The O'Reilly Case

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:07 am

RunningMn9 wrote:I will volunteer to get a lobotomy if it will sear the thought of Bill O'Reilly using a vibrator on himself out of my skull.

He said "boobs"? WTF says "boobs" when engaging in dirty talk?

You've got it all wrong.
He said big[/b] boobs.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:30 am

RunningMn9 wrote:I will volunteer to get a lobotomy if it will sear the thought of Bill O'Reilly using a vibrator on himself out of my skull.

He said "boobs"? WTF says "boobs" when engaging in dirty talk?

Yeah, saying "boobs" is a bit weird. Everyone knows that when talking dirty the correct words to use are "jugs", "coconuts", "cans", "mounds", or "mammeries".

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:51 am

I prefer "flapjacks".

khomotso · Post by **khomotso** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:08 am

I prefer "flapjacks".

Check out the silver fox heading my way.

Coskesh · Post by **Coskesh** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:32 am

Anyone catch Conan O'Brien last night? The phone call from O'Reilly had me cracking up.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:54 am

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:I will volunteer to get a lobotomy if it will sear the thought of Bill O'Reilly using a vibrator on himself out of my skull.

He said "boobs"? WTF says "boobs" when engaging in dirty talk?
Yeah, saying "boobs" is a bit weird. Everyone knows that when talking dirty the correct words to use are "jugs", "coconuts", "cans", "mounds", or "mammeries".

What ever happened to good ol' "Hooters"?

If it's good enough for a chain of redneck resteraunts, it's good enough for me!

Vegetable Man · Post by **Vegetable Man** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:14 pm

It had to happen, someone has given a proper name to O'Reilly's falafel fascination:

fa·la·phil·i·a
n.

1. Obsessive fascination with ground spiced chickpeas shaped into balls and fried.
2. Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with garbanzo beans, coriander, and cumin.
3. An abnormal fondness for being in the presence of middle eastern foods. Also called taboulehmania, hummulingus.
4. Sexual contact with or erotic desire for a falafel.

http://www.falaphilia.com/

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:27 pm

Vegetable Man wrote:It had to happen, someone has given a proper name to O'Reilly's falafel fascination:

fa·la·phil·i·a
n.

1. Obsessive fascination with ground spiced chickpeas shaped into balls and fried.
2. Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with garbanzo beans, coriander, and cumin.
3. An abnormal fondness for being in the presence of middle eastern foods. Also called taboulehmania, hummulingus.
4. Sexual contact with or erotic desire for a falafel.

http://www.falaphilia.com/

Awesome! I can't wait to hear these tapesl

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:26 am

Amazing. First, there's the sheer stupidity of possibly sexually harrassing someone who's complaining to you about sexual harassment. Then, there's the lengthy list of rather lame sexual hangups. Starting with the strange fascination with phone sex. Didn't that get old about the same time as crank phone calls and netsex? Shower fanatises with loofa mitts? Big boobs? Vibrator fetishes? Aside from O'Reilly using a vibrator on himself (need a mind-wipe, anyone?), I haven't heard of anything so pathetic for some time.

Excepting, of course, Jack Ryan's "sexless" sex scandal over trying to have public sex with his wife. Losing the election over screwing up your relationship with Seven of Nine (WITHOUT getting any sex) will probably always win the "bonehead sex scandal" category by a landslide.

Unbreakable · Post by **Unbreakable** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:15 am

So now we see the real reason OReilly hated Clinton so much- because being the president still didnt stop him from having freaky sex, and OReilly was jealous.

BTW, what does OReilly's wife think about all of this?

Eco-Logic · Post by **Eco-Logic** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:18 pm

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/ ... 8987c.html

More fluff today.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:37 pm

Eco-Logic wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/ ... 8987c.html

More fluff today.

Mackris' lawyer, Benedict Morelli, slammed Paratore's claim as "garbage" and called him a "spurned potential lover."

"He asked her out in October last year and she said no," he said. "The only thing I've heard about this guy is when I asked Andrea if there was anybody she has disappointed like this, and his name came up. It's garbage."

Fluff is right.

Eco-Logic · Post by **Eco-Logic** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:52 pm

Should be interesting to see how it turns out, eh?

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:54 pm

I can't wait for the tapes to be release on the internet. Then maybe we can put some Marvin Gaye in the background... add a few sound effects here... hell maybe dice it up and replace the accuser's voice with Barry White's.

Kadoth Nodens · Post by **Kadoth Nodens** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:05 pm

You know, if there's one group that loses out here, it's the kids.

O'Reilly cancels kid's book tour:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/041019/11/r9yu.html

Unbreakable · Post by **Unbreakable** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:07 pm

Damn it, now Little Junior cant enter the no spin zone.

At least sales of "Sit and Spin" will now be uneffected.

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:31 pm

Kadoth Nodens wrote:You know, if there's one group that loses out here, it's the kids.

O'Reilly cancels kid's book tour:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/041019/11/r9yu.html

Actually I think the kids win. It would have been worse if this came out AFTER the book started selling. Who the hell wants this guy teaching your kids about morality.

Biyobi · Post by **Biyobi** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:39 pm

His secretary is going to have a difficult time getting people to answer the phone for a while. I know that if Caller ID popped up with "O'Reilly, William" I'd let it go to the answering machine.

Kadoth Nodens · Post by **Kadoth Nodens** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:55 pm

Jag wrote:
Kadoth Nodens wrote:You know, if there's one group that loses out here, it's the kids.

O'Reilly cancels kid's book tour:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/041019/11/r9yu.html
Actually I think the kids win. It would have been worse if this came out AFTER the book started selling. Who the hell wants this guy teaching your kids about morality.

It actually is available. The publisher just canned the publicity tour.

It might be worth picking up a copy as a collector's item. Unless this thing goes away real soon, I bet B&N, Borders, etc. starts shipping copies back to the pub. for a refund.

Here's the Amazon link. A few funny "reviews" :

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/custom ... PDKIKX0DER

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:06 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:I really, really hope that I'm misreading this and "considerable legal acumen" is sarcastic. Because when Fox leveled that assinine suit against Franken for the cover and title of his book, it showed that its lawyers had either no legal acumen to speak of or no client control whatsoever.

My guess is that the order for that suit came from Murdoch or Ailes. Approval for the suit assuredly came directly from Sir Rupert. One does not control such a client. One merely rides him.

defy_gravity · Post by **defy_gravity** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:31 pm

Isn't O'Reilly married?

I am getting so tired of pompous types moralizing to the rest of us then we inevitably find out that they aren't exactly living a "pure" life themselves.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:56 pm

I am getting so tired of pompous types moralizing to the rest of us then we inevitably find out that they aren't exactly living a "pure" life themselves.

E X A C T L Y !

Coskesh · Post by **Coskesh** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:27 pm

defy_gravity wrote:Isn't O'Reilly married?

I am getting so tired of pompous types moralizing to the rest of us then we inevitably find out that they aren't exactly living a "pure" life themselves.

Always gotta watch out for those guys making the most noise.

Unbreakable · Post by **Unbreakable** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:25 am

Nobody does OReilly bashing better than Drudge!

LIMBAUGH TOP NY RADIO POLITICAL TALKER; FRANKEN OVER O'REILLY...

2 PM JULY-SEPT, ARBITRON 12+

LIMBAUGH, WABC 5.0 SHARE
AL FRANKEN, WLIB 2.3 SHARE
O'REILLY, WOR 2.1 SHARE

Ah, its just SO funny that the OFranken Factor is being out the OReilly Factor. First his radio show, next his TV show?

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:29 am

Kadoth Nodens wrote:
Jag wrote:
Kadoth Nodens wrote:You know, if there's one group that loses out here, it's the kids.

O'Reilly cancels kid's book tour:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/041019/11/r9yu.html
Actually I think the kids win. It would have been worse if this came out AFTER the book started selling. Who the hell wants this guy teaching your kids about morality.
It actually is available. The publisher just canned the publicity tour.

It might be worth picking up a copy as a collector's item. Unless this thing goes away real soon, I bet B&N, Borders, etc. starts shipping copies back to the pub. for a refund.

Here's the Amazon link. A few funny "reviews" :

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/custom ... PDKIKX0DER

I only made it to page 19, October 20, 2004
Reviewer: Ed Wood "Trailer Park Manager" (Hooterville) - See all my reviews
This book was SOOOOO bad, I had to return it for a full refund. I did keep the O'Reilly Factor Vibrator that came with the book as my "free gift". O'Reilly's 'personal stories' in the book are as phoney as his hair color and 2 Peabody awards.
Instead of buying this book for your kids, I would recommend purchasing a subscription to HUSTLER MAGAZINE. At least Larry Flynt is honest about his sexual desires!

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

LOL, that is just gold right there.

noun · Post by **noun** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:53 am

It certainly is interesting that the media suddenly got all quiet on this one. Clinton? Updates throughout the day, every day. Kobe Bryant? Ditto. O'Reilly? The sound of crickets...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:54 am

noun wrote:It certainly is interesting that the media suddenly got all quiet on this one. Clinton? Updates throughout the day, every day. Kobe Bryant? Ditto. O'Reilly? The sound of crickets...

I'm pretty sure O'Reilly would be pleased to be considered the same weight as the POTUS.

noun · Post by **noun** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:59 am

Austin wrote:I'm pretty sure O'Reilly would be pleased to be considered the same weight as the POTUS.

Well, I'm pretty certain a fair number of folks around here consider his opinion more valuable than Clinton's.

Anyway, my point is - those sex scandals were relatively tame compared to the possibility of having a conservative blowhard's sexually harrassing conversations taped. Why isn't the media all over this juicy story, since they've proven that repulsive and embarrassing drama is their favorite subject?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:03 am

noun wrote:
Austin wrote:I'm pretty sure O'Reilly would be pleased to be considered the same weight as the POTUS.

Well, I'm pretty certain a fair number of folks around here consider his opinion more valuable than Clinton's.

Anyway, my point is - those sex scandals were relatively tame compared to the possibility of having a conservative blowhard's sexually harrassing conversations taped. Why isn't the media all over this juicy story, since they've proven that repulsive and embarrassing drama is their favorite subject?

My guess is that if/when these tapes are produced, there will be a media feeding frenzy like no other. Ok... maybe like other.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:34 pm

Completely unconfirmed update:

I just read this on Salon, apparantly she's claiming to be fired.

Oct. 20, 2004 | NEW YORK (AP) -- A Fox News Channel producer who filed a sex harassment lawsuit against talk show host Bill O'Reilly filed new accusations Tuesday, alleging she has lost her job because she complained to Fox about her alleged mistreatment.

A lawyer for O'Reilly and Fox denied that Andrea Mackris has been fired or retaliated against in any way.

Mackris, 33, said that by Sept. 29 she had told top executives of News Corp., parent company of the Fox News Channel, about the alleged harassment and hostile work environment to which she was subjected while working for O'Reilly's show, "The O'Reilly Factor."

Mackris, an associate producer on the show, says in court papers the executives told her a few days later to call in sick while they investigated her complaint. Since Oct. 5, when Mackris met with Fox lawyers, Fox officials have not discussed her job status with her, court papers say.

The amended lawsuit says Fox's "removal" of Mackris from her job "is in direct retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment at defendants Fox." It is a violation of New York law to fire an employee who complains of sexual harassment.

Mackris alleged in her lawsuit last week that O'Reilly, 55 and married with two children, subjected her repeatedly to off-color sexual remarks and telephone sex talk.

Ronald Green, a lawyer for O'Reilly and Fox, on Tuesday dismissed Mackris' complaints about her job status. "Fox is still paying her her full salary," he said.

However, Green added, last week Mackris inexplicably sent an e-mail to friends saying, "I'm no longer at Fox." He also said Mackris went to her office and removed her belongings without being asked to by anyone at Fox.

Green said O'Reilly "denies that he has done anything that rises to the level of unlawful sexual harassment."

Hours before Mackris' lawyer, Benedict Morelli, filed her lawsuit on Oct. 13, Green filed suit in Nassau County, where O'Reilly lives, accusing Mackris and Morelli of trying to extort $60 million from O'Reilly and Fox.

From what I understand, Fox has been trying to find a way to fire Mackris without getting nailed (I think I read it on CNN, but I can't remember).

Anyhoo, if anyone could page O'Reilly and ask him to stop looking out for me, that'd be cool. Thanks.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:53 pm

Green said O'Reilly "denies that he has done anything that rises to the level of unlawful sexual harassment."

Quote from the article above.

Is it just me or is that a less than confidence building statement for O'Reilly's case.

noun · Post by **noun** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:00 pm

"The bitch wanted me to talk dirty, your honor." Yeah, this is gonna be ugly. Ok, I'll just sit back and wait for some more facts to surface.

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:01 pm

Austin wrote:
Green said O'Reilly "denies that he has done anything that rises to the level of unlawful sexual harassment."
Quote from the article above.

Is it just me or is that a less than confidence building statement for O'Reilly's case.

Pretty much an admission of at least sexual conversation right there. What a cop out statement from the "No Spin Man"

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:09 pm

noun wrote:Anyway, my point is - those sex scandals were relatively tame compared to the possibility of having a conservative blowhard's sexually harrassing conversations taped. Why isn't the media all over this juicy story, since they've proven that repulsive and embarrassing drama is their favorite subject?

Come again?

A sitting President purjuring himself and tampering with witnesses over getting hummers from an intern in the Oval Office and shoving cigars up her crotch is tame compared to Bill O'Reilly wanting to rub his producer's "boobs" with a loufa?

Well, I will say this about Clinton - at least no stories came out about him using a vibrator on himself. Ewww....

I'll wager a lot more of you were understanding when Clinton denied any involvement with *that* woman, Ms. Lewinsky. Is this a double standard or did you guys just learn your lesson?

Watching Bill O'Reilly ultimately have to fall on the sword is gonna be fun.

noun · Post by **noun** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:20 pm

Oh, please.

Clinton never publicly portrayed himself as a paragon of morality, or as morally superior to anyone else. O'Reilly, on the other hand, was all too happy to jump all over Clinton for his indiscretion, which, by the way, was consensual. At the moment O'Reilly's little phone chats seem to be a prime example of unwanted sexual harrassment.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:38 pm

noun wrote:Oh, please.

Clinton never publicly portrayed himself as a paragon of morality, or as morally superior to anyone else. O'Reilly, on the other hand, was all too happy to jump all over Clinton for his indiscretion, which, by the way, was consensual. At the moment O'Reilly's little phone chats seem to be a prime example of unwanted sexual harrassment.

You're telling me why the two situations are different (something I already knew). I'm telling you why one played in the media for months and months and months, and one seems to have disappeared already.

That a sitting President was impeached for obstructing justice and committing purjury in a sexual harassment suit is always going to be worthy of greater news coverage than a talk show host being accused of sexual harassment, regardless of the talk show host's position on moral pontification.

You did remember that Clinton's problems also stemmed from a sexual harassment suit as well...right?

But as much as these are different, they will be the same. The accused will continue to maintain innocence until the proof is offered that they are lying. When the tapes are released, this will be big news, O'Reilly will be fired (I'm sorry, he'll resign after settling the case to save his family from having to see the media spectacle that a trial would cause), and that will be that.

But this isn't bigger news than the Clinton situation. That's just plain crazy talk.

noun · Post by **noun** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:28 pm

But this isn't bigger news than the Clinton situation. That's just plain crazy talk.

I never said it was a bigger story, but it should certainly get equal time. If you don't want to equate it to Clinton, then I'm sure it's at least as newsworthy as the Kobe Bryant case, being that both O'Reilly and Bryant are entertainment celebrities, right?

You did remember that Clinton's problems also stemmed from a sexual harassment suit as well...right?

Yeah, whatever happened with that? Oh right, it was dismissed.

When the tapes are released, this will be big news, O'Reilly will be fired (I'm sorry, he'll resign after settling the case to save his family from having to see the media spectacle that a trial would cause), and that will be that.

On this, we agree. It remains to be seen how much coverage this gets, however.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:33 pm

SuperHiro wrote:The "shower fantasy" was pretty graphic. And it was absolutely horrifying to imagine O'Reilly acting it out.

But then, considering the quality of the sex scene in the fiction novel he wrote... I can't say I'm surprised.

You do realise that you just publicly admitted to reading Bill O'Reilly fiction?

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:38 pm

Tareeq wrote:My guess is that the order for that suit came from Murdoch or Ailes. Approval for the suit assuredly came directly from Sir Rupert. One does not control such a client. One merely rides him.

And once again we are reminded why even the ignominious animal-buggerer looks down upon the lawyer.

Rider-of-Rupert Murdoch: "Hey, I've got a 65" plasma TV and I drive a BMW."
Buggerer-of-beasts: "Yeah, but at least I've got my dignity."

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:40 pm

Don't need to.

Salon reviewed it.

http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2 ... ex_np.html