tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post4511393993662083674..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Coleman, Then and Nowkcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger149125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-75352890463128786372007-11-22T06:27:00.000-05:002007-11-22T06:27:00.000-05:004:37No, we-the-people resent lawyers like John-Boy...4:37<BR/><BR/>No, we-the-people resent lawyers like John-Boy who've successfully sued innocent doctors, when there are so many actual cases of malpractice.<BR/><BR/>Go ask a doctor if he trusts his patients - particularly the indigent ones, who are encouraged by the hacks and ambulance chasers. When a baby doesn't come out perfect, and Mom has been doping and entertaining, what do you do? Blame the doctor!<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, lots of actual malpractice is either forgiven or ignored - (my family is one of those who could have sued, and probably successfully.)<BR/><BR/>Then there's the attorney who supposedly represented Duke AND the accused, slowing down the process of obtaining genuine legal counsel and putting them in harms way. It's in UPI; read it for yourself. <BR/><BR/>You must be proud of your profession, John-boy. We haven't heard one comment about your support for the innocent players - nor from any of your fellow travelers - except for Obama. Instead, you treated us to Amanda Marcotte. Spineless jellyfish!<BR/><BR/>No, the best representative example of what an attorney should act like appeared in this case, with those who actually represented and represent the accused.<BR/><BR/>This is one case where a huge settlement is in order. This ain't a spilled cup of coffee, a missing laundry suit, a birth-tragedy hoax. The damage to the (formerly) accused is still evident in the words and perceptions of the people of Duhh.<BR/><BR/>John-Boy, shouldn't you be paying attention to the things that really matter?machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-29140057310503374472007-11-21T21:29:00.000-05:002007-11-21T21:29:00.000-05:00Whether or not it is "more fun", it doesn't solve ...Whether or not it is "more fun", it doesn't solve the actual problem here, which is that you write in a way that no one seems able to parse. I <I>still</I> have <I>no</I> idea what "it was never a problem before their misunderstanding of nuance" is supposed to mean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-65004547005969548942007-11-21T16:37:00.000-05:002007-11-21T16:37:00.000-05:00Mac said:"Right: in America, 'have-nots' sue peopl...Mac said:<BR/>"Right: in America, 'have-nots' sue people who 'have,' while people who 'have' eventually find ways to secure their property.<BR/><BR/>----<BR/><BR/>Fooey. Research has proven for many years that, in the big picture, the court system is tied up overwhelmingly by big corporations suing each other.<BR/><BR/>This is because corporations regard the court system as their private playground (which, to a large extent, it is). That's one reason they resent seeing acutal human beings get access to their turf.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-80273193259403129612007-11-21T14:57:00.000-05:002007-11-21T14:57:00.000-05:00try "anyone heres time is so valuable" Is this not...try "anyone heres time is so valuable" Is this not more fun than being rude and nasty?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-48873506047561755652007-11-21T10:24:00.000-05:002007-11-21T10:24:00.000-05:00"Anonymous said... I doubt that anyone here, time ..."Anonymous said... <BR/>I doubt that anyone here, time is so valuable, they can not write Professor Coleman - it was never a problem before their misunderstanding of nuance.<BR/><BR/>11/20/07 9:42 AM"<BR/><BR/>All right, this is the 6:59 who managed to translate your "calling the Professor, Coleman" post and this time I have <I>no</I> idea what you're trying to communicate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-443018695705023892007-11-21T10:16:00.000-05:002007-11-21T10:16:00.000-05:00Right: in America, "have-nots" sue people who "hav...Right: in America, "have-nots" sue people who "have," while people who "have" eventually find ways to secure their property.<BR/><BR/>If that's not a cause of class division, I don't know what is; people like John Boy Edwards cause most of the class divisions that they claim to despise. JB sows distrust and discord, and he makes his money by soaking both sides.<BR/><BR/>When the wealthy (and even the not-so-wealthy) feel threatened by the poor and people like John Boy, they sequester themselves in gated communities and send their children to private schools. Who can blame them? <BR/><BR/>And that is what's happened here: CGM was looking to "make some money from some white boys," and Duke wouldn't protect its own students from this kind of predation; they even participated in the process. <BR/><BR/>Yup, the wealthy will adapt: they'll send their kids to places where they won't be under seige, and where their mistakes (like hiring a fat, incoherent, mentally ill stipper) won't cost their families all that they worked so hard to earn.<BR/><BR/>You still think lawsuits are a great idea? You must be a denizen from the City of Duhh, or a have-not.<BR/><BR/>(Personally, I'm a half-have-not, half-have, who still believes that in America, I can "have" if I just keep working at it.)machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-90112795596647553262007-11-20T16:00:00.000-05:002007-11-20T16:00:00.000-05:00It is America - everyone has a right to sue - it i...It is America - everyone has a right to sue - it is what helps keep us great. He has paid for being a dope with his job and reputation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39346854896608466022007-11-20T13:08:00.000-05:002007-11-20T13:08:00.000-05:00Anon 5:39 pmThat the (laundry) suit even made it t...Anon 5:39 pm<BR/>That the (laundry) suit even made it to court shows how much valuable time is being spent on ridiculous stuff that clogs up our system.<BR/><BR/>Is that you, John Boy?<BR/><BR/>Still conjuring up phantasms from the past, each retelling more dramatic than the last?machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-22115917009803945962007-11-20T09:42:00.000-05:002007-11-20T09:42:00.000-05:00I doubt that anyone here, time is so valuable, the...I doubt that anyone here, time is so valuable, they can not write Professor Coleman - it was never a problem before their misunderstanding of nuance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-82527775152729972022007-11-19T17:39:00.000-05:002007-11-19T17:39:00.000-05:00Mac said:"In the cases I've previously mentioned -...Mac said:<BR/><BR/>"In the cases I've previously mentioned - (Roy Pearson's suit against a dry cleaner for 54 million because they may have lost his pants, and a model's suit against a boxer for 100 million because he claimed her pictures of him in fishnet stockings were fake) - perhaps these are fine examples for the need for reform. Wouldn't you agree?"<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Not at all.<BR/><BR/>Roy Pearson's "$54 million" case got thrown out. Moreover, he was held up to national ridicule for being a fool, and, most recently, he lost (was not reappointed for) his job as an administrative judge, all as a result of his overreaching.<BR/><BR/>All with NO need for "tort reform," thank yew. What his "case" in fact proves, is that "tort reform" is NOT needed.<BR/><BR/>And the boxer case will be similarly handled, under current laws, just fine.<BR/><BR/>The insurance lobby and their dupes do not really care about these nonsensical "non-cases" -- what they want is immunity from any and all responsibility in REAL, legitimate cases. <BR/><BR/>And they use the "joke" cases to whoop up the public about a so-called lawsuit "crisis", so they can achieve their real goal of taking all of the money they want, from everybody, always, and giving none of it back to anyone, ever. Don't be fooled, folks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-19729399458590313192007-11-19T17:21:00.000-05:002007-11-19T17:21:00.000-05:00"Anonymous said... 6:59 her - In spite of my poor ..."Anonymous said... <BR/>6:59 her - In spite of my poor writing skill, you managed to understand my point. You are correct. I was commenting on the disrespect shown to Professor Coleman by calling him Coleman.<BR/>It is a blog and not a term paper. Commenting on english skills demonstrates a definite lack of argument on your side."<BR/><BR/>Now, see, this is exactly what I mean by "confirmation bias" -- you are seeing <I>only</I> that 'evidence' which fits into your existing ideas. You propounded your theory: that for a given effect (Professor Coleman being referred to as "Coleman") the cause could only be "disrespect for Professor Coleman". You were refuted by the presentation of counter-evidence (two persons who are quite certainly highly respected here, and who are most frequently referred to by last name -- <I>if that</I>) and by a theory less fragile than your own -- that a desire not to do unnecessary typing, rather than any attempt to evince an attitude of disrespect, explains the use of short designators rather than long ones.<BR/><BR/>And you think you were met with a "lack of argument"? Again, confirmation bias.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-74046313777665185722007-11-19T15:25:00.000-05:002007-11-19T15:25:00.000-05:00To duke1965 at 4:23Good post. If there was sensibl...To duke1965 at 4:23<BR/><BR/>Good post. If there was sensible management in place at Duke, those are some of the questions they should be addressing now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-23624236310835014662007-11-19T14:31:00.000-05:002007-11-19T14:31:00.000-05:00TO Observer--An excellent point you make regarding...TO Observer--<BR/><BR/>An excellent point you make regarding the irony of it all.<BR/><BR/>Also, your Diva support is very much appreciated.<BR/><BR/>:>)Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-40313504998908530492007-11-19T07:32:00.000-05:002007-11-19T07:32:00.000-05:00Very busy weekend, and I am just catching up. Tha...Very busy weekend, and I am just catching up. <BR/><BR/>That Debrah's contributions, enthusiasm, and links are quite valuable here is way beyond question to me.<BR/><BR/>I do not know what happened with Prof. Gustafson and Ken Larrey. IF Ken Larrey went too far in calling out the faculty and administration over the LAX incident, and lost the professor's good sponsorship, I cannot help but be struck by the irony yet again of the world that is Duke. Faculty and administration can behave in the most abominable fashion towards indicted students whose very liberty is at great risk, spreading any unfounded rumor, publishing documents excoriating the students, and enjoy not only continued employment unmolested by any official censure but promotions and honors. The students, however, quickly lose even professorial sponsorship for assertions against the administration and faculty perceived to be based on something other than thoroughly documented fact. AMAZING! <BR/><BR/>ObserverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-70090333210751005012007-11-19T03:28:00.000-05:002007-11-19T03:28:00.000-05:00KC - You saved me. It is 12:27PT time. Checked the...KC - You saved me. It is 12:27PT time. Checked the blog one last time before retiring for the night and there were the new comments. Way to go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-62824818579466918352007-11-19T03:26:00.000-05:002007-11-19T03:26:00.000-05:002:05PM You are right. They want the 88 burned at t...2:05PM You are right. They want the 88 burned at the stake. It ain't happening. Here comes Debrah and others from the groupthink attacking the poster instead of the ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41462563404096192262007-11-19T03:20:00.000-05:002007-11-19T03:20:00.000-05:006:59 her - In spite of my poor writing skill, you ...6:59 her - In spite of my poor writing skill, you managed to understand my point. You are correct. I was commenting on the disrespect shown to Professor Coleman by calling him Coleman.<BR/>It is a blog and not a term paper. Commenting on english skills demonstrates a definite lack of argument on your side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-21586493406746268142007-11-19T03:05:00.000-05:002007-11-19T03:05:00.000-05:00No 10:09PM. By my standard, we call KC, KC because...No 10:09PM. By my standard, we call KC, KC because most of us and KC are comfortable with that name. Until the no "stunning vindication", the Professor was called Professor Coleman - I think because of his natural class and dignity. The folk who call him Coleman now, are just being disrespectful. Makes them look bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-29801928726437028722007-11-18T22:09:00.000-05:002007-11-18T22:09:00.000-05:00Anonymous said... I find it disrespectful to call ...<I>Anonymous said... <BR/>I find it disrespectful to call the Professor, Coleman,just because he did something you folk do not like. <BR/><BR/>11/17/07 6:59 PM</I><BR/><BR/>By your standard, then, you should be referring to KC Johnson as "Dr. Johnson". <BR/><BR/>He is, afterall, KC Johnson, PhD.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-84097469813486144982007-11-18T19:00:00.000-05:002007-11-18T19:00:00.000-05:00"KC Johnson said... To the 6.59: It's not c..."KC Johnson said...<BR/><BR/> To the 6.59:<BR/><BR/> It's not clear who the "you folk" to whom you refer are. While I have called Prof. Coleman a few times, I generally have e-mailed him during the case; I fail to see how contacting him in any way was disrespectful."<BR/><BR/>I think that 6:59's poor writing skills obscured his/her meaning. I believe that what he/she objected to was the person who is most fully and respectfully referred to as "Professor James Coleman" being referred to as "Coleman", rather than "Professor Coleman" or at least "Prof. Coleman".<BR/><BR/>Frankly 6:59's argument seems quite hollow. It could possibly have been made in sincerity, but <I>only</I> by someone who had no idea what "confirmation bias" is or what steps one must take to combat it. If 6:59 were to read through the archives of this blog without preconceptions, he/she would find that in fact <I>most</I> if not <I>all</I> individuals, no matter how greatly respected, are eventually referred to by their last names. Is there anyone that the commenters whom 6:59 calls "you folk" would respect more than State Attorney General Roy Cooper? And yet I am sure that any unbiased reading of this blog and the comments upon it would show that he is most often referred to just as "Cooper". And of course no fair-minded reader could miss how often our own "host" is casually referred to as just "KC"!<BR/><BR/>6:59 makes no secret that he/she feels Professor Coleman is referred to as just "Coleman" "because he did something you folk do not like." There seems no evidence for such a dubious theory when "most people don't do needless typing when everyone who will read their typing knows who they're referring to" fits the same facts -- <I>and</I> the facts that 6:59 has somehow overlooked -- so much better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-55304069562441666042007-11-18T18:41:00.000-05:002007-11-18T18:41:00.000-05:00JR at 10:25 AM --"Get out your checkbook Durham re...JR at 10:25 AM --<BR/><BR/>"Get out your checkbook Durham residents...you elected (and re-elected) Mr. Nifong."<BR/><BR/>Not quite true. Nifong was only elected as District Attorney once -- he was originally appointed to the office by Governor Easley. This means he was either elected, or he was re-elected (depending on your definitions) but not both.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-51311780060571162732007-11-18T18:14:00.000-05:002007-11-18T18:14:00.000-05:00To Ruth, mac, and traveler--Your objective analyse...To Ruth, mac, and traveler--<BR/><BR/>Your objective analyses were refreshing.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, none of us is in agreement on everything; however, it was painfully clear that a few irregular posters showed up to transpose one issue onto many others.<BR/><BR/>I stand by all my posts and would not change a thing.<BR/><BR/>I also must admit that there is a kind of hidden pleasure watching how badly a few nuts want to "get" me.<BR/><BR/>LOL!!!<BR/><BR/>I will say it again:<BR/><BR/>DSEDuke and Ken Larrey deserve a few dedicated members of the faculty on their side. All the way--unequivocally--on their side.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-49907226852649213912007-11-18T18:06:00.000-05:002007-11-18T18:06:00.000-05:00I still want to know whether Professor Coleman wou...I still want to know whether Professor Coleman would consider the denizens of Duhh right when he said there'll be a "backlash against the audacity of the litigation against the city and against the university?"<BR/><BR/>Just as a matter of law, I'd also like to know, Professor: are you for or against tort reform?<BR/><BR/>In the cases I've previously mentioned - (Roy Pearson's suit against a dry cleaner for 54 million because they may have lost his pants, and a model's suit against a boxer for 100 million because he claimed her pictures of him in fishnet stockings were fake) - perhaps these are fine examples for the need for reform. Wouldn't you agree?<BR/><BR/>Which do you think is more audacious? Three young men who are still being disparaged in a city by the "something happened" crew of idiots, suing to get their reputation back, to shut the SH people up? Or these other cases, one of which was pursued by a... judge? (now no longer a judge.) <BR/><BR/>C'mon, Professor. Tell us the truth: are the words "audacity of the litigation" a phantasm, perhaps words put into your mouth by someone else? How did that phantasm happen to get into your mouth, and then emerge?<BR/><BR/>If you want to define "audacity," dear Professor, IMO, it's the promotion of Cpl. Addison, who aided and abetted the whole charade, igniting the whole deal in the press. Wouldn't you agree?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you meant, dear Professor, that you think the City of Duhh will be justified when it riots after it is sued successfully? Are you giving future rioters the go-ahead?<BR/><BR/>Be careful with your reply; your words could light the very first match in a tinder-dry city. Your words.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-52684537108628086952007-11-18T18:04:00.000-05:002007-11-18T18:04:00.000-05:00TO 2:05 PM--Try again, Jethro.The only "groupthink...TO 2:05 PM--<BR/><BR/>Try again, Jethro.<BR/><BR/>The only "groupthink" exists among the strange members of the Gang of 88 and their growing number of apologists--(like Coleman has become).<BR/><BR/>You seem to have the same problem understanding reality as does poor Mr. Fontes and a few of the anonymous attack dogs above.<BR/><BR/>The issues before us are the state of the academy and the civil suits.<BR/><BR/>Not Reade, Collin, and David. Thankfully, they escaped the racist clutches of Durham and the radical Duke faculty.<BR/><BR/>It's now time to keep the focus on the harmful members of the academy.<BR/><BR/>Attacking me, little one, does very little to show that you understand reality.<BR/><BR/>One has only to jump ahead to KC's next post to get a glimpse of your brand of embarrassing "groupthink".<BR/><BR/>And always in cowardly anonymous fashion.<BR/><BR/>LOL!Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-52918554043418388512007-11-18T17:37:00.000-05:002007-11-18T17:37:00.000-05:00I know I have better things to do than read Tawana...I know I have better things to do than read Tawana's Grand Jury report.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com