tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post7783212877264276285..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: On the Schedulekcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger163125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-12629946166998927292007-09-14T14:45:00.000-04:002007-09-14T14:45:00.000-04:00ss --No worries, your point of view as you describ...ss --<BR/><BR/>No worries, your point of view as you described it immediately supra came through clearly, all along.<BR/><BR/>As you note, web-logs can be rough-and-tumble. Despite (because of?) that, Prof. Johnson has shown that it's a format that can lead to the discovery and dissemination of important information.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86758928598423092862007-09-14T13:20:00.000-04:002007-09-14T13:20:00.000-04:00amac, Debrah, and anyone else who's still listenin...amac, Debrah, and anyone else who's still listening--<BR/><BR/>First, thanks for those who have voiced support. I've read this blog for a long time, but have posted very occasionally, and only when I thought that I had something useful to add to the discussion. As I was in Page Auditorium on Tuesday night to hear Prof. Johnson speak, and tried to be observant for how the performance went, I wanted to share my observations with those who could not attend.<BR/><BR/>What I was not doing was trying to forward my take on the events as the only one possible. Yes, I feel as if I have a fairly informed view of the situation, being a member of the Duke community, having kept up with the blog, and having attended events at Page auditorium in the past, and so I thought it useful to share that information. <BR/><BR/>Debrah, this was not to discount what you wrote, though it certainly did disagree with your impressions. I was not at all trying to belittle or demean the event (as you seem to think that I was doing), as I declined to give my opinion of its success or failure. I'm sorry if you took offense at this -- I meant to attack neither you nor Professor Johnson -- and I'll be certain to temper my responses in the future.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for those who responded: this experience has been instructive, to say the least. I hope everyone enjoys their Friday.<BR/><BR/>--ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-9623800691613991662007-09-14T09:07:00.000-04:002007-09-14T09:07:00.000-04:00Debrah (9/14/07 1:50pm) wrote --> I thought your p...Debrah (9/14/07 1:50pm) wrote --<BR/><BR/>> <I>I thought your past footsie parades with Cash...</I><BR/><BR/>Debrah is alluding to two attempts I made at Cash Michaels' "Batcave" website to get this journalist to state his meaning clearly. He is a sly writer who leans heavily on complicated grammar and conditional phrasing. Because Michaels doesn't use plain language to make his key points, he rarely takes responsibility for them.<BR/><BR/>The third comment at <A HREF="http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/04/joan-foster-cash-michaels.html" REL="nofollow">this John-in-Carolina post</A> summarizes one of these exchanges.<BR/><BR/>The other is <A HREF="http://p206.ezboard.com/fhackedbannedandlockeddownfrm14.showMessageRange?topicID=75.topic&start=21&stop=31" REL="nofollow">here.</A><BR/><BR/>Readers can judge the merits of Michaels', Debrah's, and my positions for themselves.<BR/><BR/>One pseudonymous commenter's unwillingness to entertain differing points of view is not evidence of another pseudonymous commenter's gullibility.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-31006484373247013132007-09-14T01:53:00.000-04:002007-09-14T01:53:00.000-04:00Beware people!There are countless out there from t...Beware people!<BR/><BR/>There are countless out there from the <I>Duke community</I> who want us to think that everyone has <I>moved on</I>.<BR/><BR/>They desperately need to believe that themselves.<BR/><BR/>GOL!Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-85475132860040756222007-09-14T01:50:00.000-04:002007-09-14T01:50:00.000-04:00TO "Amac"--You haven't yet reached the brink of gu...TO "Amac"--<BR/><BR/>You haven't yet reached the brink of gullibility?<BR/><BR/>I thought your past <I>footsie parades</I> with Cash and the troll who put on a show here for so long about being married to someone who was a SANE expert would have cooled your engines a bit.<BR/><BR/>Does your radar ever go up?<BR/><BR/>Mr. Larrey--who organized the Page event--made a clear and unequivocal statement that many, many of their flyers had disappeared after being put up.<BR/><BR/>The fact that the <I>helpful</I> cretin above spent such an inordinate amount of energy on denying that fact.....and then repeatedly kept underscoring the number of people (small, he wants everyone to believe) who showed up....should tell anyone what this lurker's game is.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-981414030581544382007-09-13T21:51:00.000-04:002007-09-13T21:51:00.000-04:00ss,Thanks for offering your perspective on Prof. J...ss,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for offering your perspective on Prof. Johnson's appearance. Helps to visualize the event. It'll be interesting to view the video, esp. the Q&A.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39389031465813912752007-09-13T15:33:00.000-04:002007-09-13T15:33:00.000-04:00Ralph - This is way out of context and you know it...Ralph - This is way out of context and you know it. Even the AG said "Magnum believed she had been raped."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-51192816516115155582007-09-13T09:14:00.000-04:002007-09-13T09:14:00.000-04:00it i said:What Levicy said was "SHE (Levicy) had n...it i said:<BR/><I>What Levicy said was "SHE (Levicy) had never met a woman who lied about rape." Which may well be true.</I><BR/>Given that she had already met Crystal that statement is clearly false. So it appears that the reality is that she is unwilling or unable to ever believe a woman is lying about rape. If she's doing SANE, that's bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86610530587020835312007-09-13T00:22:00.000-04:002007-09-13T00:22:00.000-04:006;35 What Levicy said was "SHE (Levicy) had never...6;35 What Levicy said was "SHE (Levicy) had never met a woman who lied about rape." Which may well be true. The SANE nursing position is a part time on call job - obviously, no one is calling the police for crowd control for the numer of woman claiming rape - Thank Gd. We have no idea the number of woman she has assesed for rape - it could be one or 100.<BR/>Discovery has never been published about her interview with Kingsbury. Everyone on the blogs would like to see it. I have asked KC many times to publish it. Never has it been done. All we have ever read is snipets, taken out of conte. If you saw it - where? Can you make it availabe to all of us?<BR/>I also saw her testimony at Nifong's bar trial and it does not get more benign that. There was no there - there. She was subpoened and did not volunteer.<BR/>Have enjoyed the exchange of ideas and will think about your points. Certainly more fun that the snipping going on. <BR/><BR/> it iAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-70877404365247459912007-09-13T00:02:00.000-04:002007-09-13T00:02:00.000-04:00Inman, did that "pulsating breast" imagery get to ...Inman, did that "pulsating breast" imagery get to you? :) RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-48907756775972327852007-09-12T23:46:00.000-04:002007-09-12T23:46:00.000-04:00Debrah:Chill.If only one person was there to liste...Debrah:<BR/><BR/>Chill.<BR/><BR/>If only one person was there to listen, KC Johnson, being the man he is, would have provided his thoughts. Look at the early posts of <I>Durham in Wonderland</I> -- there were few if any comments -- for all KC knew at that point, he was talkling to himself.<BR/><BR/>I agree with many of the posts regarding attendance ... whether there were only a few or several hundred ... this was a well attended event. A success. No need to quibble over an accurate count.<BR/><BR/>I'd rather you provide me with the link to KC's talk ... so I can listen ... do you have it?<BR/><BR/>Thanks! And regards.<BR/><BR/>One who adores a diva.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-46590418299926887682007-09-12T23:21:00.000-04:002007-09-12T23:21:00.000-04:00Dear ss,Mixed in among Debrah's many good qualitie...Dear ss,<BR/><BR/>Mixed in among Debrah's many <B>good</B> qualities, is a protective feeling toward K.C. which can sometimes be directed with a ferocity that few "little redneck Texas mothers" can match :)<BR/><BR/>RRH.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-61404863389626359352007-09-12T22:56:00.000-04:002007-09-12T22:56:00.000-04:00Debrah--I really don't know what I've said that's ...Debrah--<BR/><BR/>I really don't know what I've said that's gotten you so angry. We disagree on how many people were in Page auditorium -- that I get. I disagree with your assertion that flyers were systematically and consciously removed so as to sabotage the event.<BR/><BR/>Both of these things I understand, but I don't see how they leads you to say things like "<I>I now know what the tribulations of the fissiparous detractors produce. <BR/>A huge number of petty pungent refugees.</I>" Or, "<I>You denigrate with euphemisms. You try to assume a perch of authority over all.</I>" In fact, I'm not sure what you mean by either of those comments, but I do understand that I'm supposed to be insulted by them. So be it.<BR/><BR/>I am at least happy that I could make you "<I>LOL!!!</I>", and that you think that I'm "<I>hilarious</I>," if an "<I>urchin</I>." (Is this supposed to be a knock at my age? Really?)<BR/><BR/>I am sorry that I mentioned that I thought that your attack should be removed by Professor Johnson -- point taken. The reason that I did so is that I didn't feel that your somewhat bizarre accusations added anything productive, something that I was certainly trying to do. It's obviously fine that Prof. Johnson has decided not to, and thus I've chosen to respond.<BR/><BR/>If possible, would you mind being more specific about what I've said that is so offensive? I would like to understand if it is something that I've done intentionally or unintentionally. <BR/><BR/>Hey, maybe since we're both in the area we could actually get together and discuss it. Imagine that: a collegial, interesting discussion in person instead of on the web!<BR/><BR/>Have a good night, <BR/><BR/>--ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-37955820535993241122007-09-12T22:28:00.000-04:002007-09-12T22:28:00.000-04:00TO 10:04PM--I cannot possibly add anything to this...TO 10:04PM--<BR/><BR/>I cannot possibly add anything to this post of yours.<BR/><BR/>Only that I hope ALL DIW readers and participants have a chance to see it.<BR/><BR/>You have just given us the best example of how the PC crowd operates than I have seen in a while.<BR/><BR/>You denigrate with euphemisms.<BR/><BR/>You try to assume a perch of authority over all.<BR/><BR/>Then you put everything in your special sewer of doom and gloom--although a few nice adjectives are added...like deodorant on a man who hasn't bathed in 2 weeks.<BR/><BR/>Now here's where you really show yourself: When you are outed for your true mission, you want to censor that person.<BR/><BR/>LOL!!!<BR/>LOL!!!<BR/><BR/>You are one hilarious navel-gazing PC urchin, you are!Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-74480406570971113072007-09-12T22:06:00.000-04:002007-09-12T22:06:00.000-04:00TO Savant--No need for this kind of condescension....TO Savant--<BR/><BR/>No need for this kind of condescension.<BR/><BR/>Bruce Springsteen should be grateful for even 12 bored tourists on the Jersey shore paying some attention to him.<BR/><BR/>Page was 2/3 full.<BR/><BR/>Mike, the guy who video taped the appearance for Duke Media Services, said this to me even before the talk began.<BR/><BR/>He should know. He does this kind of thing for a living.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-53938048545501380152007-09-12T22:04:00.000-04:002007-09-12T22:04:00.000-04:00Debrah--I am not positing my view of the evening a...Debrah--<BR/><BR/>I am not positing my view of the evening as the only one possible. In fact, if you read my post you'll notice that I actually make reference to other perspectives that might be more pertinent in this case, such as DSED's attendance expectations, and each individual's appraisal of the event itself. <BR/><BR/>What I am doing is giving my view of the attendance in the hall, as well as how the audience fluctuated throughout the event. I would say that my view is roughly in agreement with that of the Chronicle, if lower than your estimate. Clearly we disagree on this point.<BR/><BR/>I also disagree with you regarding the conspiracy that you imply was responsible for the attendance numbers (which you bizarrely want to champion as being high and defend as being low, but that's another point). What I have attempted to offer is my opinion of the flyers on campus, something that I feel in a unique position to do as a member of the Duke community. I also offered possible explanations for why more people weren't there, explanations that did not attempt to detract from the talk, but only to provide further context.<BR/><BR/>I never at any point gave my impression of the talk's contents, nor did I denigrate anyone else's impressions. Neither of these has in any way been the point of my two prior posts, nor is it the goal of that one.<BR/><BR/>You have bizarrely also taken issue with me for being nice. I suppose I'm sorry about that, too.<BR/><BR/>KC, on a side note I do think that Debrah's post represents the kind of personal attack that you were going to disallow from these discussion boards. <BR/><BR/>Thanks all, --ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-67783861296303771582007-09-12T21:58:00.000-04:002007-09-12T21:58:00.000-04:00Debrah,The value of last night's talk is the same ...Debrah,<BR/><BR/>The value of last night's talk is the same if 12 people or 1200 people showed up.<BR/><BR/>My guesstimate (based on hearing that Page holds 1200 people) was 1/3 full or about 400. Chronicle said one-third. Anne Blythe of N&O said several hundred supporters (don't know how she determined they were supporters but they did seem like a friendly crowd given tone of questions and standing ovation). <BR/><BR/>But who cares about my back of the envelope math?<BR/><BR/>In September 2003, I saw Bruce Springsteen at Kenan Stadium in Chapel Hill and half the seats were empty. He was great and not the least bit diminished by the empty seats.<BR/><BR/>SAVANTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88265306365131448642007-09-12T21:56:00.000-04:002007-09-12T21:56:00.000-04:00I'm 6:35.I never claimed to be able to read the mi...I'm 6:35.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I never claimed to be able to read the mind of the physicians, but there is no doubt that Levicy <I>at least</I> allowed herself to be used by the prosecution, when everyone else apparently had the good sense to avoid entanglement with a very doubtful claim. This makes the very charitable assumption that Levicy was played for a fool, rather than participated in bolstering the wrong interpretation to at least some degree. Perhaps this was done for some seemingly noble reason, but this makes it no less of a mistake, nor does it reduce the consequences.<BR/><BR/>I wasn't there (were you?), but I've read the discovery material that relates to this topic, prepared by the prosecution. I've also seen statements made by Levicy when questioned by the defense. If nothing else, let us agree that it was wrong to assert that women <B>never</B> lie about rape -- this position is patently ridiculus and calls into question the objectivity of anyone who would make such a claim.<BR/><BR/>In this particular instance, there was plenty of evidence that came out while Levicy was there that this was essentially a con job. This evidence was not only ignored but suppressed, or at the very least, selectively presented.<BR/><BR/>I'd say this is something deserving of criticism, if only to reduce the frequency of history repeating itself. I also fault whomever it was at Durham Access who led CGM to initially claim rape, but that person has managed to remain anonymous.<BR/><BR/>I can accept that Levicy has garnered criticism out of proportion to her involvement, but as some have been so eager to point out, this criticism is very likely to be the only sanction that will accrue to her. If this was only a mistake, it was one she had been predisposed to make, through training. Thus, criticisms of Levicy are, in no small pert, criticisms of this indoctrination.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-36127056304970015542007-09-12T21:42:00.000-04:002007-09-12T21:42:00.000-04:00"I hope this clears some things up for people."Oh,...<I>"I hope this clears some things up for people."</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, my.<BR/><BR/>You need to tell everyone why your take on last night is supposed to be the definitive one.<BR/><BR/>There is no need to clear up anything for me or any other reader with a decent radar for your brand of BS. Here is how you come off:<BR/><BR/><I>("I'm just trying to help....as I dictate to everyone as if I am the only person in the room.....just trying to save you from yourselves as I dump on other people....I do it <B>nicely</B>)</I>.<BR/><BR/>I see through you like the soft cellophane that you are.<BR/><BR/>If it were your quest to do anything but display a negative vibe, you wouldn't still be trying to argue with me.<BR/><BR/>How old are you?<BR/><BR/>Could it be that you are borderline blind and that would explain your inaccurate description of last night?<BR/><BR/>(Just a rhetorical question. I have no desire to know more about your personal issues.)Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39867344608827537292007-09-12T21:25:00.000-04:002007-09-12T21:25:00.000-04:00Debrah et. al--I am the 7:51 poster. I am sorry t...Debrah et. al--<BR/><BR/>I am the 7:51 poster. <BR/><BR/>I am sorry that you took offense at my post -- that's not what I had intended. I was not trying to say that the event was a failure, or that attendance was below expectations. As for the former, I think that's something that each person can decide. <BR/><BR/>As for the latter -- whether the attendance was at or below expectations -- I imagine that only the organizers with DSED can answer that question. They may have been very pleased with the turnout or not -- I really don't know. <BR/><BR/>I do know that the turnout was lower than I expected, especially from Durham community members that might be interested in the case. Undergrads -- at any university -- are hard to count on to attend talks like this, but I had expected to see more people from Durham and around the Triangle there. Perhaps, however, my anticipations were skewed because I read this blog and I was looking forward to the event.<BR/><BR/>I did want to disagree with you regarding your implication that advertising for the event had been sabotaged in some systematic way, and I stand by this assertion: to suggest otherwise is to go against all of my experiences with the Duke community.<BR/><BR/>Again, I posted my response because I think that few readers of the blog were able to attend the talk, and I wanted to accurately describe some of its parameters. I'm sorry if this doesn't agree with your impressions.<BR/><BR/>I hope this clears some things up for people.<BR/><BR/>--ss (also the 7:51 commenter)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-37830859492185274562007-09-12T20:19:00.000-04:002007-09-12T20:19:00.000-04:00"It's entirely possible that the moderate attendan...<I>"It's entirely possible that the moderate attendance was the result of other talks that particular evening, as well as the unfortunate scheduling of the event on 9/11, as opposed to some vast conspiracy."</I><BR/><BR/>It's also entirely possible that you possess the same odious and raw desires as a little redneck Texas mother of an ugly daughter unable to <I>ever</I> make the cheerleading team.<BR/><BR/>If you sit back long enough and watch lint collect on furniture, you will, indeed, find some.<BR/><BR/><I>"I hope this helps."</I><BR/><BR/>It does.<BR/><BR/>I now know what the tribulations of the fissiparous detractors produce. <BR/><BR/>A huge number of petty pungent refugees.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-21052451247856168522007-09-12T20:05:00.000-04:002007-09-12T20:05:00.000-04:007;51 Your post makes absolute sense. Of course, th...7;51 Your post makes absolute sense. Of course, the conspiracy folk will ignore it and carry on with their "dark mutterings." The scheduling on 9/11 was very unfortunate for the event. Maybe this will help them get off the "grassy knoll."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-71492714301909455352007-09-12T19:56:00.000-04:002007-09-12T19:56:00.000-04:00Thanks 3;25 You make good sense about the attack o...Thanks 3;25 You make good sense about the attack on the nurse. KC has not attacked the Doc, even though the Docs are in charge and nurses assist them. He and some others have whipped up non nursing pot bangers to center on Levicy. No longer a mystery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-50644374686477938442007-09-12T19:51:00.000-04:002007-09-12T19:51:00.000-04:00Debrah et al.--I was in Page auditorium last night...Debrah et al.--<BR/><BR/>I was in Page auditorium last night, and estimated that it was less than 1/3 full. People were sitting more than half of the way back in the downstairs portion, but with many empty seats left open, and whole rows empty on the sides. The balcony had few people in it. <BR/><BR/>This is an estimate, but since I was seated in the back and had a good view of the room, I feel pretty confident in it. However, since DSED was issuing tickets, the actual number is probably available, should you desire it.<BR/><BR/>Several students left during the initial talk (not unusual for undergrads), and many more left before the Q&A (again, not unusual). During the Q&A people continued to leave rugularly, and after roughly five questions I'd estimate that roughly half the original audience remained.<BR/><BR/>The Chronicle photographer took pictures almost continuously throughout the talk, moving around quite a bit at the beginning and getting up several times throughout the talk itself and the Q&A. In no way were pictures only taken after people began to leave.<BR/><BR/>There was a standing ovation, though it's worth noting that not all of the audience stood (not surprising, especially given the circumstances), and that it was quite brief, though this could have been out of a desire to move quickly to the Q&A.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your assertion that posters advertising the event were removed, I find it likely that you are correct. However, given the plastering that was done by the advertisers -- whole bulletin boards covered with the same 8 1/2 X 11 ad -- that's not surprising. In fact, this seems to be a normal practice for flyering at Duke: some groups flyer sparingly, while others attempt to blanket every available space. Other groups retaliate by removing some of the superfluous flyers to place their own, and the process continues. A few times a semester notices go up that there is only to be one flyer per event per bulletin board, but after a while those are taken down and the process repeats itself.<BR/><BR/>All of this is to say that there was no conspiracy to keep this talk a secret on campus, and that it was well-publicized: I saw at least one and usually multiple (sometimes quite a few) in each common advertisement spot I passed over the past few days. No one who regularly looks at bulletin boards on campus would have had any trouble finding out about the talk.<BR/><BR/>It's entirely possible that the moderate attendance was the result of other talks that particular evening, as well as the unfortunate scheduling of the event on 9/11, as opposed to some vast conspiracy. Some might even say that is likely. It also might be an indication of a waning interest in the case by the student body and Durham community at large, though it would be hard to know for certain. What I can safely assert that the size of the crowd was not diminished by a lack of flyers, or advertising more generally.<BR/><BR/>I hope this helps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-75344347664227376542007-09-12T19:48:00.000-04:002007-09-12T19:48:00.000-04:00"Flop: poor attendance in the heart of Duke(Page i..."Flop: poor attendance in the heart of Duke(Page is the main auditorum [sic] there for these type of events)." <BR/><BR/>Page has 1,200 seats. At only one-half full, that's 600 attendees. For a lecture on a serious topic, that is an amazing turnout. Anyone, like myself, who has serious experience organizing such events at Duke (and I don't mean hosting entertainers), knows that you're luck to attract 50 students. And even then, they're often "bribed" with free pizza.<BR/><BR/>Yet another Duke ProfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com