tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post4753336215087378377..comments2024-03-09T03:20:20.004-05:00Comments on Tenured Radical: We're Having More Fun Than A Barrel of Crackers; or, What We Do When We BlogTenured Radicalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-55777887845416672522010-12-04T00:04:14.568-05:002010-12-04T00:04:14.568-05:00The apparatus in catechism is alleged Google Insig...The apparatus in catechism is alleged Google Insights for seek (its still in development) but has advance us to analyze some absolutely absorbing statistics about <a href="http://www.pandoras.uk.com/" rel="nofollow"><strong>Pandora jewellery</strong></a> and the was humans seek for it online.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-6204396334353282752007-12-25T14:14:00.000-05:002007-12-25T14:14:00.000-05:00I don't understand how all these thousands of word...I don't understand how all these thousands of words change Professor Johnson's point one bit. Professor Potter said that the alleged victim was assaulted at the party, and she wasn't. End of story.<BR/><BR/>All this relativistic nonsense about "well some people think I'm credible and some people think KC is credible" does not change that simple fact.<BR/><BR/>Why is this so complicated? Professor Potter made a rush to judgment about a subject she hadn't investigated closely, a judgment that aligned with her personal preconceptions about the world. That was a bad judgment, especially because it claimed certainty about a highly publicized legal proceeding.<BR/><BR/>Conversations about Truth and Objectivity and poor defendants in the same position (a topic KC himself has touched on several times) do not change that fact either. Neither does saying that the incorrect judgment had no impact on how the case came out, or that the comment was made thoughtlessly. It was still a mistake and it shouldn't be that big of a deal to admit that.<BR/><BR/>It's amazing how long some people can drag this out trying to change the subject. Some things really are that simple.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-63781090462071658452007-12-24T21:16:00.000-05:002007-12-24T21:16:00.000-05:00re: whatever at 8:23 AM[Lubiano's post is a post n...re: whatever at 8:23 AM<BR/><BR/>[Lubiano's post is a post not an academic review. And generally only academic review essays (not reviews generally speaking) go out for review and then only sometimes. Did KC's posts go out for review before he posted them? Do other bloggers? Or people who respond to blogger posts? Her response is long, but it directs itself in pinpoint fashion to what the authors actually write about her.]<BR/><BR/>My understanding is that KC tries to contact people that he's quoting or writing about and he and Zimmerman emailed back and forth before writing about the other. They seem to now be communicating within blogs. KC usually provides the opportunity for rebuttal to those that he writes about.<BR/><BR/>[And what she says is in response to a non-academic attack on her, an attack that itself did not go out for academic review. Why would you hold her response to some pretty personal attacks on her to a standard to which you don't hold the book?]<BR/><BR/>KC has posted on this on his blog already. He was in contact with her for information but she requested that he not email her anymore.<BR/><BR/>[The book imagines some things about her and attributes other things about her without sources. Maybe you should read the whole post. She did the homework on herself that the book didn't do and posted her sources as well as pointing out straightforwardly where some things come down to the book's account versus her account.<BR/><BR/>The book didn't do that. It simply wrote what it thought about her, her work, and her public statements. Plus, the book abundantly assigns motives and thoughts to her.]<BR/><BR/>KC apparently is making some changes somewhere. Perhaps to his errata web page on the book. I think that it would have helped Lubiano if she had answered his queries.<BR/><BR/>[Lastly, just how credible is it for you, as you say in your post, to see several obvious problems with what she has posted, but you don't point to anything specific and what you criticize in her you don't critize in the book?]<BR/><BR/>One shouldn't need to point out where 1 + 1 = 3. And it's a useful rhetorical device.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-90185756178044498852007-12-24T21:06:00.000-05:002007-12-24T21:06:00.000-05:00re: 9:50 AM[I don't understand why you think I'm u...re: 9:50 AM<BR/><BR/>[I don't understand why you think I'm using Zimmerman to defend the listening ad and to attack Johnson. I'm not. It's my own opinion of the ad.]<BR/><BR/>I was responding to another poster. I put the time down as 6:37 not 1:35.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-47165122883519095712007-12-24T11:00:00.000-05:002007-12-24T11:00:00.000-05:00"About forgiveness and an understanding that sin i..."About forgiveness and an understanding that sin is universal. I mean, what's a deeper or more established motif in Christian culture than that?"<BR/><BR/>2:19 PM EST<BR/><BR/>Timothy,<BR/><BR/>I agree, appearantly those in the "humanities" would rather take a maoist approach. How ironic.<BR/><BR/>AveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-29394753255753336802007-12-24T04:22:00.000-05:002007-12-24T04:22:00.000-05:00Oppositionality has a way of nestling deep...In my...Oppositionality has a way of nestling deep...<BR/><BR/>In my experience, it's easy to get caught up in endless reactive debates that can be satisfying in a gritty sort of way, but in the end don't really produce anything worthwhile, or help anyone learn anything. Especially online. Online, there will ALWAYS be someone next door with unsound (from my perspective) rhetoric that is easy to tear apart, but just coherent enough that it feels great to smash.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that these debates are worthless, or even that masturbation is worthless. I am saying that there may be more productive uses of our time and energy. Feeding this opposition is the natural, reflexive thing to do - someone attacks, we respond. Sometimes if I let that impulse pass, though, it's easy to see that there are far more productive things I could do with the next two hours of my life.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the Duke case, for example, I can think of at least one more productive exploration:<BR/><BR/>It sounds like you may have been one of the many people who got caught up in falsely believing that three boys were guilty of a crime they did not commit (if you weren't, then you can at least understand and sympathize with some who were). Would an hour of sincere reflection on the process behind those mistakes, for example, be more valuable than an hour of argument that isn't changing anyone's mind? I think so. The former is a blog post that I would love to read and could learn a lot from.<BR/><BR/>By having the courage to examine the problematic processes in our own home (not because anyone else is demanding it, but because it's so worthwhile) and simply dropping the oppositionality, we can give others permission to do the same.<BR/><BR/>I think you're awesome, by the way. From a distance, at least. I'm excited to take a class with you when I get the chance.<BR/><BR/>-Noa ('10)<BR/><BR/>P.S. This was a general response to the recent debates here. As I scan your recent entries to decide where to post this comment, I see that it may be more a response to the debate that has unfolded in the comments than in your front-page posts. Because all of your main posts do, in fact, say something useful.noahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359846050678412603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-43406122867322475462007-12-24T03:15:00.000-05:002007-12-24T03:15:00.000-05:00TR, a commenter in this thread pointed out this li...TR, a commenter in this thread pointed out this link...<BR/><BR/>http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/11/airbrushing.html<BR/><BR/>I was surprised and disappointed to read it. Is it just a matter of being fed up with the poster's perspective?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-55781273609499095622007-12-24T02:28:00.000-05:002007-12-24T02:28:00.000-05:00TO 6:37, WHO WROTE: "Finally, the "Listening State...TO 6:37, WHO WROTE: <BR/><BR/>"Finally, the "Listening Statement" can easily be both a response to the LAX accusations and NOT an assumption of guilt. How is this so difficult to comprehend?"<BR/><BR/>It is difficult to comprehend your position because we have actually read the "Listening ad," and we understand English. <BR/><BR/>THE "LISTENING AD" READS:<BR/><BR/>1. “These students are shouting and whispering about WHAT HAPPENED to this young woman and to themselves.” (emphasis added). <BR/><BR/><BR/>That is a prejudgment. The words used were “WHAT HAPPENED to this young woman ....” The author could have used words such as “what was alleged to have happened.” Note that this is NOT a student quote; rather, it is Lubiano's handiwork. <BR/><BR/><BR/>2. “... I am only comfortable talking about THIS EVENT in my room with close friends. I am actually afraid to even bring it up in public. But worse, I wonder now about everything ... If SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS TO ME....” (emphasis added).<BR/><BR/> <BR/>What do you think “this event” means? The Duke hoax, of course. No other specific event is alluded to in the “Listening ad.” Also, consider what the quotation implies: The speaker has nothing to fear if there is just an investigation of students who are presumed innocent, but she does have something to fear “if something like this happens” to her. Something like what? A rape, of course, a prejudged, juried and executed rape.<BR/><BR/><BR/>3. “I can’t help but think about the different attention given to WHAT HAS HAPPENED from what it would have been if the guys had been not just black but participating in a different sport, like football, something that’s not SO UPSCALE.” (emphasis added). <BR/><BR/><BR/>“What has happened” refers to the Duke lacrosse hoax, and the author appears to be saying that he or she wants arrests now! The "different attention" is asking for the lock-up of the offenders. Finally, the use of the “so upscale” language prejudices the boys in a classist way. Of course, “what has HAPPENED” is a prejudgment that a rape occurred, and not just a prejudgment, but also a demand that arrests be affected immediately. <BR/><BR/><BR/>4. “And this is what I’m thinking right now - Duke isn’t really responding to THIS. Not really. And THIS, what HAS HAPPENED, IS A DISASTER. THIS IS A SOCIAL DISASTER.” (emphasis mine except last sentence). <BR/><BR/><BR/>Use of the word “this,” of course, refers to the Duke rape hoax. So do the words “what has happened.” Even a feeble-minded person would conclude that an investigation is not a disaster, but a rape would be. “This” rape “happened.” That is a prejudgment. Also, use of the word “happened” obviously refers to the alleged rape, not some nebulous racism on campus; otherwise, it would have been “is happening” or “is a daily occurrence.” This was a prejudgment about what “happened.” <BR/><BR/>It is interesting how people will make wild speculations about Professor Johnson, but ignore the plain meaning of the words written by Professor Lubiano. <BR/><BR/>Also, 6:37, would you concede that Professor Lubiano is smart enough to include two separate ideas in an approximate 600-word advertisement, if she so desired?<BR/> <BR/>Listed above are four direct prejudgments lifted as quotes from the “Listening ad.” The fact that there are 15-16 other references to the Duke rape allegations in the advertisement is further proof that these were prejudgments of rape, not some supposed on-campus racism. Why would Lubiano use the word "terror"? Do you really think that word related to anything but the gang rape? <BR/><BR/>Then, again, there are Lubiano’s own words about the “Listening ad” in her e-mail sending it to colleagues for approval. She said it was “about” the rape allegations. <BR/><BR/>These are my opinions. Tortmaster<BR/><BR/>P.S. I am desperate to find one tenured academic other than Professor Johnson who will read those words truthfully.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-40360167051426909902007-12-23T09:50:00.000-05:002007-12-23T09:50:00.000-05:00michael,I don't understand why you think I'm using...michael,<BR/><BR/>I don't understand why you think I'm using Zimmerman to defend the listening ad and to attack Johnson. I'm not. It's my own opinion of the ad.<BR/><BR/>6:37Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-6316425110146583922007-12-23T09:15:00.000-05:002007-12-23T09:15:00.000-05:00re: 6:37[Finally, the "Listening Statement" can ea...re: 6:37<BR/><BR/>[Finally, the "Listening Statement" can easily be both a response to the LAX accusations and NOT an assumption of guilt. How is this so difficult to comprehend?]<BR/><BR/>Those that use Zimmerman to defend the listening ad and to attack Johnson never bother to post his comments on the listening ad. At least that I'm aware. Neither am I aware of references to his post on "The Trouble With Potbanging".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-66406441738722503762007-12-23T08:23:00.000-05:002007-12-23T08:23:00.000-05:00Michael in nh,Lubiano's post is a post not an acad...Michael in nh,<BR/><BR/>Lubiano's post is a post not an academic review. And generally only academic review essays (not reviews generally speaking) go out for review and then only sometimes. Did KC's posts go out for review before he posted them? Do other bloggers? Or people who respond to blogger posts? Her response is long, but it directs itself in pinpoint fashion to what the authors actually write about her.<BR/><BR/>And what she says is in response to a non-academic attack on her, an attack that itself did not go out for academic review. Why would you hold her response to some pretty personal attacks on her to a standard to which you don't hold the book?<BR/><BR/>The book has no footnotes, no citations, and no named sources about her, her work, and her public (newspaper, blog, etc.) statements. She supplies her sources. <BR/><BR/>The book imagines some things about her and attributes other things about her without sources. Maybe you should read the whole post. She did the homework on herself that the book didn't do and posted her sources as well as pointing out straightforwardly where some things come down to the book's account versus her account. <BR/><BR/>The book didn't do that. It simply wrote what it thought about her, her work, and her public statements. Plus, the book abundantly assigns motives and thoughts to her.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, just how credible is it for you, as you say in your post, to see several obvious problems with what she has posted, but you don't point to anything specific and what you criticize in her you don't critize in the book?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-59834830037219605332007-12-23T06:37:00.000-05:002007-12-23T06:37:00.000-05:00I don't think that Tim Burke or Zimmerman have pos...I don't think that Tim Burke or Zimmerman have posted any personal attacks on KC Johnson that come close to the nastiness of KC Johnson's attacks on other academics, many of whom were untenured. Indeed, Burke has been a model of reasoned response, IMHO. He, like the TR, seem to be people who take the term, "colleague," seriously. Zimmerman has also been very moderate in his comments, although that didn't keep the sunshine band from roosting on his blog.<BR/><BR/>I am not convinced that KC Johnson is as competent a data collector as many think. KC Johnson was hoaxed last summer, apparently by someone who had posted regularly on DiH. Johnson never explained why he didn't authenticate an e-mail before posting an attack on the female academic who allegedly sent it. (At least one of Johnson's readers noticed--and commented--that the e-mail might be a fabrication by someone other than the academic named as its author.) When Johnson's actions were brought to the attention of the victim of his vitriol, she had to ask him to remove something she did not write. He never explained this little "slip up." <BR/><BR/>While I might not think it's the best idea in the world to dedicate a blog to KC Johnson (because I don't think he's worth the attention), I can well imagine that his on-going attacks on a variety of people might have led some people to respond in this manner.<BR/><BR/>Finally, the "Listening Statement" can easily be both a response to the LAX accusations and NOT an assumption of guilt. How is this so difficult to comprehend?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-47973643495436250182007-12-23T01:58:00.000-05:002007-12-23T01:58:00.000-05:00re: Gregory"Taken as a whole, in the end, DIW is a...re: Gregory<BR/><BR/>"Taken as a whole, in the end, DIW is about why some people get to go to places like Duke and other people don't -- it is about class rage, it is about the collapse of opportunity for middle-class people who actually had wonderful college educations in their grasp a generation ago, and have now been shut out of them. It's about how some of us made it in, and slammed the door behind us."<BR/><BR/>It could be:<BR/><BR/>1) Older people that didn't get degrees when they were younger. Polanski might fall into this category. Though I don't think that Potter read enough to know about Polanski.<BR/><BR/>2) A dig at KC as he isn't teaching at an Ivy or near Ivy.<BR/><BR/>3) An [I'm better than you comment] as she has something that we apparently don't have.<BR/><BR/>4) Something deliberate on the part of elite academics to exclude others from joining them.<BR/><BR/>It seems to be an attempt at elitism that went a little haywire. I think it best that the author explain as I think it far from clear.<BR/><BR/>A little anecdote:<BR/><BR/>During one of our trips to Singapore, my wife took us to various hawker stands. These are food vendors arranged in a way similar to food courts in malls in the US. Education is highly valued in Singapore as the path to a better life financially. She pointed out a few places where the owners of hawker stalls were far better off than those that went to college and got their professional degrees. At least financially.<BR/><BR/>In the book, The Millionaire Next Door (I read it in the 1990s), it talked about most millionaires as ordinary people with a lot of them owning very boring small businesses. Far from the glitz and glamor that the media portrays the rich. A comment on the housing bubble blog many months ago sums it up well: we have a ton of poor people trying to look like they're wealthy and a bunch of wealthy people trying to look like they're poor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-63242916460467904572007-12-23T01:35:00.000-05:002007-12-23T01:35:00.000-05:00I would like to know why so many posters, includin...I would like to know why so many posters, including pink 2, Sisyphus (love the name), Andrea, Tim Burke and Tim Lacey, gave TR a pass on her main thesis, which was:<BR/><BR/>"Taken as a whole, in the end, DIW is about why some people get to go to places like Duke and other people don't -- it is about class rage, it is about the collapse of opportunity for middle-class people who actually had wonderful college educations in their grasp a generation ago, and have now been shut out of them. It's about how some of us made it in, and slammed the door behind us."<BR/><BR/>Can anyone justify:<BR/><BR/>1. That D-i-W was about middle class people not getting into college; or<BR/><BR/>2. That middle class people cannot now get into colleges? <BR/><BR/>Anyone? <BR/><BR/>If K.C. Johnson EVER made an argument like that on D-i-W, I would have stopped reading his blog. Immediately. <BR/><BR/>A kind of velvet genderism allows certain protected individuals, and not others, to get away with gaffes, violations of law and logic and outright mean-spiritedness, apparently without fear of correction. <BR/>____________<BR/><BR/>Professor Horwitz: I am much too tired to argue with you tonight! It would not be a fair fight. :) So, you win this round! I would note that if K.C. had not allowed free-flowing comments to his posts, it would have been seen by certain individuals as fascism, Horowitzianism, and so on. Again, the velvet racism/genderism.<BR/>____________<BR/><BR/>Diva & Michael in NH: I think you give the blog author too much credit. Read the argument more carefully: D-i-W was about middle-class people not being able to get into college. It is so silly, I think you missed it! There can be no doubt this was Prof. Potter's final thesis, because she redundantly proclaimed it as such herself: "Taken as a whole, in the end, DIW is about ...." <BR/><BR/>These are my opinions. MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-78762086054304563062007-12-23T00:50:00.000-05:002007-12-23T00:50:00.000-05:00An absolute mess of a post. Short on facts, long o...An absolute mess of a post. Short on facts, long on unsupported accusations and condescension. Potter is a example of what Alasdair MacIntyre warned us of in <I>After Virtue</I>, i.e., a so called scholar who thrives on wishy-washy, airy-fairy emotivism, and (quite ironically, given her decision to attempt, unsuccessfully, a definition of argument in the post) is incapable of marshaling a defensible, logical, premise-to-proof, argument.<BR/><BR/>And, jeez, the smug moral preening...yuck! Such foolishness. I hope those who call this type of thinking merely a passing fashion, which will die out when the boomers retire, are proven correct someday. Otherwise the academy -- on the humanities side anyway -- is done for.<BR/><BR/>beckettbecket03https://www.blogger.com/profile/18173177473977303546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-79878434656096982732007-12-22T23:31:00.000-05:002007-12-22T23:31:00.000-05:00re: 9:53[As much as one should sympathize with the...re: 9:53<BR/><BR/>[As much as one should sympathize with the players subjected to false accusations, no one went to jail, and the three men have each now received handsome multimillion dollar settlements.]<BR/><BR/>This wasn't sourced. And I know of no websites with any kind of official documentation on the amount. I have seen speculation on the amount from various places but there is usually wiggle-room in the language indicating that there is no definitive source of the amount.<BR/><BR/>That said, how do you quantify "handsome" when you don't know the amount? Especially when your out-of-pocket costs exceeded a million.<BR/><BR/>"As much as one should sympathize with the players subjected to false accusations, no one went to jail,"<BR/><BR/>Only because they could post bail. And posting bail was no piece of cake. But someone did go to jail.<BR/><BR/>"It’s simply absurd to imagine that this ranks with the worst episodes of official misconduct in “modern American history,” as a recent player lawsuit has it."<BR/><BR/>And yet the legal community considers it so. The problem here is that you had a DA, police department, university (see latest lawsuit claims), state bar, attorney generals office, US Attorney Generals office, state elected officials and a standing president that knew that this was a bogus case. Some of the actors (university according to the latest lawsuit, police, DA) were actively involved in the frame while others (state bar, AG, Governor, etc.) stood by passively. It wasn't until December when it was clear that NC was a laughingstock that the State Bar and State Prosecutors took action. The attorney general only took action when Nifong requested it.<BR/><BR/>For some reason, this reminds me of The Visit (I took German Literature many, many years ago).<BR/><BR/>"Johnson has taken his crusade all the way to bank. His book Until Proven Innocent with Stuart Taylor, a reporter with the National Journal, reportedly received a large advance. Johnson and Taylor sold the movie rights to HBO."<BR/><BR/>I noticed that the large advance wasn't sourced. It's also a bit odd too considering that the first printing was only 13,000 copies. Why would a publisher hand out a large advance on a book with only 13K on the first printing?<BR/><BR/>I haven't read all of Lubiano's post but I see several obvious problems with what she has posted. I'm glad she makes corrections but she'd be more credible if she did more homework first and passed out her critique for Johnson to review. I'm guessing that that's common in the academic world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-36975983097569037402007-12-22T23:02:00.000-05:002007-12-22T23:02:00.000-05:00One more thing Gregory:I do not believe blog owner...One more thing Gregory:<BR/><BR/>I do not believe blog owners have ANY obligation to allow any comments, or to not moderate ones they allow. It's strictly the owner's right to determine what kind of blog he or she wants. It's not a violation of "free speech" to restrict comments at a blog any more than it is such a violation for me to say, for example, that you can't use racist language or call me nasty names in my home. It's my property, I decide.<BR/><BR/>I do not find blog owners some how blameworthy or necessarily revealing themselves to be afraid of criticism if they don't allow comments or edit ones they get. The blog is THEIR property and its THEIR right to decide. They are not restricting anyone's "free speech." Last I checked, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." not "Individuals shall make no rules...".<BR/><BR/>Frankly, given the tone of comments on quite a number of blogs I'm involved with, including two of my own, I can completely understand why blog owners would not want to open their comments section to all comers. No blogger has an obligation to post any or every comment he or she receives.Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-41550444283478740442007-12-22T22:51:00.000-05:002007-12-22T22:51:00.000-05:00Actually, Gregory, I think the idea of a blog dedi...Actually, Gregory, I think the idea of a blog dedicated to a *reasonable* critique of DiW would be a good thing. That THIS blog has named itself with reference to KC specifically, rather than the blog or the book, suggests the attack will be more personal, which the overview post certainly is. THAT is not a good thing. So yeah, it's not "collegial" at all. Not sure I'd call it prosecutorial either. It's not that good, at least the overview post. (Of course, it's also not clear it's written by a faculty member at Duke or anywhere else, so I'm not willing to pass judgment on what it says about the "collegiality" of faculty specifically.)<BR/><BR/>However...<BR/><BR/>I did leave a comment (still "in moderation") that asked the blog owner to correct an important factual error in the overview (Stuart Taylor was listed as writing for "the right-wing National Review" rather than National Journal.) That correction has since been made. I appreciate the blog owner doing so and I think it's worth noting publicly that the change was made.<BR/><BR/>And Professor Lubiano's lengthy reply to the book is written civilly and respectfully, it offers factual information to support her perspective and addresses the questions of her sources and KC's. Yes, she is critical of KC and Stuart, but she is not nasty in personal ways. All in all, a good example of a reasoned response to the book's claims about her. I wish that she had done this earlier in the process (based on items at DiW rather than the book) as it might have made subsequent discussion more fact-based than speculative. And that includes the book. It might have also made subsequent discussion about Professor Lubiano less personal and nasty at DiW. <BR/><BR/>Then again, maybe not.Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-53397428899376488902007-12-22T22:22:00.000-05:002007-12-22T22:22:00.000-05:00Gregory at 10:13 PM has hit on the very heart of t...Gregory at 10:13 PM has hit on the very heart of the matter.<BR/><BR/>If they couldn't mine the world of KC, these people would be like lions looking for a Christian.<BR/><BR/>LIS!!!<BR/><BR/>Don't expect Horwitz to be of any help.<BR/><BR/>After participating on KC's blog for a very long time, he's found academic <I>religion</I> again.<BR/>'<BR/>Yikes! All of a sudden KC is the "prosecutor".<BR/><BR/>Oh, the humanity.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-32025749169257553022007-12-22T22:13:00.000-05:002007-12-22T22:13:00.000-05:00I wonder what Professors Burke and Horwitz think a...I wonder what Professors Burke and Horwitz think about a website set up with the sole purpose of ridiculing a single academic? <BR/><BR/>Why no "collegiality" problems with that? How is that not "prosecutorial"? <BR/><BR/>What if that single-purpose website did not allow for comments - a free flow of information? <BR/><BR/>Does it depend on the ideology of the website or blog? <BR/><BR/>MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-24443779899348526472007-12-22T21:53:00.000-05:002007-12-22T21:53:00.000-05:00To Michael in nh,Well, the post is certainly sourc...To Michael in nh,<BR/><BR/>Well, the post is certainly sourced now. She must be reading here. <BR/><BR/>I noticed that the book doesn't source most of what it says about her. I know the blog talks about sources but not the book. No footnotes or citations there. <BR/><BR/>So now a battle of the sources, yes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-56485613635877300422007-12-22T20:54:00.000-05:002007-12-22T20:54:00.000-05:00"The part about slamming the door behind is odd an...<I>"The part about slamming the door behind is odd and I hope that it is clarified. The whole paragraph seems unclear to me. But the last sentence implies that they have something desirable that others don't."</I><BR/><BR/>It's quite clear what this lazy--not to mention humorously uninformed--comment was trying to convey.<BR/><BR/>An attempt to put academics on a higher level....which is ludicrous.<BR/><BR/>There are many in the academy who come from very humble backgrounds. The fact that they finally achieved PhD status and tenure is like gold to them.<BR/><BR/>In some cases, it's a financial windfall they have never known.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, even those who are not very bright--like some members of the Gang of 88--begin to feel <I>affluent</I>.....on a level above others.<BR/><BR/>LOL!!!<BR/><BR/>As I have said before, that comment was so ridiculous. An attempt to try to taint DIW.<BR/><BR/>Little do these insular people know. Many participants on DIW have traveled the globe and could buy and sell these pseudo "intellectuals" a thousand times over.<BR/><BR/>This kind of insularity only serves to illuminate just how out of touch some of KC's detractors are.<BR/><BR/>PhD's where I live are a dime a dozen....and if your field is among those which house Lubiano and company, it's more like having an expertise in basket weaving.<BR/><BR/>The writer Jill Lepore who is featured is a talented writer; however, even she makes outlandish errors.<BR/><BR/>She was discussing the barbarism among people from several centuries past by giving an example of how chickens were killed.<BR/><BR/>Their necks were twisted.<BR/><BR/>Little does Lepore know that this practice was still taking place in rural areas in the 1960's.<BR/><BR/>Anyone who knows history can tell you that.<BR/><BR/>Small details like this often trip up those who profess ad nauseum.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-28525770601131505322007-12-22T19:44:00.000-05:002007-12-22T19:44:00.000-05:00re: Gregory[I absolutely cannot believe that someo...re: Gregory<BR/><BR/>[I absolutely cannot believe that someone who works at a university can have this fact so upside-down. And, it is apparently the central thesis of your post]<BR/><BR/>The part about slamming the door behind is odd and I hope that it is clarified. The whole paragraph seems unclear to me. But the last sentence implies that they have something desirable that others don't.<BR/><BR/>One of the big offenses in this case is that it involved a false accusation. For those of us with daughters, a false accusation undermines their inherent protection. And of course we would want to ensure that our own daughters would never do such a thing. And for those of us with sons, it's an outrage. And these aspects probably contributed to the success of the 60 Minutes piece.<BR/><BR/>I've been struck by the number of doctors, lawyers, engineers and other professionals that have posted at DIW and many of these folks seem well-established. It appears to me that these folks took another door when the only door was supposedly slammed shut.<BR/><BR/>We've hired academics disillusioned with acadamia that have done quite well. These folks have a pretty realistic shot at becoming wealthy before getting too old.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-69039149839819855112007-12-22T19:38:00.000-05:002007-12-22T19:38:00.000-05:00I like to write my comments before reading the oth...I like to write my comments before reading the other commentators. Now that I have written my primary comment, I have taken the time to read the other commentators. This is a response to what I have read.<BR/><BR/>"hman" wrote basically what I would have written. Very nice job! <BR/><BR/>There are people jumping out of manholes yelling that Professor Johnson's theory is wrong, or that he went about it all wrong. <BR/><BR/>Yet, none of these detractors has come up with a theory about why 88 university professors would jump on days-old gossip to castigate their own students, then why 87 of them would fail to apologize for it. <BR/><BR/>Professor Burke wrote, "KC seems to apply this historigraphical and intellectual standard with virtually no self-awareness that it is in any respect debateable ...." <BR/><BR/>Well, debate him then. <BR/><BR/>Explain why the 88 did what they did, and why only 1 apologized for it. <BR/><BR/>I'm waiting. <BR/><BR/>Professor Horwitz was honest enough to admit that the subject should be discussed. <BR/><BR/>MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-90560158710279583302007-12-22T19:34:00.000-05:002007-12-22T19:34:00.000-05:00re: DorothyThe biggest problem with that hit piece...re: Dorothy<BR/><BR/>The biggest problem with that hit piece that even Zimmerman will agree with is that KC Johnson was right and contributed to the teardown of the framing of innocents.<BR/><BR/>One could pick apart the rest of that piece but it makes assertions as fact that aren't in the public record and it isn't sourced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com