don't know the laws or the level of coercive pressure applied to the women?

Your opinion sounds very subjective to me. The common theme of your posting is infidelity is harmless fun (half of America does it) and it is okay to have sexual relations with women subordinates in the work place. In other words it is okay to denigrate women in the work place.

I clearly understood the points of your postings. However, it is prudent for you to start backpedaling now, so not to incur further damage.

Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 05:13 PM
There you go again, implying legal expertise that your posts simply don't support.


I really don't care about your opinion. Cite me some legal opinions that show I am wrong. Your subjective opinion means nothing.

mountainman
10-05-2009, 10:18 AM
A case could be made Letterman broke criminal laws by performing rape. If the sex act is coerced Letterman could possibly be charged with rape.

Let me guess. As with all of your remarks, this seemingly straightforward quotation must be interpreted in whatever (imaginary) context that suits your purposes, right? But on the slim chance that what you mean is what you typed, let's cut to the chase. Your post clearly states that Letterman could be charged with rape. I say no way and am eager to back that opinion with money. In fact, I'll offer you 5-1 odds against formal rape charges being brought in a criminal court. Let your waffling begin.

ezrabrooks
10-05-2009, 10:23 AM
Let me guess. As with all of your remarks, this seemingly straightforward quotation must be interpreted in whatever (imaginary) context that suits your purposes, right? But on the slim chance that what you mean is what you typed, let's cut to the chase. Your post clearly states that Letterman could be charged with rape. I say no way and am eager to back that opinion with money. In fact, I'll offer you 5-1 odds against formal rape charges being brought in a criminal court. Let your waffling begin.

"No way" = 5/1? What a line maker you are..

Ez

mountainman
10-05-2009, 10:44 AM
"No way" = 5/1? What a line maker you are..

Ez
Nope. Just limited on funds. lol. Can't back higher odds. In fact, I can't cover a wager of more than $20. Think maybe I should have mentioned that tiny detail in my big-talking post?

bigmack
10-05-2009, 12:17 PM
B8PLXzosp8I

PaceAdvantage
10-05-2009, 03:49 PM
OK, I just watched the clip BigMack posted....this is the first time I've seen Dave talk about this whole thing, the first time I've heard the audience reaction...

After watching it, I just have to ask...what is the big freakin' deal about all of this?

Unless a woman or women have come forward (and maybe they already have...I have paid ZERO attention to this story other than what has been posted in this thread) and claims they were pressured into having sex with Dave in exchange for a job promotion (or threatened demotion/firing)....I just don't see what the big deal is....

Office romances happen all the time. Unless there was a quid pro quo proposal or a hostile work environment resulted from Dave's actions, this really is a whole lotta nothing in my opinion.

Now, on a personal level there is something wrong with what Dave did if in fact he was doing this while married or while in a committed relationship with his now wife, but that's for him and her to figure out behind closed doors....

And I find nothing wrong with the audience reaction, considering they were blindsided by all of this, and assuming they are fans of Dave and the show (why would they be there if they weren't).

For the record, I've always liked Dave, except when he started his non-stop George Bush / Sarah Palin bash fest the past couple of years. To me, that repetitive nonsense got real old real fast.

Show Me the Wire
10-05-2009, 04:27 PM
Let me guess. As with all of your remarks, this seemingly straightforward quotation must be interpreted in whatever (imaginary) context that suits your purposes, right? But on the slim chance that what you mean is what you typed, let's cut to the chase. Your post clearly states that Letterman could be charged with rape. I say no way and am eager to back that opinion with money. In fact, I'll offer you 5-1 odds against formal rape charges being brought in a criminal court. Let your waffling begin.

Are you not tiring of this game. I bolded the word "could" becauss my whole statement revolves arounds the verb [B]could.

Could as a verb is defined by Dictionary.com in its 2nd definition as follows: hypothetical or conditional force.

I was stating a hypothetical. I specifically did not use, should, will, may,etc.

My statement is purely hypothetical with the intent to elicit discussion. Is it clear now? I hope so.

And my explanation is not revision of my words, it is solely for your edification why I selected "could" as the verb.

If you would have asked me what the probabilities are that Letterman would be charged with rape, I would have replied very slim to none, at this time.

The only possibility would be if one or more of the women come forward and say they were coerced into having sex and how motivated is the DA to look at a high profile name. Remember many political careers have been built on prosecuting high profile cases.

None of us know all the facts and circumstances and how many women he actually had servicing his desires. Was it one, two or twenty? The gravity of his deeds is directly related to the number of women involved. If it was one or two, it is less severe than if it wa twenty. If his deeds involve a large number of women, I think he starts crossing the line between mistake and intentional activities, activities that could be criminal.

Show Me the Wire
10-05-2009, 04:41 PM
PA:

Again context is everything. I don't watch Letterman because I do not find him humorous. I only watched this specific night, because the local news affiliate "teased" this specific show saying that Letterman made a stunning, dramatic confession.

With this mind-set, I was stunned that the audience laughed and applauded and at Letterman's own comedic tone while disclosing having sexual relations with his women staffers.

I thought the audience would have been informed about the nature of his "comedic" bit, due to the way Letterman's so-called confession was portrayed on the local news prior to Letterman's show airing.

The fact the audience had been blindsided by Letterman is another terrible deed perpetrated by him.

ezrabrooks
10-05-2009, 04:51 PM
PA:

Again context is everything. I don't watch Letterman because I do not find him humorous. I only watched this specific night, because the local news affiliate "teased" this specific show saying that Letterman made a stunning, dramatic confession.

With this mind-set, I was stunned that the audience laughed and applauded and at Letterman's own comedic tone while disclosing having sexual relations with his women staffers.

I thought the audience would have been informed about the nature of his "comedic" bit, due to the way Letterman's so-called confession was portrayed on the local news prior to Letterman's show airing.

The fact the audience had been blindsided by Letterman is another terrible deed perpetrated by him.

The show is taped...so, even though local news had it before airing...I still think the audience was in the dark. I agree with PA, the people were there to laugh at Dave...and I think they thought it was a bit until the end.

Ez

Show Me the Wire
10-05-2009, 05:01 PM
ezrabrooks:

I am not disagreeing. I understand the audience was blindsided and even some of the producers. Who knows, maybe some poor producer turned on the laughter and applause audience cue lights.

This is my basic poitnt. Letterman used the wrong venue, and used a comedic like routine to take advantage of his audience, all for Letterman's benefit.

That is why I wrote Letterman is guilty of another terrible deed for blindsiding his audience.

ddog
10-05-2009, 05:17 PM
No, he used the absolute CORRECT venue. You may not LIKE it , but it was the CORRECT venue for HIM.

As to the numbers involved , it's not material ,there is nothing criminal about having sexual relations with 2 or 200.

If 1 of them can be proven to be forced via workplace pressure , then that's enough.

I will say that if that was coming , I think it would have already come out.

It's much easier to make that case to a DA or to Letterman for hush money than to go the thrid party extortion route. Seems this clown producer was busted and looking for a payday.

CBS/Letterman would have paid A women to take that off the table any day of the week.

On another hand, there is much to gain from having some "power" over Letterman after the act has been committed.

Good job insurance I would say from the ladies perspective.

JustRalph
10-05-2009, 05:22 PM
After watching it, I just have to ask...what is the big freakin' deal about all of this? .

This is the problem

from an article I just read online:

"The man who has been famously stalked in the past intentionally made himself into stalker-bait. Worse, he became the punch line in one of his own Monica Lewinsky jokes, which Dave told with such glee not so long ago.

A former staffer at "Late Show" described to me a "toxic" atmosphere in the studio. She said women flirt mightily with the man. Sometimes, it works in their favor.

Everyone inside the program knows what it takes to get ahead."

This makes him the same as many many in the past in Hollywood or show biz that used the casting couch to their advantage. It's disgusting, it is morally reprehensible and wrong on many different levels.

There is even one woman out there now who is admitting it is how she got "ahead" at CBS.........and she has been very successful after leaving Letterman when he refused to marry her. She ended up marrying another Late Show employee, which gives me the creeps all the way around.

Show Me the Wire
10-05-2009, 05:26 PM
ddog:

You are correct it only takes one to establish rape. Let me ask you this.
What is more likely, let's say hypothetically he had sexual encounters with 20 staffers, out of twenty woman only one claims rapre. How likely is it that the DA will believe the claim? What if ten out of twenty come forward and claim rape. Is it more likely the D.A. will believe that rape actually happened?

ddog
10-05-2009, 05:29 PM
ddog:

You are correct it only takes one to establish rape. Let me ask you this.
What is more likely, let's say hypothetically he had sexual encounters with 20 staffers, out of twenty woman only one claims rapre. How likely is it that the DA will believe the claim? What if ten out of twenty come forward and claim rape. Is it more likely the D.A. will believe that rape actually happened?



You already gave the reply to that one.

Any DA that had a chance to bite at that apple won't need a second chance.

No money can buy that kind of face time.

Especially a "moral crusader" and aren't they all?

Seriously rape laws are very strict, he wouldn't have a choice most states.
They are to the point of "guilty until proven innocent beyond all doubt".


;)

A. Pineda
10-05-2009, 05:32 PM
ezrabrooks:

This is my basic poitnt. Letterman used the wrong venue, and used a comedic like routine to take advantage of his audience, all for Letterman's benefit.

I agree with this statement. Instead of making an announcement at the beginning of the show, and clearly stating that it would be in lieu of his normal monologue, he slid into his confession after eight minutes of jokes and audience approval. The audience was still laughing when he said that, "Yes, I had sex," which was a point in the story where the gravity of the situation should have been apparent to everyone.

I had an uneasy feeling viewing the tape, which others may call "creepy."

ddog
10-05-2009, 05:37 PM
There IS no big deal about it.

It's Hollywood. You don't go there(?) expecting the 2nd coming?

If this is not the 10millionth sex scanal to come out of there , it's close.

To rave it up into a national scandal ........................

Oh Romans , lend me your ear............

I wonder who is getting the most coverage and outrage although in either case they are not new.

One case contains obvious criminal conduct of a "respected" public offical holding "high office" and the other sexual games of a hollywood lowlife(s) who passes as a late night comic.

andymays
10-05-2009, 06:24 PM
Report: Letterman regrets last week s revelation, apologizes to wife on tonight s show

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/05/report-letterman-regrets-last-weeks-revelation-apologizes-to-wife-on-tonights-show/

Excerpt:

Audience member Tracy Frye, of Dallas, Texas told RadarOnline.com: “David apologized to his wife and his colleagues at Worldwide Pants. He said he didn’t really think through what he said on-air last week and how it would affect his co-workers.” He also apologized because he now realized that people would speculate he was involved with women on the show with whom he had no sexual relationship.

According to Frye, “He made a direct apology to his wife and said: ‘I have a lot of work to do’. “I think he was being sincere.”

ezrabrooks
10-05-2009, 07:30 PM
Report: Letterman regrets last week s revelation, apologizes to wife on tonight s show

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/05/report-letterman-regrets-last-weeks-revelation-apologizes-to-wife-on-tonights-show/

Excerpt:

Audience member Tracy Frye, of Dallas, Texas told RadarOnline.com: “David apologized to his wife and his colleagues at Worldwide Pants. He said he didn’t really think through what he said on-air last week and how it would affect his co-workers.” He also apologized because he now realized that people would speculate he was involved with women on the show with whom he had no sexual relationship.

According to Frye, “He made a direct apology to his wife and said: ‘I have a lot of work to do’. “I think he was being sincere.”

It is now official...everybody is getting played.. Believe what this guy (Letterman) says at your own risk.

Ez

Show Me the Wire
10-05-2009, 07:57 PM
This whole Letterman folly is getting very interesting. Is it possible the money was a payoff to stay away from a specific person and not blackmail as Letterman said?

"Because the monies might very well have been paid by Letterman for one reason: stay away from my lady. Is there some anger involved in this? Is he upset over the fact that she's seeing Halderman? I don't know. It certainly adds another impact to it," said LaRossa

http://wcbstv.com/entertainment/letterman.extortion.halderman.2.1229260.html

DRIVEWAY
10-05-2009, 08:04 PM
It's time to tell all. Hound Letterman until he gives up all the names of the woman he's had relationships with at his place of employment.

There can be a top ten list. The woman can come on air to do the bit. They can organize and do a calendar together. They can all rate Leterman's performance.

Playboy can interview all the woman. Many questions can be asked.
Where did you do it -- office, dressing room, bathroom, closet, backseat car?
Did you have a threesome with Letterman? Were there any men, midgets, dogs, sheep, children involved?
Did Letterman satisfy you?
Did Letterman pay you? Did he promise you a raise or promotion?
Playboy can pick a centerfold.
The woman can be tatooed -- Certified by David Letterman.
Letterman can be awarded a kielbasa, hotdog or pencil for his performance.
Sarah Palin can do the interview for Playboy.

Come on Letterman, your viewers want to see your conquests and understand your methods. Sarah Palin will be as fair to you as you were to her. Do the interview. Please make us laugh.:lol:

rokitman
10-05-2009, 09:10 PM
Good godd. Who would possibly give a flying :6: :9:

Show Me the Wire
10-05-2009, 09:14 PM
All the celebs and public figures he targeted with his dull edged humor.

PaceAdvantage
10-05-2009, 09:55 PM
All the celebs and public figures he targeted with his dull edged humor.But he is always self-deprecating. Even though he targeted public figures and celebs in his monologue, he never made himself out to be BETTER than the people he made fun of...

I still say this is much ado about nothing...he'll get as good as he gave...life goes on...he's a comedian for goodness sakes...not a world or religious leader...

The law is very clear on what constitutes sexual harassment...quid pro quo or hostile work environment. Was either the case here?

bigmack
10-05-2009, 10:29 PM
David Letterman apologized on the air Monday to his wife, Regina, for his revelation last week of his sexual relationships with staff members, saying she had been “horribly hurt” and adding, “I’ve got my work cut out for me” to mend the relationship.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/business/media/06letterman.html

Doesn't he spend enough time around her to make his apology a private affair?

http://static.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/regina-lasko-david-lettermans-wife.jpg

What a weird way of handling things.

Unfunny in the last decade (if ever) Steve Martin & the 'floundering for a job', Marty Short, are guests tonight making this the 'has been, but we think we still matter' of all time fest outside of a E entertainment show about the roasting of Joan R.

badcompany
10-05-2009, 11:36 PM
David Letterman apologized on the air Monday to his wife, Regina, for his revelation last week of his sexual relationships with staff members, saying she had been “horribly hurt” and adding, “I’ve got my work cut out for me” to mend the relationship.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/business/media/06letterman.html

Doesn't he spend enough time around her to make his apology a private affair?

http://static.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/regina-lasko-david-lettermans-wife.jpg

What a weird way of handling things.

Unfunny in the last decade (if ever) Steve Martin & the 'floundering for a job', Marty Short, are guests tonight making this the 'has been, but we think we still matter' of all time fest outside of a E entertainment show about the roasting of Joan R.

It's not about his wife. He's trying to make himself into a sympathetic figure.

The public apology probably wasn't even his idea. I'd bet the PR dept. gave him the cue.

Grits
10-06-2009, 01:05 AM
I think this is the biggest NON STORY in the country right now. Probably, the world. Why is this news?

C'mon guys--you all know, as well as I know--as long as there has been the "state of matrimony"--let's use this one instead of the "state of marital bliss," the bliss having become the ordinary, or worse, dead altogether--married men have had affairs. And some married men, dual qualifiers. They nominate themselves to every stakes filly on the grounds. They're chronic, repeat offenders.

Others may stray from their wives once, and only once. Never to do so again, reflecting, "do I really want this, do I want to destroy my family and everything I and my wife have worked for . . . no, I don't think so."

Still, other gentlemen have participated with great enthusiasm in these unfortunate episodes. Because they're not very bright, and they're short on discretion, they don't pull things off well; so as women, we don't give them the favor of an opportunity, or even an apology, to make things right again, to love again . . . . Us, that is.

Those of you, and I promise, guys, some of you have had these extramarital trysts. The percentage data doesn't lie. So don't be too hard on ole' Dave. Hopefully, in all cases, unlike him, they came in and out of your lives quietly.

Whether she was first recognized by yourself as "just a piece of tail," but was later, somehow, elevated to the status of "my soul mate".:faint: Or, whether, on the more tawdry, cheap, low end scale--you simply banged the help.:lol: Neither are really the point. Except to note, "sugar britches" whose involved in the latter is far more stupid than the guy "doing her" could ever dream of being. And there's a whole lot of those around today. Several of them, apparently, working for Dave. Maybe they were hoping to be elevated.

There's commonality (I love the term) in all of this.

Still, there's one difference. The truth is more people know Dave than know either of you, so its assumed, therefore, more people will care, I guess. I, for one, don't care. I'm thoroughly not surprised and this doesn't strike me as necessary material for the CNN crawl.

And too, certainly, I'm not Dave's wife. (Who Dave only recently, of course, decided to marry, after their son, Harry, was almost ready to enter kindergarten. Maybe Harry felt hesitant in responding to his new teacher on his first day at private school, stating, "hi, my name is Harry, this is my mom, and this is Dave".

Show Me the Wire
10-06-2009, 01:22 AM
Great Grits Letterman is still creepy. Always reminded me of the "funny" (in strange non-humorous way) uncle a family is ashamed of. ;)

badcompany
10-06-2009, 02:57 AM
I disagree that this is a non-story. IMO, it's just a matter of time before some guy comes out and says he was passed for a promotion by an unqualified woman who just happened to use Dave's dick as a sno-cone.

http://www.glogster.com/media/1/5/28/4/5280494.jpg

Show Me the Wire
10-08-2009, 10:24 PM
mountainman:

A famous liberal attorney, shares my opinion about Letterman being the posterboy for sexual harassment in the work place.

Gloria Allred wrote Letterman an open letter, which she says,

"The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.) Has stated that in circumstances where sexual favoritism is widespread, "a message is implicitly conveyed that the managers view women as sexual playthings thereby creating an atmosphere that is demeaning to women.""

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/10/exclusive-gloria-allred-warns-letterman-about-workplace-laws

exactaplayer
10-09-2009, 02:59 AM
OK, I just watched the clip BigMack posted....this is the first time I've seen Dave talk about this whole thing, the first time I've heard the audience reaction...

After watching it, I just have to ask...what is the big freakin' deal about all of this?

Unless a woman or women have come forward (and maybe they already have...I have paid ZERO attention to this story other than what has been posted in this thread) and claims they were pressured into having sex with Dave in exchange for a job promotion (or threatened demotion/firing)....I just don't see what the big deal is....

Office romances happen all the time. Unless there was a quid pro quo proposal or a hostile work environment resulted from Dave's actions, this really is a whole lotta nothing in my opinion.

Now, on a personal level there is something wrong with what Dave did if in fact he was doing this while married or while in a committed relationship with his now wife, but that's for him and her to figure out behind closed doors....

And I find nothing wrong with the audience reaction, considering they were blindsided by all of this, and assuming they are fans of Dave and the show (why would they be there if they weren't).

For the record, I've always liked Dave, except when he started his non-stop George Bush / Sarah Palin bash fest the past couple of years. To me, that repetitive nonsense got real old real fast.
Yes

andymays
10-09-2009, 04:22 PM
Classy: Letterman Brought His Girlfriend Along on 'Family' Vacation

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/10/classy-letterman-brought-his-girlfriend.html

Excerpt:


Just when you thought this guy couldn't be a bigger douchebag, we find out he brought his plaything along on vacation. With his wife and son.