Letterman Faces Another Extortion Attempt, had Sex with Staffers

[Count Dooku]

Originally Posted by Count Dooku

If someone's failure as a husband is demonstrated in their act of having sex outside the marriage, please explain to me how the accusation of failure is not an accusation of adultery.

Originally Posted by Bill Needle

I think if you reread that a few times you'll see the logical fallacy in that statement.

Nope. You'll have to explain it to me.

Originally Posted by Bill Needle

you don't actually have the slightest idea whether he committed adultery or not.

Once again, we have a looking at 2+2 and seeing 4 situation.
It's actually quite obvious, if one looks at Dave's announcement yesterday and all the information that has come out about this story since, that the affairs took place before he was married and that Regina knew about them before they got married.

[chino77]

Originally Posted by rennervision

During Dave's confession, I'm sure a good portion of the audience thought he was setting things up for some goofy comedy bit. (And if I hadn't known before hand what he was going to say, I wonder if I might have thought the same.) Just makes it even more uncomfortable to watch when he's telling everything that's happened the last three weeks and people are laughing.

At first, there's no way to know whether or not he's telling the truth, because he's telling the story in a jokey tone with no real indication of shame or apology in what he's saying. Seems kind of inappropriate to me to be describing events that may have destroyed his family in such a casual manner.

yeah i thought it was weird that he didnt say that it wasnt a joke.

[Count Dooku]

Letterman's audience laughed during Michael Richard's post N-word apology, and when Jerry Seinfeld admonished them that it wasn't a joke, they laughed at that too.

[Red Dog]

People are seriously overanalyzing this.

[Rockmjd23]

I still think it's all a joke!

[chino77]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

People are seriously overanalyzing this.

truth

[whotony]

Originally Posted by Deep_lurk

Sounds like Dave was tapping Smitty. To which I can only say "way to go, Dave!"

(clip o' Smitty)

watching letterman's behavior during this clip as he was plenty giddy about every and anything Stephanie did or said and all the stuff they were doing to embarrass the former boyfriend makes it pretty clear what was going on at this point with those two.
At least to me.

[shaun3000]

For a while she was on the show quite often and it always seemed to me like there was something going on between the two of them.

[shaun3000]

Then again, I get the same feeling watching him interact with Julia Roberts and I doubt very much that they are fucking.

[whotony]

She was the one who would bring the prize down for the audience participation segments right?
she would call him a jackass or some other derogatory remark, was pretty funny.
Always wearing the Letterman show jacket.

[dolphinboy]

Originally Posted by shaun3000

Then again, I get the same feeling watching him interact with Julia Roberts and I doubt very much that they are fucking.

They could have had Dave shown the same interest in her as he did with Stephanie.

Julia asked Letterman, through his people, to accompany her to the premiere of Mystic Pizza or Steel Magnolias (something from very early on anyway) and she claims she was told he wasn't interested.

Letterman discussed it with her a few times many years ago and claims he was never told.

I really do think this wasn't just a horny guy banging a young staffer because he could. It really did appear the two were very fond of one another, almost to the point where I remember thinking the two of them would be a perfect couple if she were older (or he was younger) when she'd do her appearances.

I do think it was probably an affectionate thing that eventually turned sexual and, by all accounts, long after the sex was over, the two were/are extremely close.

She passed the CT bar exam in February.

Also, in all of this overblown news coverage (the TOP story on CNN???), no one mentions that the women who produced and helped Letterman create the original Late Show was also someone that he dated and his current wife was someone who worked for him and he dated, before she left to do I know not what for most of the two decades they were together before they had a son and got married.

No one seemed to care that he was dating his staff back then.

[rennervision]

Technically, this wasn't the first time Dave had to testify in court:

[Deftones]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

People are seriously overanalyzing this.

holy crap. i can't believe people even give a two flying shits about this.

[collven]

Originally Posted by shaun3000

Then again, I get the same feeling watching him interact with Julia Roberts and I doubt very much that they are fucking.

I've thought, for a long time, that Julia has a thing for Dave. I don't think that anything actually happened, but you never know. Here's a couple of clips from an episode in '94. I think it was her 3rd or 4th time on the show. The first clip is her entrance and the second clip is the end of the interview. Don't forget, at the time she was married to Lyle Lovett, not exactly a heartthrob.

[calhoun07]

Originally Posted by rennervision

Technically, this wasn't the first time Dave had to testify in court:

Good grief...I remember when this first aired!

[calhoun07]

Originally Posted by collven

I've thought, for a long time, that Julia has a thing for Dave. I don't think that anything actually happened, but you never know.

I would say if he banged the random female guest every now and then that would not be as controversial as the boss of a company having sex with people working for them. And perhaps not as prone to litigation, but I am no Dan Abrams here, but I would imagine that the boss/employee sex relationship leaves CBS/Worldwide Pants open to litigation much in the same way Bob Barker banging the girls on his show left him and his company open to litigation. If Bob picked a random hottie from the contestants and banged her instead, I doubt it would have been as controversial.

[creekdipper]

Originally Posted by Count Dooku

Let's be clear about this point:
Dave wasn't admitting things. He was announcing things.
I'll leave it to you to find a dictionary.

He called the things he did "terrible" and "creepy".
He may not have branded his actions with the word WRONG, but he certainly described them negatively.

I'm not sure what the adult Letterman having sex with adult women has to do with the fact that Bristol Palin was an underage whore.

??? I guess several other posters will have to get out their dictionaries, since the words "apologizing", "admit", "confession", "admissions", etc. were used by at least four other posters before my comments (however, the word "failures" is my own). On the other hand, I believe one or two posters mentioned "announcing" things. It seemed that the 'overwhelming portion' (to borrow an ex-President's phrase) felt that Letterman was saying that he had done something that could at least be perceived as being wrong.

I certainly got the impression that he was being facetious & downplaying his actions when he used "terrible" and "creepy". Did you think he meant those words literally?

Your last comment speaks for itself. Good to know that you consider any minor female who has had intercourse with her minor boyfriend a "whore". That should make you really popular with the ladies.

I think premarital sex is wrong, but I don't go around calling those who engage in it...particularly underage girls..."whores". I suppose that a girl who has intercourse with one boyfriend is automatically a whore, while a promiscuous ADULT woman is just a liberated woman....according to your dictionary.

Edit: I was very wrong about other comedians avoiding using Letterman material. I tuned in to Leno's monologue to see...sure enough, he started off with a Letterman bit (although it was pretty gentle tweaking).
As far as the entire episode being OVERBLOWN....!!!!

[Count Dooku]

Originally Posted by creekdipper

Your last comment speaks for itself. Good to know that you consider any minor female who has had intercourse with her minor boyfriend a "whore". That should make you really popular with the ladies.

I think premarital sex is wrong, but I don't go around calling those who engage in it...particularly underage girls..."whores". I suppose that a girl who has intercourse with one boyfriend is automatically a whore, while a promiscuous ADULT woman is just a liberated woman....according to your dictionary.

On this subject, I just echo the sentiments of my God.

Spoiler:

[Count Dooku]

Originally Posted by creekdipper

I think premarital sex is wrong, but I don't go around calling those who engage in it...particularly underage girls..."whores". I suppose that a girl who has intercourse with one boyfriend is automatically a whore, while a promiscuous ADULT woman is just a liberated woman....according to your dictionary.

One of the definitions for the word whore in my Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is " a promiscuous or immoral woman".

So, when you say that you think premarital sex is "wrong", what exactly do you mean by the word wrong?

Do you mean morally wrong? Do I need to connect the dots here?

[dolphinboy]

Originally Posted by creekdipper

??? I guess several other posters will have to get out their dictionaries, since the words "apologizing", "admit", "confession", "admissions", etc. were used by at least four other posters before my comments (however, the word "failures" is my own). On the other hand, I believe one or two posters mentioned "announcing" things. It seemed that the 'overwhelming portion' (to borrow an ex-President's phrase) felt that Letterman was saying that he had done something that could at least be perceived as being wrong.

I certainly got the impression that he was being facetious & downplaying his actions when he used "terrible" and "creepy". Did you think he meant those words literally?

Your last comment speaks for itself. Good to know that you consider any minor female who has had intercourse with her minor boyfriend a "whore". That should make you really popular with the ladies.

I think premarital sex is wrong, but I don't go around calling those who engage in it...particularly underage girls..."whores". I suppose that a girl who has intercourse with one boyfriend is automatically a whore, while a promiscuous ADULT woman is just a liberated woman....according to your dictionary.

Edit: I was very wrong about other comedians avoiding using Letterman material. I tuned in to Leno's monologue to see...sure enough, he started off with a Letterman bit (although it was pretty gentle tweaking).
As far as the entire episode being OVERBLOWN....!!!!

I don't think Bristol Palin is a whore and I don't think what Letterman did was creepy or wrong. I would agree that Letterman seemed to be using those words to NOT apologize and mock the accusations that the extortionist used for things Letterman clearly didn't think he or we had any right to judge.

Maybe that's just me being the liberal, socialist that I am, but I don't have a problem with any of this and, clearly, the whole work place sex discussion is getting this much attention because Letterman is a celebrity.

I believe I've heard that 1 in 2 people are in or have been in a work place relationship and I highly doubt that most of those people are on the same level (that one person isn't in a higher position of authority).

This is just another stupid issue that makes sure that people like Dr. Drew will always get plenty of air time on CNN.

But this is NOT the same thing as a politician doing ANYTHING sexual, with boys, with staffers, with other women, with other men, with their pets, etc. Letterman and other celebrities are not elected, the don't raise money or take money, they don't pass laws, and, more importantly, they don't tell you how you should live your life. And if people make their real life decisions based on what "celebrities" say or do, they are morons.

[creekdipper]

Originally Posted by Count Dooku

One of the definitions for the word whore in my Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is " a promiscuous or immoral woman".

So, when you say that you think premarital sex is "wrong", what exactly do you mean by the word wrong?

Do you mean morally wrong? Do I need to connect the dots here?

Sigh.

This thread has probably run its course, but I'm not going to ignore Dooku's challenge to logic.

When I said, "YOUR dictionary", I was facetiously referring to the way you commonly use words. I wasn't aware that you have to actually consult an actual published dictionary for your understanding of all the connotations of words.

I AM saying that premarital sex is morally wrong (and it was wrong when I engaged in it) but that I do not consider (or describe) all those who have engaged in premarital sex as "whores". Likewise, I do not describe a 17-year-old who carried off a classmate's pen as a "thief", although (technically speaking) that is what they are...IF you consult a dictionary for your every understanding of the world & apply ALL definitions listed to EVERY situation. I would tend to reserve those harsher terms for those who habitually engage in such behavior.

You said that you see a difference between ADULT women having sex with Letterman & an underage teenager having sex with her underage boyfriend. So do I, but if I had to choose whom to judge more harshly, I would lean toward the adult women as being those who ought to be more responsible. As I said before...you have a rather unorthodox view in this regard.

I am being consistent, unlike you...unless you are willing to call all those ADULT women who had sex with Letterman "whores". By the way...what does your dictionary call men who frequent "whores"? Do you refer to all boys (or men) who have premarital sex "johns" or "tricks"? I'm sure Merriam-Webster will help straighten you out since you don't seem to be able to decide for yourself.

Make up your mind...either all females who have premarital sex are whores, or there is a distinction between a promiscuous woman and those who occasionally have premarital sex. I dunno...maybe you think they're all sluts, too.

Perhaps consulting some women you know about whether they agree with your application of ONE of the entries for 'whore' in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Your female relatives, friends, and colleagues who have ever had at least one premarital sexual experience might be interested in knowing that you insist on referring to them as "whores".

If you try hard enough, I'll bet you can find a derogatory term in your little college dictionary to apply to everyone you know.

Except yourself, of course.

[Count Dooku]

creekdipper--

In your post #117 you make reference to this comment by Jimmy Carter:
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is an African-American."

Interestingly, you happen to be the person who started the Jimmy Carter Is An Idiot thread in the Politics Forum.

In that thread you posted this:
"If anyone's interested, Jimmy Carter is right now on CNN proving that he is not only an idiot but that he [is a liar].
He is rather testily denying that he said what he said (even when his words are quoted to him). He now insists that he did not say that the overwhelming majority of protests were prompted by racism but that he was only speaking about the "fringe elements" and that people protesting health reform, etc. are not racists.
Oh, and he also is insisting that his Presidency was (and continues to be) a huge success.
To his credit, he did not say that Republicans want Americans to "die quickly"."

Let's compare some things:
Carter: "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama..."
and
creekdipper: "He now insists that he did not say that the overwhelming majority of protests..."

Carter specifically talked about "intensely demonstrated animosity" towards Obama, and you decided that those words meant all protests of Obama and his policies.

I understand why you would do this, you like people who speak from the heart, not verbose people who demonstrate their command of the English language by "trying to impress the audience with their big vocabulary".*

* http://forum.dvdtalk.com/9712137-post1.html

The thing is, creekdipper, I like people with big vocabularies.
They usually choose their words carefully, and often choose a particular word because it has a specific meaning, and that meaning doesn't come from the heart, it comes from the dictionary.

People who think that the meaning of words come from the heart are the kind of people who demand politicians apologize after they use the word niggardly.

Jimmy Carter uses some carefully chosen words with some specific meanings.
You can't be bothered to pay attention to what some guy with a lot of fancy book learnin' has actually said, but just decide to hear what you want to hear, and you call him an idiot.
Then when he is tries to explain that he didn't say what you thought you heard, you call him a liar.
And the more he tries to clarify his remarks, you dismiss him because he's verbose and doesn't speak from the heart.

Originally Posted by creekdipper

This thread has probably run its course, but I'm not going to ignore Dooku's challenge to logic.

You should probably go ahead and ignore it since you don't know the meaning of the word.

Originally Posted by creekdipper

If you try hard enough, I'll bet you can find a derogatory term in your little college dictionary to apply to everyone you know.

Let me say this: Anyone who supports displaying the Confederate Flag by claiming it is a symbol of Southern Heritage is a racist.

[auto]

[chuckd21]

Originally Posted by rennervision

Technically, this wasn't the first time Dave had to testify in court:

I love NBC Dave.

[Quatermass]

So when Letterman says someone is "on his staff," he means LITERALLY!