Interesting development - $3000 pay to caddy from a $1.3 million winners check? (MOD EDIT - NO POLIT

[straightshot7]

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse’s mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

 

[ebrasmus21]

https://twitter.com/...7243993089?s=19

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse's mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

When evidence is presented we can have an actual conversation, true.

 

Still isn't our business though.

[DavePelz4]

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

We employ several hundred people in our business and on occasion, are asked to supply personal/financial information if a team member is looking to make a significant purchase. As matter of policy, we NEVER provide any information unless the employee has given written authorization.

 

So why should Kuch tell the world what he paid someone else?

[UncleJohn’sBand]

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse’s mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

I’d bet the “random” guy is trying to be internet famous and Gillis is still trying to be the hero of the downtrodden?

[bscinstnct]

https://twitter.com/...7243993089?s=19

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse's mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse’s mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

I’d bet the “random” guy is trying to be internet famous and Gillis is still trying to be the hero of the downtrodden?

Yup! The world is full of people speaking half truths or outright lying in order to advance their own image or agenda on social media.

[straightshot7]

https://twitter.com/...7243993089?s=19

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse's mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

When evidence is presented we can have an actual conversation, true.

 

Still isn't our business though.

 

Testimony is considered a type of evidence in the law. Even hearsay is allowed as evidence in some cases.

 

To say we don't have evidence is not true.

 

We just don't have very strong evidence. But if we get a direct quote from the caddie himself testifying to this, you wouldn't consider that evidence?

 

We have Tom Gillis claiming he has a trusted source close to the caddy. And we have this other guy who claims the caddy himself told him $5k total and he has a picture with the caddy.

 

It is possible that the caddy is lying, though.

[straightshot7]

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

We employ several hundred people in our business and on occasion, are asked to supply personal/financial information if a team member is looking to make a significant purchase. As matter of policy, we NEVER provide any information unless the employee has given written authorization.

 

So why should Kuch tell the world what he paid someone else?

 

How is that a good comparison?

 

Do you think Kuch has a written policy on this? No, he was simply being asked to defend himself.

 

And I never said that he needed to tell the world anything. But the way in which he did choose to answer the question, does not make him look innocent.

[UncleJohn’sBand]

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

We employ several hundred people in our business and on occasion, are asked to supply personal/financial information if a team member is looking to make a significant purchase. As matter of policy, we NEVER provide any information unless the employee has given written authorization.

 

So why should Kuch tell the world what he paid someone else?

 

How is that a good comparison?

 

Do you think Kuch has a written policy on this? No, he was simply being asked to defend himself.

 

And I never said that he needed to tell the world anything. But the way in which he did choose to answer the question, does not make him look innocent.

 

So to prove innocence he never HAD to say anything, but by saying something in the manner in which he did, he convicted himself??

 

That’s the kinda logic only Tom Gillis can understand

[straightshot7]

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse’s mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

I’d bet the “random” guy is trying to be internet famous and Gillis is still trying to be the hero of the downtrodden?

 

Doesn't appear so. The random guy joined Tiwtter in 2012 and has 364 followers. He doesn't post often and appears like the opposite of someone looking to be internet famous.

 

Also, given the picture with the caddy, seems more likely that he was actually there playing golf. And he read about the story and asked him.

 

Or do you think he flew down there just to try to become internet famous?

[ebrasmus21]

https://twitter.com/...7243993089?s=19

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse's mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

When evidence is presented we can have an actual conversation, true.

 

Still isn't our business though.

 

Testimony is considered a type of evidence in the law. Even hearsay is allowed as evidence in some cases.

 

To say we don't have evidence is not true.

 

We just don't have very strong evidence. But if we get a direct quote from the caddie himself testifying to this, you wouldn't consider that evidence?

 

We have Tom Gillis claiming he has a trusted source close to the caddy. And we have this other guy who claims the caddy himself told him $5k total and he has a picture with the caddy.

 

It is possible that the caddy is lying, though.

 

Let me first answer by repeating what I've said a number of times. It's not any of my business; I'd go as far as to say it's not anyone else business either.

 

I don't think we've reached a point where Gillis' testimony would be accepted in court - he'd have to supply his sources and how he obtained his information. Based on what I've seen he has not done this.

 

If the caddie made a public statement that would be something to listen to, yes. It would then be a "he said, she said" type of thing which doesn't do much either which would require further evidence.

 

Why would either the caddie or Matt agree to any of that to appease the peanut gallery?

[straightshot7]

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

We employ several hundred people in our business and on occasion, are asked to supply personal/financial information if a team member is looking to make a significant purchase. As matter of policy, we NEVER provide any information unless the employee has given written authorization.

 

So why should Kuch tell the world what he paid someone else?

 

How is that a good comparison?

 

Do you think Kuch has a written policy on this? No, he was simply being asked to defend himself.

 

And I never said that he needed to tell the world anything. But the way in which he did choose to answer the question, does not make him look innocent.

 

So to prove innocence he never HAD to say anything, but by saying something in the manner in which he did, he convicted himself??

 

That’s the kinda logic only Tom Gillis can understand

 

Did I say any of that? No.

 

Try reading again. Never said he convicted himself and never said he should say nothing.

 

I wish people had to take a 6th grade equivalency test to post on this site so maybe we'd have less comments like yours JackStraw.

[UncleJohn’sBand]

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

We employ several hundred people in our business and on occasion, are asked to supply personal/financial information if a team member is looking to make a significant purchase. As matter of policy, we NEVER provide any information unless the employee has given written authorization.

 

So why should Kuch tell the world what he paid someone else?

 

How is that a good comparison?

 

Do you think Kuch has a written policy on this? No, he was simply being asked to defend himself.

 

And I never said that he needed to tell the world anything. But the way in which he did choose to answer the question, does not make him look innocent.

 

So to prove innocence he never HAD to say anything, but by saying something in the manner in which he did, he convicted himself??

 

That’s the kinda logic only Tom Gillis can understand

 

Did I say any of that? No.

 

Try reading again. Never said he convicted himself and never said he should say nothing.

 

I wish people had to take a 6th grade equivalency test to post on this site so maybe we'd have less comments like yours JackStraw.

 

You literally said “ But the way in which he did choose to answer the question, does not make him look innocent.“ I comprehend very well, and with my SEVENTH grade comprehension skills, I can INFER that you do not PRESUME him innocent after his answering of the question. Or did your sentence mean something else??

 

I was just trying to run down the logic of the last two sentences you posted.

[CasualLie]

https://twitter.com/...7243993089?s=19

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse's mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

We all know Twitter has one person to thank for their business still being alive, but that being said, funny the little nuggets from Twitter I never noticed before (since I rarely use it).

 

Kuchar's handle is @Goodguykuchar ???? Really, he calls himself goodguy? Was @mattkuchar taken?

 

Gillis claims his source could not be any closer to the caddy. So, how did we miss this? Obviously someone close to the caddy is not happy the money did not come through for the promised "operation"...I kid.

 

Cameron Percy. He did a nice hit and run. Casually replied that if this was all true it was within Kuchar's character. Now that's weird. Why would a fellow tour pro jump in that fray?

[gsrjc]

Perhaps it was $3000 and something else like paying for his kids to go to college or learn some trade given the post about him creating a camp for kids. Who knows. Either way until the truth comes out, none of us know 100%.

[ebrasmus21]

Perhaps it was $3000 and something else like paying for his kids to go to college or learn some trade given the post about him creating a camp for kids. Who knows. Either way until the truth comes out, none of us know 100%.

 

CRUCIFY HIM!!

 

*made a small edit for you

[straightshot7]

You literally said " But the way in which he did choose to answer the question, does not make him look innocent." I comprehend very well, and with my SEVENTH grade comprehension skills, I can INFER that you do not PRESUME him innocent after his answering of the question. Or did your sentence mean something else??

 

I was just trying to run down the logic of the last two sentences you posted.

 

It's not black and white. It's not innocent or guilty. I do not KNOW for a fact if he is innocent or guilty.

 

It requires nuanced thinking.

 

I am saying that on a scale of 1-100 with 1 being a statement that makes you sound totally innocent and 100 being a statement that makes you seem guilty, Kuchar's statement is around a 70.

 

I was not saying that I concluded that he is guilty. I was only pointing out that generally when someone is innocent, they are are much more adamant in their defense, whereas Kuch essentially tried to brush this under the rug. Again, I'm not saying this is proof of anything and I didn't intend for my comments to sound like I was drawing conclusions. I was simply saying it's not the best statement I've ever heard from an innocent person or what you would usually expect from an innocent person.

 

The keyword I used is "look". I was only commenting on how the statement made him "look", not on whether he actually IS. Since obviously I can't determine guilt or innocence based on a statement.

 

Also, someone removed my comment from a larger post if you scroll up and look. I only included that at the end of my post which was otherwise about more than that. Which is why people probably shouldn't delete the context of people's posts. I talked about Gillis and the other guy's claims of speaking with the caddie, etc. and I only threw in the bit about Kuchar's statement at the end and I even said "so again, no proof or hard evidence".

[bladehunter]

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse’s mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

Wel. The fact that the story changes hourly is one reason to throw up the BS flag.

See this is why I’m on the fence.

 

At the end of the day. Nobody looks good in this story. Nobody. Not even the caddie at this point.

[straightshot7]

https://twitter.com/...7243993089?s=19

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse's mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

We all know Twitter has one person to thank for their business still being alive, but that being said, funny the little nuggets from Twitter I never noticed before (since I rarely use it).

 

Kuchar's handle is @Goodguykuchar ???? Really, he calls himself goodguy? Was @mattkuchar taken?

 

Gillis claims his source could not be any closer to the caddy. So, how did we miss this? Obviously someone close to the caddy is not happy the money did not come through for the promised "operation"...I kid.

 

Cameron Percy. He did a nice hit and run. Casually replied that if this was all true it was within Kuchar's character. Now that's weird. Why would a fellow tour pro jump in that fray?

 

Goodguykuchar is a parody account. The marcgraubart guy included that either as a joke or because he really thinks that's Matt Kuchar's account. I don't think the real Kuchar has a Twitter.

[Cool Runnings]

Gillis octupling down!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stay patient. Truth will come out.

 

 

Tour has head in the sand because they know it's true Joel. Nothing they can do to save him. Period!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gillis

‏ @tcgillis 17h17 hours ago

 

He will.

 

John Grant @johngrantjr

Replying to @tcgillis

Looks like he's not gonna pony up but stick it out instead...prob not a smart move.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lots more....

 

https://twitter.com/...erp|twgr^author

 

Gillis put a hit out on him ? What's with the " nothing can save him now " cloak and dagger crap.

 

Even if true I'd give a crisp $100 bill to see kuchar walk up and knock Gillis' dentures down his throat. Goodness what a tool. Even if true Gillis is just a rat.

 

Not only do you root against the underdog (caddie), you now root for the overdog (Kuchar) to pass on some serious physical punishment to those gatekeepers of honor & integrity (Gillis).

 

How do you sleep at night…

 

Quite well. My wife often is irritated that I can sleep through most anything. Or if I get up. I can go back to sleep In mere seconds. While she need at lest an hour or something. ( don't know. I'm asleep ). Lol

 

 

 

Seriously. Read ALL my posts on this thread before making your opinion final. I've taken up for the caddie plenty.

 

In a perfect world. I'd see the caddie get paid , then he and kuchar tag team Gillis. Loll. Not much in this world lower than a volunteer hall monitor.

 

You know I was joking, right?

 

lol

[bscinstnct]

https://twitter.com/...7243993089?s=19

 

Now the guy who posted the picture is saying:

 

"marcgraubart 2h Replying to @tcgillis

 

Actually upon further clarification this morning, Kuchar @GoodGuyKuchar paid him $3,000 for the week and gave a paltry $2,000 tip for the wind. Stiffed the locker room people as well.

·

3h Replying to @tcgillis

From the horse's mouth. True!!"

 

For the people saying we don't have evidence, I get it. But unless this random guy is lying, he claims that the caddy himself is testifying to this.

 

It's not proof at this point but I'd say it's the smoke of the fire.

 

Also, the fact that Kuchar gave that "not 10% and not $3,000" vague answer. If he was totally innocent of this it seems like he would be more angry and say something along the lines of "I gave him a generous amount and way more than $3,000".

 

So, again, no proof or hard evidence. But common sense still points to the story being most likely true. What motive do Gillis and this random guy on Twitter have to lie?

 

When evidence is presented we can have an actual conversation, true.

 

Still isn't our business though.

 

Testimony is considered a type of evidence in the law. Even hearsay is allowed as evidence in some cases.

 

To say we don't have evidence is not true.

 

We just don't have very strong evidence. But if we get a direct quote from the caddie himself testifying to this, you wouldn't consider that evidence?

 

We have Tom Gillis claiming he has a trusted source close to the caddy. And we have this other guy who claims the caddy himself told him $5k total and he has a picture with the caddy.

 

It is possible that the caddy is lying, though.

 

Let me first answer by repeating what I've said a number of times. It's not any of my business; I'd go as far as to say it's not anyone else business either.

 

I don't think we've reached a point where Gillis' testimony would be accepted in court - he'd have to supply his sources and how he obtained his information. Based on what I've seen he has not done this.

 

If the caddie made a public statement that would be something to listen to, yes. It would then be a "he said, she said" type of thing which doesn't do much either which would require further evidence.

 

Why would either the caddie or Matt agree to any of that to appease the peanut gallery?

 

No one is accusing Kuch of committing a crime.

 

But libel is against the law. Writing something that has an adverse affect on someones reputation or livelihood could result in being sued and paying damages.

[bladehunter]

Gillis octupling down!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stay patient. Truth will come out.

 

 

Tour has head in the sand because they know it's true Joel. Nothing they can do to save him. Period!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gillis

‏ @tcgillis 17h17 hours ago

 

He will.

 

John Grant @johngrantjr

Replying to @tcgillis

Looks like he's not gonna pony up but stick it out instead...prob not a smart move.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lots more....

 

https://twitter.com/...erp|twgr^author

 

Gillis put a hit out on him ? What's with the " nothing can save him now " cloak and dagger crap.

 

Even if true I'd give a crisp $100 bill to see kuchar walk up and knock Gillis' dentures down his throat. Goodness what a tool. Even if true Gillis is just a rat.

 

Not only do you root against the underdog (caddie), you now root for the overdog (Kuchar) to pass on some serious physical punishment to those gatekeepers of honor & integrity (Gillis).

 

How do you sleep at night…

 

Quite well. My wife often is irritated that I can sleep through most anything. Or if I get up. I can go back to sleep In mere seconds. While she need at lest an hour or something. ( don't know. I'm asleep ). Lol

 

 

 

Seriously. Read ALL my posts on this thread before making your opinion final. I've taken up for the caddie plenty.

 

In a perfect world. I'd see the caddie get paid , then he and kuchar tag team Gillis. Loll. Not much in this world lower than a volunteer hall monitor.

 

You know I was joking, right?

 

lol

 

I do see that now. My sarcasm meter isnt always sharp. No worries either way. We’re play cousins now ! So it’s all good ! Lol

[Atrayn]

Given the information one can presume only this:

1) Kuchar is innocent of the original accusation of only 3k. (Most likely the original agreement + a 2k tip)

2) Kuchar did not lie in his statement

3) Gillis is a DB

4) People need to mind their OFB.

[straightshot7]

This should make some people chuckle...

 

[Under2hours]

Like the other posted who doesn't need to read 20 pages to have an opinion, it is pretty obvious Kuch stiffed the guy. His response & comments when confronted tells the story...... A pretty big difference between $130,000 & $3,000 (using my abacus I came up with $117,000).

 

If he paid him $30,000 would his have been a story?

 

He paid the caddy (a very knowledgeable local who knew the course inside & out) who was there for his first win in 4 years way below the going rate (agreed to or not) and seems upset that this is now a story.

 

If he paid him anything close to standard, He'd have bristled when asked the question (and we know he didn't by the fact this is a story) and said it was an out & out lie.

 

Oh yea the question was asked because it is a fact and sure it was a very low amount.

[Man_O_War]

You literally said " But the way in which he did choose to answer the question, does not make him look innocent." I comprehend very well, and with my SEVENTH grade comprehension skills, I can INFER that you do not PRESUME him innocent after his answering of the question. Or did your sentence mean something else??

 

I was just trying to run down the logic of the last two sentences you posted.

 

It's not black and white. It's not innocent or guilty. I do not KNOW for a fact if he is innocent or guilty.

 

It requires nuanced thinking.

 

I am saying that on a scale of 1-100 with 1 being a statement that makes you sound totally innocent and 100 being a statement that makes you seem guilty, Kuchar's statement is around a 70.

 

I was not saying that I concluded that he is guilty. I was only pointing out that generally when someone is innocent, they are are much more adamant in their defense, whereas Kuch essentially tried to brush this under the rug. Again, I'm not saying this is proof of anything and I didn't intend for my comments to sound like I was drawing conclusions. I was simply saying it's not the best statement I've ever heard from an innocent person or what you would usually expect from an innocent person.

 

The keyword I used is "look". I was only commenting on how the statement made him "look", not on whether he actually IS. Since obviously I can't determine guilt or innocence based on a statement.

 

Also, someone removed my comment from a larger post if you scroll up and look. I only included that at the end of my post which was otherwise about more than that. Which is why people probably shouldn't delete the context of people's posts. I talked about Gillis and the other guy's claims of speaking with the caddie, etc. and I only threw in the bit about Kuchar's statement at the end and I even said "so again, no proof or hard evidence".

 

no laws were broken... not innocent or guilty question..Only a morality question..and no you won't know all the facts.now the Caddie's wife knows he made 3K. He'd split it between himself, wife and girlfriend. His mother is now truly p()sed off. seeing has Karma doesn't really exist...Kutchar, made even more money this past weekend. Caddie stays poor.. Would have been nice if Kutchar gave the guy 5%-10%...likely a once in a lifetime dream whiles Kutchar's account stays massive...oh well... it should stay an issue.

[Man_O_War]

Like the other posted who doesn't need to read 20 pages to have an opinion, it is pretty obvious Kuch stiffed the guy. His response & comments when confronted tells the story...... A pretty big difference between $130,000 & $3,000 (using my abacus I came up with $117,000).

 

If he paid him $30,000 would his have been a story?

 

He paid the caddy (a very knowledgeable local who knew the course inside & out) who was there for his first win in 4 years way below the going rate (agreed to or not) and seems upset that this is now a story.

 

If he paid him anything close to standard, He'd have bristled when asked the question (and we know he didn't by the fact this is a story) and said it was an out & out lie.

 

Oh yea the question was asked because it is a fact and sure it was a very low amount.

 

 

lol lol. abacus lied.

[straightshot7]

You literally said " But the way in which he did choose to answer the question, does not make him look innocent." I comprehend very well, and with my SEVENTH grade comprehension skills, I can INFER that you do not PRESUME him innocent after his answering of the question. Or did your sentence mean something else??

 

I was just trying to run down the logic of the last two sentences you posted.

 

It's not black and white. It's not innocent or guilty. I do not KNOW for a fact if he is innocent or guilty.

 

It requires nuanced thinking.

 

I am saying that on a scale of 1-100 with 1 being a statement that makes you sound totally innocent and 100 being a statement that makes you seem guilty, Kuchar's statement is around a 70.

 

I was not saying that I concluded that he is guilty. I was only pointing out that generally when someone is innocent, they are are much more adamant in their defense, whereas Kuch essentially tried to brush this under the rug. Again, I'm not saying this is proof of anything and I didn't intend for my comments to sound like I was drawing conclusions. I was simply saying it's not the best statement I've ever heard from an innocent person or what you would usually expect from an innocent person.

 

The keyword I used is "look". I was only commenting on how the statement made him "look", not on whether he actually IS. Since obviously I can't determine guilt or innocence based on a statement.

 

Also, someone removed my comment from a larger post if you scroll up and look. I only included that at the end of my post which was otherwise about more than that. Which is why people probably shouldn't delete the context of people's posts. I talked about Gillis and the other guy's claims of speaking with the caddie, etc. and I only threw in the bit about Kuchar's statement at the end and I even said "so again, no proof or hard evidence".

 

no laws were broken... not innocent or guilty question..Only a morality question..and no you won't know all the facts.now the Caddie's wife knows he made 3K. He'd split it between himself, wife and girlfriend. His mother is now truly p()sed off. seeing has Karma doesn't really exist...Kutchar, made even more money this past weekend. Caddie stays poor.. Would have been nice if Kutchar gave the guy 5%-10%...likely a once in a lifetime dream whiles Kutchar's account stays massive...oh well... it should stay an issue.

 

? The words innocent and guilty are not owned by the legal system...we use them everyday and we are clearly just discussing whether Kuchar truly only paid him $3-5k or not. Innocent and guilty are just the best words we have available.

 

As avid golf fans, we collectively foot the bill for all of this by watching the PGA Tour, buying merchandise, attending events, etc. So yeah, I don't blame people for wanting to know if Kuchar did this, since it's constantly told to us how nice of a guy he is. I'm not saying he is or isn't. I don't know.

 

But yeah, in my opinion, he should have paid the caddy around $45-75k. Not 10%, but certainly a lot more than $5k.

[rangersgoalie]

I just read the first 3 pages and that’s all I need.

 

Guy makes over a million and pays the caddie that amount is pathetic - period.

 

To all the captains of commerce chiming in with ‘independent contractor’, ‘negotiating skills’ blah, blah, blah - I am calling BS. What are you talking about?? Some privileged jerk who gets to do what he loves for a job stiffs a local out of what any caddy is reasonably entitled to and you are trying to justify it? Glad none of you are in my group tomorrow.

 

Rob from Sydney

 

“Entitled to”.... yikes

 

Pretty much covers it

[ode1]

It would have been generous to offer more than what was agreed upon, based upon the win, but IMO not necessary. And it does not make Kuchar an word not allowed either for not being generous!