On at least four occasions over the course of the blog, I have printed my comments policy.
Having received an e-mail yesterday inaccurately describing the comments policy, I will print it again.
(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.
(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1200 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.
(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014).
Blog Awards
About Me
DIW in the News
- New York Magazine (Kurt Andersen)
- cnnsi (Richard Deitsch)
- Slate (Stuart Taylor)
- National Post (Mary Vallis)
- Chicago Sports Review
- Worcester Telegram(Paul Jarvey)
- New York Sun (John Leo)
- North Adams Transcript (Adam Bloch)
- New Criterion
- New York Observer (Anna Schneider-Mayerson)
- Towerview/Chronicle (Rob Copeland)
- New York Post (John Podhoretz)
- Volokh Conspiracy (Jim Lindgren)
- USNews.com (Michael Barone)
- Crime and Federalism
- Chicago Sports Review (Matt Wood)
- Seton Hall Sports Blog
- Wall Street Journal (Randy Barnett)
- N&O (Eric Ferreri)
- Blogger News Network (Jefferson Flanders)
- Slate (Jack Shafer)
- New York Sun (Eliana Johnson)
- Infodder
- Duke Chronicle (Saidi Chen)
Blog Archive
Comments Policy
(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.
(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.
(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.
(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.
- "From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review
Links
Motions and Documents
- Attorney General's Report
- DNA motion
- Lineup motion
- Supplementary lineup motion
- Change of venue motion
- Bar amended complaint/Nifong response
- December 15 hearing
- State Bar v. Nifong
- Brewer removal motion
- Nifong December 28 letter to Bar
- Nifong January 16 letter to Bar
- Group of 88 statement (removed from Duke website)
- Group of 88 membership
- Transcript of relevant sections, April 4 "identification" "procedure"
6 comments:
KC, do not let the Dukies intimidate you!
Can anyone out there actually find a blog that is more inclusive in comments? KC, you have done an outstanding job with DIW. Thanks for exposing the truth and allowing others to express their opinions--agree or disagree.
Judge: Duke football indeed stinks
For once, Duke was so bad on the football field that it won.
The News & Observer reported that the school avoided paying the University of Louisville $450,000 for opting out of three football games. Duke lawyers essentially had argued that the Blue Devils were so bad any Division I team could have replaced them on the Cardinals' schedule.
Louisville's breach of contract suit, filed in Franklin County (Ky.) Circuit Court, was dismissed by Judge Phillip J. Shepherd on Thursday. The contract had called for a penalty of $150,000 per game to be assessed if a date with a "team of similar stature" could not be scheduled in the event of a cancellation.
According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, the judge's summary included the following:
"At oral argument, Duke (with a candor perhaps more attributable to good legal strategy than to institutional modesty) persuasively asserted that this is a threshold that could not be any lower."
Duke has gone 13-90 over the last nine seasons and beat only Northwestern en route to a 1-11 mark and winless ACC campaign last year.
The teams, which played in 2002, were slated to face each other last season, this season and in 2009. Louisville played nonconference games last season against Championship Subdivision Murray State, Middle Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina State and Syracuse.
Source: The News & Observer
Maybe this lawsuit was a practice for the Dookies. Sad part is that the Dookies football record will surely be better than their record in court against the LAX players. Where do they keep coming up with the money to pay off for not wanting to cooperate with things that they should do because they are the right thing to do.
Do they care that they entered into a contract? I guess about as much as they cared for the LAX team that they so expediently trashed. I do know some people from Durham who are good and decent people. Funny that none of them are affiliated either with Dook or the city of Duhmb. Maybe that's why they are still today good people!!
And just for the record:
All items of interest or comments about KC are on topic.
Whose blog is it?
The only problem I have with this is your repeated references to "racist" comments. Do you actually get many of those? Do you know who they come from?
Did it apply to comments about those "white boys"? Does it include "tarred and feathered?"
I think you have done a good job in allowing an open discussion but I do not think it is an appropriate implication that those who participate at this blog (who seem to me to be reasonable, rational, bright people) need to be monitored due to their racism.
I'd like to think that in reality, you simply do not allow, rude, offensive, off-topic nonsense.
But then again, maybe I'm just sick and tired of the "racist" allegation being thrown around willy nilly.
Maybe this lawsuit was a practice for the Dookies. Sad part is that the Dookies football record will surely be better than their record in court against the LAX players. Where do they keep coming up with the money to pay off for not wanting to cooperate with things that they should do because they are the right thing to do.
Post a Comment