Read it. John Gruber wrote inaccurately in a blog post that I labeled a female developer as a "booth babe" - she was not, and I had not. Unlike Gruber, I tracked down both women and asked how they felt about the whole thing, and published the results. Shawn King, who had originally told Gruber the lie, began a character attack campaign on me (calling me a whore in Twitter, etc), I believe to distract from their error. I got the usual death threats that women get, and I wrote about it (with the encouragement of my bosses at CBS) - perhaps this is the "pretty depressing reading" you indicate. Gruber never corrected his mistake. To this day, colleagues from other majors (NYT, etc.) ask me why Gruber did that. I don't know.
Now: you claim there are twisted facts in "Google outed me." What are they?
Hi there. Do you have a problem with OP's article itself, or just me? And is it just your personal distaste for my reputation or person, or do you have a legitimate critique about the article's citations, sources, or topic?
The blog post is making false statements and linking to the "Opinion" (it is a Preliminary Injunction) and fooling people like you into thinking his statements are true.
Despite your personal opinion of me, the facts are as follows:
I did not, and never changed my name. During the lawsuit, ample discovery and subpoena was performed by both sides showing Court and Defense that my name has never been changed.
I was granted my Preliminary Injunction on three claims. Read it to see what they were. As I worked with the EFF with, on, and throughout my lawsuit, we were very careful to make sure the claims were specific to not establish any precedent that would, or could, negatively affect Trademark or speech rights / laws by the claims if they were validated by the Court (and they were).
The lawsuit was not primarily about the domain. Ms. Woffinden-Johnson was using my name and my likeness to perform in porn, to do a "sex ed" radio show, and to do in-person signings as me - she began doing "sex ed" videos, as well as "nerd girl" porn and "girls with glasses" porn during the lawsuit. She also dressed up as me and did signings in San Francisco as "Violet Blue." At the time we filed suit and until we obtained the injunction, her website had several photos of her on the front page as she normally looks - blonde, natural - and one image front and center of her with a black bob wig and "Bettie Paige" style bangs, and my name over that image, which the Court acknowledged as adopting my style and creating confusion.
For those interested, Ms. Woffineden-Johnson acknowledged in Federal Court and in writing that she never had the right to use my name. I did not ask for anything but the web domain and that she stop using my name and likeness. Though we discovered she was not poor (she claimed to the Court she was "indigent" and the Court was not pleased when it was revealed otherwise), I absorbed all of my legal fees. Also, the lawsuit was originally launched when Ms. Woffinden-Johnson emailed me saying she was "almost done with your [my] name" and that I could have it back when she quit porn, which she said she was about to do - and then did not. I spoke with the EFF and EFF colleagues about the email and they already knew about my problem, and then we later filed suit.
Article author here: I did not entirely agree with his comment, but I included it because it made a strong, though extreme, point about the state of journalism in what he felt led to what happened with "Dr. V's Magical Putter."
If yes, please explain.