Dr. V's Magical Putter

[Balta1701]

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.

There are a number of Trans people who would say that the time of their life when they were lying was the part before the gender-change.

[Soxbadger]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

[Jenksismyhero]

There are a number of Trans people who would say that the time of their life when they were lying was the part before the gender-change.

 

I acknowledged this. But that still makes it a half truth. And I still think it's just another relevant piece to her back story.

[Soxbadger]

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.

[Jake]

I do understand that there is some difficulty in reporting the entire story in any way resembling its current form without saying what her former name was. This is, for the most part, why many have insisted that outing her gender identity change (if we may call it that) to the investor was the most problematic part of the deal.

 

Remember how her former supervisor only barely insinuated something was amiss when Hannan spoke to him? That would have perhaps been a little better. Of course, we don't know how the conversation with the investor went; somehow this was a part of the conversation that didn't matter enough to include in the article, even though the investor having thought she was attractive was worth including. Reporters love dropping random facts with no explicit purpose and they do this under the guise of "just reporting the facts" when in fact, this is just a sneaky way of hiding your biases. Why include this and not that? If he's not going to make his agenda public, then Hannan can't be mad when people say he included the investor's comment about how she was good looking while giving no attention to the very serious topic of outing her to mean that Hannan didn't give a f*** about transgender issues.

 

Let's get this straight -- the article was presented the way it was because 1. she died and 2. she was born Stephen Krohl

 

If the article was about 1. the putter and 2. the liar, it would have been quite different. It would have been shorter. There would have been much of the beginning of the current article and not much of the end. "I found these lawsuits in which she was involved during these dates, dates that should have placed her in D.C. After finding her credentials weren't checking out, I found another legal document - a change of name. She was born under the name Krohl, but has since divorced herself from her entire family as far as my research can tell. Moreover, she has held a number of odd jobs in these cities at these other times in which she says she was working for the Pentagon. Moreover, nobody going by her former name graduated from Penn or MIT."

 

Oh, wow! Neat! Very cool investigative reporting. He totally called her out for being a fraud. Look at how all these people placebo'd into liking her silly putter.

[Soxbadger]

Jake,

 

She was born under the name Krohl, but has since divorced herself from her entire family as far as my research can tell.

 

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.

[Rowand44]

I do understand that there is some difficulty in reporting the entire story in any way resembling its current form without saying what her former name was. This is, for the most part, why many have insisted that outing her gender identity change (if we may call it that) to the investor was the most problematic part of the deal.

 

Remember how her former supervisor only barely insinuated something was amiss when Hannan spoke to him? That would have perhaps been a little better. Of course, we don't know how the conversation with the investor went; somehow this was a part of the conversation that didn't matter enough to include in the article, even though the investor having thought she was attractive was worth including. Reporters love dropping random facts with no explicit purpose and they do this under the guise of "just reporting the facts" when in fact, this is just a sneaky way of hiding your biases. Why include this and not that? If he's not going to make his agenda public, then Hannan can't be mad when people say he included the investor's comment about how she was good looking while giving no attention to the very serious topic of outing her to mean that Hannan didn't give a f*** about transgender issues.

 

Let's get this straight -- the article was presented the way it was because 1. she died and 2. she was born Stephen Krohl

 

If the article was about 1. the putter and 2. the liar, it would have been quite different. It would have been shorter. There would have been much of the beginning of the current article and not much of the end. "I found these lawsuits in which she was involved during these dates, dates that should have placed her in D.C. After finding her credentials weren't checking out, I found another legal document - a change of name. She was born under the name Krohl, but has since divorced herself from her entire family as far as my research can tell. Moreover, she has held a number of odd jobs in these cities at these other times in which she says she was working for the Pentagon. Moreover, nobody going by her former name graduated from Penn or MIT."

 

Oh, wow! Neat! Very cool investigative reporting. He totally called her out for being a fraud. Look at how all these people placebo'd into liking her silly putter.

And then someone else finds out she was transgendered(and it would happen) and all the sudden the journalist looks like he's deceiving on purpose, no?

[Jake]

Most of the info he found was publicly available. However, he didn't have to be fixated on those details. Finding out she was transgendered took a way too central role in the story.

[Jake]

He looks like he was being brief for the sake of not letting the story turn into "look at the freakshow"

[StrangeSox]

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.

[Jake]

Hannan could even have just said she was born under the name Stephen Krohl or simply "another name." Imagine if he had just said she was used to be named Steven Krohl and let people guess at what that means.

[Soxbadger]

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.

[Steve9347]

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.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Steve9347

[StrangeSox]

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

[illinilaw08]

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.

 

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.

 

[Steve9347]

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

It didn't say upfront. The article says that he was offered proof of those degrees and AFTER seeing it would have to sign an NDA about not disclosing her past and to focus on the science of the putter, as the author already noted he'd agreed to anyway.

[Rowand44]

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.

There's wayyyyyyyy too much that can go wrong in that situation. There's no way a journalist can accept that deal.

 

 

[Steve9347]

There's wayyyyyyyy too much that can go wrong in that situation. There's no way a journalist can accept that deal.

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.

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

 

[iamshack]

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.

[Steve9347]

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.

I'm working with the information provided in the article written.

[iamshack]

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?

[Steve9347]

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.

I don't think you have enough information to make that claim, actually. If she doesn't produce the documents, then there's no need to sign an NDA and no harm no foul, right?

 

Unless, you know, they were going to f***ing murder him!!!!!!!!!!

[iamshack]

I don't think you have enough information to make that claim, actually. If she doesn't produce the documents, then there's no need to sign an NDA and no harm no foul, right?

 

Unless, you know, they were going to f***ing murder him!!!!!!!!!!

Well, considering she had brought lawsuits against pretty much anyone who stood up to her, had switched from someone who had volunteered information to someone who suddenly was attacking him for trying to verify what she volunteered, and had been acting erratically for some months now, meanwhile, almost nothing she had said about her past was checking out, yeah, I wouldn't have agreed to this nonsense either.