1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

People are stupid part whatever - Superintendent loses job

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Jun 6, 2012.

  1. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    She thought .org meant it was an orgasm site.
     
  2. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    ^^^^Quality^^^^
     
  3. jackfinarelli

    jackfinarelli Well-Known Member

    Question:

    On the assumption that the "dick she fell in love with" is not attached to a minor child, why is the identity of her paramour not included here?

    He does not seem like much of a victim to me. If all of the details of her bedroom behaviors are sufficiently newsworthy, why not the identity of the other party to all those things she said she enjoyed?

    When other public figures have been "caught" in "sexual liaisons", more often than not the other party is identified. And the difference here would be...?
     
  4. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    He's not necessarily a public figure; he hasn't thrust himself into the vortex of a public controversy. The Gun is being careful
     
  5. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    Yep. You don't want emails like that made public? Don't write them on a "public" account. In today's world, there are really no secrets.
     
  6. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    It's refreshing to see a woman sleep her way to the bottom for a change.
     
  7. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    I just don't think "all of the details of her bedroom behaviors are sufficiently newsworthy." I mean, if that was my sister or my aunt or, yikes, my mother, I would be horrified that the explicit sexual details were published just like it came off a police report.

    Yes, you CAN publish that stuff. You do have the right and the power to go there if you have to. But taste, restraint and discretion should come into play unless you really NEED to publish that stuff.

    I mean, this ain't Penthouse Forum. Or is it?
     
  8. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    I think a newspaper avoids the details, but links to that Smoking Gun report.

    Hey, this is the world we live in today. Know it, and be smart in how you operate in it
     
  9. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    Sorry Riptide, disagree with you again. This woman committed adultery and damn well deserves all the scorn being heaped on her. She could have engaged in her illicit cybersex without using computers paid by taxpayers.

    The people I feel sorry for are the two spouses. They are the victims.
     
  10. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    Well, that's what I mean. By publishing every dirty little detail, you make it even more embarrassing for the spouses and other family members. They will be subjected to jokes and gossip that cross the line of good taste and discretion.

    Dang, how nice it would be for SF_Express to chime in here ...
     
  11. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    He was probably smart enough to use Yahoo or Gmail and they can't find his name.
     
  12. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Why is that? Seems like a terrible price for misusing her work computer, sort of like I'm doing right now (albeit without anyone falling in love with my dick).
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page