iamshack

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:38 PM) What on Earth could go wrong? Hannan: "Oh, there's those degrees I couldn't track down. They're legit." Dr. V: "Please sign this document that won't disclose my past as a man. I'd like to keep some privacy as that's what we'd agreed to before this started." Hannan: "Ok." Insert boring schlop that Grantland always posts on their website about a putter that some people find interesting. Dr. V does not decide that suicide is an option, everyone wins (but fewer blog hits and Hannan doesn't get the big story). Instead, this is refused. Again, the offer was to sign an NDA not to disclose personal information about a person AFTER the proof was given. Then the story is simply what the story was intended to be - fluff for Grantland. Personally, I hope Caleb Hannan never gets a paid writing job again. He swung for the fences, took someone down along the way, and now is f***ed. Good. A bit melodramatic, perhaps?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:28 PM) One thing we're not talking about is this part of the article. Now, Jordan’s message said she was calling to propose a deal. When I phoned her back, Jordan explained the offer. I could fly to Arizona and meet with Dr. V at her attorney’s office, where she would show me proof of her degrees from both MIT and the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. V then got on the phone and added another detail. Once I saw the documents I would have to sign a nondisclosure agreement barring me from revealing any of the details I’d learned about Dr. V’s past. The “deal” was one I could not accept, and when I explained this Dr. V got upset. Why couldn't this be accepted? It sounds to me like PROOF that she had the degrees that were in question was offered, but at this point the great Caleb Hannan made the decision he wanted to break a wild story about a transgendered person creating a magical putter. This part of the article has never once been addressed - the fact that the degrees were indeed being offered as proof that she had all the know-how (as shown in the design created) to create something like this. So the journalistic agreement to begin (about the product, not the scientist) was being blatantly ignored for the gotchya expose' on Dr. V. I just think the whole thing's f***ing sick, and this "journalist" blogger chasing his own fame is rightfully being vilified for it. Why on earth would you believe that she suddenly had the degrees at this point in the story, Steve? It was blatantly obvious that she was acting out of desperation at that point and was not going to produce anything but some phony pieces of paper.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 12:23 PM) The paragraph I just wrote said nothing of that. It asked whether the writer could have written a perfectly solid expose on the putter without the gender issues coming up at all. Frankly, yes he could have. I'd have to find the link again but I already saw a version of that where someone else had rewritten it in that way. Well if that is what we get as a result of being afraid to tell the truth about certain stories or issues, that really sucks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 12:17 PM) People already said in this thread that no reporter would agree to that, and a version of that was supposedly offered by Ms. Vanderbilt during their last conversation. No, that is not what people said. What people said is that after Vanderbilt had lied to the author (and everyone else) and lashed out at him, in one last act of desperation, tried to unring the bell and have him come see her degrees and then agree not to publish the story, that no journalist would agree to that. That is quite a bit different than what Badger is suggesting.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 11:54 AM) Let's be fair here...as far as the article presented, the author did not seem to show interest in actually looking at the science of the putter itself. It was treated very tangentially in the article, and the article featured virtually no talking to anyone in the actual company or involved in the design, production, or promotion of the putter itself. The author never met with the main person in the story nor did he really seem to meet with anyone working on the product itself. Based on the way that article was written...if Ms. Vanderbilt had offered additional details on the putter or the science, does it seem like the author would have been interested? Maybe he would have been, but the article itself doesn't show that at all. He finds reasonable questions to ask about the background of the person, asks them, but in the process gets dropped a juicy personal detail and that becomes the #1 point of the article from that second on. You can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that the reason the author could no longer look into the science behind the putter or the stated past of the inventor (the degrees, etc) is because IT DID NOT EXIST. When he tried to find it, he realized that. I don't understand why you keep suggesting the author could have written about these things as if they were there to be written about. As if there was a fork in the road where he chose between legitimate research and oh, this transgender angle is just so much better. When he went in search of one, all there was to be found was the other. When Vanderbilt realized this, she started behaving incredibly erratic. She did not try to steer him back to how she came up with the design of the putter, or where it was manufactured, or how and why it was the best putter on the market. She started insulting him and writing bizarre email responses about what an ass he was.

I am reading the points you guys are making, and I think they are understandable, but to me, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who creates this ridiculously mysterious past and then seems shocked when someone bothered to vet her. I am really trying to be understanding here, I am. I keep going back and putting this in the context of a gay/lesbian person being outed, maybe 20-30 years ago when that was less socially accepted, and trying to make the comparison. However, the distinction in my eyes, is that in the vast majority of times when a gay/lesbian was outed, there really was no relevancy between that person's sexual preferences and whatever activity or topic that was driving the story. In this case, we have a woman who essentially drove the mystery by creating a clandestine past which, let's be honest, is going to be like catnip to any journalist who enjoys the profession at all. If maintaining the fact that one is a transgender person was of extreme importance to Vanderbilt, why not simply stand behind the science of the putter itself? Why not hire a physicist to prove up the science? Why claim that she worked on top secret DoD projects in an effort to create a legitimacy for the putter, knowing full-well that legitimacy would be vetted? I can understand how it was wrong for the author to mention that Vanderbilt was a transgender person...but why is that transgression so terrible in light of what Vanderbilt did to the investor? I suppose that wasn't the author's decision to make here, but I have a difficult time finding sympathy for Vanderbilt when I feel that her crimes were at the very least, far worse than anything any of the other actors in this story did. Again, I understand some of the criticisms here, I just have a difficult time finding sympathy for a person who essentially utilized her mysterious identity (and the very fact that most investigators/researchers aren't going to assume someone might be a transgender person) to her benefit in order to bolster the legitimacy of the product she was attempting to sell.

All I can say is if they have been this quiet the entire time and then they allow him to tweet "I can't decide," in reference to this, that would be pretty hilarious

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 06:18 PM) Frankly I think the extent Simmons went to apologize is a bit nauseating. 15 smart, intelligent, long-time editors/journalists peer-reviewed that piece, and not one of them thought of the 10 things he's apologizing for. That to me is a sign that this story is a non-story. It's a sign that a guy born out of the internet has clearly over-valued and over-estimated the internet. Yeah, apologize for using the wrong pronoun. I can support that. Apologize for maybe not editing a few lines that make it seem like the guy is creeped out about a tranny (as if that's not a normal reaction for most people, regardless of the opinion of acceptability). I still can't get behind not reporting the truth. If this is the standard, I don't know how reporters are supposed to do their jobs. They shouldn't care how the subject, especially a subject that voluntarily talked, might feel about it. Well it was clearly damage control, but I think the biggest takeaway was that they should have allowed a transgendered person weigh in on it before publishing. I can support that criticism.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 03:14 PM) Simmons and an ESPN writer who is also on the board of Directors for GLAAD have what are, in my opinion, very well done articles on the reaction to this piece posted today, including Simmons basically apologizing for the mistake of not understanding how the article would read to that community. I think Simmons' piece is very-well done and I agree with just about all of it. Christina Kahrl's piece, on the other hand, is a bit ridiculous. I'm trying to think about the relationship between the fact that Vanderbilt was a transgender person and the fact that that's also what threw Caleb Hannan off her scent. I find them almost inseparable and therefore necessary to the story. I said as much Saturday. Do we, as a society, have a ways to go when it comes to accepting and learning to properly respect transgender people? Yes, absolutely. I think about the progress made with gay and lesbian folks and think about that same progress when it comes to transgender people. On the other hand, this trend we also seem to have as a society to celebrate faux outrage and morality dick-measuring contests is also quite bothersome. We're all so quick to trip over each other in an attempt to see who can be the most morally or politically correct Mother Theresa, and that usually happens shortly after the first person stands up and begins imparting blame (as we saw in this case). Frankly, if it took 56 hours for someone to do so, and then turned into an all-out cascade of criticism, I find that pretty compelling evidence. I shudder to think we may enter an age in publishing where a writer can't report an interesting story without fear of somehow offending someone for something.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 09:28 AM) One thing we learned is that if you want your NFL team to make the Super Bowl, your state needs to legalize marijuana. Brings a new facet to the home field advantage

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 08:23 AM) That's why you use Google Chrome and let it translate. It works so well, that you can now comprehend tweets such as this beauty. Masahiro Tanaka / MASAHIRO TANAKA @ T_masahiro18 Jan 19 Nagoya bullet today. And has attended the party of Mr. Takeshi Yamazaki! (^ ^) s***, I was at that same party! I should have asked him!

I'm hungry

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 08:11 AM) I mean, he called the guy mediocre. If that's being an asshole than I give up. He wasn't vulgar and he wasn't using foul language. What Sherman did bothers me a lot less than players getting in each others faces, jumping up and down like lunatics or making eccentric gestures following a tackle in the secondary in the first quarter. He made a fool of himself. But so what? These are grown men, we're really supposed to be feeling for them so much? Like, let's hope he didn't hurt anyone's feelings? I felt worse for poor Erin Andrews.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 07:59 AM) Funny thing is Sherman was coached by Harbaugh at Stanford. IIRC, he wasn't Jim's biggest fan. Harbaugh wasn't particularly supportive of Sherman when Sherman was coming into the draft.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 07:36 AM) You might be the first person that I've ever seen say that. From all accounts, he is pretty damn smart outside of football as well. (as well as his brother, now their personalities... yea I'd rather watch paint dry) He is no Alex Smith however. That guy is brilliant. The dude memorized the entire Colts playbook in one week after being drafted. I mean, that's almost unheard of. There are certain skills a quarterback must have that are quite symptomatic of high intelligence in many different areas. The fact that Manning is probably the most intelligent qb of the modern era goes a long way towards making the argument that he is probably incredibly intelligent in many facets outside of football. If you watch his interviews, including the way he handles questions and avoids allowing the media to trap him at times, it is also very apparent that this is a very intelligent human being.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2014 -> 07:34 PM) Moose Bassitt ‏@Moose_419 24m If anyone was wondering, Richard Sherman graduated with a 3.7 GPA from Stanford University in Communication The athlete's major

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Jan 19, 2014 -> 07:20 PM) Very true. But still, it seemed over the top for even him. Nobody ever says anything about him not being a good CB. In fact, I think most people realize he's one of the best in the NFL. Not sure why he felt the need to play the "chip on shoulder" card. Pretty sure he's referring to smack talk on the field

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jan 19, 2014 -> 07:18 PM) Did the panel even ask Wilson a question? If so, I must have missed it. Didn't see one....it was all Sherman....they gave him every chance to rehabilitate himself and I guess he did a little...but what an idiot

Sherman on again

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 19, 2014 -> 06:53 PM) Nice payday Shack! This sb should be fantastic! Yeah, going to let it ride on Denver in the SB

Well, I was definitely wrong about this game.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 19, 2014 -> 03:19 PM) That was a boring ass game. Let's hope the NFC game is better. Fat chance.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 19, 2014 -> 03:14 PM) I've always been a Brady fan but after this season I'm so happy he got bounced today. And now...Go Seahawks! Yes, go Seahawks!

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 19, 2014 -> 11:38 AM) A number like -3 or +4½ is a point spread. If you want to make an even money bet on the game, people betting on the favorite have to give points to the people betting on the underdog in order to even out the betting. If you want to bet on a team at -3, they have to win by more than 3 points for you to win your bet. If they win by exactly 3 points, it's a push. If you bet on a team at +4½, that team can either win, or lose by less than 4½ points for you to win your bet. (There are obviously no pushes when there is a ½ in the spread.) A number like -180 or +140 is a money line bet. You are betting just on one team to win, regardless of by how many points. A number like -180 means the team is a substantial favorite, and as such, you have to bet $180 in order to win $100. a number like +140 means that the team is a moderate underdog and you can bet $100 to win $140. The other most common bet is an over/under bet on the total number of points in a game. Given the total set by the bookmaker, such as 45½ points, you simply make an even money bet on whether the total points scored in the game will be over or under that total. And when you bet a side (a favorite or underdog with a point spread) or a total, you have to pay the "vig" or the "juice," which is typically 10%, depending on the point spread you are getting. So if I want to bet the Niners today and get the 3.5 points, I would bet $110 to win $100 (for a total of $210), or $220 to win $200 (for a total of $420).

QUOTE (HeGone33 @ Jan 19, 2014 -> 11:20 AM) Great logic. Comparing previous games this year also worked out well for the Panthers. 49ers are a much different team now, so are the Seahawks. This happened last year too, when I believe the Niners were a better team than they are now. It's about an environment and a mental edge. I don't think Kaep can handle the environment and I think the atmosphere will be too much for the Niners. And if we can't look to past matchups in similar situations, I'm not sure what we can look at.