Tiger Woods Apologizes to Spazes

Tiger Woods has issued an apology to spazes everyone if he offended them.

Tiger Woods has apologised for comments he made during a television interview after the U.S. Masters at Augusta National Golf Club on Sunday. The American world number one, who tied for third place three strokes behind winner Phil Mickelson, was criticised for using the term “spaz” to describe his poor putting in the final round. “Tiger meant nothing derogatory to any person or persons and apologises for any offence caused,” Woods’s agent Mark Steinberg said in a statement issued on the player’s official website.

I think apologizing has officially jumped the shark.

Crosspost from OTB Sports

FILED UNDER: General,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. legion says:

    I’m sorry you’re such a spaz, man.

  2. McGehee says:

    People sure did spaz out over that comment of his. Jeez.

  3. Andy Vance says:

    Spazzes.

  4. Jay says:

    I’m sure Taylor Hicks feels better now.

  5. Nick Carter says:

    Hey Tiger…you no more a tiger now!!!!!!!! But anyways all’s wel that ends well.

  6. DaveD says:

    I think I’ll have a “bloody” Mary.

  7. RJN says:

    My comment above was intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek. Upon rereading it I see that my intent was well disguised.

    William Dembski is on a mission, I think, to develop logical, and mathematical, tools that will show, convincingly, that evolutionary theory cannot be true because there are insufficient upgrading elements available in unguided nature.

    I think he wants to show that the working environment evolutionary theory is in, deep and wide as it is, will always be insufficient; it will always be unable to foster increasingly complex life.

    I suspect that Mark Chu-Carroll’s critique of NFL theorems vs. Dembskl has points of departure from Dembski’s take on the subject that only Bill himself can answer.

  8. RJN says:

    Wrong post with the above. Sorry.