Yesterday, November 28, at approximately 3:20 PM, I left the following comment on Potter's "turkeys" post. I reproduce it here in its entirety.
POST BEGINS
If Professor Potter wishes it to seem that it is she who has academic credibility, and Professor Johnson who is a "turkey", she would be well-advised to start by publicly retracting and hopefully apologizing for the false statements she has made about the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players. To note just the most egregious example, Professor Potter has never retracted her statement that "the dancers were, it is clear, physically if perhaps not sexually assaulted", despite the investigation performed by the office of the Attorney General of North Carolina determining that there was "no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night".
Now, it is not as if it was so clearly false at that time to think that such a thing had happened, because the mainstream media had published many lurid claims regarding the supposed injuries of the accuser. However, by this time the true contents of the medical records are well-known and they do not, of course, support the allegations of physical assault. Professor Potter, I would think that an academic of integrity would, if they learned that a conclusion they had previously pronounced and described as "clear" was based on evidence now known to be false, would make a public retraction of that declaration. It is therefore quite troubling to see you make instead what looks like a determined refusal to make such a correction. It is especially troubling because your reason for not making such a correction seems to be, in essence, "because KC Johnson said I should and KC Johnson is a jerk." Well, it is your right to hold that opinion. It is your right to think that, if KC Johnson is a jerk, you don't owe him anything. However, that is a distraction from the real question. You owe a correction to all those who thought you were an academic of integrity. And to those who were falsely maligned by your claims.
I don't think there's anything further I can say that will sum up the position you are in better than the words of F. Lane Williamson, chairman of the disciplinary panel that disbarred Michael Nifong for his ethical violations, including making false statements about the evidence:
"This is also a case where due to the initial strong statements, unequivocal statements, made by Mr. Nifong, there was a deception perpetrated upon the public. And many people were made to look foolish because they simply accepted that if this prosecutor said it was true, it must be true.
... those who made a rush to judgment based upon an unquestioning faith in what a prosecutor had told them were made to look foolish and many still do look foolish."
POST ENDS
I challenge anyone to read Potter's accusations against KC and find anything in my post which could be judged "out of line" by the standard of civility that Potter herself chose. In short, there was no legitimate reason for Potter to delete the post without trace.
By 6:00 that night it was gone.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Airbrushing
From the comment thread, regarding Claire Potter's disturbing tendency to delete comments that challenge her factual inaccuracies:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
84 comments:
She had relentlessly deleted my posts. She appears to be confusing opinion with fact and refuses to produce any evidence in support of her positions. Instead, she deletes comments as if doing so will make her alternative universe a reality. It will not. She is not a true academic because she searches not for the truth but victory.
I'm not sure why anyone familiar with this blog should be surprised by Ms. Potter's behavior. It is entirely consistent with that demonstrated by not only the G88 but also by the PC minions across American campuses. The surprise ought to be why these people still are employed.
G. Potter (no relation)
T '68
I posted the following on the TR site. I'm curious how long it will stay.
"Why did you delete KC's post from Yesterday, November 28, at approximately 3:20 PM? It was not vulgar, obscene, or off topic, but was very factual and directly related to your statements. Do you always censure items for which you have no defense?"
jvj
To JVJ:
According to "Airbrushing" KC copied the post from the comment thread; it was not his post on TR but the post of a DIW reader.
If brevity is the soul of wit, departmental wit Potter may believe that deleting briefly-posted comments is... very clever.
dave
"Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever."
These people, Potter and her ilk, are more like participants in the Inquisition than anything else. The truth is not in them, just the torturing of others, so much for centered academics pursuing "the truth" of the matter. What would a true academic do or say in the face of these people, "Ah, yes, but the earth still revolves around the sun . . . er, facts . . . er, no DNA . . . not guilty . . . no pictures of trauma . . . not guilty . . . lie after lie after lie exposed . . . not guilty . . . what do you want? Well, we have always known what Potter and her ilk want . . . a lynching . . . nothing more than a lynching . . . not humbled by facts . . . a lynching . . . just a lynching. Apologize.
This Claire Potter woman should be made the national mascot for Duke's Gang of 88 professors.
Insular.
Petty.
Delusional.
Prone to inventing scenarios.
Then promoting them as truth.
Uses her own sexual preferences as subject matter for lectures, books, and sleazy narratives which are projected onto the human population as a whole.
In short, a worthless dead weight on society.
Claire deleated my posts also. I simply pointed out that KC was
"2007 Blogger of the year", Distinguished Fulbright Chair in Isreal and a graduate of Harvard and Chicago. I wrote that his book made it to #125 at Amazon while her 1999 book is listed at #560,000Why would she get mad about the above? Oh - I did ask her which of the Mayflower folk was her relative?
What I do not understand is why MI Potter is getting all this attention. It is not like she is unusual in her field, is it?
Why the current fascination with Prof ( Poof) Potter?
Bigotry in Higher Education is no longer news. It does not even deserve a platform.
Unless, of course, the hope that in bringing the fungi out into the sunlight we will Destroy them.
But ONLY if the light stays on them long enough, eh?
Like the 88, Dines, MSM, West Texas Law Professor and many others, Claire has exposed herself as a public fool. That is as good as it gets. There schools have also been exposed for hiring such dopes.
Continuing my notes on anagrams:
(Tenured Radical = Declared Nutria)
(Claire Potter = Replicate Rot)
Declared Nutria replicate Rot!!
Potter and her puppet pals will begin showing up now!
LOL!
Although my comment was more sarcastic than the one KC posted, for the most part it stayed on topic, and I actually agreed with her some people do need to get a life, but it's PUBLIC comments like her's and Professor Piot's that add fuel to the fire.
I also found it interesting the comments by such esteemed "followers" like Lesboprof and Adjunct Whore were more to Professor Potter's liking so those words of wisdom are still posted, but as we all know in Claire's world any dissenting opinion is defined as "harassment".
Daver
We should not make this "tenured radical" apologize. We should illuminate her as one of the best and brightest professors that Wesleyan University employs. After all only the best of historians can ignore the facts to fit their world view.
Her comments, along with KC's Duke Lacrosse's timeline will show the excellence of her analysis of real intent of the personalitites invloved in the scandal.
Only then can the world really find out that the "tenured radical" is KC Johnson not Claire Potter.
Professor Potter reminds me of the witless Army officer, Lt. Hauk, in "Good Morning Vietnam." She's the only one who thinks she is so clever.
The evidence continues to mount, Professor Johnson is simply smarter than Professor Potter.
Potter resents and obilterates comments. Johnson allows and encourages a genuine exchange of ideas.
Potter's defenders make snarky ridiculous comments while memebers of the Sunshine Band exhibit brilliance.
While the bar hearings were rather tedious, anyone who saw any significant part recognized Chairman Williamson as the much needed example of truth and integrity. Clear, rational, simple honesty. How appropriate to use his words to expose all that Potter lacks.
In stealing from anonymous' comment at 2:28 pm, the "professor" says to those who question her:
In my heart, I know I am clever.
KC, keep up the good work.
"The evidence continues to mount, Professor Johnson is simply smarter than Professor Potter."
While I think this is true the whole truth I fear is more complicated. KC believes in the power of research, logic and common sense. If someone makes a superior argument to his then he is willing to admit it and move on. Honest mistakes happen and should be corrected in a timely manner. SES, sexual preference, ect are unimportant as the arguments must stand on their own and apart from the author.
In Potters world facts are not as important as feelings. Telling the world that you are a lesbian is important in that they understand where you are coming from. The argument cannot be separated from the speaker. Thus changing your argument when proven wrong is difficult, as it has become personal.
I’m in KC camp of looking at the world but it goes beyond intelligence and asks how we should perceive the world around us.
People of Claire Potter's ilk, such as Lubiano, Holloway, Neal, and Curtis are in way over their heads when it comes to rational discourse on the lacrosse case.
They are living testaments to why academic appointments must be made based upon some universally accepted performance criteria and not the feelings of tenured radicals or members of the black (or is it Black) studies department.
Is Potter worth this attention? I would put her in the "ignore as loopy and ignorant" category.
Nor could I "find anything" which justified legitimate deletion of the post.
But what is the deal (new kind of spam?) with words showing up in blue (find anything) and leading to some unrelated, nonsense site?
Debrah,
I am so happy that you are ever-vigilant in patrolling the oafs-in-wonderland. I have been less than involved since the three have been found innocent, but when reading the blogs, I always look for your comments. Thank you for all the diligent commentaries you have written, as well as your indefatiguable defense of the wonderful KC Johnson.
Potter "disappears" from her blog information that she does not like. Nifong refused to look at evidence contrary to the version of events into which he had invested his prestige. Both of them did this in a fashion and in an arena where anyone who was paying attention would instantly notice it.
Some might say that this type of behavior represents no more than deep-seated cynicism. My personal interpretation is that such behavior is a clue, a window into understanding the underlying dynamics of personality that got these people into such an untenable situation in the first place.Iin other words, these are people who are really good at controlling what they themselves pay attention to. Sorta like the polar opposite of ADD.
I bet that they honestly do not get why the rest of us are angry. They think, "Why don't they change the channel in their minds and move on from un-wanted perceptions - like I can do so well?"
I wrote in these spaces about 16 months ago that Nifong gave off the characteristic odors of a sociopath and bygolly so does Potter.
Put them in the same cell as Ted Bundy.
KC it seems to me you are wasting your time trying to respond to these pseudo academics. If you really expect an intellectually honest exchange from Potter, you will never have one and I believe you know that. If you are just baiting them and toying with their limited intellects, well that's a different situation .....
Does this aggressive loudmouth deserve so much attention? Just look at her company: "lesboprof" and "Adjunct Whore". Are these two also tenured? Makes me almost happy that I graduated in a communist country!
"In Potter's world facts are not as important as feelings"
The same words can be used to describe more and more people, not just "tenured radicals" and other academics. Logic, reason, dispassionate and objective analysis have all been abandoned to emotion. Emotional analysis does not allow one to see the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust. Emotion is too nuanced for such distinctions. Hence, it was easy for the G88 to condemn the accused, not upon facts, but based simply upon the sheer emotional power of the accuser's story.
I myself am not an atheist, but I can appreciate Christopher Hitchens' argument that scientists and mathematicians are becoming the only members of our society that are able to search for truth. If the G88, the media and Duke only acted more like scientists rather than characters in a tawdry soap opera, I believe they would have behaved differently. Likewise, if Potter would approach DIW and KC Johnson's writings from a more dispassionate and scientific base, she would likely be less vitriolic and more reasoned in her argument.
Please note, I am a woman. I disclose my gender because I don't want my post to be read as a sexist screed, i.e., accusing a female professor of being too emotional.
DSEDuke thinks there might be another fraudulent poster on the loose like the one witnessed in the Chronicle recently.
Too good to be true?
Here's what they have to say.
TO Mad Hatter--
It's so good to see you back!
I have wondered where you've been.
Thank you for your kindness.....and yes.....
....we're still having fun inside the Wonderland gates.
:>)
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke
And that is why we should not; "move on", "get a life", "change channels", etc. To ignore the evil of these people is to tolerate it, which is to become a party to it. Expose it and oppose it, I say.
KC - What is with the new post by Claire? Ralph L (???) asked her to reconsideer her posts about you? Which she negelected to do - just wrote another piece claiming you are probably the inventer of original sin. What a dope.
I just posted this on Potter's blog. We all know it will not be allowed to go through.
This woman is really delusional if she thinks accounts of her behavior will be "removed".
debrah said...
"Claire Potter:
This is the first and only time I have, or will, visit this place where you invent scenarios about young innocent men and refuse to apologize for your filthy and childish behavior.
I am amused that a colleague would try to intervene to save you from making an even bigger fool of yourself.
KC has nothing for which to apologize. Are you nuts?
You must face it: You are and have been on the losing side of this saga; however, you apparently haven't evolved enough to admit it and move on.
KC's Wonderland will not remove the TRUTH about you.
It has been frightening to read the reports of your recent behavior--deleting comments which illuminate the truth and which ask you to answer hard questions.
That will be your history, Ms. Potter."
11/29/07 9:36 PM Anonymous said...
Is Potter worth this attention? I would put her in the "ignore as loopy and ignorant" category.
_____________________________________________
I don't know if Potter is worth this attention but after the lacrosse fiasco I can't simply ignore her as "loopy and ignorant."
"Loopy" in my lexicon describes someone who is a little crazy but in an endearing kind of way such as a "loopy" old uncle. There is absolutely nothing "endearing" about the sinister Professor Potter
and her willful ignorance of the facts in the lacrosse case.
Professor Potter made a conscious decision to comment on the lacrosse case. She can tap dance all over the place but her extremely damaging statement that, "the dancers were, it is clear, physically if perhaps not sexually assaulted" is simply not true and yet she can not bring herself to admit that she was wrong.
Before the lacrosse case, I would've chosen to ignore Professor Potter but I can't now. If she chooses to disseminate lies on her "Tenured Radical" blog than she better be prepared to defend herself in an intellectually honest way and not simply by making criticisms of her disappear.
"People of Claire Potter's ilk, such as Lubiano, Holloway, Neal, and Curtis are in way over their heads when it comes to rational discourse on the lacrosse case."
They're in over their heads when it comes to rational discourse on just about anything.
In her departmental profile at Wesleyan's history department, Potter describes her 'Special Departmental Function' as 'Wit'. That would appear to be a typo, and should read 'Half-wit'.
Some say she's from Mars
Or one of the seven stars
That shine after 3:30 in the morning
WELL SHE ISN'T
B-52's, Planet Claire
"If [Potter] chooses to disseminate lies on her "Tenured Radical" blog than she better be prepared to defend herself in an intellectually honest way..."
She also had better be prepared to defend herself in an expensively legal way.
"The evidence continues to mount, Professor Johnson is simply smarter than Professor Potter."
Yeah, who isn't?
"The evidence continues to mount, Professor Johnson is simply smarter than Professor Potter."
Yes, but she's such 'wit' (I guess).
LOL and now I see she has enabled moderation of her comments.
I wonder what she is afraid of?
It's clear that Professor Potter is a scared, hypocritical, narcissistic person with severe self esteem issues. She deems the only meaningful "facts" to be her personal world view and all others facts are unimportant or meaningless. She definitely would make a great addition to the Group of 88. Thank goodness that I never had professor so completely out of tune to reality as she and the 88ers are.
A survey of Claire Potter's TenuredRadical blog found the number of comments to be usually quite low. I did not count the most recent blog posts, as there may not have been enough time to accumulate comments. I also did not go beyone 17 blog posts out of boredom. So, this is not a scientific survey, only a rumor. Here are the total number of comments to her posts:
7, 7, 4, 8, 3, 6, 3, 10, 9, 25, 8, 4, 6, 1, 10, 14, 15.
That is a total of 17 posts, which, in turn, contained a total of 140 comments. That averages out to a 8.2 comments per blog post. Dare I say that she may have more people reading her books?
Since Potter has now enabled comment moderation, her numbers likely will decrease.
It is apparent to me that Claire Potter cannot stand the smallest criticism or disagreement. To her, those methods of argument are tantamount to harassment. I wonder if she knows why students at Wesleyan don't stand up in her class and tell her that some of her ideas are foolish? In the real world, people have to learn to take criticism.
Her most recent take on free speech (as squealed to Ralph Luker) is reminiscent of that found among Sudanese Islamists, especially when dealing with Teddy Bears. MOO! Gregory
Anonymous @12:09 AM said...
Please note, I am a woman. I disclose my gender because I don't want my post to be read as a sexist screed, i.e., accusing a female professor of being too emotional.
A truly sad indictment of today's political correctness particularly given the things routinely claimed about men(especially by feminists). Too emotional? "You sexist pig!!!". Of course as a male that's already in my repertoire alongside "rapist", "oppressor", "batterer", "warmonger", "discriminator"...you get the drill.
When one group is left unprotected they become the only legitimate target of hatred.
TO Gregory--
"Her most recent take on free speech (as squealed to Ralph Luker) is reminiscent of that found among Sudanese Islamists, especially when dealing with Teddy Bears."
Great analogy.
I also started to comment on the fact that Potter's little goofy blog is almost barren.
After someone posted here yesterday that the same colleague who has had a habit of trying to direct traffic in the past was attempting to get KC to remove posts about Potter......I went over there and read a few of her posts.
Potter's lack of intellect is stunning.
Her quality of writing is also unusually low. Lots of simple mistakes you wouldn't expect from someone who is supposedly well-educated.
Some of the topics are so bubble-gum and seem to be screaming to be considered "hip".........
........when, in fact, they are pedestrian and silly.
Potter seems to be emotionally arrested. She even made a huge deal about a little cartoon-esque YouTube about puppets.
Apparently a few commenters here posted it on her blog. It was very funny. I referenced it because it was almost as childish as Potter and that was the whole point.
I'm not kidding. Potter is an extremely troubled and delusional human. She suffers from the same problem as do many troubled adolescent girls.
Lack of an authentic script in her own life leads to the manufacturing of fantasies in order to add a dimension to her barren tableau.
Reading a few of her posts was a sickening experience.
Please read what she tells KC about the frequency of bombs exploding in the Middle East.......and how she attempts to draw an analogy to the cartoon-esque YouTube puppet show.
I'm serious. If this woman were teaching at a university with which I was associated, I would have her committed.
Just pure insanity on the loose.
I think Claire Potter shows great intelligence in deleting the comments made on her blog by Debrah and other regular DiW posters. It isn't just what you say, it's how you say it. I don't care if you make inane arguments as many of you do, but the arrogant way in which you exhibit your prejudices gets a bit old. You make nasty remarks about those who disagree with you or your Sunshine Band master, Prof. KC Johnson.
Prof. Johnson does the rest of us a favor by letting you vent your collective spleens here. I'd be embarassed if I were he to leave some of your more vitriolic, if nonsensical, comments up. But, it doesn't bother him and it's his blog. He has greater tolerance for really vile remarks than a lot of other people. Good for him.
I've saved the more obnoxious remarks that stay up, like the "poof" comment of several days ago. I would have hoped that even Prof. Johnson's tolerance shouldn't go that far. But, alas, it does.
What I find hilarious (don't know if one of the other hundred comments have mentioned this)is that Professor Potter's main criticism of KC is that he has failed to "get over" this issue, when 1) she shows no signs of recognizing that she was ever wrong and 2) she mentioned KC completely out of the blue in a Thanksgiving Turkey post.
So we all have to get over it. Professor Potter can hold grudges about much more pedestrian and false wrongs as long as she wants to.
To the 11.12:
I assume that you're a great admirer of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh--since your comment almost directly parallels the criticism the two of them made a few months back of Daily Kos.
As Markos Moulistas noted when asked about the remarks on the Colbert Report, he--unlike the far right--isn't afraid of the marketplace of ideas, and he's confident that in open discussion, the sustainable ideas will flourish and the discreditable ideas will be discredited. I agree with him wholeheartedly.
It appears, however, as if the far left shares O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's inclination to censor. I bend over backwards in the other direction--one reason why I (in sharp contrast to Prof. Potter, for instance) routinely clear even harshly personal negative comments about me.
"What I find hilarious (don't know if one of the other hundred comments have mentioned this)is that Professor Potter's main criticism of KC is that he has failed to "get over" this issue,"
The group of 88 could have admitted their mistakes, evaluated the reason for their mistakes, and declared their intentions to do better in the future.
KC would have been stopped cold as he would have run out of material. Instead they continue to insist that they are somehow victims as opposed to tormentors and KC has almost unlimited material with which to work.
While I wouldn’t call this hilarious it is both amazing and frightening.
"KC would have been stopped cold as he would have run out of material."
KC will never run out of material.
To the KC at 11:41--I don't know who Bill O'Reilly is and I didn't know that Rush Limbaugh had a blog. I do think that when someone has a blog, that person has the right to remove comments she or he finds offensive. The removed poster can post somewhere else that finds the comments congenial. You don't find the word "poof" when applied to Professor Potter offensive. I do. I consider it hate speech. If my children used the word, I would be upset. When adults use it, I think they're ignorant. When you permit it, I assume you don't share my opinion. (If you've removed the word, fine.)
Different to you, I don't think that it is a reflection of the so-called market place of ideas when a group of people suddently comment on a person's blog to heckle that person. In these cases, as when your bloglodites move en masse or in part to someone's blog to attack, the "market place" doesn't appear to be "market" at all, but rather something else, more contrived.
I think you use terms like "far right" and "far left" to be able to cast yourself as somewhere in the middle. And given your tolerance for comments on your blog that I understand as race baiting and gay bashing, I think you're somewhere else altogether.
To the 12.49:
I don't believe I said that Rush Limbaugh had a blog; I noted that he and O'Reilly used their airwaves to attack a blog whose views they didn't like by highlighting stray comments.
Hate speech, in my opinion, is a legal term with very specific requirements; I side with Andrew Sullivan on this question and shy away from censorship. You, on the other hand, are perfectly within your rights to criticize such speech, one reason why I had no hesitation at all in clearing your comment.
As I have said repeatedly, I neither necessarily endorse nor oppose comments that are cleared here. I do, on the other hand, take responsibility for each and every one of the more than 900,000 words on the case that I have written. As the author of a single-person blog that has, over its existence, had over 90,000 individual comments, the fact that I moderate comments at all is extremely time-consuming; for practical as well as philosophical reasons, the moderation exhibits as light a hand as possible.
"I think you're somewhere else altogether."
You see, that's what you get for thinking....for it's obvious that exercise is not one at which you excel.
You and people like you who scream, yell, invent, try to rewrite, and just plain create falsehoods when others will not accept your bile without challenging you with facts......
.......will always try to use personal attacks as you have on KC and others. This is how you hope to persuade him to change his objective way of running this blog.
He allows almost every point of view.
Thousands upon thousands of people from all around the globe have visited Wonderland.
KC didn't attract that readership--whether or not they always comment--because he inhibits free expression as the very sad and stunningly dishonest Potter does.
And look where that gets her and her ilk.
Only a couple of inane and silly comments to their posts which are basically "high-fives" to what she spews.
Perhaps the traditions of 7th century Islam are those you and your ilk prefer.
Enjoy it, but don't think you will taint Wonderland.
To: Debrah
Yes, I saw what Potter wrote about the exploding Harry Potter character. That is why I drew the analogy between her and those Sudanese Islamists. I did not put that link on her blog; rather, I warned her about her defamation of the innocent students. She did remove my warning about her defamation.
__________________
The Potter Puppet wrote:
Anonymous said...
To the KC at 11:41--I don't know who Bill O'Reilly is and I didn't know that Rush Limbaugh had a blog.
WHY WOULD YOU START YOUR POST WITH A LIE? "I DON'T KNOW WHO BILL O'REILLY IS ...." RIGHT.
I do think that when someone has a blog, that person has the right to remove comments she or he finds offensive.
FOR EXAMPLE, HOW IS IT OFFENSIVE TO EXPLAIN TO POTTER THAT HER BLOG ABOUT THE STUDENTS WAS DEFAMATORY? IS CRITICISM OF A GAY, FEMALE, LIBERAL PROFESSOR DE FACTO "OFFENSIVENESS"? IT IS GOOD THAT K.C. JOHNSON CAN "MAN UP" AND ALLOW OTHERS TO CRITICIZE HIM ON HIS BLOG. SURE, POTTER CAN REMOVE WHAT SHE BELIEVES IS OFFENSIVE OFF HER BLOG, BUT WE CAN POINT OUT HER "ISLAMO-FASCIST" (REMOVE THE TEDDY BEAR) TENDENCIES.
The removed poster can post somewhere else that finds the comments congenial. You don't find the word "poof" when applied to Professor Potter offensive. I do.
ARE YOU KIDDING? WHAT IF HOUDINI USED THE WORD? NEXT THING YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO BE CALLING IT HATE SPEECH! HOW SILLY.
I consider it hate speech.
[JAW DROPS] WHAT DID I TELL YOU? THAT IS JUST ABOUT AS THIN-SKINNED AS THE DUKE "TAR AND FEATHERED" INCIDENT (AND ABOUT AS LOGICAL). YOU NEED TO HAVE SOME DE-SENSITIVITY TRAINING.
If my children used the word, I would be upset. When adults use it, I think they're ignorant. When you permit it, I assume you don't share my opinion. (If you've removed the word, fine.)
SEE ABOVE. P.S. YOU JUST USED THE WORD "POOF." GOODNESS, YOU SOUND LIKE THE KNIGHTS WHO SAY "NI," BUT WHO CANNOT BEAR TO HEAR THE WORD "IT."
Different to you, I don't think that it is a reflection of the so-called market place of ideas when a group of people suddently comment on a person's blog to heckle that person.
AGAIN, POINTING OUT HOW SOMEONE IS WRONG IS NOT "HECKLING" THEM IT IS "CORRECTING" THEM. YOU SERIOUSLY NEED TO ASK SANTA FOR A SENSE OF HUMOR (AND A DICTIONARY) THIS YEAR.
In these cases, as when your bloglodites move en masse or in part to someone's blog to attack, the "market place" doesn't appear to be "market" at all, but rather something else, more contrived.
SO, "POOF" IS HATE SPEECH, BUT "BLOGLODITES" IS RIGHT FINE? ON ANOTHER NOTE, IT APPEARS THAT THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS HAS WON OUT, POTTER HAS ENABLED COMMENT MODERATION. HER MARKET IS "CLOSED," AND ALL BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT STAND THE MERE CORRECTION OF HER OBVIOUS MISTAKES.
I think you use terms like "far right" and "far left" to be able to cast yourself as somewhere in the middle. And given your tolerance for comments on your blog that I understand as race baiting and gay bashing, I think you're somewhere else altogether.
SO, YOU'VE NOW STOOPED TO USING THE "R" WORD. AGAIN, THE BILLY MUMY POSTULATE IS PROVEN. USING THE WORD "POOF" IS EVIL (AND IN PROFESSOR JOHNSON'S CASE, NOT EVEN A WORD HE USED), BUT YOU CAN COME ON HERE AND CALL THE POSTS "RACE BAITING AND GAY BASHING." AGAIN, SOMEONE NEEDS TO LEARN ABOUT CRITICISM BY GETTING OUT IN THE REAL WORLD. THERE, YOU WILL FIND THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS.
These are my opinions only. MOO! Gregory
I am the same anonymous whose deleted comment to Claire Potter KC has reproduced above. She has deleted a second comment to her, this time posted Friday to her "Through the Looking Glass" post. I believe it will give DiW readers an even clearer idea of how much actual ability Professor Potter has to engage with and respond maturely to anything other than a reflection of her existing prejudices.
POST BEGINS
"So the answer to the question is: no. A person who is constantly insisting that other people apologize and retract things (that may have been implied, but not presented as fact, by things they wrote as a critical comment on a current event) does not apologize or retract things because he never does anything wrong."
Professor Potter, let us concede, arguendo, that KC Johnson would be pleased if people who have made false statements and harmful statements about falsely accused persons were to apologize for and retract those statements (I am not Johnson and cannot speak for him, but I think it is reasonable to assume that he is pleased when people demonstrate personal and professional integrity in this manner.)
In your parenthetical aside, you seem to be claiming that statements you made about the lacrosse players "may have been implied, but [were] not presented as fact." Professor Potter, here is a statement you made in your post of April 10, 2007:
"Many players who were under legal drinking age spent the entire day of the incident drinking (illegal); the dancers were, it is clear, physically if perhaps not sexually assaulted; and this behavior was said to be part of a pattern of ingrained, anti-social behavior that repeatedly led to people being targeted by team members for violence, either on the streets or at team parties (and do we think that women have not been raped at Duke lacrosse team parties? that women under the influence of drugs and alcohol have not been coerced to have sex without their explicit consent? Published acounts suggest otherwise.)"
One of those statements is, in fact, true: the players consumed alcohol. Others of those statements can, if read extremely literalistically, be considered only "implied" and not "presented as fact", such as the statement that "Published accounts suggest [that] women have [] been raped at Duke lacrosse team parties ... that women under the influence of drugs and alcohol have [] been coerced to have sex without their explicit consent". (I should note that with equal veracity, I could state that "published accounts suggests that the Jews are engaged in a nefarious conspiracy to cripple every nation by underhanded sabotage and devious manipulation of international finance" the document known as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is without question a plagiarism, a forgery, and a fraud, but it is indeed a "published account".)
Subtracting the statements about which such disclaimers can be made, however, leaves us with the claim that "the dancers were, it is clear, physically if perhaps not sexually assaulted". Now, I know that you have had this claim, and the fact that it is contradicted by the investigation of the Attorney General of North Carolina, brought to your attention; I know, because I was the one who brought it to your attention in a November 28 comment which you deleted without response. I do not believe that any reasonable observer would think that you were only implying that the dancers were physically assaulted. And even taking the most legalistic interpretation of the statement -- that you are only responsible for truthfully conveying whether "it is clear", not whether "it" is factually true -- I do not think any reasonable observer would say that it was "clear" in the least that such a physical assault had occurred, not when the Attorney General's investigation determined that there was no credible evidence of an assault in that house on that night. I believe that any reasonable observer would say that you were presenting it as fact that the dancers had been physically assaulted. Moreover, in light of the Attorney General's findings, and your failure to present any reason why the Attorney General's findings would be incomplete or incorrect, I believe any reasonable observer would deem your statement to be false.
It is in this light, then, that we must examine your characterization of KC Johnson and his requests to you. I do not know if KC Johnson has ever made a direct request to you to retract and apologize for your false remarks about the lacrosse players, but of course we have already conceded that he would be pleased if you did so, and I of course acknowledge making a direct suggestion that acknowledging the errors in your previous statements would enhance your credibility.
Here is the crux of the matter: You did not do so.
I do not know what sort of ugliness might have been in the post that you subsequently retracted at Ralph Luker's suggestion, though your suggestion that KC's "followers" "may be real people or not; it's hard to tell" does give me an intimation. But I do know that you have not apologized for, retracted, or even admitted to the possibility of even an unwitting inaccuracy in your allegations against the lacrosse players.
Were you under the impression that, in order to obligate KC Johnson to delete all posts in which he tells nothing more than the truthful account of your earlier calumnies and of unsuccessful attempts to persuade you to correct the wrong you did by making those allegations, all you would need to do would be to make new allegations of equally dubious veracity and then delete those with much self-applause?
I am not sure it is worth giving you further advice on how to repair your credibility. When you blatantly mischaracterize KC Johnson's words, directly below his words so that everyone can see the misrepresentation, you may be doing more damage to your credibility than can be repaired. There is nowhere you can point to in Johnson's words where he makes the claim that he "never does anything wrong", or that such reasoning is behind his well-established practice of not removing his own posts, nor the comments of others upon them, without truly compelling reason to do so. (I am afraid I do not see how an animated representation of a hand puppet representing a fictional character deploying an equally animated time bomb against other equally animated hand puppets representing equally fictional characters constitutes a 'clear and present danger', either; it is far more likely that one of the lacrosse players will suffer actual harm due to your unsupported declarations that "it is clear" they are guilty of physical assaulting the dancers, than that you will ever suffer even the slightest harm from Potter Puppet Pals no matter where it is posted.) However, you hit closer to the mark -- even if unintentionally -- when you exclaim "Other people do things that are wrong." That is exactly right, in this case -- you did wrong by making false allegations against the lacrosse players, and you do wrong now by steadfastly refusing to correct those allegations.
POST ENDS
In all honesty, I am not perfectly pleased with this post. Perhaps under less time pressure I could have managed to respond to her claims that Potter Puppet Pals could be "chilling" with something other than incredulity and tart irony. But I think it is important that the evidence be out there that, when Professor Claire Potter is presented with clear evidence she has acted wrongfully and harmfully, she actively declines to take responsibility for her actions.
Some have tried to offer distractions from the issue by blustering that Potter has the "right" to delete comments she does not want. This is quite true but again, it is a distraction: she does not have the right to make allegations of criminal activity with malicious disregard for the truth.
TO Gregory--
Don't let Potter fool you.
She's enjoying that she's part of the discussion.
Why else would she use KC in one of her posts---just out-of-the-blue---and attack him days ago if she were not looking for responses to her dead blog?
KC certainly hasn't brought up the woman's name in any way prior to her attack. She wasn't even on my radar screen of existence.
Listen, she hasn't had this much attention since someone winked at her during a Melissa Etheridge concert.
Professor Potter has attracted so much attention here because she epitomizes the closed-minded approach of the faculty known as the Group of 88 at Duke. They signed on to a defamatory statement that accused their students of the vilest of criminal acts, and then refused from that point on to retract the hurtful speech.
Instead, Potter and her colleagues shut their minds, their email inboxes, and now their blogs, to any critical comment whatsoever, labeling it as "heckling," or "vile," or that code-phrase "hate speech." Calling someone the British slang term "Poof" is an unfortunate ad hominem attack on Potter by some anonymous poster but the Group of 88 and now Potter use such a mild attack as an opportunity to wildly (and vilely) attack those folks who participate in blogs about the Duke Rape Hoax as some kind of small-minded accolytes of KC Johnson. Personally, I resent such derogatory comments about me, as I am a lawyer of nearly 25 years standing and an ardent student of the law and (I hope) defender of civil liberties for all citizens. I am not a camp follower or easily-manipulated person.
A recent comment on Potter's Tenured Radical blog, one that Professor Potter "allowed" to be posted, referred to those commentors who critized Professor Potter's derogatory comments about the wrongly accused Duke lacrosse team members as (I kid you not) as engaging in "discursive violence." Yes, that was the term.
Professor Potter, I know you are reading these comments, and I want you to know that I will always remember you as an academic who ran from legitimate debate about an important subject - the American legal system, the wrongly accused, prosecutorial misconduct, and the Duke faculty who joined the Reign of Terror in those first few weeks after the accusations, now revealed to be utterly false, by a drug-addled misguided and possibly mentally ill woman.
It is funny how the girls from Ms. Potter's blog can come over here and call us names, but if you point out their misrepresentations, you are the heckler.
It is also sad that Potter still has her libelous post about Reade, Dave and Collin on her website.
Her premise: Calling African-American women [Rutgers female basketball players] a name that will cause the young women shame and indignation is worse than Duke and Durham lynchers (including, I assume, Claire Potter) calling innocent Duke lacrosse players names and attempting to convict them of crimes they did not convict.
Both are bad, but only one fits the metanarrative for Claire Potter, and she is still attempting to metaphorically lynch the innocent boys.
What is really depressing is that people like Potter cannot support justice or fight injustice, such as the Duke case, because they think it makes them seem "uncool" in their little clique. It really must be like a junior high school at Duke, Columbia and Wesleyan.
To the 2.12:
In light of your comment, I reproduce an e-mail I sent t Prof. Potter two days ago when she demanded I remove posts from this site.
Far from claiming I never made errors, the e-mail explicitly discussed an error I had made in the blog, and how I rectified it; it also invited her to submit to me any information she had to suggest that any statement about her that I had written was untrue.
She has submitted no such information:
Prof. Potter:
With all due respect, I do not need a lecture about reputation from someone who published under her own name--and then refused to either retract or supply evidence for--myriad demonstrably false allegations about both a group of college students and then about me.
I would, of course, be more than willing to take down or correct any false statement about you or your remarks that I have posted, as I have done on other issues (for instance, when I incorrectly stated that the Chronicle and not the N&O had broken a story).
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/error-below.html
Having reviewed what I have written about you, I see nothing that would fit such a category. Indeed, I see nothing that I have written that is in any way factually disputable. But if you have information that you wish to supply me, I will certainly take it under advisement--
KC
CHRIS DAVIS, HARVARD '73
Alas, it appears that the Comment Section on Frau Doktor Potter's blog has been magically disabled.
I remember breaking a window in an outbuilding when I was a kid. I was trying to break some ice that'd covered it, and broke both the ice and the window. Instead of owning up to the deed, I waited for the thaw. It was a torturous wait. Eventually, the day of reckoning came, and I had to admit what I'd done.
At least I admitted it. That was a lesson I learned at 5 years old. I was better off admitting it when it was cold. Pipes froze, as I remember.
When the 88's lies, libels and inaccuracies were exposed, it was obvious that they hadn't learned the same lesson I did when I was 5: admit it, get it over with, come clean. Do it early, and as often as neccessary.
Same with Professor Potter's comment about the "physical, if not sexual assault." That's the broken window in the outbuilding. Spring's come and gone, the thaw exposing the damage. Long past time admitting it. It is way past the point where the claim that the window isn't broken is believable.
I remember in English Composition we studied such stories; I believe they were called "initiation experiences." In the case of the broken window, it was an intiation to the truth.
It's a wonder that so many academics have not had similar initiation experiences with regard to truth-telling, or that it hasn't governed their activities and comments in the case of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax.
To Don in New Orleans,
Let me start by saying that I had never heard of the blog tenured radical or its author until someone mentioned it here. I don't know any of the people who signed the original document at Duke. I can hardly be called a supporter of any of them. BUT...
"Poof" is a very offensive term when one is gay. How long has/was the term as an attack up on Durham in Wonderland?
Nobody needs an excuse to delete material he or she finds offensive from his or her own blog. Nor would I like to find the inbox of e-mail at my professional address filled with abuse from some of the people who regularly post here. It's my right to delete any mail without reading it. Just because it is sent to me does not mean it is worth reading.
I associate KC Johnson with the comments that appear here. He thinks vile comments can remain up and I think less of him. Then there was the issue of keeping up a response to a fake posting. In the same way you are judged by the company you keep, people are associated with the material that appears with their names.
It would be interesting to know how many posts KC Johnson has supressed or deleted. I wonder where if those people go running to another blog to protest his failure to post them or his decision to delete their comments?
It's a wonder that so many academics have not had similar initiation experiences with regard to truth-telling, or that it hasn't governed their activities and comments in the case of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax.
After another round of initiation experience for Prof Potter this week at DIW and at her own blog, she's again proven herself incapable of learning from experience, choosing instead to ignore it and construct her own reality. Aside from experiencing some momentary discomfort, she'll never notice that her frozen pipes have burst.
TO 10:29 AM--
Don't say a word.
Not one word.....until you have more information about not only Duke's Gang of 88, but the libelous and unrepentent Claire Potter.
Potter has effectively said POOF to three innocent young men and doesn't have the decency to apologize.
I don't know or care who posted the word "poof", but it takes a fool to assign significance to it....in light of the destructiveness of Potter and her ilk.
You really should stop embarrassing yourself.......and "beg" for something else.
Such as coming here with your name and not hiding behind an anonymous shield when you offer such comments.
To the 10.29:
"I associate KC Johnson with the comments that appear here."
I assume, therefore, that you now associate me with your comment.
"It's my right to delete any mail without reading it. Just because it is sent to me does not mean it is worth reading."
I couldn't agree more. Every day, I delete between 50 and 100 unsolicited spam e-mails without reading them. Receiving such e-mails is an unpleasant side-effect of having taken a public position and having my e-mail address publicly available. That said, it takes around 30 seconds to complete the transaction. It's 30 seconds I won't get back, of course, but all told, it's a price I don't mind paying for free speech.
"It would be interesting to know how many posts KC Johnson has supressed or deleted. I wonder where if those people go running to another blog to protest his failure to post them or his decision to delete their comments?"
It is not my practice to suppress or delete posts. Since I instituted comment moderation part-time in February and full-time in August, I have regularly declined to clear comments--which, unlike posts, are made by other people, not by me.
I have no idea how many comments I have declined to clear, nor does blogger.com provide any way to ascertain that data. I saw (and still see) no reason why I should have kept track of such data. I also have no idea whether "those people go running to another blog" (I'm not exactly sure why one would go "running" to another blog--looking at a different blog doesn't require using a different computer), nor do I know of any way to discover this information.
To Don, etc. others,
I am tired of gays and others hijacking the English language for their own purposes and then getting offended when their newly-hijacked terms are used in a way they don't approve.
Gay used to mean happy and carefree, not homosexual. Now we can't use the word except in the sexual context. I never heard the word "Poof" except in Mary Poppins literature and that of the "Magic Dragon" song of the 60's. I have NO idea what it means in the homosexual world, not do I care. It was NOT their word to begin with. Same for Jesse Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition". I resent Jesse and his crowd for stealing/ usurping the beautiful symbol of God's love and creation to represent their political agenda.
I guess people can make up words, or distort them to their purposes if they wish. But I do NOT think that they can then get bent out of shape when the rest of the world does not acquiesce to their new abberations. Words belong to all of a culture... not just one group.
Sure, Professor Johnson, I associate you with my comment, which isn't vile, unlike a number of those I've seen here, most recently the "poof" posting.
I didn't expect you to know if people run squealing to other blogsites to complain that your blog didn't post their comments. A number of them sure ran here, though, to complain when "Tenured Radical" either didn't post or deleted, didn't they? (See above.)
I'm not sure that deleting spam counts as protecting free speech; ditto hate e-mail. After all, there are devices to protect people's telephones from the "free speech" of telemarketers!
To the 11.40:
"Sure, Professor Johnson, I associate you with my comment, which isn't vile, unlike a number of those I've seen here."
That, of course, is your right. As I've noted previously, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are the two most prominent figures that I've encountered who argue that all comments at a blog, including anonymous vile ones, reflect the viewpoint of the blog publisher. I don't agree with Limbaugh and O'Reilly on many things, including that point, but I welcome you--as evidently, a follower of their approach--to the blog.
"I didn't expect you to know if people run squealing to other blogsites to complain that your blog didn't post their comments. A number of them sure ran here, though, to complain when "Tenured Radical" either didn't post or deleted, didn't they? (See above.)"
I wonder if you could point me to an occasion in which a commenter was "squealing"--that's a most unusual verb to use in this instance. In this instance, I welcomed their comments, since the issue was the decision of "Tenured Radical" to make a post containing demonstrably false allegations about the lacrosse case--and then to delete comments that called her to task. Indeed, as a blogger, I was stunned to see some of the lacrosse-related comments that she deleted, which were subsequently reproduced here--comments that were perfectly respectful and factually accurate.
Unlike "Tenured Radical," it is not my practice to delete comments based on viewpoint of commenter. (Otherwise, of course, I would have deleted yours.) I delete only comments that are off-topic or obviously vile. "Tenured Radical" has the right, naturally, to delete all comments that disagree with her perspective, point out her factual inaccuracies, or challenge her viewpoint in any respect. That strikes me, however, as a most unusual approach to running a blog.
"I'm not sure that deleting spam counts as protecting free speech; ditto hate e-mail."
I don't believe I claimed that it was. The existence of spam and unwanted e-mail, however, is a side-effect of free speech. I fully concede it's an unpleasant one. But unlike "Tenured Radical" or the Group of 88, I don't consider myself a victim because I receive unwanted e-mail which I then delete.
TO 11:40 AM--
We've all heard the incessant whining from radical, libelous, and parasitic Duke professors saying they have received "hate e-mail" from supporters of the lacrosse players.
Do this: Contact them. You can find each of them at the Duke University websites.
Ask them to provide PROOF of these and then advise them to make them public and proceed to prosecute these so-called "harassers".
Otherwise, this phony victimhood is breath on a mirror.
Flimsy attempts to divert attention away from their own illegal, destructive, and unethical behavior.
Debrah,
See how easy it is for them? It is so simple to make one's self a victim, and Potter and her defenders (10:29 am) are experts: they're the Ultimate Fighters of Victimhood (UFV,) the Ju-Jitsus of Wahhh, the Samurai of Swoon ("stop me before I swoon again!")
I never heard of the word "poof" before, until now, (unless you spell poof the same way Hee Haw delivered "PFFFT you was gone.") Same phonetics.
In any case, it's only in the English (not American) slang that it's a derogatory reference to homosexuals (according to Wikipedia.) In that, the word "poof" also is said to be "an American slang term for female flatulence." (That appears to be a fitting term for Potter's blog, actually.)
Leave it to Potter's minions to be offended. One might conclude that her poster-boys and poster-girls have been huffin' jenkem. (Or poof.)
To those who whine about the posts on DIW: there have been times when the blog wasn't moderated that it really got out of hand, and was profoundly ugly. KC would have to go back and edit the day's posts, and he would remove the offensive posts. They were offensive even to the hard-to-offend, and they ran against the DIW blog rules.
I respect KC, even though I disagree with him on a number of issues, simply because he displays a mind that shows earnest respect for the Constitution of the United States (you know, that document "written by dead white males," as your type likes to put it?)
Honest discourse - (including satire) - is a great part of our civilization. People like Claire Potter don't appear to respect honest discourse - (as evidenced by her semi-blog) - and therefore she doesn't appear to respect some of the most basic things that make our civilization great. One of these is Freedom of Speech.
She certainly has the right to set up the rules for her own blog, but she doesn't have the right to set up the rules for DIW.
TO Mac (2:23 PM)--
Sorry for the late reply.
I'm very upset right now because something has gone awry with my KC-at-Duke-conference RealPlayer download.
I was trying to freeze it and make a photo of him that is my favorite from that video and suddenly it isn't accessible. It will not surface.
I'm so tired from working on this problem. LIS!
In any case, I enjoyed your posts and you're quite accurate. The word "poof" is too silly to mention, really.
Don't be fooled by Potter and her ilk. They aren't really "offended". All this is contrived....just to try to divert attention away from the real issues.
This "puppet" and "poof" controversy is a great example--in bold relief--of the caliber of intellect with which we are dealing.
"Nobody needs an excuse to delete material he or she finds offensive from his or her own blog."
And neither is merely claiming that one finds something "offensive" an acceptable excuse for deleting that which is not offensive but nevertheless uncomfortable for a sore conscience. I will address directly to you the same challenge that I made in the DiW post reproduced above: I challenge anyone to read Potter's accusations against KC and find anything in my post which could be judged "out of line" by the standard of civility that Potter herself chose.
"I associate KC Johnson with the comments that appear here. He thinks vile comments can remain up and I think less of him. Then there was the issue of keeping up a response to a fake posting."
Well, which is it? KC Johnson was, indeed, fooled by a fake posting in which a persistent troll impersonated a third party and falsely represented that third party. If KC had chosen to delete that post, since it only existed due to the troll's deliberate attempt to sabotage him, he would have had far better justification than Claire Potter had to delete the comment to her that KC has reproduced above. Potter did not make false allegations that the dancers had been physically assaulted because of some troll's sabotage. It certainly was not because of some troll's sabotage that she has yet to apologize for or take any steps to correct those false allegations. It has certainly not been because of some troll's sabotage that she has deleted my comment (and quite likely others as well) which asked her in restrained and polite fashion to correct those false allegations.
KC Johnson left up the posting that showed he had been successfully deceived by what was, in fact, a deliberate and directed attempt to deceive him personally. He could have, if he'd followed in Potter's footsteps, erased that posting from the historical record and pretend it had never happened. Instead, he kept it available and made a followup post within 24 hours to clarify that he had been fooled and that the third party had been impersonated. You refer to the fact that he kept his mistake available for anyone to see negatively, suggesting that in your mind, the right thing for him to do would have been (like Potter) to suppress or delete it.
-- and yet then you turn right around and observe "It would be interesting to know how many posts KC Johnson has supressed or deleted." Well, which is it? Do you think that KC should let everyone, including himself, take responsibility for their own words (unlike Potter)? Or do you think that KC should, like Potter, suppress and delete comments sometimes for no better reason than that they ask questions he finds uncomfortable?
Do you even have in mind any sort of actual standard of behavior you would approve of, or is it just a matter of "Whatever standard KC picks and sticks with, I'll insist that it's the other one that he should be following"?
debrah said...
We've all heard the incessant whining from radical, libelous, and parasitic Duke professors saying they have received "hate e-mail" from supporters of the lacrosse players.
Do this: Contact them. You can find each of them at the Duke University websites.
Ask them to provide PROOF of these and then advise them to make them public and proceed to prosecute these so-called "harassers".
Debrah, debrah, debrah.....
Why are you inciting people to send hateful, harassing emails to these good professors?
You of course do know that challenging them on their facts, or in fact disagreeing with them in any way at all, is hateful and harrassing, don't you?
Hey where can I find these socalled vile "Poof" posts? I thought "Poof" was associated with what happened when the magician made the rabbit disappear at my elementry school. I had absolutely no idea the rabbit was gay and that he was being insulted with the magician made him disappear. I will be sure to pull my kids from school if they every have a magic show since it's so obviously anti-gay in nature. In fact, I'm going to write my congressman and demand that performing magic tricks be made a hate crime. I also think that sending spam emails should be made a hate crime, because when I get them, I hit the delete button and "Poof" they disappear. I didn't know that by doing this that I was causing untold damage and pain to homosexuals world wide. In fact my work is filled with anti-gay bigots who are constantly sending me meaingless emails like, the ladies earring that was lost, that I'm having to delete or get my email account cut off because I'm taking up too much space causing said messages to go "Poof". Tomorrow moring I'm going to personally walk in to the VP of personnell and demage that these anti-gay bigots be fired for their dispicable behavior.
However I have one itsy bitsy teeny weeny question. How does "Poof" speak deragotively of Professor Potter? Isn't she a female homosexual and isn't "Poof" slang for a male homosexual? Did I miss something? Is it an insult because it's slang for male homsexuals or is it an insult because it is insinuating that Professor Potter is male? Or is it an insult because it is insinuating that Professor Potter is a rabbit which disapears when you say the magic words? Please can anyone help explain?
All of you seem to hope that Prof. Potter will debate KC. She's stupid, but not that stupid.
RRH
I just came back to look to see if my comment was posted. It is. And yes, no defender of Prof. Potter has come forward to claim that she is smart enough to debate KC. She isn't, of course. Maybe if TRUTH were on her side, she'd have a chance.
Truth isn't on her side in anything she says. She is not stupid enough not to know that, so she is smart enough not to debate with her betters.
R.R. Hamilton
I see Prof. Pottress and her potters still haven't summoned the courage to to reply here. So I thought I would take a moment to define what I meant by "her betters" in the comment above -- to see if I can rouse her or her potbangers to make an ignorant response.
Prof. Pottress, you are a diversity-hire at Westlayan. You are not hired because of your intellect. If you were, then you would be a heterosexual white male. As you are not any of these things, you feel the need to make lying attacks on all of these things. You have a psychological problem. This is why we don't allow people like you in the military of which welcomed me, and this is the reason that we attorneys want you on the witness stand for the opposition -- because you are psychologically damaged and we will make you scream on the stand like the best Perry Mason picture.
Now, let's see if KC JOHNSON has the guts to publish this.
I don't know whether the poster at 12/3/07 2:44 PM is the real R. R. Hamilton or an impostor, but either way -- I don't think he speaks for the majority of posters here, and I know he doesn't speak for me. (Frankly, I suspect, especially given the last line, that it's someone whose true sympathies are with the Gang of 88, trying to smear the reputation of KC Johnson by exploiting the fact that he doesn't shove things down the memory hole.)
I don't regard Professor Potter's sexual preference as a psychological problem. I view her inability to admit that she made a false statement -- even when she could, with some justice, pass the blame on to mainstream media outlets which gave her false information -- to be indicative of a psychological problem. Why should I care what Professor Potter does in the bedroom? It doesn't affect me in any way. But when a supposedly respectable academic and blogger feels she has the right to commit defamation and no responsibility to correct falsehoods she makes -- it affects all of us, by degrading the public discourse. No one who has seen Professor Potter's shameful performance with their own eyes, I wager, will ever trust her again to be telling the truth. The poster at 2:44, again, does a great disservice to all of us here who are concerned with Professor Potter's lying by trying to change the subject to the irrelevant issue of Professor Potter's sexuality -- and again, I suspect that such a disservice to DiW may be exactly what the poster hoped to do.
"In her departmental profile at Wesleyan's history department, Potter describes her 'Special Departmental Function' as 'Wit'."
Members of Wesleyan's history department appear, then, to be easily amused.
3:37
It was a typo. Someone left out the "t."
KC,
I am glad that you and your band of merry men all agree that it is not appropriate for a blogger to delete comments that challenge his or her view of events. You should point that out to your friend John in Carolina. He has spent the last 18 months deleting from his website any and all comments that are in any way critical of the LAX players or Coach Pressler. If anyone posts a comment criticizing the LAX players or Coach Pressler, JIC just calls them a troll and deletes their comment. I would call this the height of intellectual dishonesty and certainly just as bad as what Ms. Potter has been doing.
The problem with "Just a Thought"'s comments is not related to point-of-view, but to his lack of knowledge of basic facts, misreading of even the simplest points others are trying to make, verbosity, inability to stay on topic, incoherence, etc.
While "Just a Thought"'s presence has been found to interfere with debate, the posts of Michael Munger in defense of Duke's handling of the Karl Rove lecture have stayed up.
That's because even if John and most of his readers disagree with what Munger is saying, it is at least responsive to what they're saying.
Claire Potter, the Tenured Radical is raising the ante in her debate with Professor KC Johnson. All this because she takes exception to his questioning the hiring practices of the History Department at the University of Iowa.
Post a Comment