Rojo says he might start a Kip Litton thread but only 1 and only 1 thread

Poor Kip, he is quite upset today.

Kip should file a lawsuit for the article quoting so much letsrun.com message board anonymous BS!

Article summarized things, but unfortunately can't answer the how and why questions. Wonder if Kip really knows why he did what he did now.

Without the how and why, the article accomplishes nothing besides mocking age group runners.

52 Kevin wrote:

As for why, it couldn't have been explained any better than it was 2 posts before yours. We don't need wiki.

I disagree. Oscar attributes some logic or motivation to KL's lying. There is none. He lies simply because that's what he does. And he does it long after any reasonable person would conclude it's pointless to continue to do so. That's why he continues to post on here even though everyone knows it's him.

Loved the New Yorker story. Do Mark Singer a solid and buy a copy!

You guys did a lot of great work on this thread. In a weird way, the anonymous sniping here allowed the story to evolve.

better venue wrote:

This article should have been done by a better writer in a more credible outlet. The New Yorker has a terrible rep and a history of retractions and lawsuits.

I would love to hear your suggestions.

better venue wrote:

This article should have been done by a better writer in a more credible outlet. The New Yorker has a terrible rep and a history of retractions and lawsuits. In yet another blow to any legitimacy, Jonah Lehrer just resigned after getting popped for fabricating Bob Dylan quotes. Looks like Singer followed suit. What a complete joke!

Are you joking? Singer is not a good writer? The New Yorker is not credible and has a terrible rep? Laughable. Singer fabricated quotes? The only person who could allege that would be . . . .?

clownquestionbro wrote:

I tried this, but the website doesn't accept my log in. Anyone do this with success? Maybe I need to give it more time.

New Yorker wrote:

Not sure why it doesn't work on the main page.

The New Yorker website has two different log-ins. Their website could be a bit more user-friendly for new users who have signed up for access to the archives section. At the login screen from the newyorker.com page, right above where you could enter your e-mail, it says: "To access the digital edition, log in here." "log in here" only shows up as a hyperlink when you put your cursor over it.

To go directly to the login which works, go to:

Really? This is what we were waiting for?

Why did he do it? Oh, you know those wacky runners. Why would any nut want to run 26.2 when we all know it's bad for your health. Look at how obsessive these running nuts are, they'll cheat and lie for NO REASON. And if that doesn't beat all, they'll spend thousands of posts online attacking one of their own who might, or might not have made a couple of meaningless mistakes!

Off to play squash...

The article was great. I think it will make an interesting read for subscribers to The New Yorker, even those who have little or no interest in athletic pursuits.

The fact is that most of the regular population can't grasp what would motivate a person to run 26.2 miles.

What Kip did that was so interesting was that he seemingly put in just as much money, time, and effort into NOT running 26.2 miles. Moreover, he was/is a legitimate runner who posted credible times under 3:30. He wasn't cheating for the glory of crossing the line first like Rosie Ruiz. He was cutting a couple minutes from his modest PR. It's like breaking into a bank to steal rolls of nickels.

I was happy that Singer succeeded in getting an interview with Litton. He couldn't pry all the secrets from the man, but I'm not sure anyone will. Such is the nature of this very particular madness.

The timing of this was not good. Every time I try to bring up this article to people, I keep getting "well you know, that guy just got fired from the NewYorker for lying, so its probably just another lie".

Why are people so stupid?

Timing- just sayin wrote:

The timing of this was not good. Every time I try to bring up this article to people, I keep getting "well you know, that guy just got fired from the NewYorker for lying, so its probably just another lie".

Why are people so stupid?

Was sitting on my bike at a stop sign, waiting to turn left when a truck swung in front of me & the fine fellow driving quipped, 'Steroids,' as he passed. Why would he do that? Because their view of the world is skewed, myopic & knee-jerk reactive, like 50% of the LR board.

Mark Singer got fired?

A writer named Jonah Lehrer is not longer with the New Yorker. Nothing to do with Singer.

Don't trust the trolls.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/jonah-lehrer-resigns-from-new-yorker-after-making-up-dylan-quotes-for-his-book/

categorically wrote:

It's like breaking into a bank to steal rolls of nickels.

LOL! Well put.

follow up wrote:

I've read the article. Who is Clarkston Kent?

SUPERMAN if I remember correctly. But generally went by Clark Kent

Richard Rodriguez wrote:

Timing- just sayin wrote:

The timing of this was not good. Every time I try to bring up this article to people, I keep getting "well you know, that guy just got fired from the NewYorker for lying, so its probably just another lie".

Why are people so stupid?

Was sitting on my bike at a stop sign, waiting to turn left when a truck swung in front of me & the fine fellow driving quipped, 'Steroids,' as he passed. Why would he do that? Because their view of the world is skewed, myopic & knee-jerk reactive, like 50% of the LR board.

You're right, he should have yelled, "EPO," the idiot.

Timing- just sayin wrote:

Every time I try to bring up this article to people, I keep getting "well you know, that guy just got fired from the NewYorker for lying, so its probably just another lie".

No way. You are telling us that "every time" you talked about this article, people comment about a different writer at the New Yorker who quit? How many people actually knew this? Even more unlikely, you are saying that this tiny segment of the population -- the group of people who are aware that a New Yorker writer quit -- now says everything in the New Yorker is "another lie."

This is an attempt to undermine the credibility of the article by suggesting it is a widespread view that the New Yorker is full of lies. Although the OP claims to disagree with this view, he suggests it is a common belief.

This is classic muck raising -- like Donald Trump saying although he doesn't necessarily think Obama was born in Kenya, it is a common belief that must be investigated. It isn't a common belief, and by raising it Trump is just trying to foster doubt.

I wonder who posted this comment?