tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post1072418489187989132..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Spiked on UPIkcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-11375310483454861082007-11-05T19:20:00.000-05:002007-11-05T19:20:00.000-05:00Wahneema Lubiano,Plaintiff, vs. Stuart Taylor, K.C...Wahneema Lubiano,<BR/>Plaintiff, <BR/><BR/>vs. <BR/><BR/>Stuart Taylor, K.C. Johnson, Dunne Pub., Inc.,<BR/>Defendants.<BR/><BR/>COMPLAINT<BR/><BR/>1. The Defendants incorrectly identified Plaintiff Lubiano as the author of the "Listening ad."<BR/><BR/>2. The Defendants incorrectly stated that the "Listening ad" was about the Duke Rape. <BR/><BR/>[You say that K.C. Johnson has a copy of my e-mail? Oh well, nevermind]. <BR/>______________<BR/><BR/>Please post a copy of Lubiano's (or her attorney's) letter to the publisher. That should be good for a ton of laughs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-36976786839191383642007-11-05T12:37:00.000-05:002007-11-05T12:37:00.000-05:00Ralph - Anne Coulter recognized the event as a lie...Ralph - Anne Coulter recognized the event as a lie from the get go. You should read all of her articles about the case. You will see that she never changed her position on the case. She has been a star in the entire event. Having written "You can greatly reduce your chances of being called a rapist, if you do not have strange woman come to your house and take their cloths off" is absolutly true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-49058156891783755412007-11-05T11:46:00.000-05:002007-11-05T11:46:00.000-05:00Anonymous said... 9:08AM said:Elizabeth Clark, pro...Anonymous said... <BR/>9:08AM said:<BR/><BR/>Elizabeth Clark, professor of religion, co-authored the letter. ("clarifying statement")<BR/>I have always been troubled by her rationale for the letter. <BR/>--------------<BR/>While we are discussing people of religion, read this:<BR/>-------------------------<BR/>M. Garlinda Burton, top executive of the United Methodist Commission on the Status and Role of Women, is concerned about the perception that "young white men of privilege feel that they have the right to purchase the sexual services of women of color with lesser financial means. Even if the women were paid to strip, they still had the right to say 'no' to sexual assault."<BR/>http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=134&id=3263Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-55698625398805934872007-11-05T11:28:00.000-05:002007-11-05T11:28:00.000-05:00kf said:"Though a liberal Democrat, KC has fought ...kf said:<BR/><BR/>"Though a liberal Democrat, KC has fought for honesty and justice...."<BR/><BR/>There was a time in our history where the surprised "though" would not have been considered necessary.<BR/><BR/>I hope KC and others like him can save his party from what it has become.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-13045117718378443102007-11-05T11:24:00.000-05:002007-11-05T11:24:00.000-05:00"I haven't read many posts from Christian conserva..."I haven't read many posts from Christian conservatives who blamed the players."<BR/><BR/>There was of course Ann Coulter's early crack about "Lie down with whores, wake up with pleas." But then she's in the outrageious quote business - plus she changed her tune as more information came out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-89563861269056604412007-11-05T08:04:00.000-05:002007-11-05T08:04:00.000-05:00TO RRH--True.However, since the story is about fig...TO RRH--<BR/><BR/>True.<BR/><BR/>However, since the story is about fighting such people, perhaps they will be compelled (or forced) to be more realistic.<BR/><BR/>I can hope, can't I?<BR/><BR/>:>)Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88506048282439171622007-11-05T02:28:00.000-05:002007-11-05T02:28:00.000-05:00traveler said...One student comment page said atta...traveler said...<BR/><I>One student comment page said attacks on faculty will not be allowed! In Duke’s case that would mean so-called faculty can call students “farm animals,” but students cannot call faculty "racist pigs."</I><BR/><BR/>In "Animal Farms" some pigs have more privilege than others.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I am so glad you know shorthand. I must say that is brilliant. You don’t mind if I use Wah Wah do you?<BR/>I am thinking of making an index of these name shortcuts. I will be watching for your additions. You can see there are accomplished writers, as well as comedians in this forum. Room for everyone’s opinion, that is the secret to success. You gave me a good laugh.</I><BR/><BR/>Hopefully some of them can be immortalised as verbs...such as to "nifong".<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Regarding KC's self description as "Liberal Democrat" it isn't his fault that certain PC authoritarians have hijacked the label. They have likewise pinched "progressive" which is rapidly losing any value as an adjective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-85306215496741422682007-11-04T21:54:00.000-05:002007-11-04T21:54:00.000-05:00anonymous (probable Duke faculty member) said at 1...<I>anonymous (probable Duke faculty member) said at 1:12 PM ...<BR/><BR/>The Concerned Duke Faculty issued their "clarifying statement" in January. <B>Elizabeth Clark, professor of religion</B>, co-authored the letter. I have always been troubled by her rationale for the letter. She is quoted in a Chronicle article as saying; "When the situation becomes such that honored members of the faculty are being attacked on blogs in very personal ways, I think it's perhaps time to say that we join in... the struggle against racism and sexism at Duke."<BR/></I><BR/>Did Prof. Clark ever contact the mothers of the innocent victims of the Hoax? Or did she limit her activities to showing concern and support for the feelings of the victimizers? In other words, is she fit to be called a human being or not? If not, then she's probably fit to be a professor of religion under the "standards" that exist in today's academia.<BR/><BR/>RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-68394827392229559822007-11-04T21:23:00.000-05:002007-11-04T21:23:00.000-05:00I said, I don't think we have any reason to hope t...<B>I said, </B><BR/><BR/><I>I don't think we have any reason to hope that Hollywood won't do to </I>UPI<I> what it did to </I>The Bonfire of the Vanities<I>. I'm expecting a lame movie.<BR/><BR/>RRH 11/4/07 10:05 AM </I><BR/><BR/><B>Divah replied at 12:06 PM,</B><BR/><BR/><I>TO RRH--<BR/><BR/>Don't be so pessimistic.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Divah, in order to make an honest movie about <I>UPI</I>, Hollywood would have to make a movie that, taken as a whole, makes blacks and leftwingers <B>look baaaaad</B>, right? When was the last time Hollywood did that?<BR/><BR/>I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic. Hollywood is owned by 88ists.<BR/><BR/>RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-34368130346764779892007-11-04T20:06:00.000-05:002007-11-04T20:06:00.000-05:00traveler 11:38 said... ...Re: Students getting inv...traveler 11:38 said... <BR/><BR/>...Re: Students getting involved<BR/>...Questions to KC Johnson<BR/>...Sean Collins writes, -Johnson (a liberal Democrat)-<BR/>...I have been thinking about that statement. When I read your CUNY tenure case, it seemed to me you were fighting a very liberal establishment, and some very levelheaded students,did come to your defense. Not liberal weenies that throw pies into a woman’s face because she doesn't say what they want to hear. <BR/>...I think you should be described as at least a “Zell Miller” Democrat, or a borderline conservative Democrat. <BR/>...I have learned a great deal in your Wonderland, but I have to wonder if you have had some second thoughts about<BR/>.. this “Liberal Democrat” label? I can't think that the lessons you have taught me, are lost on yourself. <BR/>::<BR/>Since you did not address this comment to KC via private e-mail, I will assume you are inviting comments.<BR/><BR/>There are now several Political Orientation Self Tests available on the web in response to student inquiries about confusing terms used to describe ones political orientation e.g. Zell Miller Democrat. <BR/><BR/>Here are two of the many Political Orientation Self Tests available.<BR/>http://www.politicalcompass.org http://www.politopia.com/<BR/><BR/>For most of the people who comment here, isn't the issue wether they are centrist right or centrist left? In a relative stable economy such as we enjoy here in the USA, we don't really see the extremist unless Duke hires several so we can observe and comment.<BR/><BR/>It would be helpful if we could adopt a standard vocabulary so that we can talk with each other about political orientation.<BR/><BR/>Orientation means of course our generalized orientation to most issues.<BR/>::<BR/>GPGary Packwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177986821224068759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-26480790603477863492007-11-04T17:30:00.000-05:002007-11-04T17:30:00.000-05:00There is an interesting discussion on the Chronicl...There is an interesting discussion on the Chronicle today<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------<BR/><BR/>This link was posted:<BR/><BR/>Brit leftists go mad<BR/><BR/>http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/11/03/4627406-sun.html<BR/><BR/>They're ready to ditch Christmas to improve race relations<BR/><BR/>By MICHAEL COREN<BR/><BR/>The political fashions that begin in Britain tend to find their way to<BR/>Canada extremely quickly, especially when they come from the left side<BR/>of the body politic.<BR/><BR/>A new report from the think-tank of the governing Labour Party states<BR/>that, "Britain is no longer a Christian nation and Christmas should be<BR/>downgraded in favour of festivals from other religions to improve race<BR/>relations."<BR/><BR/>The report goes on to call for a new form of "birth ceremony," at<BR/>which the state and parents would agree to "work in partnership" to<BR/>raise babies. It demands action to "ensure access" for ethnic<BR/>minorities to the "largely white" British countryside, advocates an<BR/>end to "sectarian" religious education in schools and encourages<BR/>people to fly flags other than the Union Jack.<BR/><BR/>"If we are going to continue as a nation to mark Christmas," the<BR/>report says, "then public organizations should mark other religious<BR/>festivals too." And, "any liberal state should recast the civic oaths<BR/>and national ceremonies, or institutions like Parliament and the<BR/>monarchy, in a more multi-religious or secular form."<BR/><BR/>So the pre-enlightened Ebenezer Scrooge has told us what Britain<BR/>should become. Or has become to a relatively large extent. But unlike<BR/>the products of Charles Dickens' generous and compassionate<BR/>imagination, the spirits behind this report are nasty, intolerant and<BR/>crude.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>DANGER FOR CANADA<BR/><BR/>So what of Canada? We're in enormous danger. We adopted an official<BR/>policy of multiculturalism long ago and decided that Canada simply was<BR/>not worth preserving.<BR/><BR/>Immigrants to the country who wanted to assimilate, adapt and become<BR/>truly Canadian were told that there was no need. Hold on to your own<BR/>culture and traditions, speak your own languages, be anything unless<BR/>it's Canadian.<BR/><BR/>Don't blame newcomers for doing what they were told to do by arrogant<BR/>white liberals who always know best. Instead of the community and the<BR/>family there was the state and the collective. Instead of patriotism<BR/>there was self-loathing. Instead of sacrifice there was entitlement.<BR/><BR/>Instead of Christianity there was, well, there was anything. Even to<BR/>the point of embracing alternative religions that by their nature<BR/>rejected the very pluralism, equality and progress that the social<BR/>engineers claimed to cherish.<BR/><BR/>Much of the problem began when Canada found itself spoiled. We had<BR/>survived the Depression, the Second World War and post-war austerity.<BR/>Then came the vacuous '60s. Instead of being grateful for what we had,<BR/>we wanted even more and assumed that anything that appeared new and<BR/>novel had to be good.<BR/><BR/>TRUDEAU<BR/><BR/>Along came the prince of the new and novel and he was far from good.<BR/>Trudeau. A man who so detested English Canada that he became obsessed<BR/>with expunging Anglo-Celtic culture and rebuilding Canada in his own<BR/>image.<BR/><BR/>New Canadians would not be required to speak or to learn English and<BR/>instead of one law, one way and one country for all, we would divide<BR/>and subdivide into ethnic and linguistic ghettos. The wealthy would,<BR/>of course, be immune and indifferent because money buys its own form<BR/>of golden separation.<BR/><BR/>For the rest, the pieces of the jigsaw no longer fit and the picture<BR/>became broken. Festivals, faith and traditions became threatened. How<BR/>ironic that the British, whose heritage our leaders rejected, now are<BR/>lighting the path to self destruction.<BR/><BR/>There still might be time to save Canada the great. But only if we<BR/>jettison the humbug.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-17922589324912240892007-11-04T16:50:00.000-05:002007-11-04T16:50:00.000-05:00I remember that photo. I remember wondering as to ...I remember that photo. I remember wondering as to why that photo was published, since the accused were minors under 18 years of age.<BR/>Is N&O going to learn anything from these cases? Pardon me if I doubt it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-92215396005908331602007-11-04T16:44:00.000-05:002007-11-04T16:44:00.000-05:00"And the tidbit: Taylor related to L.B. that, befo..."And the tidbit: Taylor related to L.B. that, before U.P.I. hit the shelves, Prof. Wahneema Lubiano sent a letter to Thomas Dunne Books, threatening to sue for libel.<BR/><BR/>Even at this late date, wouldn't it be great if she made good on her threat? Thoughts of Discovery... maybe we can start a collection to help her along."<BR/>Collection? Oh give me a break. Of all the things to suggest...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-29280449480297689362007-11-04T16:24:00.000-05:002007-11-04T16:24:00.000-05:00Insufficiently Sensitive said... "As we've seen in...<I>Insufficiently Sensitive said... <BR/>"As we've seen in the Duke case, when the accuser is protected while the accused is publicly vilified, it's quite easy to falsely persecute the accused."<BR/><BR/>That statement applies in spades to the idea of legal shields being provided to journalists, to deny the public any knowlege of their anonymous 'sources'.<BR/><BR/>In such cases, the journalist becomes the accuser, channelling a blacked-out source, and the accused is deprived of much of the spectrum of defense alternatives.<BR/><BR/>It becomes all too easy for a politically correct journalist to ply her trade, as she might see it, in 'making a difference' or 'working for change', by levelling charges against an innocent target based on her 'source' who provides - well, whatever narrative will cause the most damage to the target.<BR/><BR/>Those who deny this scenario must have deliberately closed their minds to the events so well described in UPI and on this blog.<BR/><BR/>11/4/07 3:38 PM<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely! I couldn't agree more. And...unless I am reading this wrong--it even sounds like the author of that column I posted earlier was having a slight (albeit likely temporary) attack of conscience...<BR/><BR/>To wit:<BR/><I>"Here's what bothers me: When the young men were charged, The N&O identified them but, in keeping with its policy, did not identify the accuser. The paper also ran a photo of the youths being led out of a courtroom in shackles and jail jumpsuits.<BR/><BR/>Some readers complained to me at the time that the picture was unduly harsh on five teenagers (they are all 17 or 18). My response was that it's routine for newspapers to run photos of suspects arrested in crimes. Why should we show favoritism to these five?<BR/><BR/><B>But now that the case has been dropped, I wonder. They've been cleared of the charges, but the publicity attendant to their arrest adheres to five young lives. The N&O ran several stories reporting on charges in the case (in fairness, one story led off with the father of one of the accused teenagers saying his son was not guilty). Meanwhile, the accuser remains anonymous." </B><BR/></I><BR/><BR/>JenyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-49941664982023907562007-11-04T15:38:00.000-05:002007-11-04T15:38:00.000-05:00"As we've seen in the Duke case, when the accuser ..."As we've seen in the Duke case, when the accuser is protected while the accused is publicly vilified, it's quite easy to falsely persecute the accused."<BR/><BR/>That statement applies in spades to the idea of legal shields being provided to journalists, to deny the public any knowlege of their anonymous 'sources'.<BR/><BR/>In such cases, the journalist becomes the accuser, channelling a blacked-out source, and the accused is deprived of much of the spectrum of defense alternatives.<BR/><BR/>It becomes all too easy for a politically correct journalist to ply her trade, as she might see it, in 'making a difference' or 'working for change', by levelling charges against an innocent target based on her 'source' who provides - well, whatever narrative will cause the most damage to the target.<BR/><BR/>Those who deny this scenario must have deliberately closed their minds to the events so well described in UPI and on this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-71661468510950556162007-11-04T15:31:00.000-05:002007-11-04T15:31:00.000-05:00A picture of Crystal is the one thing that could h...A picture of Crystal is the one thing that could have stopped the case in its tracks. What a shock -Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-78483730028369932872007-11-04T15:09:00.000-05:002007-11-04T15:09:00.000-05:00AF said... Wah Wah ------------------------I am s...AF said... <BR/> Wah Wah <BR/>------------------------<BR/>I am so glad you know shorthand. I must say that is brilliant. You don’t mind if I use Wah Wah do you?<BR/> I am thinking of making an index of these name shortcuts. I will be watching for your additions. You can see there are accomplished writers, as well as comedians in this forum. Room for everyone’s opinion, that is the secret to success. You gave me a good laugh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-36862187542320529102007-11-04T13:57:00.000-05:002007-11-04T13:57:00.000-05:00From that same N&O article:The other side of the i...From that same N&O article:<BR/><BR/><I>The other side of the issue is whether, if the accuser is shielded, it's fair to identify the accused. That problem was highlighted on a national scale by the Duke case, but I'm more troubled by a less heralded case recently in the news.<BR/><BR/>Last month, Woodall dropped charges against five high-school-age boys in Chapel Hill who had been charged with raping a teenage girl. The district attorney said there were too many inconsistencies in the evidence to go to trial.<BR/><BR/>Here's what bothers me: When the young men were charged, The N&O identified them but, in keeping with its policy, did not identify the accuser. The paper also ran a photo of the youths being led out of a courtroom in shackles and jail jumpsuits.<BR/><BR/>Some readers complained to me at the time that the picture was unduly harsh on five teenagers (they are all 17 or 18). My response was that it's routine for newspapers to run photos of suspects arrested in crimes. Why should we show favoritism to these five?<BR/><BR/>But now that the case has been dropped, I wonder. They've been cleared of the charges, but the publicity attendant to their arrest adheres to five young lives. The N&O ran several stories reporting on charges in the case (in fairness, one story led off with the father of one of the accused teenagers saying his son was not guilty). Meanwhile, the accuser remains anonymous. <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Definitely worth exploring as a topic on DIW.<BR/><BR/>JenyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-63627982624267783532007-11-04T13:54:00.000-05:002007-11-04T13:54:00.000-05:00I would *really* love to see a post from KC on thi...I would *really* love to see a post from KC on this article:<BR/><BR/>http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/760008.html<BR/><BR/><I>In the wake of the Duke lacrosse case, the policy of not identifying sex crime accusers is under review at The N&O. An internal committee is looking at issues such as whether accusers should be identified or, if not, whether the accused also should be shielded.<BR/><BR/>There is a good bit of sentiment both within the paper and outside for identifying accusers, out of fairness to the accused who routinely are identified when charged. Other arguments: Newspapers are in the business of providing information, not withholding it, and shielding victims contributes to the social stigma attached to sexual assault cases.<BR/><BR/>"We have an awareness that by shielding women in that way, you perpetuate the stigma," said Sarah Avery, the editor heading the internal review. "But we also know that the stigma does exist" and that many victims don't have the fortitude of a Cynthia Morton to put themselves in the public eye.<BR/><BR/>Jim Woodall, district attorney for Orange and Chatham counties, told me that identifying accusers would have a chilling effect on victims' willingness to pursue charges. "Over the years, I have known so many, both women and men, who would tell me they did not want to go forward in a case because they did not want to let people know what happened to them, because of the stigma attached."<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I personally think either both accuser and accused should be shielded, or both should be identified. <BR/><BR/>As we've seen in the Duke case, when the accuser is protected while the accused is publicly vilified, it's quite easy to falsely persecute the accused. <BR/><BR/>Crystal Gail Mangum quite easily pulled off her false accusations from behind the comfort of anonymity for many months. Had she been subjected to the same level of public exposure as those she FALSELY accused, she might have thought twice about perpetrating such cruelty on these innocent young men.<BR/><BR/>Indeed--as a nation we need to revisit this policy. <BR/><BR/>Jeny in AtlantaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-37416128278361055642007-11-04T13:31:00.000-05:002007-11-04T13:31:00.000-05:00re: 11:11on Lubiano, perhaps that should have been...re: 11:11<BR/><BR/>on Lubiano, perhaps that should have been released earlier. One thing that threatening to sue a publisher over a book usually does is to heighten interest in the book.<BR/><BR/>I'm surprised that they had to shop UPI around. If 60 Minutes, Nightline and HBO got it right, why couldn't a few big-name publishers?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11381497683202091939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-33160772473684444552007-11-04T13:24:00.000-05:002007-11-04T13:24:00.000-05:00Anti-intellectual? One serious problem with the P...Anti-intellectual? One serious problem with the PC crowd is that it DOES consider itself composed of intellectuals.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, what they mean by that term is much like what the Bolsheviks did - that is, opposition to Bolshevik thinking immediately disqualified a person for membership in the intellectual club.<BR/><BR/>Much as the University of Delaware was just this week declaring that only European-Americans could be properly called racists.<BR/><BR/>Maybe only an intellectual is able to deploy such tortured logic in a way as to reach the PC conclusion regardless of the facts. But if so, count me in as a fervant anti-intellectual too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-25005818412546074402007-11-04T13:14:00.000-05:002007-11-04T13:14:00.000-05:00Ineresting situation at Georgia Southern Universit...Ineresting situation at Georgia Southern University as students get involved in local election:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2007/11/04/southern1104.html/" REL="nofollow">Vote showdown in college town</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-10166145380755298212007-11-04T13:12:00.000-05:002007-11-04T13:12:00.000-05:009:08AM said:"One student comment page said attacks...9:08AM said:<BR/><BR/>"One student comment page said attacks on faculty will not be allowed! In Duke’s case that would mean so-called faculty can call students “farm animals,” but students cannot call faculty "racist pigs."<BR/>-------------------------------------<BR/>The Concerned Duke Faculty issued their "clarifying statement" in January. Elizabeth Clark, professor of religion, co-authored the letter. I have always been troubled by her rationale for the letter. She is quoted in a Chronicle article as saying; "When the situation becomes such that honored members of the faculty are being attacked on blogs in very personal ways, I think it's perhaps time to say that we join in... the struggle against racism and sexism at Duke."<BR/><BR/>Professor Clark only became involved publically when "honored" members of the faculty were attacked. She didn't seem to be bothered when the lacrosse players were being vilified as racists and rapists not only in blogs but in the national media. I don't recall any criticism of the attacks or call for respect for due process from the professor of religion after Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were indicted and very real and personal attacks were being made against them. In fact some of these attacks actually came from the "honored" members of the faculty.<BR/><BR/>The above comments mention Houston Baker but there were many more, think William Chafe, Karla Holloway, Peter Wood, etc., who never spoke out against the mob mentality gripping Duke or called for the voice of reason to prevail on the Duke campus.<BR/><BR/>Each of these "honored" members of the faculty has been greatly diminished in my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-13704153490908548282007-11-04T13:00:00.000-05:002007-11-04T13:00:00.000-05:00Nice review, sadly I don't agree that many now bel...Nice review, sadly I don't agree that many now believe the Lax players to be innocent. Unfortunately, the PC crowd has little time for the truth and less time for those with different views. The group of 88 and those of similiar persuasion have no use for truth, justice, and due process if it doesn't support their world view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-19590015078242814812007-11-04T12:42:00.001-05:002007-11-04T12:42:00.001-05:00Many refreshing comments. Thank you. JLJrMany refreshing comments. Thank you. JLJrAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com