Personally, I don't think his writing style is in question, nor is his ability. The problem is he should have put this guy on the spot with photos and video and then write about how he got up in the middle of the interview and left. Asking easy questions and regurgitating the same stuff did nothing.
still at square one wrote:
Personally, I don't think his writing style is in question, nor is his ability. The problem is he should have put this guy on the spot with photos and video and then write about how he got up in the middle of the interview and left. Asking easy questions and regurgitating the same stuff did nothing.
I wonder if he is willing to post the transcript of the interview or the audio.
What you say, Mark Singer?
still at square one wrote:
Personally, I don't think his writing style is in question, nor is his ability. The problem is he should have put this guy on the spot with photos and video and then write about how he got up in the middle of the interview and left. Asking easy questions and regurgitating the same stuff did nothing.
Kip? is that you?
possible conditions involved?
Compensatory Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
http://www.ptypes.com/compensatory-narpd.html
Pseudologia fantastica, mythomania, or pathological lying
It gets tricky though:
"Excessive lying is a common symptom of several mental illnesses. For instance people who suffer from antisocial personality disorder use lying to benefit from others. Some individuals with borderline personality disorder lie for attention by claiming they’ve been treated poorly. [7] Pathological lying, on the other hand, can be described as an addiction to lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.[8]" -
Adrian T. wrote:
No, just an observer very disturbed by this development and its impact on an individual caught in the headlights of national scrutiny.
Really, who cares about bogus results being posted in the Master’s division?
This might be an inflection point in journalism. That a story of such insignificance is elevated to the once lofty heights occupied by The New Yorker seems a sad comment on the decimation of journalistic integrity that the blogosphere has wrought.
If, however, the justification for the use of overwhelming force of public approbation is to be the supposed misappropriation of funds raised for CF, surely more convincing evidence should have been brought to light before publication of the article.
Hi Kip!
You guys do know that the troll posting as 'oh, really' is NOT Mark Singer, right?
yeah Singer needing to declare that he made this donation is strange. Is he competing with someone?I found the New Yorker article entertaining and informative, but I agree with some of the other posters who asked "What's the point of it?" But I've felt that way about many of Singer's previous pieces.
zimmo wrote:
Congratulations???
I'm not sure what you're looking for here.
oh, really? wrote:For those of you who are actual grownups, you might consider the following:
Today, in response to an email from a reader who happens to be the father of a cystic fibrosis-afflicted child -- and who is properly outraged by Kip Litton's beneath-shameless exploitation of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, in all of its particulars -- I sent a contribution to CFF for 50 times the total that the Litton family has donated since 2004.
If you'd care to follow suit, in whatever amount, here's the site:
https://www.cff.org/GetInvolved/ManyWaysToGive/Donate/index.cfmThe rest of you can continue to troll and posture.
Mark_Singer@newyorker.comp.s. If you send me your home address, I'll be happy to mail you official confirmation of my donation.
well, i gave #24,700 to charity last year, but you don't see me on the internet spouting off about it.
SingerBizarro wrote:
yeah Singer needing to declare that he made this donation is strange. Is he competing with someone?
I found the New Yorker article entertaining and informative, but I agree with some of the other posters who asked "What's the point of it?" But I've felt that way about many of Singer's previous pieces.
zimmo wrote:Congratulations???
I'm not sure what you're looking for here.
SingerBizarro is Kip maybe
still at square one wrote:
Personally, I don't think his writing style is in question, nor is his ability. The problem is he should have put this guy on the spot with photos and video and then write about how he got up in the middle of the interview and left. Asking easy questions and regurgitating the same stuff did nothing.
How do you force somebody to tell the truth? There are thousands upon thousands of convicts that haven't confessed to their crimes. Guilty as hell, they still deny culpability. Many here are frustrated Kip wouldn't come clean, explain himself. Let it go, he's wallowing in the pit he dug now. Not all stories have endings that 'satisfy'. The plot line should carry the day; Kip lied about his serial cheating, the like of which has never been seen before, never once offering a plausible explanation for his actions. This is the tale of a man devoid of a moral compass.
Of course you can't force someone to tell the truth, but clearly this writer did not know which questions to ask.
scotth wrote:
still at square one wrote:Personally, I don't think his writing style is in question, nor is his ability. The problem is he should have put this guy on the spot with photos and video and then write about how he got up in the middle of the interview and left. Asking easy questions and regurgitating the same stuff did nothing.
How do you force somebody to tell the truth? There are thousands upon thousands of convicts that haven't confessed to their crimes. Guilty as hell, they still deny culpability. Many here are frustrated Kip wouldn't come clean, explain himself. Let it go, he's wallowing in the pit he dug now. Not all stories have endings that 'satisfy'. The plot line should carry the day; Kip lied about his serial cheating, the like of which has never been seen before, never once offering a plausible explanation for his actions. This is the tale of a man devoid of a moral compass.
Anyone familiar with this thread knows two things.
If you post using someone else's handle you will fool the gullible every time.
Kip has taken "Astroturfing" to a new level and there are still people fooled by this. The "Sparticus" [sic] persona is the most ridiculous, even in the 16th Century speaking like that would have been outdated.
yes, really! wrote:
You guys do know that the troll posting as 'oh, really' is NOT Mark Singer, right?
Repeating for emphasis. ^
Propels Rio wrote:
Junk Master wrote:Makes their smug readership feel better about their morning walk for a latte.
ROFL!!!!
This is even funnier, and closer to truth:
Junk Master wrote:
It's a tale of absurd obsession on both sides, Kip and his accusers.
The $10,000 figure that DE race director Wayne Kursh cited came from Kip's own website,
. On the site, as of August 6, 2010, Kip claimed to have raised $9,900+ towards a goal of $250,000.00 to fight cystic fibrosis. Donations were solicited either through payments directly to a paypal link on Kip's website, or making checks payable to "World Record Run" (NOT CFF).
What is known is that the local CFF chapter received $20 from Kip and wife since 2004. What is not known is 1) whether the claimed donated amount of $9,900.00+ was truthful/accurate; 2) if it WAS truthful/accurate, what happened to the money. It is possible that Kip made it all up.
Though I am pretty sure most of the naysayers posting on this topic are Kip and/or surrogates, if anyone really has a doubt, do not look only at what is known, consider what WOULD have happened (and has not) if the accusations against Kip were unfounded. These facts (no one coming forward to acknowledge receipt of donations Kip claimed to have received, no one in any of these races claiming to have been passed by him) constitute circumstantial evidence that is just as valid as physical evidence.
While Kip could choose to confess/provide a logical explanation anytime he wants, those expecting a confession from Kip now have probably watched too many episodes of the old Perry Mason show, where the wrongdoer always publicly confesses at the end of every show.
Mark Singer and the New Yorker staff did a marvelous job on the article. Much of the information was learned by Mark Singer and some of the runners quoted in the article who were on the trail of the Incredible Mr. Litton in mid-2010 and earlier. This board did serve a useful purpose by serving as a national clearinghouse for some of the data.
pea brain wrote:
Of course you can't force someone to tell the truth, but clearly this writer did not know which questions to ask.
[How do you force somebody to tell the truth? There are thousands upon thousands of convicts that haven't confessed to their crimes. Guilty as hell, they still deny culpability. Many here are frustrated Kip wouldn't come clean, explain himself. Let it go, he's wallowing in the pit he dug now. Not all stories have endings that 'satisfy'. The plot line should carry the day; Kip lied about his serial cheating, the like of which has never been seen before, never once offering a plausible explanation for his actions. This is the tale of a man devoid of a moral compass.
[/quote]
How the heck do you know what questions he asked? I've seen correspondence from Kip from Oct '09 to the present and at EVERY turn he lied & denied. EVERY time. Mark hoped for the best yet knew Kip would serve up more BS in the Wendy's interview. Try this - YOU'RE the interviewer, armed w/lots of questions in hopes Kip will answer truthfully. What in the world, after all that's come before your interview would make you think he'd be honest? Nothing is the answer ... you'd be ecstatic w/any morsel of truth. Look friends, there were multiple attempts to help him see the value of 'coming clean', give him a forum to explain himself. EVERY single time he either ignored the suggestions or continued the charade.
This can't really be Scott Hubbard from Michigan, right? This is a troll stealing his handle, right?
If not, you really aren't as smart as I thought you were Scott. This is elementary, so I will explain it to you as simplistic as possible.
You bring a picture of the guy walking across the line with a jacket on and no number exposed. You explain that he's a the back of the back of the back of the pack.
You then lay a picture in front of him at the finish line and ask him how he got there without 1, not 1 person seeing him pass them. You then ask him why his clothes and hat are different. You do this over halfway through the interview/recording to keep him comfortable with easy questions.
You show a picture of him in Michigan at the Solstice 10k (soon to be Kona) and ask how he is again in the background after the main pack is long gone, for a 10k mind you, and somehow ends up near the front and his shirt is bone dry on a hot and humid day. His answer on videotape would be?
Thank you as I could interview him myself and do a much better job than the writer and I would get an admission of guilt or he would walk away when faced with irrefutable evidence and the camera would record that as well.
How do you force someone to tell the truth? Well you can't but their actions tell the story and if it were on videotape it wouldn't take a genius to figure it out.
The scenario that I laid out above is something that he can't answer. When you go to a 10k do you where all sorts of different running apparel and then somehow discard it, on a hot day mind you, and end up in front of hundreds of people, people who never saw you pass them, not one?
The writer got the story out to a small percentage of people and that's fine. But, without the pictures and him being confronted, well......it leaves something to be desired.
Are you serious Scott? Between pictures and questions there are easily more than a dozen. Didn't you write for the Michigan Runner? Sad, very sad. I could care less about the guy cheating, but my response is to the apparent letdown in the article. He doesn't have to be honest, but he has to respond to photographic evidence or walk.
He's on the side of the road in Boston, thinking he won't be photographed. You show him the picture and he says what? He explains that how? The 5k the day before and he says what? His chip time for the 5k and he says what? Wow, this is NOT the Scott that I have spoken with at races through the years or I have been duped.
I could do a much better job, guaranteed but he's not going to sit down with me and a camera because he'd be suckered in with easy questions to lead him to believe that I am putting out the rumors and then bam comes the photos and he would say what?
It's my fault, I accept full responsibility...
... I knew I shouldn't have listened to all the letsrunners and stopped Dick from waterboarding him.
you've just shown your stupidity and true lack of common sense. congrats man.