tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post5021327694034909890..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Flexibly Forthcomingkcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-73650904453093961792007-10-14T17:18:00.000-04:002007-10-14T17:18:00.000-04:00SH, re: 8:02's question"Did he know it existed at ...SH, re: 8:02's question<BR/><BR/>"Did he know it existed at one time,"<BR/>As a signatory he can be presumed to be a recipient of the cover letter, so the answer is a definite "yes."<BR/><BR/>" but forgot what it said by the time he wrote and/or published? In that case, it is only bad scholarship."<BR/>(1) The only way to conclude Piot is not dishonest is to conclude he is sufficiently far gone into dementia as to no longer be qualified for academic work.<BR/>(2) As "Tortmeister" showed in one of the Duke Chronicle comment threads, even without the Lubiano cover letter, the claim that the "Listening Statement" wasn't about the LAX case is an insultingly obvious lie - one that if they were aat all serious about their jobs the editors of "Transforming Anthropology" should have caught. <BR/><BR/>Conclusions:<BR/>[A] Piot's scholarship is completely undependable.<BR/>[B] Articles published in "Transforming Anthropology" should be given the weight of an unreviewed manuscript rather than the weight of a peer-reviewed publication.<BR/>[C] Any person or institution that uses publications in "Transforming Anthropology" as indicating academic credentials is engaged in academic malpractice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76681790413520754032007-10-14T16:40:00.000-04:002007-10-14T16:40:00.000-04:00There once was a professor with no curls in the mi...There once was a professor with no curls in the middle of his forehead.<BR/><BR/>When he was good, he was very very good, but when he was bad, he was Horwitz. :)Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-23565078195628690142007-10-14T16:10:00.000-04:002007-10-14T16:10:00.000-04:00Steven Horwitz,On Halloween, do you become Steven ...Steven Horwitz,<BR/><BR/>On Halloween, do you become Steven Horrorwitz? <BR/><BR/><BR/>(Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-91923472760443400402007-10-14T15:01:00.000-04:002007-10-14T15:01:00.000-04:00Thank you 132. :)And no one needs to lay off me - ...Thank you 132. :)<BR/><BR/>And no one needs to lay off me - I'm a big boy and perfectly capable of defending myself. I have not been "badgered," only challenged, which is how this whole blog comments thing works.<BR/><BR/>And I will NOT admit error about my use of the word "out". I wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Normally "outing" involves making PRIVATE information public, hence bringing it "out."</I><BR/><BR/>My quick look at the <A HREF="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=out" REL="nofollow">Urbandictionary.com</A> indicates that a common slang usage of "out" in this context is:<BR/><BR/><I>To reveal confidential, true, personal information about someone against their will and without their permission.</I><BR/><BR/>Hence, I stand by my usage. And I also stand by my claim that KC has not "outed" the Duke faculty when he has used their publicly available information as fodder for discussion. He might have been unfair in his interpretations of their work, or wrong in his judgment about them, but that is not "outing." They were already "out," and more power to those of them who made their work available to be read by the general public.Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-14643269346410234542007-10-14T13:32:00.000-04:002007-10-14T13:32:00.000-04:00To Anon at 9:15:Who is Steve HorOwitz? The always...To Anon at 9:15:<BR/><BR/>Who is Steve HorOwitz? The always insightful Steve Horwitz comments here; but I'm unaware of any commentary from a "Steve Horowitz".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-55455781739752870672007-10-14T13:26:00.001-04:002007-10-14T13:26:00.001-04:00Mac, As good as any of the 88 is capable of making...Mac, As good as any of the 88 is capable of making?<BR/><BR/>GNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-38464222573730233562007-10-14T12:52:00.000-04:002007-10-14T12:52:00.000-04:0012:26Very good argument.As good as any the 88 are ...12:26<BR/>Very good argument.<BR/>As good as any the 88 are capable of making. Do you need a hug now that you've crossed the finish line?machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-56274076432256843302007-10-14T12:26:00.001-04:002007-10-14T12:26:00.001-04:00To the spelling Nazi at 11:36, I'd assume the word...To the spelling Nazi at 11:36, I'd assume the word is "intentionally."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-71583229386544425392007-10-14T12:26:00.000-04:002007-10-14T12:26:00.000-04:0011:17 OOOOOOOOOhhhhh! I'm so scared. Leave Horow...11:17 OOOOOOOOOhhhhh! I'm so scared. Leave Horowitz alone. Leave Johnson alone. Right. Don't dispute what the boys say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-45178455075736155362007-10-14T12:24:00.000-04:002007-10-14T12:24:00.000-04:00rr hamilton,I think you'd better reread the posts....rr hamilton,<BR/><BR/>I think you'd better reread the posts. Nowhere was SHorowitz badgered. Someone disagreed with him after he had dumped on them. Badgering? I'd've said legitimate self defense.<BR/><BR/>But, since you agree with Mr. Horowitz, it's "badgering." You really are a piece of work. <BR/><BR/>And, get it through your head--is it so difficult to understand--that disagreeing with Horowitz or Johnson is not the same as agreeing with the people who signed the listening statement. I don't think you're stupid, so I assume you deliberately misunderstand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-27320642906206373702007-10-14T12:18:00.000-04:002007-10-14T12:18:00.000-04:00Kerry Haynie and Wahneema Lubiano seem unable to r...Kerry Haynie and Wahneema Lubiano seem unable to rise even to the level of Ward Churchill. At least he published, even if it was fraudulent. Haynie and Lubiano aren't even capable of fraudulent scholarship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-21593569414199858992007-10-14T12:07:00.000-04:002007-10-14T12:07:00.000-04:00btw, I think mac's analogy of the Listening Ad as ...btw, I think mac's analogy of the Listening Ad as a faculty party has promise. :)<BR/><BR/>RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-34348395974615598302007-10-14T11:44:00.000-04:002007-10-14T11:44:00.000-04:00Yes, Steven, the defenders of the 88 badger you ov...Yes, Steven, the defenders of the 88 badger you over momentous questions such as the meaning of "to out" or the etymology of "essentializing". The critics of the 88 hound you over such trite and niggling matters as the punishment for the 88 or how to rescue the American academy. So, yes, you're right there in the middle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-37865021831301954252007-10-14T11:36:00.000-04:002007-10-14T11:36:00.000-04:00Anonymous said... To out means, among other ...Anonymous said...<BR/><BR/> To out means, among other things, "to expose intentially."<BR/>-------------------------------------<BR/>And what the hell is that supposed to mean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88753368187611301542007-10-14T11:17:00.000-04:002007-10-14T11:17:00.000-04:009:15If "outing" is using a person's own words, CVs...9:15<BR/><BR/>If "outing" is using a person's own words, CVs and the like, then yes, KC "outed" some professors, and some ugly things appeared. Shining a light down a sewer, what would one expect to see?<BR/><BR/>Note this, however: their retaliatory attempts to "out" KC were almost always lies and distortions, innuendo and rumor, easily dismissed and disproven. I guess this is the mark of the "new academia."<BR/><BR/>You need to pick another target other than professor Horwitz: I have noticed that when the shit doesn't stick to KC, posters such as yourself start throwing it at other posters.<BR/><BR/>Leave Horwitz alone.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-22517544081505886492007-10-14T09:15:00.000-04:002007-10-14T09:15:00.000-04:009;05, Steve Horowitz, I'm still waiting for you to...9;05, Steve Horowitz, I'm still waiting for you to say you were wrong about the meaning of "to out," ie, that it wasn't as limited as you claimed. And then hectored...<BR/><BR/>BTW, when I criticize you, it's neither as a defender of the 88 signees nor as their critics. It's simply that I don't think your comments are always well thought through. Like the rabid dog attack over "to out."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-4408023633755781432007-10-14T09:05:00.000-04:002007-10-14T09:05:00.000-04:00Anon at 533 says:Great that you've got such high s...Anon at 533 says:<BR/><BR/><I>Great that you've got such high standards you won't expose your friend's tenure w/o book status. D'you really think it's so great when KC does it here?</I><BR/><BR/>I have no problem at all with KC or anyone else commenting on publicly available CVs or published works of faculty at Duke or anywhere else. Being a scholar should mean being willing to expose your work to public discussion.<BR/><BR/>Have I agreed with all of KC's interpretations of that work or all of his reasons for talking about specific faculty members? No, and I've said so. If you doubt that, just look at the comments below yours where several regulars take me to task for having the temerity to suggest that members of the G88 aren't as awful as one might think.<BR/><BR/>For Ralph and Debrah - 802 asks the right questions. If the answers go one way, Piot's a liar. If they go another, he's just a bad scholar.<BR/><BR/>I guess I should take comfort in the fact that I'm being criticized by the 88's defenders and their worst critics. That either means I'm insane or I'm more reasonable than either. Your call. :)Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-58329510826443441252007-10-14T08:59:00.000-04:002007-10-14T08:59:00.000-04:00Debrah,"After all, the Lacrosse Hoax is not a facu...Debrah,<BR/><BR/>"After all, the Lacrosse Hoax is not a faculty party."<BR/><BR/>Sure it is. Invitations went out to those who signed the ad (and to some who didn't.)<BR/><BR/>Nifong started it, of course, with a communal celebration of Springtime - a lynching - and invited the whole nation to attend. MSM, the NBPP, NAACP, the Dee Pee Dee, President Brodhead, a couple of judges and nearly the entire City of Duhh attended.<BR/><BR/>Lubiano had her own party. They all drank bitter wine and listened to depressing music.<BR/><BR/>Naturally, Crystal Gayle Mangum wasn't invited to any of the parties: she was just the mock-up.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-57290564834812381692007-10-14T07:35:00.000-04:002007-10-14T07:35:00.000-04:00To Ralph Phelan--Thanks for stating the obvious.So...To Ralph Phelan--<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stating the obvious.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes one needs to break free from this tiresome <I>collegiality</I> and just state the truth.<BR/><BR/>After all, the Lacrosse Hoax is not a faculty party.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-57878486264839735992007-10-14T00:52:00.000-04:002007-10-14T00:52:00.000-04:00Steve Horwitz said:"Plagiarism and lying about one...Steve Horwitz said:<BR/><BR/>"Plagiarism and lying about one's background are in another league than not reading the evidence well. Bad scholarship is not fraud."<BR/><BR/>Piot recieved an email starting "African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle about the lacrosse team incident." He agreed to sign that ad.<BR/><BR/>Piot wrote "the ad in question was neither about the lacrosse players nor about the party they hosted in spring 2006."<BR/><BR/>That is a bald-faced lie, and an insuoltingly stupid one. That is fraud. In a sane academy that should destroy his reputation for ever.<BR/><BR/>But it won't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-15617307463015705022007-10-14T00:45:00.000-04:002007-10-14T00:45:00.000-04:00JLS says...," I bet the humanities departments hav...JLS says...,<BR/>" I bet the humanities departments have the same rules. "<BR/><BR/>We have seen that at Duke there are certain groups of people to whom the usual rules do not apply. The Ward Churchill affair showed us the same was true at the University of Colorado. Do you know from evidence that the same is not true of your institution?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-3099872809424362962007-10-13T20:02:00.000-04:002007-10-13T20:02:00.000-04:00Fraudulent scholarship is a subset of the universe...Fraudulent scholarship is a subset of the universe of bad scholarship. OTOH, bad scholarship can be fraudulent or just bad. We cannot, at this point, objectively determine the intentions of Professor Piot. Did he know of the existence of the Lubiano e-mail at the time he wrote and/or published his article? If so, then he intended to write and/or publish fraudulent scholarship. Did he know it existed at one time, but forgot what it said by the time he wrote and/or published? In that case, it is only bad scholarship. Likewise, if he did not know of the existence of the Lubiano e-mail at the time he published and/or wrote his article, then it is just bad scholarship. He should have at least talked to the advertisement's author /Professor Lubiano/ before writing. In either circumstance, I would suggest that Professor Piot should resolve this issue with a correction of his scholarship. I would expect nothing less from others, or indeed myself. If I knew my publication contained false information, I would be duty bound to correct it, otherwise I am perpetuating an academic fraud. Akademos and Athena would not be pleased.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-45480999299201223522007-10-13T19:05:00.000-04:002007-10-13T19:05:00.000-04:00steven Horwitz said to the 2:04... It might hel...<I>steven Horwitz said to the 2:04...<BR/><BR/> It might help if you stopped "essentializing" DIW, as if everyone who participates here thinks the same way. Contrary to what the critics say, there's diversity of opinion among the regulars (as there is among the G88, I would quickly remind said regulars).<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>There is diversity of opinion among the Duke 88ists, but as the outcry grows for an outside investigation, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the 88ists would support Prof. Horwitz to lead it. He's an understanding guy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-48076826726440440102007-10-13T18:07:00.000-04:002007-10-13T18:07:00.000-04:00You referred to "DiW" not "KC," so it seemed logic...You referred to "DiW" not "KC," so it seemed logical that you meant the entire blog, not just its owner. Are you normally that vague with your references?Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-84878718532027394452007-10-13T17:46:00.000-04:002007-10-13T17:46:00.000-04:0010/13 5:25 PM: Hey, SH, I wasn't essentializing Di...10/13 5:25 PM: <I>Hey, SH, I wasn't essentializing DiW (btw, great Women's Studies word; I see you're really with it...)</I><BR/><BR/>Word's been around since <A HREF="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/essentialize" REL="nofollow">1893</A>, but always good to stay hip 'n happenin' with the sisters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com