StrangeSox

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 06:12 PM) Right....and it's MY OPINION that he looked like an idiot....what is so hard to grasp here? Nobody is failing to grasp that you can't actually articulate your opinion or why you came to it.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 08:30 PM) This is actually very good advice. A novice or a person that is simply nervous or aiming at a moving target is liable to unload a clip and not hit anyone. You won't miss with an unchoked shotgun This is also what I have heard from very knowledgeable people.

WTF the NFL is a "nonprofit" entity? http://deadspin.com/non-profit-executive-r...2012-1506720930

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 04:09 PM) I also think it's weird that people keep using the word "thug", it's not like what Sherman did was considered criminal or violent. If you go look up what the word thug means on a dictionary.com, you get definitions like "a vicious criminal or ruffian" and "a tough and violent man, esp a criminal". I don't think that describes Sherman's actions as a poor sportsman. Dictionary's probably not the best place to go to understand social context. edit: thug was mentioned on TV 625 times on Monday. That's more than on any other day over the period they looked at (over three years). Richard Sherman was called a thug more than anyone in years because he was sort of a dick to Crabtree and the 49ers for about 25 seconds. http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-word-th...rday-1506098319

There's more chemicals than originally thought in the Freedom leak. http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201401210072

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 08:32 AM) Came off like an idiot = more or less calling him an idiot Your impression of him after that interview is that he's an idiot. Thus, you thought he was an idiot. Thus, you thought he was a stupid person. Thus, you thought he lacked intelligence. /mathproofs u forgot QED, the ultimate in internet debate owange

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 07:42 AM) I don't have the least bit problem with what Sherman said after the game, but getting in his face right after the play was absolutely classless. I dunno, if he's telling the truth about Crabtree being a dick to him in the past, I can understand it.

Wtf

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:58 PM) I dont think Ive commented about telling the investor. I dont think telling the investor was necessary or part of writing a factual article. Im talking about the article. As for Madoff, the reason that its relevant is he used his connections in the Jewish community as a means to commit the fraud. Its a fact, its relevant, its part of the story of how Madoff was able to get away with it. Part of the story of who the victims were, etc. Theres no reason to hide it, the same as there is no reason to hide that Dr Vee was once a man, its a fact, its part of the story. It is what it is. It can depend on the manner that you portray these facts. If you're constantly talking about "the Jewish Financial Banker Bernie Madoff" and really seem to be focusing in on his being Jewish, well, there's an awful long line of antisemitism towards Jews and banking/money and you might want to rethink what you're saying or how you're saying it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:42 PM) 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 inversely correlated to the number of posts on a message board

Eh I can definitely understand a journalist not agreeing to those sorts of conditions upfront.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:25 PM) Dude just deflected a ton of media attention from a 2nd year, young QB. Seems brilliant to me. Also turned himself into a national sports media spotlight for a few days before the Superbowl, and of course it'll be brought up again in all of the pre-game run-up. As long as he doesn't s*** the bed in the Superbowl, this should be good for him.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:10 PM) He looks like he was being brief for the sake of not letting the story turn into "look at the freakshow" "I was respecting her privacy on this matter as it wasn't essential to my story" or something along those lines.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:47 PM) Articles like that do more to damage race relations in this country than most "racist" things do. There is no such thing as an "honest" or "open" talk about race in this country, and this is exactly why. It would be nice to have a conversation like this without the theme of the discussion being everyone trying to assert some sort of moral authority over anyone else who doesn't agree. Racism will never die in this country because it is used as a wedge and it waters down any real change of progress. Setting the racial aspect aside, I'm still struggling to see why what he said was so idiotic or stupid as opposed to just cocky or arrogant.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:40 PM) For the love of god, stop trying to make this in to a race issue for f***'s sake. Jesus f***ing christ, people like you are annoying as f*** with that s***. He came off as not being intelligent BECAUSE HE f***ING LOOKED LIKE AN IDIOT. Whether or not he is actually smart is irrelevant because HE f***ING LOOKED LIKE AN IDIOT. Smart people can do dumb things. And in the event that he actually is smart, he is doing a terrible job at acting the part, because anyone objectively looking at his outbursts would severely question this guy's mental health and intelligence. You can shove that race card right back in your ass, thanks. http://deadspin.com/richard-sherman-and-th...egro-1505060117 really, what's so idiotic about this: It appears he's got a personal beef with Crabtree, and he just made a huge, game-winning play to send his team to the superbowl against Crabtree. What am I supposed to take away from that that would make me think he's an idiot rather than just arrogant/cocky?

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. The specific claims she made about her credentials and work history were lies. Not telling a reporter asking about her putter that "hey, I'm trans gendered" isn't lying or telling half-truths. That she was trans doesn't give her the right to lie about her credentials, but that doesn't mean anyone who asks is automatically entitled to that very personal information.

I also don't get why what Sherman said was "idiotic" or "dumb" anyway. He was shouting, probably because he was amped up after a huge win and the place was loud. He was arrogant, yeah, but all he really said was that he was the best (and plenty of people seem to agree on that) and the Crabtree is mediocre.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) I think if he's actively going around telling people lies about his past, yes, anything someone finds in trying to verify that past is fair game. Even if the lies he's telling are completely irrelevant to who his brother was? I would be shocked if j-schools taught that as acceptable ethical standards.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:22 PM) At best it's a half-truth. She lived her life as a man to the world for a period of time, even if she considered herself to be a woman internally. That's still a lie in my book in the context of fabricating her past. If you were going to go back and try to find her, as this reporter did, you wouldn't be able to, because the records are of her as a man, not a woman. Where she worked and what degrees she had were fabrications she told other people. Not telling other people that she was trans is not a lie or a half-truth.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:16 PM) 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? 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:10 PM) For a period of her life. Not when she lived her life as Stephen Krohl or whatever the name was (at the time she was claiming to be a female scientist). Identifying herself as E. Vanderbilt was not a lie. Her claimed credentials were a lie. The other day I was watching something about Jeffery Dahmer, so I ended up on his wiki page. It said that his brother changed his name and lives in anonymity. Is he telling a "lie" if he goes by his new name? Would it be ethical for a reporter investigating a story unrelated to his brother but who discovered his original name to publish that information? I understand that in this case, the reporter uncovered Dr. V's past identity while trying to trace down Dr. V's credentials (and failing to do so). I think there is an interesting dilemma here, because validating these claimed credentials really was a part of the story and getting the information to check under her former identity is part of the research that he did. 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:09 PM) So transgendered people have the power to rewrite their past? She never applied for 2 marriage licenses as a man? That never happened? 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:07 PM) What? It's incredibly relevant. The whole point of the story ended up being "this person is not who she claimed to be." Her gender is just one fact out of many that lead to that conclusion. She claimed to be E. Vanderbilt, and she was.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) 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? That she was transgendered wasn't necessarily relevant to the lies about her credentials, nor was any of it really relevant to whether the science behind the putter is valid. Being transgendered and not divulging the past isn't a lie. The lie was where she supposedly got some degrees and where she had worked. I understand that, in his attempt to uncover her background, he found out about this information. That information is perhaps relevant to the story, though the same story could largely have been written without divulging that particular bit of information. That would only be protecting a very private personal history, not the lies told about credentials or work history.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:46 PM) Being a woman was just as much of a "lie" as having those degrees/job history. that's a remarkably insulting thing to say.