New York Magazine recounts the saga of Harvard Law professor Bruce Hay and a woman he ran into at a Porter Square hardware store, a story that quickly spirals out of control and which you'll need to set aside some time to finish.
That is quite a story. I read the article earlier today and jeez do they all look off the hook. I wouldn't know where to begin in judging people though lol....
...were just trying to make hay.
Don't let Daddy read this.
There is a sucker from Harvard born every day. This is why women are finally taking there rightful place ruling the world. Onward Christine Lagard!!!
Just use your hand or hire a pro if you're that desperate.
A young guy I know has a liberal arts graduate degree. He is on 'The Spectrum'. He is a rabid feminist. Is sexually and intimately attracted to transgendered and women in general. Says 'girls' generally find him 'creepy',:which upsets him.I can easily see him falling for this kind of BS.
Scary to see the likes of this guy, Elizabeth Warren and many other deceivers/deceived are acclaimed Harvard Law ultra-liberal faculty. As one of the commenters on the original article said, "(Prof.) Hay seems like someone who should not go outside unsupervised." Hay and everyone else in the story.
"When you're a star they let you do it. Grab 'em by the pussy."
Supposed to be funny and/or relevant.
I play hockey, don’t go near a locker room after a few cold ones, you might get triggered.
guessing you must have been hit in the head more times than I have, because the point of that post should be punishingly obvious even to someone as piggish, doltish and incoherent as our Ivy-educated President. Sorry if your inability to grasp simple irony triggers you.
Because this professor acted foolishly, Oafish wants us to believe that all Harvard professors are fools. This is such an egregious failure of logic that even a pretend ex-cop should be embarrassed to have made it. By his reasoning, everyone who claims to have been a police officer should be ignored when they write comments, because they must all be idiots.
ofishy, If you had actually READ the entire article, you would have learned that men OTHER than Harvard-employed men were also conned. Calm down.
Got to the point where the mark and Grifter Number 2 meet for hours at Darwins, to discuss the "trans world" and I have two immediate reactions:
1) Thank God I never wound up at the table next to them in one of my past infrequent (and future never) visits there.
2) Am I the only person in Cambridge who works, and spends more time worrying about how to pay the plumber than the rights of the trampled masses?
Sorry to hear that the existence of other people offends your delicate sensibilities, not sure how someone as prissy as you can get by in the world lol
why are you at darwins? I thought you were the only person in cambridge working....
According to Doe, the two women ordered virgin Bloody Marys (“I should have gotten up and left right then,” Doe now says)
But what's the story with the red lights in the top-floor?
Nobody told Roxanne they weren't necessary
Being smart in one area does not mean that you can't be scammed in another area.
This level of batshit was chronicled in Philip Roth's American Pastoral. In fact, the quote at the end, about "motives," almost seems lifted from the dialogue in the book.
That's the problem with American culture; in a healthy society, books and movies about catastrophes natural or mental, serve to a small but significant extent as cautionary tales. In America though, art depicting catastrophe is just prophecy. We are the most sick society in the history of the world.
I support trans rights. However, any era marked by the energy of revolution appears to conjure and empower the maniacally sick.
I'm with that guy trying to pay the plumber. Fuck this.
Harvard Law professor signs documents without reading them. That is unforgivable.
Not a fan of the headline on this one. It sets you up for "ha ha check out this gullible idiot" but the actual story is pretty depressing. We're told up front that Hay suffered from depression and we learn that he divorced his wife and then (platonically) moved back in with her, both of which would seem to indicate that he has more serious mental issues than "gullibility".
I love a good story about con artists as much as the next guy, but by the halfway point in the article, it's clear that it's not so much "gullible idiot is gullible" as "man with serious problems makes a series of bad decisions while unsuccessfully trying to keep everyone happy." And by the end of the article, we don't even know what the women's motives really were. As Hay and the article's author point out, the whole "con" was extremely long and complicated with a low likelihood of a big-money payout. So there's probably some mental illness going on there.
So in other words, not so much a story of a "gullible" Harvard prof and some con artists as a bunch of mentally ill people who are suffering and making each other miserable.
Not particularly entertaining and (pardon the expression) a pretty depressing read.
The con was actually attempted on multiple targets. So the two women can be described, at the very least, as would-be con artists. And for some people the value of the house in Cambridge could be considered a big-money payout.
they stole a house. 'dats gungstarr.
Giving his computers password is beyond gullible, its borderline insanity.
Of contemporary artists, that is post-WW2 artists, there are only two of the top set that compels me. Both show us the direction of death that drives their minds. Jackson Pollock's drips paintings are the visual presentation of his inevitably seemingly alcoholic mind. Mark Rothko showed us a mind and/or spirit struggling to simplify the depression that he could not stop and ultimately lead to his death.
Of artists loved (i.e., lots of money paid) today I see little "art" produced that can actually speak to the average person. They are producing art for the art market; for the people who are wealthy enough to create their own market, leaving out the vast majority of people.
Has law followed the same trajectory? Where ivy league schools, leading the pack of law schools, train lawyers to be lawyers for the sake of their interpretation of law? What would be their interpretation of low? Whoever pays the bill.
Who pays the bills? The wealthiest individuals and the corporations with enough money to pay the way.
Having met a few Harvard Law teachers, combined with one who obviously knows nothing about the very subject he teachers (other than what he learned in a text book), and let's not forget Alan Dershowitz, seems to me that Harvard Law is becoming the Kardashian of law schools. Famous because it is famous, not because it actually graduates lawyers who understand law.
There are some execptions. But they are from the past; they are part of the fame that Harvard Law now rides as momentum until they fail.
Most of us are gullible. Question is what is the pressure point? Where religions are concerned the pressure points are well known and exploited to the moon. When it comes to religious leaders of mega churches and any other kind of massive religious draw (televangelists) or universities power will almost always corrupt:
Jim and Tammy Bakker
Jerry Falwell Jr.
As for the biggest religious fellows in the world: Popes, Metropolitans, Buddhist and Hindu head honchos: Their legacies are the evidence.
What a hot mess. I feel bad for the kids :(
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2020 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy