Soxbadger

QUOTE (hi8is @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:47 PM) Netflix made a film all about me. Soak in that envy, son! Your icon makes me think of Pink Floyd "Pulse", questions, comments, concerns?

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:31 PM) If you want to go even farther than that Mr. lawyer, we can talk about how IQ isn't a 100% objective way to define intelligence. Thats why I said "if". Im not sure currently there is a perfect way to tell if someone is smart or not. Other than if I meet them and judge them

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:31 PM) On the bolded, it depends on what you were getting at with the questioning. If it was to show that the Defendant was transgendered and that's icky and bad, then no, it's not relevant. If it's offered to show that Vanderbilt did not have the credentials she said she had, yeah, it might be relevant. If it's followed up by: Q: When known as Stephen Kroll, did you obtain a degree in X or work at Y? But being transgendered, by itself, is not evidence that someone is a liar or deceptive. Furthermore, there are plenty of times when facts in court are offered under seal for any number of reasons. Courtrooms are cleared when dealing with alleged sex offenders to prevent the other inmates in the courtroom from knowing. Evidence is produced under seal if there is sensitive corporate information attached. Evidence of one's former sexuality is sensitive information that MIGHT be treated in the same way. And I think ultimately that's the point I'm trying to reach here. (1) There is a seriously high suicide rate amongst the transgender community; (2) the transgender community is not well understood and is far behind the strides that have been made with respect to the gay and lesbian communities - which is likely related to the point 1; and (3) outing Vanderbilt to an investor was unnecessary to show that Vanderbilt was not who she claimed to be - and is further evidence of 1 and 2. Its absolutely relevant because without proving her past identity I cant prove whether she is telling the truth or lying. If I ask "Are you Joe" and you say "no", and I never ask who you are, I have no evidence of your identity. I dont care if she was a man, woman or whatever. That has nothing to do with the fact she claimed she had credentials which she didnt. And part of proving that is showing that at X time, she was doing Y. Of the 3 things you list, I only think 3 is a valid concern. As I said earlier, what if its shown that there is a high rate of suicide amongst Jewish people and they have historically been discriminated. Should we not say Bernie Madoff is a Jew? Or do we just report facts? I get it, I have a lot of interaction with GLBT, but this isnt revealing information about some random person who never asked to be found. Sometimes you have to live with the consequences of your decisions.

QUOTE (KevHead0881 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:24 PM) Not entirely true. While they don't have the plethora of cash they had under the Trib, their low payroll at the big league level is largely intentional, as they've invested a ton of money in scouting and internationally. Hell, they had enough money to piss away on Edwin Jackson. If the reports are true, Jackson's contract would be half as valuable as Tanaka. So that doesnt exactly prove that they can blow the Dodgers/Yankees out of the water with money. In fact theres just no reason to believe that the Cubs can outbid anyone. And they can say whatever they want about intentionally keeping a low payroll, that doesnt change the fact that in terms of owners, the Ricketts may have the least cash on hand. So they need to use money from the revenue of the Cubs, they cant just kick in money from their personal fortune.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:22 PM) Meh, part of being smart is to not let your brilliance (whatever it may be) go to waste. If you are going to be subjective. But if objectively we quantify intelligence by IQ, then it has nothing to do with success.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:20 PM) You more or less called him an idiot. The definition of idiot is "a stupid person." The definition of stupid is "lacking intelligence or common sense." So there you go. OOOOOOh s*** someone be readin dem books and got der english learning out.

The Astro thing is odd, but it just goes to show how little the media know right now.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:17 PM) Depends on what you're studying. You can get away with just trying hard in a lot of fields. However, you can't tell me that a theoretical physicist from MIT is where he is just because he tried hard. It's a combination of effort and intelligence. But it also doesnt mean that hes smarter than someone at a community college who just never tried and let their brilliance go to waste.

As for real news, Astros owner states they are in on Tanaka. http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/mlb/417...st-in-sp-tanaka

When did we get to the point in society that who someone is, is not relevant to the fact they are scamming people? Is that seriously what we are saying now? Do you think if this was a trial about the fraud and I asked: "Were you previously Steven Krohl?" It would be objectionable based on relevance? Seriously, if thats not relevant, than nothing is. Who cares that she didnt really work at MIT, or any of that stuff, its not really relevant to whether the putter actually works, right? I mean maybe all of the science and credentials are completely bogus, but the putter works, so shouldnt the story just be: "Putter works amazing" I mean who cares that its all based on lies. This is getting f***ed up.

Jake, That implies her first name is the same. Thats not true, you cant deceive as a member of the media. Its just something I wont tolerate.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 07:50 AM) Party Down South is almost as enjoyable as first season of Jersey Shore. These hillbillies are getting plowed. You should sell that as a tagline.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:50 PM) We actually just accepted a stanford grad into our pt program who was also a all american wrestler and was 4th in the last olympics in wrestling. I think im a little scared. Yeah hopefully hes not Bruce Banner. STANFORD SMASH

I like how people think the Cubs have money. 2009 was the last year the Cubs were owned by Tribune, the 2010 payroll the Ricketts inherited was $145mil. 2011 it went down to $120mil, 2012 it went down to $88mil with 2013 it being a $104 mil. So the fact is in the last 3 years, the Cubs have never had a higher payroll than the Sox. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm They arent owned by the Tribune anymore, they are owned by a small time family with most of their assets tied up into the Cubs.

Its very unlikely that Tanaka camp is floating numbers, thats not generally how the Japanese do business. Thats more American style, which is why all of these reporters have 0 information. Because generally they call up the agents who leak stuff to get the bidding higher. From all accounts, it seems Tanaka wants none of that bulls***. He just wants numbers and then to make a decision.

if Dr vee was 100% honest about all her claims and the only thing that was not true was she was Steven Krohl back then, this may actually be an issue. But thats not what happened here, and it seems that the people trying to protect Dr Vee wont acknowledge that this only arose because she made numerous false claims about a product that she was trying to make money off of. I dont really see why that is something worth protecting, it seems like we are just protecting a minority for the sake of protecting a minority at this point.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:38 PM) Making the Rose Bowl earns the university more money than Conor Smith's family does, so he's more than just "some dude from Compton". I'm not even arguing against his intelligence, cause I really don't care, but don't act like nobody at Stanford had any interest in him succeeding academically. Every school has an incentive for all of their students to succeed academically. When they came to pitch me about why I should go to their school it was that Y% percentage graduate in X years. No one wants to say "Oh 50% of our kids fail our and suck". QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:39 PM) Suppressing urge to go off on Stanford... Man now I want someone named Stanford in my office.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:35 PM) Well, agree to disagree. I don't think someone can just change the past because of their gender issues. She lived a period of her life as a man. That's a fact. To claim in the same period of time that she was female is not telling the truth. It was all part of the fabricated back story that she created. Im fine with her referring to herself as past tense she. I dont think thats a lie. But when someone else says "You were Steven Krohl", thats also a fact. The problem with a duality is that most of the time, the past doesnt matter. But when you make up lies about your past in order to make money, then your past becomes an issue and everything is fair game.

Im pretty sure most of the people in this thread would struggle to get a 3.7 at Stanford regardless of major. I dont know how smart or dumb he is, grades dont really mean s*** for that, but he got a Stanford degree and not many people can say that. And Im pretty sure not many of us have "Stanford" grads working for us.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) Hannan could have looked into all of that without 1) divulging it to the investor or 2) including the specifics (she used to be Steven Krohl). Like I said above, I think there is a dilemma there because vetting her claims is what led him to discover this, and then he did have to research who Krohl was in order to fully vet the claims. But the piece really went from "does this putter work, is the science valid?" to "this woman who invented this putter is actually a trans gendered person" and never actually resolved any of the questions about the putter itself. I dont see how you can write a good article without saying who she was. Otherwise Dr. Vee could really be all the things she says she was. The way to disprove it is to say "From X-Y she was Steven Krohl and did none of those things." Otherwise the article is "From X-Y she was under a different name and didnt do those things", sure its equivalent, but if I read that, Id think its horrible journalism because Id want to be able to verify their claims, and the only way I could do independent verification would be to know the other names. Now maybe wed have a slightly more interesting argument if the name was gender neutral she previously went as "Jamie Jones" and then the author had to ask "Do I say that Jamie Jones was a man". And I thought the fact that it was all based on scam science answered the "does the putter work" question. Because really, its like asking "Do these shoes make me jump higher" and we all know, its not the shoes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:18 PM) It's not a simple issue, and I think it's wrong to dismiss any of the concerns of the transgendered community because they still face very real discrimination and violence for being who they are. And thats fine, but just dont tell me saying Bernie Madoff is a jew in an article is anti-semitic. Sure Jews have faced real violence and discrimination, but that doesnt mean we cant state a fact about one. Which is whats going on here, its outrage for outrage sake. You cant try and control the world this way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:12 PM) She was not lying when she called herself a woman. She had the power to self-identify as a woman, and did so. Saying she had these family connections, that she worked on the B-2, that she graduated from MIT were lies. Is she had explicitly denied having been Steven Krohl in the past, that would have been a lie (though a very understandable one in most contexts). Identifying herself as a woman was not a lie. But isnt the article incomplete unless I look into both names? Isnt the only way I can actually verify if Dr V went to MIT is if I check the record for both Steven Krohl and Dr Vee? How do I tell my audience that I actually did the research and appropriately vetted this? What if he only looked into Dr Vee and wrote a piece and then Dr Vee sued Grantland for slander/defamation by proving Steven Krohl did go to MIT? What exactly do we want here?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:03 PM) 1) Yes, subject to reasonable limitations. 2) I think it's a question of whether it's relevant to the deception. 3) No, but we also shouldn't ask them to sensationalize the story either. Here, the relevant truth is that Vanderbilt falsified qualifications and engaged in an elaborate deception about the magic putter. That's the story. The transgender angle here merely serves to sensationalize the story. I think the problem is when it comes to 2/3. I think her being a man/woman is relevant, because part of the deception was her background. The reality is, the reporter had no way of truly verifying what he wrote. He basically uncovered a puzzle and presented the evidence. What was he going to do, lie to the reader? At her previous employment she was not Dr V, she was X. If he omitted saying she was X, anyone who tried to verify her employment would not find her. Its no different than finding out I changed my name and saying that when I previously worked at Dominicks my name was Soxwolverine. Its not relevant that I was once a Michigan fan, but its part of my identity and what they found. If I kill myself out of shame for being a wolverine fan, is that the authors fault? Strange Sox, Once again you want the author to write "I found out Dr Vee didnt do any of those jobs" and just end it there. What type of a bulls*** article is that? If you found out where she really worked you write about it, and if she was working under the name Mr. Dr Vee, you write that too. This reporter did not go out of his way to harm anyone, he just uncovered a story and published it. Its just bulls*** that anyone would want something different. Its not his job to be the moral compass for America.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:00 PM) Reporters always make choices on what information to publish for a wide variety of reasons. Not everything is relevant or worth publishing. When in doubt give me the information. This wasnt like she gave them information about mob murders and they posted her address/picture. She lied to a reporter, the reporter found out and wrote a story. It just seems like there is a disconnect here. Since when do we protect lies?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:40 PM) How is Dr. V being transgendered relevant to the lies she made about her credentials/the science behind the putter? It may be an interesting hook for a story, but the fact that Dr. V is transgendered is not relevant to whether or not the putter works... unless you think that Dr. V being transgendered was somehow a deception in itself. Accordingly, it's not the reporters role to out Dr. V to an investor. Maybe it would have been discovered and become public knowledge down the road, but it's not relevant to the story itself (Vanderbilt created an elaborate web of deception about the magic putter). It's not the reporter's job to out her to anyone. Period. I thought Simmons handled this well. It's clear that the article wasn't malicious (and some of the reaction to the reporter is reprehensible - death threats, outing public information about the reporter, etc.), but there was a significant amount of misunderstanding/ignorance of transgender issues that led to mistakes being made here. I disagree. I dont think its the medias job to try and protect people who are deceiving others for financial gain. Call me old fashioned, but if you lie/deceive to make money, Im not going to cry if your lies lead to the truth being found out. And Im not even going to get into whether being transgendered is deception, thats a question for someone on a higher pay grade. As to what is relevant, once again, who judges relevance? I think the irony is that if you really dont care about transgender, you likely dont consider this a big issue. Whether she was a man or woman has nothing to do with the fact that she seemingly was proven to be a liar. So I think its interesting that people are focusing on true statement, instead of focusing on the actual relevant part of the article "This lady was someone who lied to make money".