tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post5004370082144509425..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Claire Potter Replieskcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger153125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-40741216296321000842011-07-09T21:11:27.801-04:002011-07-09T21:11:27.801-04:00I hesitate to write, do to the fact that I would l...I hesitate to write, do to the fact that I would like to forget I have ever stumbled upon this hateful, hateful site. Also due to the fact I know that this comment may never be allowed to remain on the site. However, I still must say that Claire Potter is an incredible professor, advocate and friend. Please stop the blind judgements - they do nothing to change the truth of her integrity and talent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-87670558840479379442007-12-01T00:25:00.000-05:002007-12-01T00:25:00.000-05:00The reference directory of lawyers is Martindale-H...The reference directory of lawyers is Martindale-Hubbell, available on line at www.martindale.com. It is used by attorneys to locate specialists in a particular area of law, or in a geographic area.<BR/><BR/>Dunning and Bancroft, LLC is not listed in this source, making it a virtual certainty that it is fictitious.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Ms. Potter might consult with the firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-62048739682892388112007-11-30T16:49:00.000-05:002007-11-30T16:49:00.000-05:00rrh: ROTFLMAO - Bravo!That said, if I have to lis...rrh: ROTFLMAO - Bravo!<BR/><BR/>That said, if I have to listen to "Freebird" one more time I just might be driven to... ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41771522203300062007-11-30T16:46:00.000-05:002007-11-30T16:46:00.000-05:00Am I the only one who thought 6:31 was a parody? ...Am I the only one who thought 6:31 was a parody? It made me laugh!<BR/><BR/>Are the rest of you all humor-impaired, or has it really become impossible to tell?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-30893414669505172962007-11-30T16:45:00.000-05:002007-11-30T16:45:00.000-05:00re. the topic at hand, i.e., Claire Potter's 'scho...<I>re. the topic at hand, i.e., Claire Potter's 'scholarship' and academic credentials,<BR/>I'm not angry, I'm dismissive.</I><BR/>What the combination of it and her position reveals about the state of American academia is, on the other hand, grounds for anger and disgust.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-77240064484834638162007-11-30T16:08:00.000-05:002007-11-30T16:08:00.000-05:00KC said... To 6.31: cleared last on belief y...<I>KC said...<BR/><BR/> To 6.31:<BR/><BR/> cleared last on belief you new the, but this a: it not practice clear comments contain attacks other. If want engage such, you at least to yourself.</I><BR/><BR/>Ok, KC didn't <B>really</B> say that. I was just doing an experiment based on my experience that some people's brains seem to register only <B>every-other word </B> that they read. I took KC's post and deleted every other word. And I think I found validation for my theory: <BR/><BR/><I> Anonymous said...<BR/><BR/> Dear Prof. Johnson (6:53),<BR/><BR/> I saw your advice to the person at 6:31 in response to 3:14. It seems to me that 3:14 is way angrier than 6:31, but didn't get taken to the proverbial woodshed. Could it be because the 3:14 is one of your fans?<BR/><BR/> 11/30/07 10:56 AM</I><BR/><BR/>How else can the 10:56 AM comment be explained but that the author's brain absorbs only every other word? For further proof, look at the comments that he references and keep in mind that he considers "3:14" to be "way angrier" than "6:51":<BR/><BR/>First, mb's comment at <B>3:14:</B> <I><BR/><BR/>mb said...<BR/><BR/> anonymous 1:43PM,<BR/><BR/> You're still not 'getting it.'<BR/><BR/> I think that KC et al. are - and I know that I am - acknowledging that rumor is a valid topic for research. <B>[can you feel the anger?]</B> However, it seems clear to me that we're simply stating that rumor has been researched for a very long time, thus to this non-historian it sounds like the equivalent of beating a dead horse. <B>[the rage!]</B> In my field it would likely be akin to researching the usefulness of using soap when washing one's hands. <B>[I think he's close to violence!]</B> The "duh" factor is quite high.<BR/><BR/> If Potter wants to do the academic equivalent of playing "Freebird" for the umteenth millionth time, then hey, I say go for it. <B>[A poster child for anger management counseling!]</B> Just don't expect the rest of us to do anything other than yawn, or point and laugh if we've just had a cuppa Joe and can stay awake through the guitar solo. <B>[If he hasn't killed already, he will soon!]</B></I><BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, the "way less angrier" comment at <B>6:31:</B><BR/><BR/><I> Anonymous said...<BR/><BR/> No, mb at 3:14, **YOU** don't get it. <B>[nice of her to capitalize "YOU" to lessen mb's eye-strain]</B> What your master, KC Johnson, didn't make clear, is that the ways of studying rumor have changed over time. <B>[here she shows sensitivity to mb's slave status]</B> It's not old hat. You don't need to understand this, because as you said, you're not in the humanities, but you're wrong. <B>[she spares him the embarrassment of being proved wrong -- which she could do, if he were smart and "in the humanities", which he admits he's not!]</B> So, go on and believe KC Johnson. Base your comments on that. You'll continue to be laughable. <B>[she's laughing WITH him, not AT him!]</B></I><BR/><BR/>KC, I ask again, are academic professional as idiotic as they appear on this blog? Are you holding back some really erudite comments from them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-28728785941740512752007-11-30T15:14:00.000-05:002007-11-30T15:14:00.000-05:001:57 PM: Mature = well-developedIMNSHO = "in my n...1:57 PM: <BR/>Mature = well-developed<BR/><BR/>IMNSHO = "in my not-so-humble opinion."<BR/><BR/>As for dismissing an approach outside of my field, perhaps it's short-sighted, however, I've tried to make it as clear as I can that these are my opinions only ("MOO") and therefore one can take them for what they're worth. <BR/><BR/>I may appear arrogant to you, but I am quite confident that I understand the scientific method quite thoroughly. If confidence equates with arrogance in your world, then so be it. However, at least I am mature (in the emotional sense) and open-minded enough to discuss the issues with people who don't share my viewpoints and be persuaded by persuasive arguments when they are made. Can we say the same for the likes of Potter, et al.? Apparently not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-50080733696098500612007-11-30T13:57:00.000-05:002007-11-30T13:57:00.000-05:00Dear 11:57,I saw your recent post and I don't unde...Dear 11:57,<BR/><BR/>I saw your recent post and I don't understand what you mean by a topic (the study of rumors) being extremely mature. I scrolled up and noticed that initially you dismissed the study of rumors altogether. Isn't it a bit short-sighted of you to dismiss altogether an approach to a field of enquiry that is admittedly outside of your field? <BR/><BR/>I understand from your posts that you weren't angry. When I read them, you seem rather arrogant vis-a-vis the issue in question,which is odd, because you don't know about it. I don't think of this as a strong and appropriate debating style. I think of it as showing ignorance.<BR/><BR/>PS What does IMNSHO mean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-20222083187020318352007-11-30T13:27:00.000-05:002007-11-30T13:27:00.000-05:00Anonymous 10:56 AM: There's much about this case...Anonymous 10:56 AM: There's much about this case that has made me angry, but re. the topic at hand, i.e., Claire Potter's 'scholarship' and academic credentials,<BR/>I'm not angry, I'm dismissive. There's a difference. <BR/><BR/>I can't speak for Dr. Johnson, but IMNSHO he was cautioning the writer of 6:31 AM against personal attacks, not being angry per se. To me, the reference to anger applied in the sense that personal attacks often are the result of anger, and once one goes through a cooling-off period it's more likely that the person will re-think the ad hominem and instead address the topic of the thread. <BR/><BR/>I'm glad to discuss topics, and as has been the case in this thread, be persuaded to see a POV that I had not considered (i.e., that rumor might be a valid topic for study in the field of history), and sometimes I'm even angry, but I try not to argue using ad hominems. However, if I ever do so I welcome KC to warn me and delete the comment if he so choses. And actually, IMNSHO deleting ad hominems does the poster a favor by erasing what is rightly viewed as weak and inappropriate debating style.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76075397318519384082007-11-30T13:15:00.000-05:002007-11-30T13:15:00.000-05:00Few would deny the validity of studying rumors, ru...Few would deny the validity of studying rumors, rumor mongering, and rumor mongerers, in the context of historiography (and whether Potter does that well is an entirely different matter). The problem with Potter is that she is what she studies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-2415269226945816342007-11-30T11:57:00.000-05:002007-11-30T11:57:00.000-05:00anonymous 6:31 AM: I've already conceded the poin...anonymous 6:31 AM: I've already conceded the point that rumor appears to be a valid topic for study in the humanities. What more do you want? <BR/><BR/>What you don't seem to 'get' is that for many of us it appears to be a topic that is very mature and thus not innovative, therefore, not worthy vis-a-vis groundbreaking scholarship of the type expected from first-tier academics. If Claire Potter wants to diddle in threadbare pursuits in the autumn of her career, then I say hey, knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to take her seriously, but in IMNSHO she's not a serious academic. Especially given the examples of her 'scholarship' that I've seen, which to these unsophisticated eyes appear to be on par with a mediocre effort by an average high school student. <BR/><BR/>Of course, as always: These are MOO and YMMV.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-56896273788887996992007-11-30T10:56:00.000-05:002007-11-30T10:56:00.000-05:00Dear Prof. Johnson (6:53),I saw your advice to the...Dear Prof. Johnson (6:53),<BR/><BR/>I saw your advice to the person at 6:31 in response to 3:14. It seems to me that 3:14 is way angrier than 6:31, but didn't get taken to the proverbial woodshed. Could it be because the 3:14 is one of your fans?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-46906495679336512542007-11-30T06:53:00.000-05:002007-11-30T06:53:00.000-05:00To the 6.31:I cleared the last comment on the beli...To the 6.31:<BR/><BR/>I cleared the last comment on the belief that you are new to the blog, but consider this comment a caution: it is not my practice to clear anonymous comments that contain personal attacks on other commenters. If you want to engage in such behavior, you will at the least need to identify yourself.<BR/><BR/>In the past, as well, the blog has occasionally had problems with "angry" commenters, a category in which you appear to fall. I'd urge you, in the future, to delay submitting any comments for 15 minutes or so after writing them, just to give yourself a chance to cool down. It's my sense that doing so would allow you to reconsider the merits of submitting comments such as the above.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for sharing the insight that "ways of studying rumor" (just as the ways of studying anything else) have changed over time. I fear that there's nothing in any of my comments that would have suggested otherwise.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-83713811392386288722007-11-30T06:31:00.000-05:002007-11-30T06:31:00.000-05:00No, mb at 3:14, **YOU** don't get it. What your m...No, mb at 3:14, **YOU** don't get it. What your master, KC Johnson, didn't make clear, is that the ways of studying rumor have changed over time. It's not old hat. You don't need to understand this, because as you said, you're not in the humanities, but you're wrong. So, go on and believe KC Johnson. Base your comments on that. You'll continue to be laughable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-16454141427690843412007-11-29T17:47:00.000-05:002007-11-29T17:47:00.000-05:00I hate to beat the drum again, but I'm noticing a ...I hate to beat the drum again, but I'm noticing a pattern here. Culture becomes pop culture (rumors about celebrities), science is attacked by junk science (anything not grounded in the scientific method, such as speculation), and academia now turns to gossip. For example:<BR/><BR/>1. The Gang of 88 drafted and published their "Listening ad" based upon what amounted to double-hearsay (Magnum told to columnist told to readers). And the Gang didn't even allow the gossip time to percolate into a good urban legend or solid fence-line speculation; rather, they published the "Listening ad" about a week after the rape hoax became public knowledge in the hope of supporting their arguments for change at Duke. <BR/><BR/>2. You also have the Louisville law professor writing an article published in the Southern Illinois Law Journal about the Duke case employing "holistic" techniques instead of using, for example, sound scientific or statistical methods to support her arguments. <BR/><BR/>3. On top of that, you have Professor Claire Potter, who publishes an on-line post rife with misinformation about the Duke case, and who provides no citations or apparent desire to source any of her allegations. Subsequently, we learn that Potter uses "rumors" in her academic work to, get this, support her arguments.<BR/><BR/>I'm beginning to see a trend here .... MOO! Gregory <BR/>___________<BR/><BR/>NOTE: Professor K.C. Johnson did a post about the Louisville Professor some time back. It was fascinating as it spotlighted the Worst. Law. Article. Ever. CODAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-51407901069714516592007-11-29T16:55:00.000-05:002007-11-29T16:55:00.000-05:00look how much fun it is to have a free exchange of...look how much fun it is to have a free exchange of ideas here on this internet thinggy!<BR/><BR/>tell Claire how much fun you had here talking to us and remind her that we could do this on her lonely blog too, if she didn't kep deleting all the comments!<BR/><BR/>Mr XAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-19454455226131840112007-11-29T15:29:00.000-05:002007-11-29T15:29:00.000-05:001:43KC reprinted her words.I guess that's what som...1:43<BR/>KC reprinted her words.<BR/>I guess that's what some people call "rumor" and "innuendo."<BR/>Especially if you're a Gossip Girl from Hee Haw. <BR/> <BR/>Funny thing: KC allowed your fetid little comment, while dear Claire slices and dices anything that she doesn't like, clean as a Ginsu knife. It is becoming an auto-blog, soon to feature her only her own opinions.<BR/><BR/>But then, It's Her Party (She Can Cry if She Wants To.)<BR/><BR/>I doubt you've read UPI. I somehow doubt that you could.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-67223361479053083332007-11-29T15:14:00.000-05:002007-11-29T15:14:00.000-05:00anonymous 1:43PM,You're still not 'getting it.' I...anonymous 1:43PM,<BR/><BR/>You're still not 'getting it.' <BR/><BR/>I think that KC et al. are - and I <I>know</I> that I am - acknowledging that rumor is a valid topic for research. However, it seems clear to me that we're simply stating that rumor has been researched for a very long time, thus to this non-historian it sounds like the equivalent of beating a dead horse. In my field it would likely be akin to researching the usefulness of using soap when washing one's hands. The "duh" factor is quite high. <BR/><BR/>If Potter wants to do the academic equivalent of playing "Freebird" for the umteenth millionth time, then hey, I say go for it. Just don't expect the rest of us to do anything other than yawn, or point and laugh if we've just had a cuppa Joe and can stay awake through the guitar solo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-45837913708038350402007-11-29T14:36:00.000-05:002007-11-29T14:36:00.000-05:0012:44So you think a spurned employee - (in this ca...12:44<BR/>So you think a spurned employee - (in this case, 2nd in command at the FBI) - should skulk about in the backrooms and alleys and attack? Please note: 2nd in command.<BR/><BR/>Not some middle level manager.<BR/>If the atmosphere made him unhappy, it was his own fault maybe? 2nd in command? <BR/><BR/>That's like Brodhead being unhappy with the leadership at Duke.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-80969198453339143422007-11-29T14:17:00.000-05:002007-11-29T14:17:00.000-05:00KC @ 1:02 PM writes:"It's illuminating that Prof. ...KC @ 1:02 PM writes:<BR/><BR/><I>"It's illuminating that Prof. Potter's supporters now appear to be defending her work on the grounds of (a) they haven't read it; or (b) she doesn't have to be clear."</I><BR/><BR/>[insert <I>Rimshot</I> sound here]<BR/><BR/>That was a four foot "coffee spitter" comment .. max is five feet.<BR/><BR/>One SpookOne Spookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592774438681904368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-77906295706065553722007-11-29T13:43:00.000-05:002007-11-29T13:43:00.000-05:001:02 KC, I don't think her defenders are doing eit...1:02 KC, I don't think her defenders are doing either. I think you are providing perfect examples of rumor and inuendo. But, I wouldn't expect more from you. No one was defending her: someone was defending "rumor" as a topic of research.<BR/><BR/>Based on your comments today, I'd never recommend anything you wrote, because I couldn't be sure how accurate it was. <BR/><BR/>I think you should be ashamed. But, I'm sure you're not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-31130654663612295672007-11-29T13:35:00.000-05:002007-11-29T13:35:00.000-05:00anonymous 12:44: KC said "And American political ...anonymous 12:44: KC said <I>"And American political historians have been noting such trends for generations. If that sums up Prof. Potter's research on "gossip," it would seem her product would be considered thin for an undergraduate paper, much less a book by a "tenured radical.""</I> That to me means "been there done that." Of course, YMMV. <BR/><BR/>As for me "doing [your] medical work" trust me, even if I should want to, I won't. You see, if you had carefully read my post you would have understood that I'm an <I>academic</I> in medicine (and bioengineering), not a practitioner, i.e., physician. Therefore, unlike many of the K88, Potter, et al., I don't practice without the requisite credentials: In my case this means medicine, in their case, respectable scholarship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76861090963671026552007-11-29T13:03:00.000-05:002007-11-29T13:03:00.000-05:00"To the KC at 12:17, in all fairness, KC, she does...<I>"To the KC at 12:17, in all fairness, KC, she doesn't have to be clear. Exactly or otherwise. You're not the research Gestapo."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>How silly.<BR/><BR/>Who are you?<BR/><BR/>Potter's <I>Mammie</I>?Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-5866935211783853232007-11-29T13:02:00.001-05:002007-11-29T13:02:00.001-05:00To the 12.39:Indeed she does not. But, I suspect, ...To the 12.39:<BR/><BR/>Indeed she does not. But, I suspect, most academics prefer to have their writing understood, and strive for clarity in their prose.<BR/><BR/>It's illuminating that Prof. Potter's supporters now appear to be defending her work on the grounds of (a) they haven't read it; or (b) she doesn't have to be clear.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-11013413109162323122007-11-29T13:02:00.000-05:002007-11-29T13:02:00.000-05:0012:48, Could you put this information in context? ...12:48, Could you put this information in context? The book is almost a decade old. More important than where it *languishes" on Amazon is how many copies it has sold...What was your point?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com