RIP Mike Penner

I wasn't. The column is missing a whole lot of stuff near the end. His wife so close to Christine that she became her "gender tour" guide, and then nothing from when he went back to Mike. Reilly heard nothing. The column could have been great, but it ended up being potatoes that give you a sense of being full without really being fed well.

 

This thread has unfortunately turned into a referendum on Reilly and has gotten away from Mike a tad.

 

RIP

 

Agreed ... there's a whole heck of a lot out there that we'd like to know, and I'm sure Reiley would too. We may never know it. So outside of the ususal reasons, not a whole lot of reasons for the flame treatment.

 

Very good read.

The Real Sports segment on this, and Christina Kahrl and Bobbie Dittmeier, was really well done. The Mike Penner parts were extraordinarily sad, as to be expected. The one thing it missed was talk of Lisa Dillman, though.

This story shed some light on a few things the TV segment didn't.

 

The additional details just reinforce what a truly sad story this is.

I sincerely hope Mike/Christine has now found the peace that so cruelly eluded him/her on this plane.

 

This is a good read, but seeing the story bothers me -- and not because of any discomfort with the topic, although it is a difficult one.

Can someone please tell me why this story keeps being resurrected?

Sure, it gives a couple details about how Penner's death occurred, thus satisfying, no doubt, our questions/curiosity about that. But, beyond that, there's little real information that anyone needs or wants to know.

The blatantly key, obviously most-important person/relationship in this story -- that with Lisa Dillman -- is not enlightened, added to, or most glaringly, quoted -- and it seems to me that without that perspective, this story, like Mike/Christine, should be allowed to be put to rest.

I thought the Times handled Penner's coming-out/transition well at the time, and I know that the sense of support and protectiveness that the paper and its staff offered to both Penner and Dillman with regard to the process was widespread and genuine -- and very much appreciated by both parties.

Now, though, I question the reason for this latest story. It seems apparent from their silence that Dillman and John Penner did not agree with its resurrection. In fact, it seems that they pointedly declined to foster it.

While I'm not someone who normally would say that a story shouldn't be done just because someone doesn't want it, I believe those feelings should have been honored in this case.

Instead, the Times published something personal involving two (three/four?) of its own, over the tacit if unspoken objections of the only ones surviving who would be most affected by this story's publication.

As I did with Reilly's column, I can't help but ask why, especially at this point? Heck, it isn't even April 26. There's no time tag, and there doesn't appear to be much reason for doing it.

That's particularly true if wasn't going to discuss the other obvious angles that could have been broached (which it didn't, really): the importance of self-identity and how/whether it really is a process, and, perhaps even more critical, the importance of compassion and sensitivity to others among ourselves.

Dillman's and John Penner's perspectives are not the only ones missing from this story. I mean, where was a follow-up quote from Paul Oberjuerge? That blog post of his was something I have considered ever since to be one of the most mean-spirited things I've ever read, particularly considering its pointlessness.

As good a read as this story was, if you consider the difficult, complex topic, it was just too easy -- especially given that the opportunity was there for it to be so much more.

I say that if you're not going to raise it to that standard, you should just let it rest in peace.

As it is, I'm sure it's getting lots of clicks, page views and time spent on it, though. I just hope that wasn't the only reason it was written.

 

This one answers a lot of questions, which, to answer Write's post, is why it was written. But without the obligatory "Dillman declined to be interviewed for this story," we don't know that she didn't want to talk. Let's hope this was the case and the Times didn't get sloppy in the reporting/copy editing process and not make an attempt.

It's like I said uptopic ... some things we will never know.

 

Just finished watching the Penner-related piece on HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. Obviously, he was a tortured soul.

 

A line about Dillman (and John Penner) declining to be interviewed is included in the story. We do know they didn't want to talk, and probably, didn't want the story done.

The statement that attendees at Mike Penner's funeral were screened to turn away anybody who they thought might write about it makes that pretty clear, too.