Dr. V's magical putter

She/he attempted suicide previously and was obviously not stable. She/he misrepresented her/his credentials.

I can't believe that a board of journalists are blaming the writer for exposing misrepresented credentials. If that's the standard, then George O'Leary should still be coaching Notre Dame.

 

Good story.

Reporter did a great job building the string of information.

Who on the tour is using this putter?

 

Here's something I never pictured myself typing: Tony is absolutely 100% right about this, and it's amazing to me that people here are questioning that.

Someone is selling a product -- and taking money from investors -- based on a story that is a fabrication, from top to bottom. Everything about the putter is bullshit and everything about the inventor is bullshit. The inventor has convinced a network announcer that her lies are true, giving her a ton of free advertising and business.

Let me see if I have the argument against the story correct: she lied about who she is, lied about her credentials, and lied about the science behind the invention... but the story shouldn't be done, because she also lied about her gender?

I feel bad for the writer. I know if I were in his shoes, the suicide would weigh heavy on my mind... but the bottom line is, she's not the first crazy scam artist to off herself once the jig was up, and she won't be the last.

 

She's not lying about her gender.

 

Very, very, very fine line there.

Let's try this -- because switching genders is part of the misrepresentation of her past, the story is off-limits? She's not a scientist, not a graduate of the universities she claims on her resume, not a Vanderbilt, not a contractor on the very long list of high-tech projects she claims... but because she is not biologically a woman, she's off-limits as a story topic?

 

Welcome to The Dark Side.

 

Interesting

http://mariadahvanaheadley.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/sinatras-cold-is-contagious-hostile-subjects-vulnerable-sources-the-ethics-of-outing/

I found the story offensive. The writer caused someone to commit suicide over a putter. A putter that worked by the way.

A putter.

 

So if you discover someone is perpetrating a fraud you should not uncover that fraud, because doing so might cause the person to react negatively?

"The writer caused someone to commit suicide" is just utterly bizarre to me. A person running a scam on people got discovered and offed herself before he even wrote the story -- after a previous suicide attempt failed. Should she just be left alone to run the scam in perpetuity, because pointing out that she's a fraud might make her sad?

 

Uncool to blame the writer.

Dr. V was troubled, and done living this existence, and, may have been looking for an out.

It's just too convenient to lay blame at the writer's feet.

 

Scam and fraud are awfully strong and strange ways to describe something that actually worked.

She invented a putter. It worked.

She invented a back story. It wasn't the backstory that made the putter work. The putter did what it was supposed to. Whom did she defraud?

It wasn't like the putter doesn't exist or isn't in use or some magical unicorn. A person can go buy one, right now, if they want.

Let's flip the script. You're writing about an inventor. The person says here are the ground rules, write about the invention and not about me. You agree. In the course of the reporting you discover that the inventor had created a new identity and fudged her credentials.

The invention works but you pursue the inventor. Because now you have a Story.

You track down the inventor's former family and associates. Reveal the person's identity, location, what they are doing to at least one of them.

The inventor, who escaped an abusive relationship, is tracked down by her ex-husband and killed.

Are you culpable in the woman's death?

After the inventor is dead, do you go ahead and write the story anyway?

 

It's not strong at all. It was fraud. She was running a scam.

She told people -- including investors -- that she had special knowledge and access to people who could promote the putter because (a) she was a highly-educated physicist who had worked on a variety of top-level projects, and (b) she was a Vanderbilt. They were both outrageous lies. Her success was based on these lies. Her income was based on these lies. That is fraud.

And people keep saying "the putter worked." What does that mean, exactly? You could nail two 2x4s together and have a putter that "works." There is no evidence that her putter is any good. The writer made a case that any sense that the putter was good was purely psychological. I think the fact that no pros appear to be using the putter would be a pretty good indication that the putter is no better than any other putter. Regardless, there's no question whatsoever that the backing and marketing of the putter was done under fraudulent pretenses.

As for your hypothetical -- I would have a greater issue with your hypothetical situation than I would with what happened in real life. Thankfully, the issues involved had nothing to do with each other. In one case, the person is trying to protect an identity to escape a bad situation. In the other, the person is protecting a false "identity" for personal gain through fraud.

 

Who gets the blame for Dr. V's first suicide attempt?

Eh, let's blame Caleb for that one, too.