Matt Lauer Busted

weilke said:
You sue for something. In this case he would sue for an order instructing the victim to repay him.

The only reason an attorney would take this to court would be if he gets paid by the hour.
Click to expand...
Well, if it's now SOP to disregard such agreements, that should reduce the number of perps who are willing to pay settlements.
 
paflyer said:
The marriage was reportedly "over" in 2006. Lauer lived separately from the wife. The kids are the ones who will suffer, the wife will be - in the immortal words of the late, great Liberace- "crying all the way to the bank."
Click to expand...
He’s still married, last I read.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A few jobs back, there was a woman in HR (oh the irony) who made some unwanted physical advances towards me. I never reported it (it likely wouldn't have gone anywhere if I had) but I did manage to get the point across that it was unwanted, and she stopped. Ultimately she was showing her interest in an inappropriate manner, but I wasn't offended by it.

However if the roles were reversed, no doubt I'd have ended up in a lot of trouble.
Click to expand...

I experienced similar at a few large companies. I reported the first one...and I was the one disciplined for it. So I dealt with all the others in my own way.

It's a two way street but guys typically don't mind...unless she's ugly of course...we're all sluts.
 
The execs in Hollywood are having trouble coming up with a "Father Knows Best" redux.

The leading concepts are "FatherS Know Best" and "Your Other Mommy Knows Best."

Hopefully the whole project will die on the cutting room floor. Oh, that's another project in development!
 
Hey maybe I can’t get in the military but no one said I couldn’t become the greatest Phoenix SkyHarbor airport parking bus driver.
 
EppyGA said:
Apparently Lauer now wants $30M.
Click to expand...

Well, what does his contract say ? Was the NBC policy on how allegations are to be investigated followed or was his termination done outside of that established process ?

He'll get his 30mil.
 
timwinters said:
I experienced similar at a few large companies. I reported the first one...and I was the one disciplined for it. So I dealt with all the others in my own way.

It's a two way street but guys typically don't mind...unless she's ugly of course...we're all sluts.
Click to expand...

At this company I suspect I would've been the one reprimanded had I reported her, too.

I'm not one to report much anyway, I generally find it makes more sense to deal with things in my own way. As to the minding aspect, it wasn't appreciated but like I said I realized she was expressing her interest, albeit in an inappropriate manner.
 
EppyGA said:
Apparently Lauer now wants $30M.
Click to expand...

Article I read said he has a year and a half remaining on his contract at $20 mil/year, so that's what his lawyers are trying to get from NBC, $30mil. But, NBC had a valid reason to fire him so they may not ne liable for it.
 
Last edited:
NBC might save money by paying the civil suits directly instead of passing it through the louse.
 
mscard88 said:
Article I read said he has a year and a half remaining on his contract at $20 mil/year, so that's what his lawyers are trying to get from NBC, $30mil. But, NBC had a valid reason to fire him so they may not ne liable for it.
Click to expand...
I'd bet there is a mortality clause in his contract.

He may win the suit, but collecting the money may be another matter.
 
Tom-D said:
I'd bet there is a mortality clause in his contract.
Click to expand...

Wondering if the use of the word "mortality" was intentional. Apparently one woman passed out during their interlude and had to be seen by a nurse. Can Matt get away with "It's not like she died or anything"?
 
Maybe he'll end up over at MSNBC with lying ass Brian Williams! :rofl:
 
mscard88 said:
Maybe he'll end up over at MSNBC with lying ass Brian Williams! :rofl:
Click to expand...
2087q3.jpg
 
Tom-D said:
That explains a lot.
Click to expand...
No, THAT is more likely the result of all the years I spent in catholic school dodging the advances of the parish priests and deacons...

I guess I had a purty butt!

<and you probably think I kid...>
 
Damb spell checker.... morality
 
JOhnH said:
Does the inverse hold true? If you do like the lady is wearing, then look at her harder"?

Seriously, I agree that nothing that a woman wears (or doesn't wear) give a man the right to assault her. On the other hand, if she dresses to attract attention, then she should expect attention.

My sister used to put it this way when a man paid too much attention to her, and then got offended when she rejected him;

When you go fishing, do you use bait? Does that mean you have to keep every dogfish you catch with that bait, or that you shouldn't use bait, or do you throw the undesirable catch back?
Consider yourself thrown back, dogfish.
Click to expand...

Is it fair to the fish that they should be scarred for life, maybe even lose their lives, just for falling for the bait? We’re talking about fishing here.
 
Ravioli said:
Wondering if the use of the word "mortality" was intentional. Apparently one woman passed out during their interlude and had to be seen by a nurse. Can Matt get away with "It's not like she died or anything"?
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't spell checker got me again. :(
 
freenrgy2 said:
I'll never understand when men in highly-visible and influential positions resort to this kind of behavior, knowing that if the truth fell into the right hands and someone paid attention, their careers would be over. And I don't understand the women who allow this behavior in the first place.
Click to expand...
Yea, but evidently politicians are excused.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I won't let my teenage daughter have her female friends over to the house unless my wife is also home. Once my daughter was at a function and asked me to pick up her friend and bring her to the function. The friend's parents were unavailable to transport the girl. Nope and nope. Gotta protect yourself.
Click to expand...

Sad, but true.

I'm probably not as smart as you though. I've taken my daughters and one or more of their friends on trips to the beach more than once. :eek: One daughter and one friend at at time. We flew to the destination as well. :eek: One time I took our middle daughter and two friends as one got foisted on us at the last minute. I think a death in the family and her parents didn't want to take her to the funeral. But then, the parents knew me. Not only was I not the person to molest a child, I was also one of those most likely to make use of my "shovel and ten acres of woods behind the house" if such a scumbag molested one of the kids.

I also coached girls soccer solo, as in no other coaches. Since practice was only an hour long there was usually 4-6 parents hanging out the whole time to take them home afterwards. With Atlanta traffic you might only get 10 minutes at home before you had to turn around and go back and get your kid. I not only picked up my two youngest daughters at school for soccer practice but also one of their friends who was also on their team. The school had me on their list as someone who could pick her from after school care.
 
Hearing of this and the more to come I am bit surprised...

But I am ****ed for the fact that NBC knew of this and did nothing. And what about the other female employees at "30 Rock" that knew and did nothing but enable this to progress... And the girl that went a saw their corporate nurse after she was rapped by him.. that nurse should have their license yanked...
 
timwinters said:
No, THAT is more likely the result of all the years I spent in catholic school dodging the advances of the parish priests and deacons...

I guess I had a purty butt!

<and you probably think I kid...>
Click to expand...
That only tells us why.
 
Yeah, I was just shocked that he showed his schwartz to a woman. I fully expected it to be a dude.
 
steingar said:
Provocative is in the eye of the beholder, and is still no excuse for sexual harassment of any kind. If you don't like what the lady's wearing look the other way. We live in a free country, and that freedom includes what a woman decides to wear. If you really don't want to see that kind of thing move to Iran.



Do you think a woman can make as good an executive as a man? As good a scientist? As good a doctor?

Women have moved en masse into all these fields, and yet their treatment is only slightly north of deplorable. The surprising one was in science, where female scientists are routinely given poorer lab space, fewer resources and less promotion. That was truly an eye opener, since scientists are highly educated and supposedly immune to this sort of thing. Not only is that not true, but I've read that upwards of one in five female scientists have been sexually harassed on the job by their male colleagues. Makes me sick.

Like I said, if you really think women are treated the same way as men you need to get out more.
Click to expand...

To your first paragraph: "We live in a free country so freedom includes what a woman decides to wear." Yes and you do realize the concept of "freedom" is a made up human idea, right? In reality we are biological organisms who signal non-verbally to each other. Our freedom to wear what we want doesn't negate the consequences of our clothing choices.

To the fishing bait comparison, if you use the best bait so you can catch the best fish, and then must throw back all the bad ones, don't blame the fish for doing what comes naturally and going for the bait. I'm not saying rape is okay just because you're dressing like a slut. But whistles, cat calls and requests for dates should not be a reason to ruin a man's career if you dress like a slut and act like a flirt, and that is where we are heading with today's insane dichotomy between flagrant female sexual display and Victorian expectation of male restraint. That's what makes me sick.

As to me needing to get out more because I don't see how women are mistreated in the work place, do you realize I am a woman? I went into the field of mechanical engineering. I worked full time in this field for many years and I "got out" a whole lot, in corporate headquarters and in the field. (That would be the real world to you academic types.) Here is what I found: women who were stupid, incompetent, unmotivated and unproductive were indeed treated worse, given fewer resources, not promoted and so on, just like males who were like that. The women who were competent, productive, etc., were treated as well or better than their male counterparts.

There was no having to be twice as good as a man to get equal treatment. That's a made up lie. If that were true then simple market forces would have women being sought after and paid more. This simply doesn't happen. Why? Because women still are less productive on average than men. This entirely explains the wage and promotion gap. But a woman who is equally productive as a man gets equal treatment. That was my personal experience out in the real world.

Maybe in universities they discriminate against women, because universities have become liberal strongholds and liberals do tend to be hypocrites and practice the very crimes of which they accuse others.

I have never seen a stupid, lazy female correctly blame her own laziness and stupidity for her lack of promotions in her career. They always blame sexism. The feminists and the liberals have transformed this narrative into one of their political tools. And that is what you are falling for.

Cooter said:
Easy on the white-knighting there fella. I love it, a man telling a woman that she doesn’t understand the plight of women. How condescending is that?
Click to expand...

I wasn't even sure I was going to spend time responding to that. I'm 61 years old and have had a lifetime "getting out" in men's worlds. I've seen it from every angle. I know all the games. At least out in the real world. I don't know what kind of playpen he is in, like I said, maybe in his liberal world they do actually practice flagrant sexism. Perhaps where your funding is based on politics and grants, not market forces, they can indulge their prejudices.

Cooter said:
They are being caught in their own twisted narrative but few are discerning enough to see it for what it is. It’s a very good point that almost no one is making. Will you share your thoughts on why you think they are refuting their own case?
Click to expand...

I forget which one you're asking about... oh yeah women are so strong these days they are told from babyhood they can be physical superheroes and do anything they want and at the same time they are so fragile they must be protected from the slightest suggestion of male ardor because they are too weak to verbally or physically smack aside an unwanted advance. Explain that? Obviously it's just brainwashing from the constant anti-male drumbeat we've been subjected to since the 70s.

But the narrative that women must not be expected to fend off advances by themselves, I think that comes from the general collectivist notion that we need an Overlord at all times to provide for, protect and punish us. It fits with the liberal idea of taking away our guns, of government giving us all free food, shelter, healthcare, cell phones, college education, etc. Now the government is supposed to protect women from non-existent workplace discrimination (except apparently in the liberal bastions of universities if steingar is to be believed) and normal male biological behavior.

I think it's probably, when you get right down to the meat of the matter, just another example of not knowing when to stop moving the risk reduction bar. We have insanity going off the chart at the point where risk tries to approach zero. We see that everywhere these days and that's what's happening here too.
 
Rushie said:
But the narrative that women must not be expected to fend off advances by themselves, I think that comes from the general collectivist notion that we need an Overlord at all times to provide for, protect and punish us. It fits with the liberal idea of taking away our guns, of government giving us all free food, shelter, healthcare, cell phones, college education, etc. Now the government is supposed to protect women from non-existent workplace discrimination (except apparently in the liberal bastions of universities if steingar is to be believed) and normal male biological behavior.
Click to expand...
Right on. Historically, strong men have been the protectors of women from bad men. But our current age is telling us that strong men are the problem by pointing out the acts of bad men. Cultural stability comes from strong men acting rightly and building strong families. So, like every thing else, the govt is getting involved so that they can make the problem worse, then declare the need for more govt to fix it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top