What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Grantland.com (1 Viewer)

Joe Summer said:
thecatch said:
tommyGunZ said:
I'm new to Thank you for not coaching - good stuff.
Click to expand...
Bill Barnwell is just awful. He must have incriminating photos of Simmons or something.
Click to expand...
He's a stat nerd disguised as a writer. He should be working as a researcher for the TMQB guy.
Click to expand...
The dudes at Fangraphs take a stats-based approach to baseball, and by and large are pretty entertaining. The whole SB safety betting thing, IMO, kind of exposed him as a charlatan.

 
Joe Summer said:
thecatch said:
tommyGunZ said:
I'm new to Thank you for not coaching - good stuff.
Click to expand...
Bill Barnwell is just awful. He must have incriminating photos of Simmons or something.
Click to expand...
He's a stat nerd disguised as a writer. He should be working as a researcher for the TMQB guy.
Click to expand...
At best. 90% of his analysis involves commentary about expected wins and fumble recovery rates. Writing about the same stats in every context doesn't add anything to my understanding of the game. I'm fine with reading an article written by an insightful stat nerd, but Barnwell doesn't qualify.

 
Is Third Eye Blind really thought of as a contemporary to Nirvanna? Weren't they popular like 5-10 years apart?

 
Listening to In Utero is like watching the movie Black Sheep, it's not like we should be wondering about what could have been with these legends. Cobain and Farley were capable of stinkers.

Nevermind>August>> In Utero

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Joe Summer said:
thecatch said:
tommyGunZ said:
I'm new to Thank you for not coaching - good stuff.
Click to expand...
Bill Barnwell is just awful. He must have incriminating photos of Simmons or something.
Click to expand...
He's a stat nerd disguised as a writer. He should be working as a researcher for the TMQB guy.
Click to expand...
The dudes at Fangraphs take a stats-based approach to baseball, and by and large are pretty entertaining. The whole SB safety betting thing, IMO, kind of exposed him as a charlatan.
Click to expand...
Dave Cameron is a bit of a blowhard.

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Joe Summer said:
thecatch said:
tommyGunZ said:
I'm new to Thank you for not coaching - good stuff.
Click to expand...
Bill Barnwell is just awful. He must have incriminating photos of Simmons or something.
Click to expand...
He's a stat nerd disguised as a writer. He should be working as a researcher for the TMQB guy.
Click to expand...
The dudes at Fangraphs take a stats-based approach to baseball, and by and large are pretty entertaining. The whole SB safety betting thing, IMO, kind of exposed him as a charlatan.
Click to expand...
Last year his guaranteed regression team was the 49ers. Whoops. This year it's the Colts. Simmons is entertaining, but some of his "experts" are just painful.

 
Kudos to Pete in Wexford, Pennsylvania, for suggesting that I buy a Tom Brady bobblehead on eBay and see how far I can cram it up my ### while "filming it for your piece of #### YouTube Channel." We might have to try that! From the producers of House Eats 3, it's Tom Brady Bobblehead ### Cram!

 
Wesley Morris hates every movie that comes out, and yet he likes the new Hunger Games movie? I'm so confused.

 
Bogart said:
Wesley Morris hates every movie that comes out, and yet he likes the new Hunger Games movie? I'm so confused.
Click to expand...
He's liked more than he's hated recently. He does have the "serious critics'" penchant to kind of damn things with faint praise.

But several decent critics liked Catching Fire. I assume they put a lot more money into it once the first film was a hit. They definitely hired a more capable director. I'm not a fan of the book, but I'm guessing the movie is better than the book.

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Joe Summer said:
thecatch said:
tommyGunZ said:
I'm new to Thank you for not coaching - good stuff.
Click to expand...
Bill Barnwell is just awful. He must have incriminating photos of Simmons or something.
Click to expand...
He's a stat nerd disguised as a writer. He should be working as a researcher for the TMQB guy.
Click to expand...
The dudes at Fangraphs take a stats-based approach to baseball, and by and large are pretty entertaining. The whole SB safety betting thing, IMO, kind of exposed him as a charlatan.
Click to expand...
what was this now?

 
Long Ball Larry said:
Good Posting Judge said:
Joe Summer said:
thecatch said:
tommyGunZ said:
I'm new to Thank you for not coaching - good stuff.
Click to expand...
Bill Barnwell is just awful. He must have incriminating photos of Simmons or something.
Click to expand...
He's a stat nerd disguised as a writer. He should be working as a researcher for the TMQB guy.
Click to expand...
The dudes at Fangraphs take a stats-based approach to baseball, and by and large are pretty entertaining. The whole SB safety betting thing, IMO, kind of exposed him as a charlatan.
Click to expand...
what was this now?
Click to expand...
Will there be a safety?

Yes: +900

No: -1300

This was my biggest prop bet loss last year. I laid out the logic suggesting that betting "No" was a good play, followed through with a bet, and managed to lose within seven minutes of the opening whistle. It was such a big loss that I needed to win every other one of my prop bets to break even (and that didn't happen, either).

But here, again, I'm going to point out why the "No" bet is the right one. Over the past five years, there have been 1,280 NFL regular-season games and 82 safeties, suggesting that safeties will occur in 6.4 percent of games. The odds above suggest, after adjusting for the vig, that safeties will occur in 9.7 percent of games. Furthermore, the most likely scenario that leads to a safety — a quarterback getting sacked in the end zone — is unlikely to occur, since these two teams have had relatively anemic pass rushes during the playoffs. So, again, I think there's value in betting "No" here. I'll do it again. Of course, this is "picking up nickels in front of a steamroller," and last year I got steamrolled.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8889349/bill-barnwell-prop-bets
Click to expand...
That's just something that's not worth a big bet, if a bet at all. The number of games that you're expecting to not have a safety (93.6% don't have one) is only barely above the breakeven % of 92.86% for a -1300 bet. He's just completely mangling the numbers.

 
Joe Summer said:
Sarnoff said:
GroveDiesel said:
Whoa. This is one of the best articles ever posted to Grantland.

http://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/
Click to expand...
So, he drove her to do it? :oldunsure:
Click to expand...
:goodposting: "Look at me, I threatened to expose someone's private secret!!!" Way to go, Woodward & Bernstein.
Click to expand...
So she begs me not to reveal her secret. I tell her no, but I'm a little conflicted about it. So I reach out one last time to talk about it. Lo and behold, she's killed herself, which totally solves my ethical problems! Woo-hoo! :towelwave:

 
Sarnoff said:
Joe Summer said:
Sarnoff said:
GroveDiesel said:
Whoa. This is one of the best articles ever posted to Grantland.

http://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/
Click to expand...
So, he drove her to do it? :oldunsure:
Click to expand...
:goodposting: "Look at me, I threatened to expose someone's private secret!!!" Way to go, Woodward & Bernstein.
Click to expand...
So she begs me not to reveal her secret. I tell her no, but I'm a little conflicted about it. So I reach out one last time to talk about it. Lo and behold, she's killed herself, which totally solves my ethical problems! Woo-hoo! :towelwave:
Click to expand...
She sounds a bit like that crazy boss who was harrassing a FBG who then disappeared for a couple of years. I know... cool story, bro.

 
Joe Summer said:
Sarnoff said:
GroveDiesel said:
Whoa. This is one of the best articles ever posted to Grantland.

http://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/
Click to expand...
So, he drove her to do it? :oldunsure:
Click to expand...
:goodposting: "Look at me, I threatened to expose someone's private secret!!!" Way to go, Woodward & Bernstein.
Click to expand...
Digging Too Deep: Grantland’s exposé of a trans con artist privileged fact-finding over compassion

Every journalist has worked on a story that started out being about one thing and ended up as something else entirely. That’s what happened to Caleb Hannan, who got curious about a weird-looking golf club he found on YouTube and started quizzing the inventor about her far-out scientific theories. Hannan’s essay for Grantland, “Dr. V’s Magical Putter,” documents the writer’s eight-month journey to unravel the truth about Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt. In the end, as the piece twisted to a horrific conclusion, Hannan never quite figured out what his story was about.

If you haven’t read Hannan’s story yet, you should—I’ll be here when you’re done. In brief, the writer discovered that “Dr. V” was a con artist. She lied about her educational and professional credentials to Hannan and to a man who gave her $60,000—cash that investor never saw again. In the course of his reporting, Hannan also learned that Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt “was born a boy.”
Hannan eventually sent Dr. V “an email trying to confirm what I had discovered.” The inventor got very angry, tried to get Hannan to sign a nondisclosure agreement, and wrote him a note saying that “his deportment is reminiscent to schoolyard bullies.” Not long after that, Hannan writes, he got a phone call informing him that Dr. V had committed suicide.
Over the last few days, Twitter has bubbled over with arguments about what Hannan did and didn’t do. At one extreme are the people calling Hannan a murderer, alleging that a trans woman killed herself because she believed a reporter was about to out her. At the opposite pole are those who say Hannan did what journalists are trained to do: report out a story until he unearths the truth. Jason Fagone, a writer I’ve worked with and respect very much, wrote that Twitter was “aggregat[ing] anger against a young reporter for his hard choices on a difficult story.”

The journalists defending Caleb Hannan can relate to his experience. If you’re looking at the Dr. V story as a fellow reporter, you can understand that this must have been a difficult assignment—“impossibly difficult,” in the view of writer Brandon Sneed. Hannan’s subject was a liar, and it took him a very long time to piece together her life story. In a certain sense, Hannan accomplished what every writer wants to achieve: He vacuumed up an avalanche of information, and he sorted out what was true and what was false.
A member of the trans community, justifiably, would have an easier time seeing things through Dr. V’s eyes—to imagine how it might feel to have an eager reporter pry into your past, and possibly reveal your gender identity. I’d also venture that it would be impossible for a trans man or woman to read about Dr. V’s suicide without thinking of all the hardship and violence that so many trans people have lived through, and that many haven’t survived.
As much as we try to understand other people’s emotions, this is what empathy looks like in real life: It’s easier to relate to people who are just like us.
That’s not how journalism is supposed to work, though. Yes, every reporter strives to uncover the truth. But we’re also supposed to call on our reserves of emotional intelligence to comprehend the people we’re writing about. When someone like the New York Times’ David Carr, who is very much attuned to questions of journalistic ethics, tweets out Hannan’s story approvingly with no hint about the moral dilemmas it raises, it’s clear there’s a cavernous empathy gap between mainstream writers and trans people.
Hannan’s story, and the writer’s defenders, show the dangers of privileging fact-finding and the quest for a great story over compassion and humanity. One of the wisest comments I’ve seen over the last few days came from Steve Silberman, who wrote on Twitter that Hannan’s piece “has structural problems that turned into moral ones.” The Grantland story has the tone and pacing of a thriller. Section by section, Hannan lays out that Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt is not who she purports to be—that she didn’t go to MIT, and that she didn’t work in the defense industry. As part of that litany of shocking disclosures, Hannan also reveals that Dr. V—whom he never met in person—was born Stephen Krol. “Cliché or not, a chill actually ran up my spine,” he writes, explaining the sensation he felt upon deducing “that Essay Anne Vanderbilt was once a man.”
The fact that Dr. V once lived under a different name is not irrelevant to Hannan’s story—the name change complicated his quest to check up on our background, which I believe makes it fair game if handled sensitively. But presenting Dr. V’s gender identity as one in a series of lies and elisions was a careless editorial decision. Hannan makes no claim that her identity as a trans woman has any bearing on the golf club she invented or the scientific background she inflated. And yet it sent a chill up his spine. It’s this line that feels particularly inhumane. Dr. V is a con artist and a trans woman. Hannan, though, conflates those two facts, acting as though the latter has some relation to the former. It seems that, in his view, they both represent a form of deceit.
It’s impossible for anyone to say why Dr. V committed suicide. It is certainly way over the line to call Hannan a murderer. It’s also wrong to claim with any certainty that it was his reporting that pushed her over the edge, or to argue that it’s 100 percent clear that she was more concerned with being outed than with having her phony credentials exposed.
Even so, it’s very strange that the Grantland piece seems so incurious about the death of its subject. Though we’ll never know the answers, Hannan and his editors at least have a responsibility to ask themselves some difficult questions: What, if anything, should they have done differently? Should they have proceeded more cautiously once Hannan learned that Essay Anne Vanderbilt had attempted suicide before? Should they have published the story at all? (The Tampa Bay Times’ Leonora LaPeter Anton asked herself similar questions after the subject of one her stories committed suicide. Her searching account is worth reading.)
I believe that “Dr. V’s Magical Putter” was a story worth telling, but this was not the right way to tell it. “What began as a story about a brilliant woman with a new invention had turned into the tale of a troubled man who had invented a new life for himself,” Hannan writes after describing Dr. V’s 2008 suicide attempt, at once revealing his ignorance about trans issues and his protagonist's utility as a fascinating narrative arc. When you reread the story knowing that Essay Anne Vanderbilt is dead, the whole thing feels cold-hearted. The subhead bills the piece as a “remarkable story behind a mysterious inventor.” The opening sentence notes, “Strange stories can find you at strange times.” Near the end, Hannan observes, “Writing a eulogy for a person who by all accounts despised you is an odd experience.”
Remarkable, strange, odd. These are adjectives that place some distance between us and what we’ve just heard. It’s not how anyone would talk about the death of someone they care about.

I don’t believe that Caleb Hannan and his editors were willfully callous. This is the kind of story, though, that breeds cynicism about journalists. It is a piece of writing that treats its subject as a series of plot points rather than a person, and that seems concerned with little else aside from propelling itself toward a dramatic conclusion.
It’s easy for Hannan’s fellow writers to believe in a colleague’s good intentions, to see how they might have made a similar mistake, and to explain to outsiders that journalism is a tough racket. It’s also easy to wave away Hannan’s harshest critics, the ones who say with no caveats or shading that this story killed Dr. V. But as writers have circled the wagons around Hannan on Twitter, it’s felt more like a support group than a workshop—you get the feeling that many journalists are more interested in what Hannan’s detractors got wrong than what they got right. There’s a whole lot of criticism, however, that’s impossible to dismiss, the angry words of people who believe the outing of a trans woman shouldn’t be treated as some kind of amazing twist. That’s an argument that every journalist needs to listen to and try to understand. It is the kind of story that’s worth telling.
Click to expand...
 
I do think the story could have been a little more sensitive and done a better job portraying the subject as a troubled and mentally ill person, but it's also true that she/he was a liar, con man, and thief.

And frankly, I think the trans issue was much less of a factor in this person's suicide than mental illness. The article posted above me seems like a trans person taking and using the sad conclusion for their own agenda. Really almost as sick as what they're claiming of the Grantland author.

 
Sarnoff said:
Joe Summer said:
Sarnoff said:
GroveDiesel said:
Whoa. This is one of the best articles ever posted to Grantland.

http://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/
Click to expand...
So, he drove her to do it? :oldunsure:
Click to expand...
:goodposting: "Look at me, I threatened to expose someone's private secret!!!" Way to go, Woodward & Bernstein.
Click to expand...
Digging Too Deep: Grantland’s exposé of a trans con artist privileged fact-finding over compassion

Every journalist has worked on a story that started out being about one thing and ended up as something else entirely. That’s what happened to Caleb Hannan, who got curious about a weird-looking golf club he found on YouTube and started quizzing the inventor about her far-out scientific theories. Hannan’s essay for Grantland, “Dr. V’s Magical Putter,” documents the writer’s eight-month journey to unravel the truth about Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt. In the end, as the piece twisted to a horrific conclusion, Hannan never quite figured out what his story was about.

If you haven’t read Hannan’s story yet, you should—I’ll be here when you’re done. In brief, the writer discovered that “Dr. V” was a con artist. She lied about her educational and professional credentials to Hannan and to a man who gave her $60,000—cash that investor never saw again. In the course of his reporting, Hannan also learned that Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt “was born a boy.”
Hannan eventually sent Dr. V “an email trying to confirm what I had discovered.” The inventor got very angry, tried to get Hannan to sign a nondisclosure agreement, and wrote him a note saying that “his deportment is reminiscent to schoolyard bullies.” Not long after that, Hannan writes, he got a phone call informing him that Dr. V had committed suicide.
Over the last few days, Twitter has bubbled over with arguments about what Hannan did and didn’t do. At one extreme are the people calling Hannan a murderer, alleging that a trans woman killed herself because she believed a reporter was about to out her. At the opposite pole are those who say Hannan did what journalists are trained to do: report out a story until he unearths the truth. Jason Fagone, a writer I’ve worked with and respect very much, wrote that Twitter was “aggregat[ing] anger against a young reporter for his hard choices on a difficult story.”

The journalists defending Caleb Hannan can relate to his experience. If you’re looking at the Dr. V story as a fellow reporter, you can understand that this must have been a difficult assignment—“impossibly difficult,” in the view of writer Brandon Sneed. Hannan’s subject was a liar, and it took him a very long time to piece together her life story. In a certain sense, Hannan accomplished what every writer wants to achieve: He vacuumed up an avalanche of information, and he sorted out what was true and what was false.
A member of the trans community, justifiably, would have an easier time seeing things through Dr. V’s eyes—to imagine how it might feel to have an eager reporter pry into your past, and possibly reveal your gender identity. I’d also venture that it would be impossible for a trans man or woman to read about Dr. V’s suicide without thinking of all the hardship and violence that so many trans people have lived through, and that many haven’t survived.
As much as we try to understand other people’s emotions, this is what empathy looks like in real life: It’s easier to relate to people who are just like us.
That’s not how journalism is supposed to work, though. Yes, every reporter strives to uncover the truth. But we’re also supposed to call on our reserves of emotional intelligence to comprehend the people we’re writing about. When someone like the New York Times’ David Carr, who is very much attuned to questions of journalistic ethics, tweets out Hannan’s story approvingly with no hint about the moral dilemmas it raises, it’s clear there’s a cavernous empathy gap between mainstream writers and trans people.
Hannan’s story, and the writer’s defenders, show the dangers of privileging fact-finding and the quest for a great story over compassion and humanity. One of the wisest comments I’ve seen over the last few days came from Steve Silberman, who wrote on Twitter that Hannan’s piece “has structural problems that turned into moral ones.” The Grantland story has the tone and pacing of a thriller. Section by section, Hannan lays out that Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt is not who she purports to be—that she didn’t go to MIT, and that she didn’t work in the defense industry. As part of that litany of shocking disclosures, Hannan also reveals that Dr. V—whom he never met in person—was born Stephen Krol. “Cliché or not, a chill actually ran up my spine,” he writes, explaining the sensation he felt upon deducing “that Essay Anne Vanderbilt was once a man.”
The fact that Dr. V once lived under a different name is not irrelevant to Hannan’s story—the name change complicated his quest to check up on our background, which I believe makes it fair game if handled sensitively. But presenting Dr. V’s gender identity as one in a series of lies and elisions was a careless editorial decision. Hannan makes no claim that her identity as a trans woman has any bearing on the golf club she invented or the scientific background she inflated. And yet it sent a chill up his spine. It’s this line that feels particularly inhumane. Dr. V is a con artist and a trans woman. Hannan, though, conflates those two facts, acting as though the latter has some relation to the former. It seems that, in his view, they both represent a form of deceit.
It’s impossible for anyone to say why Dr. V committed suicide. It is certainly way over the line to call Hannan a murderer. It’s also wrong to claim with any certainty that it was his reporting that pushed her over the edge, or to argue that it’s 100 percent clear that she was more concerned with being outed than with having her phony credentials exposed.
Even so, it’s very strange that the Grantland piece seems so incurious about the death of its subject. Though we’ll never know the answers, Hannan and his editors at least have a responsibility to ask themselves some difficult questions: What, if anything, should they have done differently? Should they have proceeded more cautiously once Hannan learned that Essay Anne Vanderbilt had attempted suicide before? Should they have published the story at all? (The Tampa Bay Times’ Leonora LaPeter Anton asked herself similar questions after the subject of one her stories committed suicide. Her searching account is worth reading.)
I believe that “Dr. V’s Magical Putter” was a story worth telling, but this was not the right way to tell it. “What began as a story about a brilliant woman with a new invention had turned into the tale of a troubled man who had invented a new life for himself,” Hannan writes after describing Dr. V’s 2008 suicide attempt, at once revealing his ignorance about trans issues and his protagonist's utility as a fascinating narrative arc. When you reread the story knowing that Essay Anne Vanderbilt is dead, the whole thing feels cold-hearted. The subhead bills the piece as a “remarkable story behind a mysterious inventor.” The opening sentence notes, “Strange stories can find you at strange times.” Near the end, Hannan observes, “Writing a eulogy for a person who by all accounts despised you is an odd experience.”
Remarkable, strange, odd. These are adjectives that place some distance between us and what we’ve just heard. It’s not how anyone would talk about the death of someone they care about.

I don’t believe that Caleb Hannan and his editors were willfully callous. This is the kind of story, though, that breeds cynicism about journalists. It is a piece of writing that treats its subject as a series of plot points rather than a person, and that seems concerned with little else aside from propelling itself toward a dramatic conclusion.
It’s easy for Hannan’s fellow writers to believe in a colleague’s good intentions, to see how they might have made a similar mistake, and to explain to outsiders that journalism is a tough racket. It’s also easy to wave away Hannan’s harshest critics, the ones who say with no caveats or shading that this story killed Dr. V. But as writers have circled the wagons around Hannan on Twitter, it’s felt more like a support group than a workshop—you get the feeling that many journalists are more interested in what Hannan’s detractors got wrong than what they got right. There’s a whole lot of criticism, however, that’s impossible to dismiss, the angry words of people who believe the outing of a trans woman shouldn’t be treated as some kind of amazing twist. That’s an argument that every journalist needs to listen to and try to understand. It is the kind of story that’s worth telling.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There's really not much of a journalistic/ethics question there. Maybe a moral one. It's been settled for a long time. The guy who stopped the Ford assassination was gay, outed in the process, and went on to commit a slow suicide through alcohol and other health problems while living a ####ty life because of the ramifications of his outing.

 
Sarnoff said:
Joe%252520Summer said:
"Look at me, I threatened to expose someone's private secret!!!" Way to go, Woodward & Bernstein.
Click to expand...
Digging Too Deep: Grantland’s exposé of a trans con artist privileged fact-finding over compassion
Click to expand...
:goodposting: Very well written analysis. The crux of the criticism is right here:

But presenting Dr. Vs gender identity as one in a series of lies and elisions was a careless editorial decision. Hannan makes no claim that her identity as a trans woman has any bearing on the golf club she invented or the scientific background she inflated. And yet it sent a chill up his spine. Its this line that feels particularly inhumane. Dr. V is a con artist and a trans woman. Hannan, though, conflates those two facts, acting as though the latter has some relation to the former. It seems that, in his view, they both represent a form of deceit.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with investigating and questioning claims related to the putter (i.e., Vanderbilt's connection to the Defense Department, MIT, etc.) But it seems inherently unethical to investigate (and threaten to expose) aspects which are not directly related to the product -- especially after the reporter agreed to Vanderbilt's request to "focus on the science and not the scientist".

If you can't agree to Vanderbilt's conditions, then you shouldn't write the story. (Or you shouldn't agree to the interview.)

The strange thing is that Hannan did not have to bring up that particular subject to write a compelling article. There was already enough weirdness surrounding the story (the Stealth Bomber, MIT, the $60,000 investment, etc.). He should have focused on that instead of making it look like an old-fashioned witch-hunt.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the other hand, I disagree with the assessment that Vanderbilt was a "con artist". There's no evidence that Vanderbilt was intentionally defrauding investors. By all accounts, it seems like Vanderbilt was very much trying to make the Yar Putter into a successful product.

 
dparker713 said:
Joe%20Summer said:
If you can't agree to Vanderbilt's conditions, then you shouldn't write the story.
Click to expand...
Letting a subject control the scope of the story? Sounds great. Cause really, who wants to read anything more in depth than People magazine?
Click to expand...
If you want to argue that it's perfectly OK to expose the private personal secrets of business people, that's fine. I wouldn't consider that to be responsible journalism, but I understand that it's an ethical grey area.

However, it's absolutely unethical to agree to a person's conditions when you have no intention of honoring them. If Hannan wasn't willing to agree to Vanderbilt's request to "focus on the science and not the scientist", then he should have said so to Vanderbilt and then written the story without an interview.

 
Joe Summer said:
On the other hand, I disagree with the assessment that Vanderbilt was a "con artist". There's no evidence that Vanderbilt was intentionally defrauding investors. By all accounts, it seems like Vanderbilt was very much trying to make the Yar Putter into a successful product.
Click to expand...
She was selling her product to investors based on her completely fabricated scientific background. She was then attempting to sell her product based on entirely made up science and her fabricated backstory.

I stand by con man as a suitable descriptor.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DJackson10
HBO MAX Info and News
2
Replies
73
Views
4K
tonydead
T
fantasycurse42
In this thread we recap Shuke's ratings, all manner of his ratings
Replies
11
Views
1K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #18
Replies
3
Views
965
Short Corner
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top