tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post5014551630687311300..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Update: Gottlieb "Reassigned"; Details Top 50kcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-48927239740185531502007-12-14T17:17:00.000-05:002007-12-14T17:17:00.000-05:00Thank you, Dr. Johnson, for your work on the Duke ...Thank you, Dr. Johnson, for your work on the Duke lacrosse incident. Reading your blog since its beginnings, I've often wondered about the person behind your postings at midnight (what can keep him up at night?), but whatever your inspirations, I feel certain that your work has changed the course of the stream, in a small way at least. I knew the Duke cultural criticism crowd when they were young and ready to party. Your columns have given everyone another mirror to look into. I'm quite sure that despite their protestations, everyone who reacted on impulse to the first news from Durham has had to think again about themselves and their motives, thanks largely to your blog. Best wishes on your next work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-18494196093926906832007-12-10T09:21:00.000-05:002007-12-10T09:21:00.000-05:00AF said... 8:10You are referring to O.J. right? Th...AF said... <BR/><I>8:10<BR/>You are referring to O.J. right? That being the one case where the DNA evidence existed but was ignored when money and politically correct fear bought an innocent verdict.</I><BR/><BR/>I would say the DNA was rightly ignored because it appeared to have been planted by a crooked cop. Certainly the possibility that that was the case was strong enough to create "reasonable doubt." <BR/><BR/>Crooked cops don't just result in innocent people going to jail. They also result in guilty ones going free.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-38637526530172892232007-12-09T18:03:00.000-05:002007-12-09T18:03:00.000-05:00Re: Rev. Sam WellsDebrah said... …………….What would ...Re: Rev. Sam Wells<BR/>Debrah said... <BR/>…………….<BR/>What would you do with $100 million?<BR/>....[Samuel Wells, dean of the chapel] at Duke University, has been exploring this year <BR/>-------------------------------<BR/>Yeah, and like I care what the so-called Rev. Wells says? He acted no better than his twin, the Rev. Jessie Jackson, pointing false fingers at the LAX3 when they most needed support. <BR/><BR/>After the facts became clear, proving them ridiculous, they tap danced off, never admitting a rush to judgment, or saying they were sorry. <BR/><BR/>IMO, no hypocrisy is worse than that of the radically liberal pious. (Using the word ‘pious’ loosely.) I hope my total disgust for both these ‘Reverends’ is obvious!<BR/>------------------------<BR/>Until Proven Innocent, page 333,<BR/><BR/>(Sam Wells)<BR/>“The Chaplin had smeared the lacrosse players in a sermon almost ten months before……”<BR/>------------<BR/>D-I-W: Friday, August 11, 2006<BR/>Intellectual Thuggery<BR/><BR/>“Chaplain Sam Wells amplified on themes from his April 2 sermon, reproduced in full in the April 9 Herald-Sun, in which he denounced "the subculture of reckless 'entitlement', sexual acquisitiveness and aggressive arrogance” and spoke of exposing “the reality that sexual practices are an area where some male students are accustomed to manipulating, exploiting and terrorizing women all the time—and that this has been accepted by many as a given." <BR/><BR/>In an e-mail to me, the chaplain denied that these statements referred to members of the lacrosse team, and said that he was simply issuing a general critique of sexual misconduct. But it seems hard to believe that many people on campus or Herald-Sun readers would have appreciated such nuance.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-5914891512837231962007-12-09T17:33:00.000-05:002007-12-09T17:33:00.000-05:00Anonymous at 11:35 said"KC doesn't have the cajone...Anonymous at 11:35 said<BR/><BR/>"KC doesn't have the cajones to put up the National Review piece..."<BR/><BR/>ANONYMOUS said KC doesn't have the balls? KC was one of the first to have the cajones to challenge the PC steamroller... and he didn't hide behind "anonymous." <BR/><BR/>Can you 88ers make yourselves look any stupider?<BR/><BR/>-RDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-74537035548223115232007-12-09T16:48:00.000-05:002007-12-09T16:48:00.000-05:00Going back to KC's "Group of 88 Rehab Tour" postin...Going back to KC's "Group of 88 Rehab Tour" posting concerning Duke music Professor Zimmerman, this is a must read!<BR/><BR/>In comments on Zimmerman's blog, KC had three times asked for Zimmerman to respond by supporting his assertions and arguments and, finding no such response, perfunctorily dismissed Zimmerman. Our own MOO Gregory, posting as Tortmaster, did make comments however. Zimmerman may be perfectly capable of teaching two music classes per week at Duke, but in debating with Gregory he brings a 6 inch flaccid piece of string cheese to a sword fight.<BR/><BR/>After an excellent comment by michael in nh, there follow 8 comments by Gregory. IMHO, these are a must-read, folks!<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://reharmonized.an-earful.com/extra-comments/#comment-341" REL="nofollow">MOO Gregory, aka Tortmaster, responds to Zimmerman</A><BR/><BR/>Arranging 12 flintlock rifles to fire as one by connecting the trigger mechanisms with a broom handle, American Patriot Gregory easily mowed down the musical Hessians at Trenton, effecting their surrender. <I>"This is like child's play,"</I> quoth Gregory.<BR/><BR/><I>Gatling, Gregory, and Early Machine Guns in War</I> Harper and Row (1977)<BR/><BR/>One SpookOne Spookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592774438681904368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-59274755299893764452007-12-09T14:17:00.000-05:002007-12-09T14:17:00.000-05:00Maybe Nifong, Tara and the G88 were channeling fro...Maybe Nifong, Tara and the G88 were channeling from Ian McEwan's acclaimed novel - Atonement- written in 2001.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"As early as the week that followed, the glazed surface of conviction was not without its blemishes and hairline cracks. Whenever she was conscious of them, which was not often, she was driven back to the understanding that what she knew was not literally, or not only, based on the visible. It was not simply her eyes that told her the truth. It was too dark for that... The truth was in the symmetry, which was to say, it was founded in common sense... What she meant was rather more complex than what everyone else so eagerly understood, and her moments of unease came when she felt that she could not express these nuances... Within a couple of days,no, within a matter of hours, a process was moving fast and well beyond her control. her words summoned awful powers......" <BR/><BR/><BR/>Looking forward to the movies - this one and HBO UPI.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-31505114817088770862007-12-09T13:47:00.000-05:002007-12-09T13:47:00.000-05:00"to 11:09KC doesn't have the cajones to put up the..."to 11:09<BR/>KC doesn't have the cajones to put up the National Review piece on his book."<BR/><BR/>If there was such a piece -- an unfavorable review of <I>UPI</I> in the <I>National Review</I> I would have thought it could be found by searching the <I>NRO</I> website for the terms "Until Proven Innocent"+Taylor+Johnson . No <I>negative</I> review can be found that way. Did one exist?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-83183862096876027352007-12-09T13:42:00.000-05:002007-12-09T13:42:00.000-05:00Sure, we all thought they did it. It was a closed ...<I>Sure, we all thought they did it. It was a closed case: The three Duke University lacrosse players accused of raping an African-American stripper, we all agreed, were guilty as charged. We could see it in the privileged jocks’ faces. Wrong. Not only were they innocent, they triumphed over an unethical D.A. who suppressed evidence and, ironically, became the only person to be jailed over the whole affair. The way the accused players conducted themselves during last year’s prosecutorial witch hunt defied everything we instinctively believed to be true about them. They proved us wrong—making us reexamine our knee-jerk reactions to stereotypes—and they proved our justice system right.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, <B><I>my</B></I> stereotypes served me just fine, as usual. That's why I sometimes envy liberals: Each day brings a new surprise for them.<BR/><BR/>RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-11304599605947163552007-12-09T13:23:00.000-05:002007-12-09T13:23:00.000-05:00Ashley's Sunday diary entry:How would you spend $1...Ashley's Sunday diary entry:<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>How would you spend $100 million?<BR/><BR/> Dec 9, 2007<BR/><BR/>What would you do with $100 million?<BR/><BR/>It's an intriguing question, one that Samuel Wells, dean of the chapel at Duke University, has been exploring this year in a series of "deans' dialogues." The latest was late Wednesday afternoon with L. Gregory Jones, dean of Duke's Divinity School.<BR/><BR/>The series, as the chapel's web site outlines it, is designed for deans to explore "topics surrounding how to promote the common good."<BR/><BR/>Surely, there are many ways to use $100 million for the common good, and Jones touched on some Wednesday.<BR/><BR/>Listening to their discussion, and later, I wondered about the question, and how we answer it in contemporary society.<BR/><BR/>As Jones noted, these days $100 million really isn't a lot of money. It is in terms of our household budgets (for most of us, if not necessarily for a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett). But it is a rounding error in many institutional budgets.<BR/><BR/>With $100 million, you could, for example, pay the salaries for a year of about 100 Division-1 college football coaches, based on a USA Today compensation survey published, coincidentally, on the day of the deans' talk.<BR/><BR/>That survey found that this year the average compensation for the 120 top-division coaches was $1 million, the first time the average hit seven figures.<BR/><BR/>You could also pay the salaries of the five highest-paid coaches for maybe six years, since each makes $3 million or more.<BR/><BR/>With that amount of money, you could pay for the United States operations in Iraq, combat and reconstruction, for about eight hours. That's based on an estimate of the daily cost by Washington economist Scott Wallsten, cited in a January New York Times story.<BR/><BR/>(So far, that war has cost us just shy of $500 billion, which is, any way you look at it, a lot of $100-million-dollar chips.)<BR/><BR/>Duke University Hospital last month announced plans for a major expansion. Based on current estimates, the amount the deans were musing about would pay for about one-sixth of the project's cost.<BR/><BR/>And, it would have paid for the Divinity School's latest addition, the Westbrook building in which the conversation was held, with $78 million left over.<BR/><BR/>Jones took note of the fact that some might question the cost of the addition. He recalled the admonition of an alumnus as the building's plans were taking shape, urging school leaders not to cut corners and to erect a building that would have an impact on those who saw it.<BR/><BR/>It was an investment, he said, in the school's mission to nurture the leaders of congregations and to cultivate a culture of impacting the world in meaningful ways.<BR/><BR/>Which brought him to his answer on how he would use $100 million.<BR/><BR/>He would use it to foster leadership in service of that cause.<BR/><BR/>"It is really crucial that we cultivate ways for people around the world to develop capacity for leadership in service of the gospels," he said.<BR/><BR/>"The needs are huge," he said, "whether for local soup kitchens, AIDS, malaria ...." and the list could go on.<BR/><BR/>At the end of the day, one's definition of the "common good" is highly subjective.<BR/><BR/>Many would argue that major-college athletic programs serve the common good in many ways. Sport is an important part of life, college athletes develop valuable skills, and encouraging enthusiastic support for and identification with an alma mater or otherwise favorite school is worthwhile.<BR/><BR/>The market is setting the rates for college coaches, and perhaps we should no more question that the market values highly skilled football coaches at $3 million or more a year than we should question the rates of film stars or hedge fund managers.<BR/><BR/>And the debate over whether the war in Iraq fosters a common good is a central debate in U. S. politics today. While I happen to believe it does not, I acknowledge many others believe it does.<BR/><BR/>The question Wells is posing to his fellow deans is a profound one.<BR/><BR/>Give it some thought. What would you do with $100 million?<BR/><BR/>Bob Ashley is editor of The Herald-Sun.</I>Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-75973380208289609332007-12-09T13:15:00.000-05:002007-12-09T13:15:00.000-05:00H-S editorial:Measuring Duke's impact on DurhamDec...H-S editorial:<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Measuring Duke's impact on Durham<BR/><BR/>Dec 9, 2007<BR/><BR/>Those who know Durham know that Duke University and Medical Center have a huge impact on the community. Indeed, it's hard to imagine Durham without Duke. <BR/><BR/>But while we know Duke's impact is major, most of us would be hard-pressed to attach a dollar figure to it. A recent analysis of Duke's impact on Durham helpfully does so. <BR/><BR/>It's $3.4 billion. A year. <BR/><BR/>While you absorb that, consider that the figure was arrived at through accepted economic techniques. In fact, it's on the conservative side. The report takes the dollars spent -- including payroll, purchases, donations, student and visitor spending, etc. -- and doubles them. That's known as a 1:1 multiplier, which assumes that every dollar Duke spends is spent one additional time. Many similar impact studies use higher multipliers, under the reasonable assumption that dollars are usually turned over several times. <BR/><BR/>Duke is the largest employer in Durham, with nearly 40,000 workers. Of those, about half -- 19,755 -- are Durham residents. Those payroll dollars are spent throughout the community. And through spending on research -- $589.4 million in 2006-2007 -- it's estimated Duke funds 21,200 more jobs. <BR/><BR/>Duke also purchased nearly $280 million worth of goods and services in Durham County in 2006-2007. That supported hundreds of Durham businesses -- 698 to be exact, each earning at least $10,000. <BR/><BR/>When it comes to downtown Durham's recent revitalization, it's hard to overstate Duke's contribution. Duke leases 210,000 square feet of office space at the American Tobacco Campus, about a quarter of the entire project. Duke's participation in the project was a key factor that allowed it to proceed. Duke also has a major presence in the West Village development now under construction, and at Brightleaf Square. <BR/><BR/>Duke also spent about $227 million for construction in 2006-2007, money that creates jobs and reverberates through the local economy. And with Central Campus and other projects on the drawing board, Duke will likely spend even more on construction in the future. <BR/><BR/>All of that economic activity creates positive ripples in the private sector, as can be seen downtown, for example, and with new development springing up on Erwin Road. <BR/><BR/>But it would be a mistake to think of Duke's contribution as only financial. Durham residents can take classes at Duke and benefit from the cultural offerings there. Durham life is richer because of the Nasher museum, the American Dance Festival and the current events celebrating Thelonious Monk's musical legacy. <BR/><BR/>Likewise, the Duke-Durham Neighborhood Partnership provides benefits far beyond money. The program creates partnerships with 12 Durham neighborhoods, seven public schools and a charter school. The program has made life demonstrably better for residents and students since it started in 1996. <BR/><BR/>In the past, Duke had a reputation for being in Durham, but not a part of it. If that was once true, it certainly isn't today. Today, Duke is a full partner in Durham's success -- and one of the major reasons behind it.</I>Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-6196932652606593862007-12-09T13:10:00.000-05:002007-12-09T13:10:00.000-05:00"I, for one, never thought they did it. Never....I..."I, for one, never thought they did it. Never.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>I am offended by all those ... who early on had no wish to know anything other than that which was politically correct. Too many believed the worst about these young men [because t]hey were white, they were smart, they were athletic, they were personable, ..."<BR/><BR/>To be fair, it wouldn't have been necessary to believe anything bad about white people, about smart people, about athletic people, about personable people, to believe at the beginning that they must have done it. All it would really require would be an unjustified trust that (as Williamson put it) "if this prosecutor said it was true, then it must be true."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39940931361768640942007-12-09T12:55:00.000-05:002007-12-09T12:55:00.000-05:00JLS say....,Hey everyone, I just caught up on the ...JLS say....,<BR/><BR/>Hey everyone, I just caught up on the Law Review article by the Duke Law Prof. I was looking over on the FreeRepublic site and found this article:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/688648,CST-NWS-tyna09.article" REL="nofollow">Maybe $30 million is a bargain</A> <BR/><BR/>which certainly suggests the going rate for false rape accusations is over $10 million per. That does not include any extra penalty for doing it under the color of law. Durham should be careful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-81972939062525361602007-12-09T12:00:00.000-05:002007-12-09T12:00:00.000-05:00to 11:90 & &7:39 (same poster?)If you have a point...to 11:90 & &7:39 (same poster?)<BR/><BR/>If you have a point to make, please make it with an argument supported by evidence. It would help if you would differentiate yourself from the mass of "anonymous" so we can have a dialogue.<BR/><BR/>Taunting ad hominem comments are too dreary. More like something out of fifth grade recess.<BR/><BR/>Jim PetersonJim in San Diegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07032079086884503680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-11872073793984386432007-12-09T11:31:00.000-05:002007-12-09T11:31:00.000-05:00He can't handle the truth.A response one would exp...<I><BR/>He can't handle the truth.</I><BR/><BR/>A response one would expect from a typical 88'r. Pick the sole dissenting voice in the darkness and proclaim it the "truth".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-36619092067556727902007-12-09T08:22:00.000-05:002007-12-09T08:22:00.000-05:00I don’t know how much weight this group has, but a...I don’t know how much weight this group has, but at least they are taking action. Also, check in with FIRE, they scored another win.<BR/>---------------------<BR/>How Many Delawares? <BR/><BR/>The National Association of Scholars Announces an Inquiry into Residence Hall and Student Life Policies That Violate Intellectual Freedom and Promote a Partisan Political Agenda.<BR/><BR/>We intend to provide some of our results as short postings on this site -- and longer postings as the findings warrant. We also aim, however, to produce a systematic study of the role that ideological indoctrination plays in residence-hall and student-life programs.<BR/><BR/>http://www.nas.org/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-80556568806631660892007-12-09T08:00:00.000-05:002007-12-09T08:00:00.000-05:0011:36You can't handle punctuation.11:36<BR/><BR/>You can't handle punctuation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-64209916204042330172007-12-09T07:26:00.000-05:002007-12-09T07:26:00.000-05:00I'm sorry: 11:36 is probably not Piot; my hunch is...I'm sorry: <BR/>11:36 is probably not Piot; <BR/>my hunch is that it's a post by ThingyWingyIntellectual.<BR/><BR/>"Slam him up against the wall" sounds like him, in his pretend-macho persona. (And this is one that he wouldn't actually want to sign his name to, eh?)machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-11451136414723233882007-12-09T07:20:00.000-05:002007-12-09T07:20:00.000-05:0011:36Have you read UPI?Even part of it?(Need a rea...11:36<BR/>Have you read UPI?<BR/>Even part of it?<BR/>(Need a reader-guide to help you get through it, or a special reecorded version?)<BR/><BR/>Are you a big fan of National Review? (Charles, I'm asking you a question.)machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-71932841751015207472007-12-09T05:45:00.000-05:002007-12-09T05:45:00.000-05:00Anonymous said... to 11:09KC doesn't have the cajo...<I>Anonymous said... <BR/>to 11:09<BR/>KC doesn't have the cajones to put up the National Review piece on his book. That's probably why he's claiming the "hiatus" he knows it will slam him up against the wall.<BR/>He can't handle the truth.<BR/><BR/>12/8/07 11:36 PM</I><BR/><BR/>Two words for you 88er:<BR/><BR/>Sour Grapes. :))Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-19693558498595930612007-12-09T03:00:00.000-05:002007-12-09T03:00:00.000-05:00To the 11.36:I have no idea what you're talking ab...To the 11.36:<BR/><BR/>I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no "National Review piece on [the] book." If there were, I would have gladly posted it.<BR/><BR/>It's possible, of course, that NR will review the book in the future (although why they would do so since it came out in Sept. is unclear). If they do so, I'll post the review at the book's website, as I've done with every review from a mainstream publication.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-61678698848068844942007-12-09T00:27:00.000-05:002007-12-09T00:27:00.000-05:00So Gottlieb got his butt kicked off his desk and o...So Gottlieb got his butt kicked off his desk and onto the street? What did he do wrong? Forget to put ice in Crusty's Mountain Dew?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86438001221619445592007-12-08T23:36:00.000-05:002007-12-08T23:36:00.000-05:00to 11:09KC doesn't have the cajones to put up the ...to 11:09<BR/>KC doesn't have the cajones to put up the National Review piece on his book. That's probably why he's claiming the "hiatus" he knows it will slam him up against the wall.<BR/>He can't handle the truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-5181349239215236062007-12-08T23:25:00.000-05:002007-12-08T23:25:00.000-05:00In the captioned quotation, there is a statement w...In the captioned quotation, there is a statement with which I do not agree and, in fact, with which I find great issue, for it memorializes the notion that all found problematic the behavior of the Duke lacrosse team. I do not agree with the statement:<BR/><BR/><B><I>"Sure, we all thought they did it."</I></B><BR/><BR/>I, for one, never thought they did it. Never.<BR/><BR/>And I so stated early on. <BR/><BR/>I am offended by all those who, with the benefit of hindsight, rush to join those who now know the truth, but who early on had no wish to know anything other than that which was politically correct. Too many believed the worst about these young men. They were white, they were smart, they were athletic, they were personable, ... they were, hence, perfect targets of the media and, worse than that, targets of the academy as it believes it can define what is "right." <BR/><BR/>They were expendable in the "diversity" onslaught. Those with a diversity agenda, formed of politically correct notions, would not accept the concept that a black female could falsely accuse white men of rape. Those with a feminist agenda could not accept the idea that any woman would falsely claim rape. The legal establishment and Duke's administration could not accept the concept that a District Attorney could lie and conceal the truth. Each of these constituencies made judgements based on pre-conceived and formed belief.<BR/><BR/>That is a tragedy of the Duke Lacrosse Burning. Preconceived, yet false, notions forming the basis for judgement. And this tragedy is likely one to be repeated, for even now we know that truth is not the issue...for the agendas of radical (and even not so radical) groups continue to interpret and form the truth.<BR/><BR/>Truth has become a malleable convenience and not a fixed standard by which one can judge reality. Politics and agenda has triumphed over truth. That is a lesson of the Duke Lacrosse Burning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-18240104588799471992007-12-08T20:38:00.000-05:002007-12-08T20:38:00.000-05:00addendum to 4:56 PM"...and to spend more time with...addendum to 4:56 PM<BR/><BR/>"...and to spend more time with the family."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-84169388124670039272007-12-08T20:21:00.000-05:002007-12-08T20:21:00.000-05:00Gottlieb's "notes" and notes from Nurse Levity - (...Gottlieb's "notes" and notes from Nurse Levity - (as well as her ever-changing testimony) - seem to have something of a parallel track. <BR/><BR/>Debrah's post of the UTube video of Nurse T's testimony shows how the SANE's written notes didn't stay in line with her later testimony.<BR/><BR/>I'd suggest that Gottlieb is being moved on those issues, especially pertaining to Levity. <BR/><BR/>Not that those were the only issues. But those inconsistencies were shown in under-oath testimony, particularly the fact that Levity's first report said "no condoms were used" to a later recantation. If anything, this proved that Gottlieb was less-than-spectacular as an Investigator. <BR/><BR/>It may only be something of that magnitude, unfortunately, and not a part of any settlement, and may not represent any further action against him. <BR/><BR/>Why did Poster-child Addison get promoted? That's something I really don't understand.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.com