Monday, July 6, 2009

John in Carolina’s post, “KC Johnson Now”

Update 2, 7/10/09: The three paragraphs that I removed pointed out an error that appeared on another site. Although no one has questioned the accuracy of what I wrote, some have asked me to explain my deletion. The error on this site has been amended, and this made my comments moot. If this situation arises again, I will amend or comment on my post to acknowledge a correction made elsewhere, rather than remove the paragraph(s). I am sorry about any confusion I have created.

Update 7/8/2009: This post has been edited since it was first uploaded. Three paragraphs have been removed.

In his post “KC Johnson Now” on 24 May 2009 (, John in Carolina (JinC) attacked fellow Duke Lacrosse (DL) blogger KC Johnson. I will examine two points that JinC raised, that KC Johnson banned Joan Foster and that Professor Johnson was untruthful about his sources that confirmed a Raleigh News and Observer (N&O) story from 1 April 2006. I will treat the second, more serious matter first.

The incident at Charlie’s
The N&O ran a story about an incident in which Duke lacrosse players were alleged to have behaved obnoxiously at a bar in Durham called Charlie’s. The second of these issues only emerged in the comments section at JinC. Professor Johnson indicated that he had spoken with both people who confirmed and who disputed this story in a comment at 8:57 PM.

John wrote at 7:35 PM, “You can imagine how hard they worked to confirm the shotslamming and shouting at Charlie’s story.
But no one could.
At least not until KC Johnson managed to find two witnesses he says ‘corroborated--in no uncertain terms--the story in Blythe and Stancill's article.’
Has KC ever disclosed that publicly until just now on this thread because he ‘had no clear grounds for attacking the article.’
What KC’s claiming about his ‘witnesses’ is very hard to believe.’ Another commenter (RD at 9:11 PM) pointed out that John was questioning KC’s veracity on nothing more than a hunch, and I agree with RD’s assessment wholeheartedly.

At 3:24 PM John wrote, “When I read KC's claim in his response to the post that he'd found 2 "corroborating" witnesses it was one of the saddest and toughest moments I've had blogging.” On a later date at 3:20 PM, John wrote, “I'm not sure KC found two ‘corroborating’ witnesses to the events Hopman claimed happened for reasons I first discussed on this thread when he first made the claim.” In response to a question from me in the comment thread, KC Johnson discussed this matter further ( He specifically references the times and dates of email correspondence. Does John claim that these are blatant fabrications? If so, what evidence does he have? Surely John appreciates that claiming a professional historian has made something up is a very serious charge.

The Nonbanning of Joan Foster
John wrote, “I think DIW lost something important when KC barred Joan Foster, one of the people who's been most effective from the first in the fight for DL justice. All Joan did was to civilly and persuasively disagree with KC over his ridicule of Prejean.”

Johnson denied banning Joan Foster in a comment at 8:59 PM, saying that he instead closed the thread. I first commented at 2:16 PM simply to say that KC did not ban Joan. I gave the link to the DIW post in which the thread was closed and KC offered Joan his best wishes (given below), though I did not quote the DIW thread itself. I did say it was “troubling” that John made his claim, a statement I made because I believed the assertion to be false, based on what I or anyone else could see in this comment thread.

John replied to me at 10:45 PM, “Do you have anything dated and in writing that says KC didn't bar Joan Foster from DIW.
If you do and will pass it on, I'll give it a look with the intent of correcting "KC Johnson Now" if I can confirm what you send.
I hope you share.” I have two problems with John’s comment. First, KC Johnson’s comments were from 25 April, which predates JinC’s post by about a month. Therefore, it fulfills his condition. Second, John did not explain why his condition that the evidence must predate Johnson’s comments at JinC was even necessary. There is only one reason I can think of to explain why John would do so, that John was again suggesting KC Johnson was lying.

I replied that I did not have direct information. I had never seen anything to indicate that KC had banned Joan, nothing more. John wrote back, “Citation of a written and dated record that KC didn't bar Joan is important, given that on the basis of such documentation I'd update "KC Johnson Now" with a correction if what you provide is verifiable.
As can be seen above, you responded to my request with these two most relevant sentences: 

"I do not have direct information, one way or another. However, KC closed that thread for comments, and this is the only time I have ever seen him do that. ..."

Chris, I know you can see your answer is equivocal as to the question of whether you can cite a written, dated record that shows KC didn't bar Joan from DIW.”

I don’t view my answer as equivocal, but some of my befuddlement was clear. I had no way of knowing what might have transpired between Joan Foster and KC Johnson privately. Yet the only publicly available information said nothing of banning. More importantly, it seemed to me then (and now) that John had it backwards. Why was I being asked to show that KC did not ban Joan? Shouldn’t we all be asking John what evidence he had the KC did ban Joan (a point I made much later, at 12:18 PM)? I was considering quoting the comment thread from DIW on the Stone Center, but imho did so first, at 9:20 AM. As noted above, to me this documents the non-banning in the way John requested. If there is something lacking in it, John has never identified what it is.

Next Kelly (who appears to be Joan Foster) said that she used the term “banning.” Her argument is that she was made to feel unwelcome by harsh comments from Debrah and the fact that KC failed to clear a comment of hers for several hours. I think this is a poor argument. I, too, have sometimes felt discomfort from Debrah’s strong words, but this is in the nature of comment threads. I have also seen a comment of mine held in limbo for many hours as others were cleared, at JinC. Joan should have stated the facts and let others come to their own conclusions, not use misleading language.

John said at 1:31 AM, “Many people commented Joan was barred from DIW. If she wasn't, KC could have cleared the matter up with just six words: ’Joan Foster isn't barred from DIW.’
Did he ever do it? If so, where? If not, why not?” First, I don’t believe that rumor should be published as fact. Second, I think it was Joan Foster’s responsibility to ask KC Johnson, not the other way around. John’s comment at 1:12 PM suggests that he agreed with my second point: “Often bloggers don't publish a comment after which the commenter will sometimes ask: "Are you barring me from your blog?”

John replied to my comment at 12:18 PM by saying at 1:34 PM, “You say you are ‘troubled.’
I hope you can find verifiable documentation of KC saying BEFORE I published that he hadn't barred Joan. If you can produce that, I think you'll feel delighted; and I'll update the post with the new documentation. Absent such documentation, what you've been repeatedly saying here is starting to look like emoting rather than adult discourse.” I don’t consider my comments to have been repetitive, nor do I believe the use of the word “troubled” to be emoting (John himself used the term elsewhere). Why my comments don’t qualify in his mind as adult discourse is mysterious. Finally, I note that John moved the goalpost: the documentation must be before he published this post, a condition he had not previously made.

Knowing that it would be a lengthy undertaking, I offered John and Joan the chance to continue our discussion with my present post. Joan’s response (at 7:20 AM) was to give me a question to answer, “My question before I ever enter your you agree with these types of attacks, yes or no?” I don’t expect prospective commenters to answer questions any more than I wish to answer theirs prior to their making an appearance. It is doubtful that either John or Joan had ever read anything I have written. If they had, they would know that I treat even people such as Marc Fisher, with whom I disagreed strongly, with courtesy ( The same is true of Robert Zimmerman (, with whom I disagree less strongly. John replied at 12:25 PM, 
As a matter of courtesy I acknowledge your invitation.
Having read what you've posted here and at DIW, I hope you and others who've read what you've written can understand why I've no inclination to do so.”

I had indeed commented twice at DIW in the intervening time ( Besides thanking Debrah for a lighthearted comment at 12:15 AM, I had also asked a question (9:39 AM) about the incident at Charlie’s, discussed at the beginning of this post. John intimated that I was engaging in questionable behavior, but I was only doing what he should have done, which is to ask KC Johnson for more information about the witnesses. Professor Johnson’s reply at 10:08 AM was informative, but it is too long to quote in its entirety here. My final comment at JinC was to ask John to explain his reasons more fully for declining my offer, but he did not reply.

Once Joan Foster indicated that banning was her choice of words, John had three pieces of evidence that no such banning had occurred, including Joan Foster’s own admission that it was she who was responsible for the misunderstanding. Even if he had not promised to alter his post, he should have done so on the general principle of making one’s posts as accurate as possible. He has not and neither has he explained why the evidence before us is apparently insufficient in his eyes.

Concluding remarks
In his post “KC Johnson Now” John has given a clinic in how not to blog. He failed to edit obvious errors (attributing “It’s Not About the Truth” to Chuck Yeager, not Don Yaeger*). He published a rumor as if it were fact. He failed to check with Professor Johnson about either the non-banning or the story about the bar. He apparently did not ask Joan Foster directly about her supposed banning, either. He questioned KC Johnson’s truthfulness twice but disclosed no evidence to support his innuendo. Moreover, by accusing KC Johnson of making up sources, John has cast a shadow over on any work that Professor Johnson has done that involves confidentiality, this despite the fact that both John and Joan Foster claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case. When called on some of these matters, he either ignored them or brushed them aside. In doing these things he has made it a little bit harder for those of us who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism.

I have never met John or KC Johnson. Professor Johnson and I have exchanged a few emails about the case, but we are not friends, though we agree about many aspects of the DL case. I know John even less well, primarily through his recent writings at JinC, Liestoppers, and DIW. I wrote this post because he failed to live up to the standards of civility and adherence to the truth that he evidently expects of himself and others. I call upon him to amend or retract his misleading statements and urge others to do likewise in a constructive manner. If he did, it would undo much of the damage he has done.

I know that this post will create some controversy, and my closing remarks are directed to people who wish to comment. First, there is a difference between saying that person X did a bad thing and person X is a bad person. The former is acceptable (but should ordinarily be supported in some way), but the latter runs the risk of being merely abusive. Second, the topic of this post is limited to how John and Joan Foster acted in this particular instance. Although I can imagine that there will be some legitimate tangents, I reserve the right to reject a comment that strays too far from this topic. Third, I strongly urge civility, even when disagreements are large and feelings are strong.
*Update 7/11/09: This has been corrected.


Anonymous said...

Good to see you posting again, Chris. I will try to be civil in my response. I think your post makes some valid points, but also misses the real issue of what happened between Joan and KC. Joan had made some valid points and KC's dismissal of her was rude. His snarky replies showed a true lack of understanding of the nature of a civil discussion. I have had many long drawn out debates and discussions with Joan Foster and I know it can be frustrating at times. That does not excuse the fact that KC showed no respect for Joan in his responses nor did it seem to me that he really cared what she thought.

As far as the "twisted quote" from KC, I agree it should not have been presented as an actual quote, but rater a paraphrase or summary of what he said. To me however, it does present his response in a reasonable way. The other issue is his clearing of comments that were objectionable to say the least. KC has indicated this was a mistake, yet he has made this mistake in the past and has let this same poster continue this pattern even after this incident occurred.

The larger issue here is just one of KC's handling of comments and posters that don't agree with him. In my opinion, he could do a much better job in engaging such posters in a reasonable discussion. He also has a habit of complaining about anonymous posts that don't agree with him which I find very hard to understand as he does not complain about such comments that do agree with his posts.


Chris Halkides said...


I agree that the scope of this posted is limited. I did not even cover all of JinC's complaints. Moreover, this post should not be taken as a blanket endorsement of everything KC has posted or commented upon. I think that there are valid reasons for sometimes posting comments anonymously, for example. I would argue that sarcasm has a harder edge on the printed page than when it is spoken, so I try to limit my use of it.

On the issue of clearing comments, I can offer some of my own experience. I am 80-90% sure I accidentally hit the delete button when I intended to hit clear one time. I have also held onto a comment for a while even as I cleared others. I was debating whether or not that particular comment ought to be cleared, but I wish I had not cleared other comments before making my decision about the borderline case. When the same thing happened to me, it caused a bit of anxiety about whether I had been banned at that site. I have also cleared a comment that someone found offensive, and it took me several hours of internal debate before I realized that I should not have cleared it in the first place, and so I deleted it. Often the problem is that a comment may have value but also be insulting to someone. In those cases, one is trying to compare incommensurate things. For these reasons, I am willing to cut KC some slack on comment moderation.

a Nice NJ Guy said...

Chris --

Nice to see View-from-Wilmington back in active status.

Frankly, I'm puzzled by this whole concept of complaining about the moderator of another blog. Particularly a blog that sets the gold standard for impartial debate.

Flame wars are the bane of online discourse. No one is interested in third grade "did not, did too, says who" rants.

Given the incredible amount of moderator time an active blog consumes, participant complaints of "you must do it MY way" are clearly out of line. IMHO, KC's blog is administered very even handedly, especially in the face of numerous trolls, liars, fanatics and ideologues.

For those who believe otherwise, merely pressing Alt-F4 will eliminate all sources of such complaint.

Anonymous said...

Particularly a blog that sets the gold standard for impartial debate

We probably would not complain so much about this particular blog if not for that gold standard perception. In my opinion DIW sets a standard of encouraging agreement and limiting disagreement. Chris is willing to cut KC some slack on his moderation and as a moderator himself has given some examples of problems he has had. However, the issue with DIW seems to me to be not an isolated incident or three, but rather an on-going pattern.

The other concept you ascribed to DIW was the one of impartial debate. That would be a great goal to strive for but I don't believe that KC Johnson really has that as a goal for his blog.


William L. Anderson said...

I would agree that K.C. has not treated Joan well on the blog in this situation. From what I recall, it began over a disagreement about Zimmerman's blog, "Reharmonized." Zimmerman has decided to use his blog to attack K.C. (and me), and K.C. has not taken kindly to it.

The main source of disagreement was over the question of whether or not Zimmerman was an "enabler" of the radicals on the Duke faculty. Joan says that Zimmerman has been reasonable, while K.C. takes a more hardline approach.

I would disagree with K.C.'s throwaway line regarding the "Miss California" situation, although I really don't follow beauty contests and don't care much as to what happens in them. Nonetheless, I think Joan had some good points.

The real problem occurred when Debrah said a number of uncalled-for things, and K.C. was slow to take the comments down.

For me, the thing to remember is that Joan was there from the start, long before most of the bloggers. She was doing battle on the N&O blogs and the old Court TV blog (before the people telling the truth were kicked out), and I remember being amazed at her written skills and her ability to take apart the stupid arguments that were being used to frame the Duke kids.

So, no matter what, I always am going to be willing to cut Joan slack, even when I don't agree with her. She was heroic at a time when most people were craven, and she was willing to throw herself into this fray, and it meant a lot to those mothers whose sons were being falsely accused.

Another problem, as I see it, is that Joan and K.C. are not people who easily are going to mix. The whole affair was unfortunate, and I hope that people remember the larger issue, and that was that the political system of Durham and the administration and much of the faculty at Duke University joined forces to falsely accuse some young men of a terrible crime. Joan was someone who was willing to stand up to these cretins, and we never should forget that.

So, I do think that K.C. should not have dismissed her so quickly, and I hope that this issue soon can be laid to rest.

Debrah said...

"The real problem occurred when Debrah said a number of uncalled-for things, and K.C. was slow to take the comments down."


Still trying to obfuscate and put perfume on the woman whose conduct in this situation is still being played out on other blogs she knows are not friendly to KC and welcome her sideshow.

Real class.

What must be remembered is when reasonable people who wish to present themselves as "terrific debators" .......who were "there from the start" .......

.......sit idly by as members of their commentariate descend into an abyss of sleazy innuendo as a debating tool.......

.......there is really no other method needed but to take it to them and remind such people of their alleged "high status" inside the fora of the blogosphere.

When they show no signs of living up to their reputation, then adjustments must be made.

The Diva simply made the necessary adjustments.

I and no one else from Wonderland have ever showed up---with arguments right or wrong, articulate or nonsensical---and continued to argue with a blog author.

Essentially demanding that everyone "Look at me!"......"You see, the lacrosse case has been slow lately and I need some attention and praise from the conservative base!"......."So you'd better not dismiss me or some commenters at Liestoppers might accuse YOU of being gay since you have such disrespect for beauty contestants!"

Well, you get the idea.

I have very strong likes and very strong dislikes in this crazy world.

KC Johnson and his maddeningly brilliant work are one of my very strong likes.

When anyone can descend into such a dungeon of tackiness as a way of insulting KC,,,,,,,

........the Diva ire will know no bounds.

But you don't have to be the Diva to recognize what a fiasco it was for those two individuals---JinC and Joan---to stage such a self-serving and petty démarche against someone who is basically impenetrable.

Debrah said...

I suspected that Bill Anderson and others would coax you into giving Joan Foster a pass.

The paragraphs you removed were some of your most significant points.

I don't think you quite understand the deliberate negativity and ill will this woman caused and continues to cause.

Don't worry, Chris.

I will not comment here again.

You are assisting in the Liestoppers' white wash and helping them cast blame on others.

DEBRAH had no part in the debate over Perez Hilton and Miss California.

Joan Foster and Liestoppers' reaction to it all prompted me to explain to them their tackiness.

Not even you listening to Anderson as he attempts to provide cover can accomplish anything truthful here.

Good luck.

You've lost the respect I had for you, but I know that matters little next to this grand white wash.

sceptical said...

While you have every right to examine the issues you raise, who benefits? The Nifong enablers, the Mangum supporters, and the critics of the fine work done by KC Johnson, John in Carolina, and Joan Foster. I have disagreed with KC, John, and Joan on different occasions, but I find it strange that you re-open your blog by attempting to create dissension.


Anonymous said...

Professor Anderson,

It is easy to "mix," especially if there are still important goals not yet achieved. J-in-C and Joan let their politics get the better of them in a very short-sighted way.

For every small barb that Professor Johnson has put in a post satirizing some conservative figure, there have been 30 anti-Democrat barbs in the comments. Moreover, almost all of K.C.'s hundreds and hundreds of posts have been directed at Democrats. Apparently, even that ratio was too much for them. MOO! Gregory

DocRambo said...

I have followed DIW from the beginning, and I have found KC's work to be excellent in all respects. The time that he has invested in this miscarriage of justice is mind boggling. His scholarly approach and analysis of issues is second to none. How he moderates comments matters not one iota to me-personally I think that a brash frank approach should not be interpreted as hostile or unfriendly--it is his blog, he invests his time and efforts in it, and as far as I can tell, has done a superb job, even if JIC and Joan do feel out of sorts about the way he handles comments-in the big scheme of things, who cares?

One Spook said...

A Duke Dad on 7/07 @ 7:28 PM writes:

"Frankly, I'm puzzled by this whole concept of complaining about the moderator of another blog. "

DocRambo on 7/09 @ 9:45 AM writes:

"How he [KC] moderates comments matters not one iota to me-personally I think that a brash frank approach should not be interpreted as hostile or unfriendly--it is his blog, he invests his time and efforts in it, and as far as I can tell, has done a superb job, even if JIC and Joan do feel out of sorts about the way he handles comments-in the big scheme of things, who cares?"

Thanks to both of you for reminding me that a few adults remain among the readers of these Blogs.

I missed most of this latest “kerfuffle” because I was out of the country for most of May. After reading postings and comments here, I went back and read every bloody word of it.

This dispute reminds me of riding home on the bus from a high school football game where my team had won 56-0, and seeing a fight breakout among my teammates over whether the offense or defense had contributed most to the victory. Our coach broke up the fight and admonished us all to save our energy for the next game.

In blogging about the lacrosse hoax, we all agree that great injustices were done to the young men on Duke's lacrosse team by Duke professors, administrators, and employees; certain employees of the city of Durham; Durham DA’s office; the local and national media; and a local hooker. Illuminating those injustices is vitally important, and each of the principals and Blogs involved in this spat have done some excellent work in that effort.

Please allow me to be the “coach” (referee) and offer my own gentle reprimand.

KC Johnson is not your mother, your college professor, or the Pope of Durham County. He seems to presume that his primary audience is adult readers with at least a college-level education and/or cognitive ability. It is not incumbent upon Johnson to agree with everything his readers believe, nor is it necessary for him to mollycoddle those with whom he disagrees. I’ve disagreed with him probably more than most of his regular readers, but I respect his views and I believe he respects mine.

It is similarly not necessary for readers and other bloggers to receive Johnson’s blessing on every angle or theory they may have about the myriad aspects of the lacrosse hoax.

It seems counter-productive and hopelessly superfluous to me for someone to continually revisit a difference they might have with Johnson again and again, even over years, in hopes that he will change his views. To continue seeking Johnson’s blessing and or approval for your views and then to complain on a blog that Johnson somehow mistreated you strikes me as terribly needy and, forgive me, but I simply do not understand that level of need. I do not understand agoraphobia (literally “fear of the marketplace”) either, but someone suffering from it has my sympathy, to be sure.

If someone has a particular view about the lacrosse hoax they wish to espouse, it costs nothing to set up and blog or make comments on an existing blog; indeed many have done so. Go for it; put your views out there and see what happens. No one should presume that the “Marketplace of Ideas” should be a warm and fuzzy place. Offering your views is all you can do, but you should not have any expectation that you’ll become famous, popular, or that everyone reading will always agree with you and/or treat you with great deference.

I have a considerable admiration for all of you who have created and managed blogs, and for most all of you who have been regular commentors, but guess what? You don’t need my approval either, and I’m not seeking yours. As Gregory always aptly says, “These are my opinions only.”

One Spook

Anonymous said...

In all of the electronic ink that has been sent out over this issue, I think it is best to remember that every person who posts needs to remember to reread what one has written (and I am not just referring to spelling and grammar errors) and to ask if that is really what one wanted to say.
(I know that I have not always followed that procedure and have often regretted what I have written that unfortunately was not withheld from publication).

There have been those who have written some very cutting and down right (to my thinking nasty and viscious) things about others that did nothing to advance the point(s) or arguments that the poster was trying to make. That has been unfortunate and I think, to some extent, has exacerbated the situation. One can take exception about a line of thought without being personally nasty.

That being said, a person who has a blog has the right, whether one agrees or not, to moderate comments if he or she so chooses. If one gets upset, then one can stop posting, stop reading, or start one's own blog and then post away to one's heart's content.

Many have done yeoman's work these past several years on the lacrosse issue - there will be much in the coming months that will continue to be of importance. I, for one, look forward to continued reading and posting (as time allows and as comments are cleared) on the many aspects of the lacrosse issue and other such topics that arise.


wayne fontes said...

Bill, I think the particular flare up your referencing was between KC and myself.

Chris, you've got a couple of comments on this thread that must been close calls as to whether or not you cleared them. The same commenter who given you tough decisions before. Sometimes it's not the individual comment but the person making that comment that's detrimental to the atmosphere of a thread.

Chris Halkides said...


Yours is a fair question, but one could just as easily ask it of JinC’s post. I tried to point out to John that he was wrong about the non-banning issue in the comment thread but did not get anywhere. I posted something because I wanted to discuss JinC’s post without rancor but with the hope that he would retract some of the things he said. I think that the issue involving KC’s sources with respect to Charlie’s is more important than whether or not someone was banned. The former question was almost entirely ignored in the comment thread at JinC, and I do not recall seeing anyone here taking it up. I regret that I have stirred up passions but provided little resolution.


Anonymous said...

A question regarding banning:

If a comment is a rude and vicious personal attack (that is, having nothing to do with the argument or point to be advanced) should not that comment be banned if the the blog moderator chooses to maintain a high standard of civil discourse?

An open form (such as Liestoppers) is one thing, a blog - as I see it - is a whole other kettle of fish.


Anonymous said...

I'll comment on the Charlie's incident (or non-incident). The article in the N&O was a report on what happened to her (Jill Hopman) after her column appeared in the Duke Chronicle (she also wrote a letter to the Herald Sun). The attempts made to verify her story (being 'banned' from Charlie's because of her article) were documented by the N&O (one call-manager not around). I think the responsibility here should have been with the Chronicle to verify the original column. I don't recall her original column being published in the N&O but I could be mistaken about that.

Jill Hopman may have had some connections to a feminist organization at Duke that were not explored (that I can recall)either. I understand that John has not been pleased with the N&O reporting of this case. However, what I remember about their reporting of this incident has them not as the 'source' of the accusation.

The Chronicle is the news source that should have either provided an update or correction. I don't think that was ever done.


Anonymous said...

Chris, although you may not have provided a resolution at this time, you've allowed some to vent and others to open their eyes to what actually happened. Joan and John have made a practical decision based on their politics. It reminds me of Winston Churchill's decision to deal with the devil (Russia) at the expense of Poland and much of the rest of Eastern Europe. Joan and John have decided to make one line item on a conservative agenda more important than the Duke Lacrosse case. Moreover, it was even a tangential issue at the time!

The difference between Churchill's decision and Joan and John's, of course, is that Churchill saved the lives of millions of Brits and Yanks, but John and Joan don't have a sea turtle's chance in a fishing net of affecting the gay marriage debate. Thus, they seek to sacrafice everything for nothing.

Joan Foster has disclosed the real reason behind her spat in the pages of Liestoppers:

"As far as the Orthodox Angry Studies types...does KC think his arguments will get any more consideration from Holloway on race issues than I got from him on gay marriage? Is the horse he's riding as he delivers his persistent invitations to Holloway to respond any deader than mine?

KC thinks what Perez Hilton did to Miss C. was justified because he was offended by what she symbolized.... in his view of the Gay rights struggle ...."

Joan is referencing Professor Johnson's April 25, 2009 post dealing with Crystal Mangum's speech at the Sonja Haynes Stone Center on the topic of “the harsh realities of minority treatment both in the justice system and the media."

Given the incongruous nature of the topic and the speaker, Professor Johnson included a few parody speakers and speech topics in his post. These included George Tenet, who was CIA Director under both Democrat and Republican presidents, John Edwards, who is very much a Democrat, Carrie Prejean, who apparently has some views that might be Republican in nature and Terrell Owens, whose political views are as unknown as they are likely uninteresting.

Even though Joan has since gone on about how she was victimized, and how Professor Johnson "tolerated no debate on his blog," she failed to mention that she was allowed to post 8 times in that thread on a tangential issue. She wrote a total of 2,502 words on a throw-away parody! Then, there is the fact that Professor Johnson allowed 12 other posters to comment on this tangential issue on top of the 8 posts submitted by Joan. "[T]olerat[ing] no debate" on his blog?

To be continued .... MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Cont. from prior post --

The above information goes to Joan Foster's claim of "not being heard." As for her charge of having been treated rudely or unfairly, I would suggest that she has unclean hands herself.

Joan got off to a great start assuming that Professor Johnson had some type of "troubling" "animosity toward this young woman." Then, she shifted into second gear, claiming that I was acting like the "NC-NAACP" and that people only get mad when others "MOO" about their "sacred cows." Gaining steam now, Joan accused Professor Johnson on his blog of "articulat[ing his] hypocrisy" better than the Gang of "88."

Finally in high gear, Joan was able to use this ad hominem on Professor Johnson's blog, "Court of St KC," which was followed by comparisons to the Gang of 88: "quicker than Lubiano" and the "New York Times." All of these personal attacks remain today.

In contrast, Professor Johnson's deportment was gentlemanly, if a little witty and sarcastic near the end of the thread. Even goaded as he was by Joan, he did not return the favor and call her names. I, on the other hand, don't have clean hands. I lumped Joan with other "conservative cultural warriors," and for that, I apologize. In a feeble attempt at mitigation, I would note that I later posted that "I have enjoyed almost everything ya'll have written about the Duke Lax case." To see the thread, including all the comments, cut and paste this:

In conclusion, Joan's claims, and John's defense of those claims, don't withstand scrutiny, and, I believe, are based only upon an ideological divide. Yet, some would also give up France to the Russians just because the French are snooty. MOO! Gregory

joan foster said...

Gregory, I reject your idea that this whole dust-up has a political basis. I do not know John’s opinion of Gay Marriage. My opinion (as I have stated several places) is the exactly the same as KC Johnson’s.

Where we differ is on the spectacle of Perez Hilton imposing OUR mutual viewpoint on a young woman from a Christian college and essentially requiring her to deny her faith, submit to his view or be subjected to grade retaliation.(He gave her zero)

Later this great Gay rights advocate (who last week called another man a “faggot” I believe) mocked her with obscenities on his Blog.Though I support Gay Marriage,unlike KC,this is not MY idea of how decent people accomplish their ends.

I was and am infuriated by all that. As I recall , Gregory, you weren’t..I think because she was dumb. I don’t even like dumb people being bullied or ridiculed….maybe I even really, really don’t especially like dumb people being bullied. I never knew that was a “political position.” I guess I’m funny that way.

I am very pro-life but I am outraged at people with my “agenda” harassing women trying to enter clinics….so I’m a poor political agenda-ista. If I have one consistent quality (for the most part) it’s some kind of empathy. I really felt for the Lacrosse families. It was empathy that brought me to our merry band and empathy that brought its wrath upon me. I’m sick that you all are attacking John in my stead over this issue.

And yes, I got a little snarky in response to KC’s sarcasm. But there were other dramas behind the scenes….all on record in real time.

The “Court of St KC” came after three of my comments were not posted for hours …while those of others were….(Another oddity of Wonderland moderation) ALL of this was followed by a number of us… on a thread still up in the private area of LS. It’s still there if you, or someone you trust who has access, want to read it. My sarcasm did build (you nailed me there)as I became stunned when his “lightest of touches” moderation became very heavy handed. Another poster defended my long stifled point (the “emissary”) since my comments were not being posted and I fired off that comment you quote to KC....expecting it to join the others in cyberspace.

Suddenly, Moderation Miracle...the comments were cleared, (Whoa!)he made that Fare-thee-well comment and closed the thread.

In all good faith, I thought I was banned. Reading it now, in a different context, I see where it is my comments that are banned or must be schlepped elsewhere.

A banning of Thought not Person.

In person was not ‘banned” from the marketplace….I just had to leave certain unwelcome ideas at the door. They were NOT to be…”exchanged.”

I hope that settles the topic of free thought and banning at that Open Minds University over there.

And there it might have ended. But what came next in the alcoves of No Ad Homimen Attack Hall?

Another strange accident in moderation (I have more to say about these strange accidents in moderation that befall those out of favor with KC later)….

Debrah is allowed to post this comment and up for hours it stays. She emails me a long vicious note the next day in jubilation.

On DinW says...

Anonymous said...

This is where we stand, Joan. I jumped into this debate full-speed yesterday. Since then we've managed to reach a final resolution of a number of your claims. These include:

1. We determined that your claim that Professor Johnson was too sarcastic is without merit. In fact, it was you who, it turns out, was the name-caller, and it would be charitable to say that you were extremely sarcastic. Professor Johnson, in stark contrast, showed great restraint.

2. We determined that your claim that Professor Johnson didn't allow you to explore the "marketplace of ideas" is without merit given that you were permitted 8 separate posts, totalling over 2,500 words, to make your case on an issue that was basically extraneous to the post. Moreover, Professor Johnson managed to clear 12 other comments that were disparaging of his analogy. That's almost 1/3 of the total posts on that thread.

3. We determined that the claim made by another that you had been banned from Professor Johnson's site is without merit. You have finally admitted that. Moreover, you let the allegation that you were banned from D-i-W swing in the wind since at least May 24.

4. I have determined that your claim that you weren't politically motivated is also without merit. As evidence, I would submit one of your posts in the April 25 thread, in which you wrote: "The problem is that we now have seen a very public demonstration of religious intolerance." Then, you went on to write, in the same post, " we see that certain Christian beliefs about traditional family are NOT be abided ...." Finally, you finished up in the same post with, "How far shall we go in shaming and sequestering these traditional marriage folks?"

For these reasons, and for the great waste of time in proving your claims to be falsehoods, I'm done with this subject, and I'm done with you. I would like to thank our hosts, Chris Halkides and J-in-C. I do reserve the right to respond to J-in-C if he decides that his threatened attack is in order. MOO! Gregory

joan foster said...

Gregory, I don’t know what you’re smoking there in Wonderland, but, just because I sit around in the LS political threads waiting for the wheels of justice (the ones that haven’t already come off) to S -L -O -W -L -Y creak and turn in N.C. …does not mean I have left this case to pursue some conservative pipedream. Since I support Gay Marriage, just not thuggery to get do you envision I might launch this mission from the Liestopper Blog?

No, my friend, I think I am the one who has been consistent.

One of my hot buttons in this case was always the way the fate of real people gets brushed away, ignored, in the pursuit of these agendas. Did the 88, the NCNAACP, the Feminist Crazies ever see Collin, Reade and Dave as real kids.? I thought throughout the case that those kids were an afterthought to almost everybody, but us. Everyone wanted them to pay the price for some grievance. Three real lifetimes. The more I thought about it…the more horrific it became. These Agenda-istas just subtract out what they do to real people…. to get what they want.

And I hate the way they close their minds. I did say I thought KC on this topic had much in common with Holloway. My efforts to make him see Prejean as real were just about as effective as his on behalf of the Team with Holloway. Very sad. Agenda-blind, both of them.

I hate that. I even hate it for the stuff I believe in. Sometimes I’m not so faithful to my causes…because I see the people first. I don't think or process, I guess, like you lawyers and academics.

I did not think Collin, Reade and Dave should pay for race issues in some community’s past; and, even in a lesser circumstance, I did not think Carrie Prejean should pay because her religion did not support the concept of Gay Marriage.

I saw a real person who had spent years working toward this. You saw a dope in a dumb contest. I can’t dismiss people that way. KC could just subtract her realness out because she would make a fine symbol of “people not to be rewarded.” I think those Lacrosse players , to this day, are burdened by the biases of people who see them as symbols too….as “sons of privilege whose innocence means Black guilt.”

To me there are slim differences in these outlooks. I hate that thinking and I hate those tactics.

But you don’t. And neither you nor KC would honestly explain to me why I should respect what Perez Hilton did but revile what Kim Curtis did. You just mocked my very real feelings. If you COULD explain the difference, why not educate a wayward friend? Why the sarcasm from KC...why the twisting?

That’s where our estrangement began. I don’t want people persecuted or punished or denied as symbols…for any cause. You do.

Now…somehow THAT thought makes me a turncoat. No, it’s why I always was here. That's what I've railed about from the beginning.Now, if I understand KC, he only cares about these things... in ACADEMIA!

You are the ones who see exceptions. You created fine print and exemptions. Not me.

joan foster said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Local Education said...

My goodness! What a bubch of intellictual babies. How disappointing.

One Spook said...

"For these reasons, and for the great waste of time in proving your claims to be falsehoods, I'm done with this subject, and I'm done with you. I would like to thank our hosts, Chris Halkides and J-in-C. I do reserve the right to respond to J-in-C if he decides that his threatened attack is in order. MOO! Gregory"

Since I'm sure that Gregory is a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, I'll simply say, "DITTO" and thank you all for hearing me out.

One Spook

a Nice NJ Guy said...

Gentlemen and Gentlewomen:

Brevity is the soul of wit.


Kantian said...

Joan, one just has to read your incessant rants on the other blogs to know that you are not telling the truth.

You and John in Carolina never left the banning issue behind.

Just revisit the Reharmonizer blog and you were at it all over again
way before Chris posted this latest one.

You were still pasting old comments about the Diva over there. What prompted that but your obsession?

And here you deliberately use her last name which she does not use on the blogs.

Is that another nasty move on your part? Are we all suppose to know
how determined you are to get revenge now, about something that you started?

I tried to come down on your side since politically I am closer to
you than Professor Johnson and maybe I thought you would just stop after a while.

And most of us thought that John in Carolina was going to close down his blog. That is why he made such a commotion recently, wasn't it?

But, like you, he's at it again. Both of you need to get a life.

I realize what a cliche that is, but in your two cases, it is getting very old.

inmyhumbleopinion said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
joan foster said...

Gregory, “You” have reached a final resolution. YOU. I’m sure you do not mean to speak with the regal “WE.” I am content to let each person still reading about this saga, decide for himself. Surely, you extend that courtesy too?

In your summation, I think I have discovered a mutual divide that underscores much of our communication difficulty. You feel that you have “discovered” my political motivations in that quote about “shaming traditional marriage folks. ” IN YOUR MIND, someone cannot possibly be outraged at tactics that smear Christian evangelicals, real people, for the beliefs they genuinely hold…and also feel that a same sex couple , real people, just living their real lives…should be denied the rights and privileges of marriage.

I don’t think those are mutually exclusive ideas. You do.

Once again, Gregory, it’s about empathy. It’s about TACTICS that decide we are allowed to hurt each get what we want. You academics and great legal minds are much more sophisticated than this “crazy housewife” but I think there are some others who get my point.

Likewise I think it’s possible to despise the Listening Ad and the way Professor Lubiano conducted herself in this case and yet be disgusted at insinuations from our side that she has a drinking problem. That is, to use an old fashioned word…unseemly.

I don’t want cheap shots at the Lacrosse team going forward. Maybe a good deterrent is to start with ourselves.

Over and over and over again, KC clears comments from Debrah toward his enemies list that contain smears and assertions that should have no place in a decent person’s argument about ANYTHING. They are gratuitous and do more to demean the Blog and Blogger that hosts them…than anything I could ever say.

Besides self indulgence, what’s the good purpose?

In regard to the academics whose views we all reject, can you describe the game plan of … after ridiculing and insulting them…. extending invitations for them to come to Wonderland to discuss their positions? I realize KC is not serious but, in all honesty, I would like nothing better than to see KC (if he could leave his sarcasm at the door) take these people on in a true civil debate. Now that would be an event in the “Marketplace of Ideas!” And a boon for what we all mutually believe!

Do you think all the ridicule and abuse makes them understand the wrong they did to these kids?

Beyond venting, I don’t know if I would want advocates for my child who used the kind of tactics that just ratchet up the animosity which..could well then rebound against my kid. I rather hope that an opening might exist to get something good out of all this.

I think Reade Seligmann articulated that issue better than any of us. How is Wonderland these days advancing the spirit and goals that young man set forward for us?

joan foster said...

It has been asserted that I have extended this drama for my own "political" purposes. The apology I posted THAT VERY DAY on LS puts the lie to that theory. I asked Tony to close the thread and end it. That post is over on JinW.

It has been asserted that I was given ample opportunity to make my case that day. However, in real time, as I sent these posts and, with others, watched at LS….they did not go up while others did. So, in that vacuum, I sent another. And another.But, yes, I must yield to Gregory's point that I am long winded and repeat myself.

(Of course,if I didn"t see this as main blog post topic around the Internet once a week, I might not need to repeat myself)

One Spook gave me a civil and detailed explanation that the “holding of comments while others posted”…. might have a technical explanation. I thank him for that. Since that is a possibility, I extend my apology to KC on that one issue.

Now I am waiting for an explanation of how all those personal insults toward John, me, and others were also some malfunction over and over and over and over and…well, you know.

Or maybe... personal smears and ad hominem attacks are…just how Wonderland rolls. That's Professor Johnson's prerogative but then just ...own it.

Anonymous said...

Here’s the full text of KC Johnson’s comment on the thread of

It's the last comment of the thread and he makes it immediately following Joan Foster ending her comment with “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:”


KC Johnson @3:05 AM 4/27/09

To Joan:

My best wishes to you.

I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.

Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.


Folks, notice KC comments directly “To Joan” and only “To Joan.”

And notice that, despite subsequent claims by KC and others that he was announcing the closing of the thread, in his actual comment KC says NOTHING about closing the thread.

John in Carolina

Chris Halkides said...


I was gathering my thoughts on Miss California when I read KC's comment, the sixty-fourth and last comment in the Stone Center thread. At that point I inferred that comments were closed and did not submit one. KC's recent comments ( are consistent with my inference. If someone had a comment rejected because it was sent after 3:07 PM on 27 April 2009 and would like to speak up, they are welcome to do so.


Chris Halkides said...


Below the last post in the thread in question is found "NEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DISABLED FOR THIS POST BY A BLOG ADMINISTRATOR." That is good enough for me.


Anonymous said...

Professor Halkides,

I don't know anyone who disputes KC said AFTER I posted "KC Johnson Now" that he had shut down the thread.

There now is posted at the end of the thread: "NEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DISABLED FOR THIS POST BY A BLOG ADMINISTRATOR."

But this morning is the first time I saw it.

And you only mentioned it just now.

When did you first see it?

I've received about 20 comments totaling thousands of words defending KC's evolving claims concerning Joan Foster and banning.

Just about all of them made the point KC was really just closing down the thread.

But NOT ONE of those comments mention the notice you and I found there this morning.

Why do you think that is?

Have you asked KC when he posted it?

John in Carolina

Kantian said...

To me someone's truthfulness as they try to convince others of their points is significant.

So people might ask---Joan, after reading the email that Debrah sent to Baldo for distribution I don't see anything obscene in it at all.Why did you use such characterizations?

Did you think it would never be made public and you could play it like JinC does? Making things up?

I know that JinC will let you leave such falsehoods on his blog because he makes up things himself.

We now see that Debrah did not send it just to you, but to the entire membership of Liestoppers.

There was also absolutely nothing "vicious" in it.

For me, and probably others, I'd like to know why you and John have to make up things as you keep up this silliness.

And John couldn't even keep his word about closing down his blog after attacking Professor Johnson.

It seems that you are going through withdrawal since the lacrosse case has died down and miss the "high" you get from mouthing off about everything and receiving praise for repeating the same things over and over.

I think you and John in Carolina might need to start a blog together where everyone who wants to complain and run down the Diva and Professor Johnson will have a sorry place to go for their hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Everyone saw it immediately.
It is impossible to navigate to the end of the thread with just a click at the top.
That's how everyone knew immediately that the thread was no longer active.
As many people from all the blogs were paying attention to the goings on there, it is not credible to say that one did not see it.
Closing a thread makes getting to the bottom of it difficult.
You have to scroll all the way down. That's how everyone knew.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12:05 said: "Everyone saw it immediately." How could you know that? I didn't see it. I admit I could have missed it but to say everyone saw it is not correct.

Kantian said: "There was also absolutely nothing "vicious" in it." I don't have the same opinion of Joan or the e-mail, or for that matter even JIC. You seem to be able to read minds and determine motivation here. Are you a regular poster to DIW, LS, JIC, or the BatCave?


joan foster said...

Kantian, the email was forwarded to me by a Mod with the words that it was to me from Debrah. Somehow saying she intended to insult me before the whole group rather than personally improves the situation…how?

It is obscene. Perhaps you surround yourself with people who speak like this and treat others like this, but in my world that email was obscene and unnecessary….as was her comment that KC cleared and left up for hours. I’ll include other Debrah comments and emails I’ve encountered since in that same obscene category.

Long ago, I featured Debrah in a piece I wrote for the main Blog called “The Big Game.” After that day, my only contact with Debrah was to “see” her in the comments under a blogpost and invite her in to join LS. All was good. Why should it not be?

For a very long time I had nothing but admiration for her and her talents. The fact that she has chosen, for a long time now, to use those talents as a weapon against anyone with the slightest disagreement with KC is both sad, strange and IMO, a betrayal of her own gifts. The charade they play out in the Comments is now obvious.

Her comments and emails are also “obscene” because unlike many others, she possesses an extraordinary facility with words. She has every ability to express herself without ugliness but yet achieve the same effect. I cut her no slack today because she somehow feels entitled to insult strangers with outlandish demeaning rhetoric; it is an intellectual laziness that she indulges herself this way…rather than express herself in a more civil fashion. She possesses those exceptional skills that give her many options. She choses insult and personal attack.

What if she had emailed me a note and expressed her very same opinions in terms without insult…but in a manner wherein I might have concluded they had some merit? THEN, she might have achieved some worthy end. Her electronic vomit does not advance her arguments or achieve her ends. But she has the skill to frame things differently…if she did not happen to have HURT as her primary object.

All that is accomplished is that others lash back.

Furthermore, I have plenty of correspondence from the real folks at the heart of this case who are the only opinions that matter to me. She CANNOT touch that with any ugly blathering…only demean herself to those who understand in ways she cannot.

The fact that you consider her manner of “communication” to be productive and civil means that it is fruitless for you and I try to understand each other or interact in any further fashion.

Kantian said...

Joan, you always try to use emotional words when you're cornered and you get very windy while leaving little meat.

You need to get out of that blog cocoon you've been in where changing the subject to how YOU want to characterize something will hold water.

Everyone who was inclined read the Diva's request of Baldo.

Also, the comments were not only to you, even though you keep saying they were. Most of us can read.

It's not all about you.

Apparently you have to say that now because some might be wondering why you and Baldo didn't let everyone see it.

The email message speaks for itself and yes, it is strident and to the point, but is more of a reprimand for you and some of your friends.

Hypocrisy, Joan.

I just finished reading through some of your comments under the long thread at JinC and I found those "obscene".

You always try to alter the facts and as a result, hurt your own cause.

kcjohnson9 said...

I write as someone who had, on many occasions, praised the work of John in Carolina during the case, and it saddens me to see his credibility badly undermined by his odd performance on this issue.

I was, to put it mildly, surprised that JinC reprinted Joan Foster's allegation without emailing me to check its veracity. (I would have told him no, Ms. Foster hadn't been banned, and that presumably would have ended the matter.)

Yet I have been even more surprised to see JinC, once repeatedly confronted with evidence that contradicted his position, refuse to retract his false allegation. Instead, it seems, he has constantly shifted the goalposts, demanding that the burden be placed on me to prove that Joan Foster wasn't banned, rather than the burden placed on him to prove his allegation.

In any event, I can provide the proof that JinC bizarrely demanded. On April 27 (nearly one month before JinC's post), I received an email from Jackie Brown, asking, "Did you ban Joan from D[IW]?"

I responded a few hours later: "No. [emphasis added] She put up a comment saying she had been banned, and I followed it with a statement expressing my best wishes to her."

I should note that I would have gladly shared this email with JinC had he ever emailed me to ask me before posting his false allegation. But, of course, he didn't do so, and has never explained why he so refused.

That he not only has refused to retract his false allegation but has gone on to make two additional posts expanding on it raises deep concerns about his motives in continuing his blog.

As the above post notes, JinC demanded "anything dated and in writing that says KC didn't bar Joan Foster from DIW . . . I'll give it a look with the intent of correcting "KC Johnson Now" if I can confirm what you send.

I'm sure that we'll all be waiting to see JinC correct the record on what are now his three posts.

a Nice NJ Guy said...

OMG ! !

Debrah has banned Joan Foster.

Don't wait for the next chapter of the Diva and the Contralto.

(IOW, it's time to move on ...)

Kantian said...

Redmountain, I have been reading the blogs for a few years now.I comment infrequently.
And I believe that one does not have to "read minds" to know that it was not "vicious".

You just have to live in the real world where adults interact.But you are entitled to your opinion, of course.

Anonymous said...

Red Mountain wrote this which is a lie ----

'Anon at 12:05 said: "Everyone saw it immediately." How could you know that? I didn't see it. I admit I could have missed it but to say everyone saw it is not correct.

Red Mountain'

I know it is a lie becuz I saw the message and truth detector at Liestoppers wrote this on april 27 ------

'Truth Detector Apr 27 2009, 05:16 PM Post #27

Joined:Apr 28, 2008

KC has shut down the thread for further comments.'

I been a Liestopper from the early dayz and joining forces with Mark Rougemont is not where i want ta be. Is that what you want Joan? Is that what the families of RCD want?

Anonymous said...

o.k. so I feel a little like a snitch but Im not going to let untruths go. This is what Joan wrote at Liestoppers about her agenda:

Another view of Miss California.... UMM...Where have we seen the Sparklers? Joan Foster 7 130 May 1 2009, 09:09 PM
Last Post By: Joan Foster

We cannot be intimidated against speaking out against the tactics of the Left....ever.

Then JOan wrote ------

Traditional values, strong foreign policy Dead...says Dem Schumer Joan Foster 7 110 Apr 29 2009, 05:24 PM

I also read it as confirmation from Schumer that the goal of the Dems destroy family values .. They can play with adjectives...but that is the base of it.

Then Joan let truth detector go off on gays in her pity party thread-----

Truth Detector Apr 27 2009, 08:15 PM Post #42

Joined:Apr 28, 2008


Truth Detector Apr 27 2009, 03:06 PM Post #5

Joined:Apr 28, 2008

KC has shown his true colors and they appear to be "lavender". Joan you made great points. It's too bad that perhaps KC's liberal leanings have clouded his thinking on this one.

Joan Foster Apr 27 2009, 03:17 PM Post #7

Joined:Jan 8, 2009

I kept checking back, expecting to have my argument "laid out in lavendar." Instead I see...I've been censored.

I should have said something at the time but i didnt. But now I cant let the untruths and bashing keep piling up. Liestoppers is not about lying or hiding your aggenda. I will stand up for it even against Joan who had been a warrior in the past

inmyhumbleopinion said...

While truth detector's use of the word "lavender" may be suspect, I doubt Joan's use of the phrase,"laid out in lavendar" was a reference to Gays.

THE PHRASE "LAID OUT IN LAVENDER" describes something (or someone) displayed in the best possible context. It comes from the Old World practice of covering the recently deceased in a blanket of lavender blossoms to disguise the stench of death-surely the best set of circumstances a corpse could want, short of not having died in the first place. Since the scent of lavender is said to provide relief from headaches, depression and stress, it must also have comforted those mourning their flower-strewn dearly departed.

Anonymous said...

To "a little like a snitch" at 6:50PM: My opinion is that Joan was defending Miss CA because she was not treated fairly, not out of some agenda or political motive. The vast majority of posters on that topic also felt that Miss CA was not treated fairly. Frankly I am surprised at all this anti-Joan Foster rhetoric going around even from some of the members of her own team.

To Anon at 6:35PM: I have given my take on what happened on that thread and Joan was not blameless in it. She admits she gets overly emotional and sometimes drastically dramatic in her posts. That has served the cause of RCD well over the years. Are you now saying these same qualities that served the cause so well are now to be condemned? Do you think that Joan Foster and RedMountain have started a little consortium here? A conspiracy perhaps? I support GLBT issues, yet I can acknowledge the unfair treatment Miss CA received. In my opinion the treatment Joan Foster has received has also been unfair.


Anonymous said...

This is how I see it. John in Carolina has been the Nifong in these incidents by changing the goalposts. Joan has been the Mangum by changing her story after each earlier story has been proved false. she has also run to reharmonizer (the group of 88) and rougemont (herald sun). The attorney general are Chris Halkidies, MOO Gregory, One Spook and Kantian disproving each new alegation as soon as they are alleged.

John in Carolina at 8:56 pm last night set the goalposts still farther out with another unsubstantiated allegation. John wrote-----

'In the meantime, did anyone find a posted statement about the 'closure' notice at KC Johnson's blog before professor Halkides found it there this morning?'

On this blog at 6:35 pm, more than 2 hours earler , the newest allegation had already been dis-proven------

'Truth Detector Apr 27 2009, 05:16 PM Post #27
Joined:Apr 28, 2008

KC has shut down the thread for further comments.'

At sojme point these people lose all credibility. thats sad becuz Joan and John had been warriors but they cant rely on lies in their attacks.

Debrah said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris Halkides said...

To all,

I think that we have covered the question of Joan Foster's banning adequately. Ahough I am not issuing a blanket refusal to clear more comments on this subject, I would urge future commenters to consider following RedMountain at 6:39 AM and focus on Charlie's. I hope to post something myself before too long.


Anonymous said...

I'm afraid John's crafted his own white whale to chase after... Sad to see someone who once captained the charge against injustice foundering in the doldrums of irrelevancies and false pretenses so. Here's hoping for fresh wind to give him a new direction.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Chris,
I actually repeated this post at JIC since I had gotten no interest here and followed it with a second post until I was reminded that I was still banned (LOL). I do think John makes some good points with this but he could be less accusatory regarding KC's 'verification' of the story. I also think John's focus on the N&O as the culprit in this is misguided.

What caught my interest in this story was this comment from KC: "The night after the party, the team did not gather "at a local bar to drink and chant "Duke Lacrosse"." The night after the party, there was a team event (with Pressler in attendance) at a local bowling alley.

The "Duke lacrosse" chant story, which allegedly occurred on the 25th or 26th, is vehemently disputed. The person who made the claim, Jill Hopman, stood by her story to me and seemed credible; an equally credible (non-lacrosse player) source who was in the bar that night strongly denied it. I wasn't there, so I've never either used the story or challenged Hopman.

But even assuming Hopman's story to be true, this wasn't a "team" event. There were only three Duke lacrosse players (all 21 or over) at the bar that night."

Curious Comment

What I find unusual about this is KC's willingness to see Hopman's story as credible. He already disputes the possible date of this even as well as a big dispute in the number of Lacrosse players present. In addition he has already heard a different version from someone he would normally find credible. These two sources may be 2 of the four sources he mentions later. I mentioned the possible feminist organization connections in my second post at JIC to Hopman simply because I think KC looks for these type of connections and I was curious to see if that had been explored. A clue is provided in the original Charlie's Column.

"As a woman, a Duke graduate and a future women's and child advocacy lawyer, I was disappointed and, to be frank, disgusted."

John points out other curious things when he refers to this quote from the article: "One of the men on my team, a cop, leaned over to me and said, "See A, B and C? They are police officers." Ten minutes later, one of the other guys on my team, a photographer for a Raleigh newspaper, leaned over and said, "See X,Y and Z? They are reporters."" Now the thing about this is that none of these 3 reporters nor the photographer (who must have left his camera at home) thought to whip out a cell phone and record this "Acute Embarrassment"? I don't think so. Please note the comment from Gary Packwood following Hopman's column in which he makes another excellent point. I have no reason to doubt KC's verification of this story but I am curious if the other source that backed up Hopman's version has any connection to Hopman or her possible ties to a feminist organization.

Basically the Charlie's story is full of holes. Holes that have not been filled by any reasonable explanations, in my opinion.


Chris Halkides said...

I would like to comment briefly on two matters. I asked Joan Foster about her use of the phrase “layed out in lavender,” and she sent me a helpful link ( I accept without reservation that she did not intend this as a slur. My take on the matter of Joan Foster’s nonbanning is that KC Johnson’s comment at 5:18 PM puts the matter definitively to rest. I also believe that no single person is responsible for prolonging this discussion unnecessarily but that the time has come to move on.


a Nice NJ Guy said...

College athletes talking loudly at a bar ???

The height of moral depravity ! ! ! The end of civilization !!

And... WHY was the Gender-Discrimination aspect of this story ignored ??
CHARLIE'S ??? Clearly a Male-Domination case of Totally Meaningless Events. Why was this not at CHARLENE'S ?

Disclosure Notices:
1) No Electrons were harmed in formulating this post.
2) The content of this post is as meaningless as the entire Charlie's incident.

Anonymous said...

Duke Dad:
This story was picked up by both local and National Media including Newsweek. The story appears to cast the Lacrosse players in a poor light. It is significant from that standpoint and is also pertinent to the discussion about the issues that John has with KC Johnson.

I understand you don't see it as a big deal in and of itself. If taken out of the context of the events before and after it would certainly not deserve any attention at all.

BTW, links previously mentioned but not provided in my last post can be found


Anonymous said...

As often as you enabled the hoax and impugned the integrity of the lacrosse players on the TalkLeft board, I can imagine the crocodile tears that must have streamed down your face at 11:53, Mark.

John in Carolina has found a true "brother in arms" with you.

This is another example how John went off the deep end with no evidence.

Who better to dive in with!

For anyone who wants to check, rougemonts record is available to be seen here:

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12:50PM. My record is also available at the Batcave (you can find your own link). It is true that I have not always been kind to the Lacrosse players. Nor have I always been kind to Nifong and the DPD.

I just call it like I see it. In this case, I am on the side of the Lacrosse players. I don't think the Charlie's story happened at all the way it was presented in Hopman's column.

I have not "joined forces with JIC either. Please note I am "still banned at John's website. On the other hand KC Johnson has not "barred" or "banned" me.

Maybe I'll next be accused of joining forces with KC. LOL.


One Spook said...

(Part One )

To the Anon, aka Rougemont; Red; Red Mountain; Rose Montague; Rouge Moulin; Red Scare; Red Sails in the Sunset; Red Menace; Red-headed Stepchild, Red Cross, Red Rover, or whoever you are:

I probably should have my head examined for commenting on yet another useless “discussion” in the lacrosse case, but I do so in hopes that Chris will commit this “Charlie’s Pub Incident” non-issue to the same dustbin where he has committed “Joan Foster’s nonbanning.” non-issue.

You state as your premise, as Rougemont: “This story was picked up by both local and National Media including Newsweek. The story appears to cast the Lacrosse players in a poor light.”

This is the entire Newsweek coverage of this incident:

Newsweek 4/10/06 By Susannah Meadows and Evan Thomas

“Almost two weeks after the event, in a bar called Charlie's Pub, recent Duke grad Jill Hopman was startled to see some Duke lacrosse players she recognized slamming down shots and calling out "Duke lacrosse!" (A source close to the families who did not wish to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter said there were three players in the bar and they made a single, regretful toast to the team, whose season is on hold for now.)”

Wow! For all of the journalistic injustices committed by Newsweek and others who cast the Duke lacrosse team in a “poor light,” that story was rather mild. She was “startled.”

A Duke Dad has it right in his satire above: “College athletes talking loudly at a bar ???
The height of moral depravity ! ! ! The end of civilization !!”

“ The content of this post is as meaningless as the entire Charlie's incident.”

(End Part One)

One Spook said...

(Part Two)

And, KC Johnson, who actually corresponded with people who observed the incident wrote, “The person who made the claim, Jill Hopman, stood by her story to me and seemed credible; an equally credible (non-lacrosse player) source who was in the bar that night strongly denied it. I wasn't there, so I've never either used the story or challenged Hopman.

Precisely. A good writer would not bother with a story that was incidental, hardly even relevant to the lacrosse hoax, and for which there is a dispute and no sure method to determine the truth of what actually happened.

The Chronicle article generated all of 6 comments. That should be a clue as to its importance and significance.

And, your second premise is “It [The “Charlie’s Pub Incident”] is significant from that standpoint and is also pertinent to the discussion about the issues that John has with KC Johnson.”

Actually, “the issues that John has with KC Johnson.” are not pertinent whatsoever to those of us who are interested in the salient facts of the Duke lacrosse hoax. Those “issues” should be of concern to John’s psychiatrist.

And, as Rougemont, you conclude:

“Basically the Charlie's story is full of holes. Holes that have not been filled by any reasonable explanations, in my opinion.”

Fine, and the prize for filling those holes is what?

Nothing could be more unimportant to the salient issues of injustice in the Duke lacrosse hoax. Or, as Anon @ 1:44 AM brilliantly said of John’s obsession with this matter:

“Sad to see someone who once captained the charge against injustice foundering in the doldrums of irrelevancies and false pretenses so.”

I wish I could write that beautifully!

But don’t let any of us influence you, Red. I think you and John should kiss and make up and write a book together, titled “The Charlie’s Pub Incident: Mugged By A Semaphore.”
However, I think you both need to do a lot more digging into this incident. I think you need to ferret out some of these questions (and others, undoubtedly):

1. Was there a full moon on the night in question?

2. Did Ms Hopman get kicked off of the softball team because she told a lie; because she is simply a dumbass for having even mentioned it; or because she was a lousy player who made frequent fielding errors and could never hit to right field?

3. Was Ms Hopman ever turned down for a date by a lacrosse player?

4. Was KC Johnson prejudiced about this entire incident because he personally does not drink alcohol?

5. Does taking shots and cheering one’s sports team point to a pernicious influence of white male athletic tribalism in American culture?

One Spook

Anonymous said...

One Spook,
I actually admire your posts even if I don't always agree with them. This 2-parter is well written and I think you made some good points. I do think you are wrong about trivializing this column and the effect it had on the players and their families. KC Johnson said: "The "Duke lacrosse" chant story, which allegedly occurred on the 25th or 26th, is vehemently disputed." I believe the use of the word vehemently is used here for a reason.

Perhaps KC Johnson could speak to that, as I believe that adjective is an apt descriptive of how they felt about it. You may think it is trivial but I don't believe they felt that way.

Just my opinion. I am curious if you think this incident at Charlie's happened the way it was described by Hopman.


a Nice NJ Guy said...

Re: The Charlie's Incident.

Upon reflection, I see this as a standard tactic of the left.

Seize upon any pretext, and make a loud noise about it to slime those you are against.

In this case, the Lacrosse Hoax Victims.

Logic, facts, truth, human compassion do not matter. Just focus on a drum beat of denigration. It is the situational equivalent of Castrate banners ... say the worst thing possible that will attract an audience.

One Spook said...

To the Anon @ 10:09 PM now commenting as “RedMountain”:

Thank you for your admiration of my posts. Given that you admire them, please do not mischaracterize what I wrote.

I made absolutely no representation “trivializing this column and the effect it had on the players and their families.” Those are your words. I did write that filling the holes in the Charlie’s story is to me, “unimportant to the salient issues of injustice in the Duke lacrosse hoax.”

And, I would agree that the story told by Ms Hopman “is vehemently disputed” no doubt by family members and others. Yet, in the lawsuits brought by the players against the various individuals an entities that they allege have wronged them, Ms Hopman is not named as a defendant in any of those actions. There could be many reasons for that, not the least of which is that the plaintiffs do not believe that the events in which Ms Hopman participated are actionable. I am sure that the players and their family vehemently dispute much of what was written in the media, but none of the lawsuits name any media companies or media writers as defendants. Frankly, I regret that fact, but I recognize that suing the media is a tough hill to climb.

In my opinion only, I believe that the reason Johnson found her “credible” is that (1) there were witnesses that collaborated her version of the events, and (2) that it seems hard to imagine that a first-year law student would make up an entirely false story of a public event that was, by her own admission, witnessed by many others.

Those considerations notwithstanding, if I was writing a definitive chronicle of events in the lacrosse hoax, I would do precisely what Johnson has done; mention the incident; that the events are disputed by eyewitnesses; and render no opinion of my own, since I did not witness it either.

And with that, I’ll borrow from Forrest Gump and say, “and that's all I have to say about that.”

One Spook

Anonymous said...


Words can lie, and statistics can be manipulated. Raw numbers, on the other hand, can tell the story. They are not subject to change -- they are what they are. And raw numbers tell a story about John in Carolina's "Charlie's Hoax."

1. A Description.

But, first, a description. John has recently called the Hopman Charlie's account "a vicious hoax." In her April 1, 2006 N&O article, Anne Blythe wrote that on the same night as the Buchanan street "candlelight vigil," Duke graduate Jill Hopman allegedly witnessed "some lacrosse players ... boisterously drinking at Charlie's Neighborhood Bar & Grille ...."

In her March 28, 2006 Chronicle guest commentary, Hopman described Duke lacrosse players "slamming" glasses down after loud toasts to "Duke lacrosse" and allegedly some "stumbling." As a football player, wrestler and social fraternity member during my university years, not a week would go by when I didn't engage in exactly the same behaviors. If I didn't stumble about once on an evening, I would hold the barkeep to blame for selling his wares too dear, and if rousing toasts were not heard, I blamed the stodgy demeanor of my company.

To Jill Hopman's eternal shame, she used innocent behaviors to paint a picture of "unremorseful" lacrosse players. The word "unremorseful" implies guilt to those who wanted the players to be guilty. In fact, the actions of the players, even if true, were those of innocent men.

2. The Numb3rs ("Hopman" & "Charlie's").

John in Carolina described the Charlie's incident as a "vicious hoax." In his postings during the last couple of weeks, John has written the name "Hopman" twenty-six (26) times. He has also used the name "Charlie's" thirteen (13) times. Even though the Charlie's incident was reported back in March and April 2006, John in Carolina used the names "Hopman" or "Charlie's" in his blog a total of zero (0) times in 2006.

In 2007, when John in Carolina posted 1,085 times on his blog, he mentioned "Hopman" and "Charlie's" exactly zero (0) times. He again mentioned those names a total of zero (0) times during 2008 -- when he posted 1,580 times on his blog.

(cont. below)

Anonymous said...

(cont. from above)

3. Numb3rs (“Miss California”).

In the three years from April 2006 to April 2009, John in Carolina blogged about Anne Blythe’s April 1, 2006 article involving the Charlie’s incident exactly one (1) time, and all he wrote was this: "Blythe also reported on a number of other very important Hoax stories including the now discredited one about many lax players drinking and boasting in a bar just a few days after the story broke.” During those three years, he blogged about Jill Hopman’s March 2006 guest commentary in the Duke Chronicle exactly zero (0) times.

In contrast, consider the few months that Carrie Prejean has imposed herself on the national conciousness, John in Carolina managed to put her name on the front page of his blog nine (9) times and the phrase "Miss California" ten (10) times -- all approvingly. During the 3 years that John managed to avoid the name “Charlie’s” even once, he was able to write Charlie Rangel’s name three (3) times -- all disapprovingly -- and Charlie Gibson‘s name four (4) times -- again disapprovingly -- because Gibson had aksed tough questions of Sarah Palin.

4. Numb3rs (Letters to the Editor).

John in Carolina sent emails to Anne Blythe or her News & Observer “Public” and “News” editors six (6) times about various articles she had written about the Mangum rape hoax. Not one (1) of those emails discussed the “vicious” Charlie’s hoax.

5. Conclusion.

John in Carolina has bashed Professor Johnson for not reporting on an incident that John in Carolina didn't report on. And John was supposed to be a News & Observer watchdog! Given the numbers involved, it is apparent that Professor Johnson’s rationale for sticking to easily refuted articles out of the “many articles worth criticizing in the case” was prudent and truthful. If John in Carolina were that prudent and truthful, we’d see a record of his criticisms of those “vicious hoax” articles. But we don’t. With that, I’ll borrow from One Spook and Forrest Gump and conclude by writing, “and that's all I have to say about that.” MOO! Gregory

Debrah said...

I must give the indefatigable "MOO Gregory" the American Movie Classics Al Pacino the dramatic role of the old classic "And Justice For All".....again.

Yet another astounding summation.

Pure, unadulterated, and irrefutable facts.

Unfortunately, as one or two Liestoppers commenters admitted weeks ago on their fora, there has long been a palpable degree of envy of the success and national recognition KC has received for his coverage inside Wonderland---which is unmatched by anyone covering the Lacrosse Hoax---and feel that they have not gotten some of the recognition they think they deserve.

This commenter mentioned that this had been discussed on occasion.

But when KC failed to keep his political views to himself (once or twice!) and simply allow others to use his blog to bludgeon the fora with a one-sided view of the Miss California matter, all of the pent-up envy, resentment, and animosity flowed.

Thank you, Gregory, for showing everyone in such an undeniable way how John has used this non-issue (Charlie's) as a vehicle to claw for relevance as he continues to attack KC.

This unprovoked madness was, no doubt, supposed to provide yet another bit of trivia as a way to continue....."closing down his blog".

Anonymous said...

In an effort on "one-up" KC Johnson, John in Carolina essentially bans everyone but his "regulars." As in -- from

Other emails have been the kind that are usually deleted for the usual reasons.

Regulars know the kind of email comments which get deleted.

If you're new to JinC and don't know, look around. I think you'll understand.

If you don't like a blog that doesn't publish certain things, consider yourself lucky. There are millions of blogs, among which there must be hundreds to your liking.

Black Tea said...

OMG! "Let's give MOO! Gregory a big hurrah."

Now that's breaking it down to where even a 5th grader would get the message.

Thanks for such a great post.

I just wish they would hurry up and close that store, this going out of business sale has ran it's course for me.

JWM said...

Moo! Gregory @ 4:16 PM begins his Conclusion:

“John in Carolina has bashed Professor Johnson for not reporting on an incident that John in Carolina didn't report on.”


I didn’t criticize, much less “bash[],” KC Johnson for not reporting on Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s hoax story.

Anyone who reads KC Johnson Now will see that.

Here’s the link:

I did criticize KC in KC Johnson Now for his failure to mention in his review at his DIW blog of “It’s Not About The Truth” N&O columnist Ruth Sheehan’s claim that Mike Nifong was the anonymous source for her May 27, 2006 “Team’s silence is sickening” column.

Does anyone know whether KC has ever discussed Sheehan’s claim at DIW?

John in Carolina

Anonymous said...

gregory MOO has gone to great lengths to prove his conclusion that "John in Carolina has bashed Professor Johnson for not reporting on an incident that John in Carolina didn't report on."

The problem is that I don't believe that is what John is bashing about. His first post he bashed KC Johnson for his views on the coverage of the N&O and used this story and others as examples. His main complaint is UPI claims “The N&O … distinguished itself after its lamentable first few articles in late March[.]” (p. 259, hardcover edition). Now it seems the bashing is about KC finding Hopman credible and KC saying the incident could have happened.


a Nice NJ Guy said...

Re: KC Johnson & the Charlie's Flap:

KC basically said that there were two sources given to him by Jill Hopman who verified Hopman's story. KC also had a third source who was present then who stated the incident never happened, and it was a complete fabrication.

KC concluded that he could not make a judgment on this issue, and dropped it.

KC Johnson said...

A bit further on the 9.39:

In an email dated Mon, Apr 2, 2007 at 8:23 PM (that would be a bit before JinC's latest post, for the record), Ms. Hopman (the person who made the allegation) gave me the names and phone numbers of two people who could corroborate her story; I followed through, they corroborated. She offered to supply me with additional names of people on her softball team to corroborate the story; I did not follow through on that offer.

I also spoke to one person whose judgment I wholly trust who unequivocally denied the story (she said she was in the bar that evening). That person would not have been able to have given an on the record interview on 31 March 2006 to the N&O.

My conclusion: there was nothing I could say one way or the other. While I had my own personal opinion on the veracity of the story, based on the information I had, I certainly couldn't produce a post attacking the article. I do try to corroborate any claims that I make: it's my impression that if I had done an unsubstantiated post attacking Blythe, it would have weakened my criticism of people who actually did engage in journalistic misconduct, like Bob Ashley or Duff Wilson.

Even more puzzlingly, JinC speaks about working hard "to confirm the shotslamming and shouting at Charlie’s story."

I have to admit--I didn't work that hard: I simply emailed the person who made the allegation (Ms. Hopman) in an email dated Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 7:47 PM.

Since this story seems to be so important to him, it's unclear to me why JinC didn't elect to email Ms. Hopman as well--although, I suppose, based on his conduct in his most recent post, it seems it isn't his practice to send emails to the subject matter of his writings when he has questions about the issue.

[By the way, I would have been happy to have shared this information with JinC had he emailed me about it before his recent post.]
5/27/09 10:08 AM

Anonymous said...

To Debrah: I don't think that pride or jealousy was involved; rather, I believe the impetus was simple political partisanship. It started with Carrie Prejean, and you could tell where it would be going after that by viewing the non-Hoax-related posts by the principals. Those posts reveal something beyond run-of-the-mill conservative activism.


To John in Carolina: I will be more precise. You bashed Professor Johnson for not bashing the N&O about the "Charlie's incident" article even though you failed to bash the N&O about the article at all. With that, I'm done with you, John, and that is really sad because I enjoyed your earlier posts. It also saddens me to see Liestoppers get divided like this, as I was there during the first groovy days of that wonderful blog and think that Baldo is the cat's pajamas. MOO! Gregory

Debrah said...

TO "Gregory"---

On this one I must disagree:

"To Debrah: I don't think that pride or jealousy was involved; rather, I believe the impetus was simple political partisanship. It started with Carrie Prejean, and you could tell where it would be going after that by viewing the non-Hoax-related posts by the principals. Those posts reveal something beyond run-of-the-mill conservative activism."

Without question, partisan politics provided the landscape for this embarrassing--(to the KC detractors)--bit of continuing nonsense.

However, you would have to be void of all sensibilities, not to mention fail to have read comments from LS and JinC, to believe that envy is not a big player in this infantile exercise.

I know, I's easier just to use the old excuse--politics. That would mitigate the nastiness, wouldn't it?

However, politics only provided the catalyst.

BTW, did you happen to catch that Gaynor link I left inside Wonderland?

The sheer hypocrisy by which these people operate is stupefying.

I will not gloss over what they have done here. They had weeks and weeks to tone down the rhetoric. Some from their own blogs appealed to them to cease.

It was not until they were exposed right here on this very blog have we seen one or two back doubt, from embarrassment.

You are free to characterize this fiasco as you wish.

I will not gloss over the fact that a few people tried relentlessly to discredit KC with falsehoods for their own petty purposes.

Chris Halkides said...

I would like to make a few more observations about the issue of Joan Foster at DiW. I now realize that Joan Foster really did think she was banned, and I do not hold any single person responsible for an unfortunate misunderstanding. Now that JinC has offered an apology (, I consider this matter settled.


a Nice NJ Guy said...

"Did you use Ban, today?"

Well, that was the advertising line of a popular deodorant, some time ago.

Now, it seems to be a blog line.

IMHO, incivility, of which there was an enormous amount, was the root cause of the Ban flap.

Other common causes are :
.. Flame Wars
.. ad hominem attacks
.. painfully long rants on "why I am right" or "I was wronged"
.. not checking the facts

Negativity merely drives away readers. There are no winners in Flame Wars.

Anonymous said...

JohnInC doesn't think it's "settled" though --

Debrah said...

I would like to make a few observations about the woman who uses the pseudonym "Joan Foster", myself.

This is the disgruntled, vindictive, and obviously idle "mother and wife", and all-around-Sean-Hannity-esque-blowhard.....

....who will not cease.

It was extremely misguided to give her a pass on this forum.

No one has kept these trumped-up issues alive the way this dishonest woman has.

She is now spending the time out of her day canvassing the N&O fora to find comments to paste on any blog which will allow.

You gave her a pass earlier---on two occasions---and what did she do?

Well, just read all the comments from the last few weeks at JinC from this woman.

She lambasted KC for not revealing sources, yet I provided an article where she and friends were justifying the fact that she did the same thing.

You gave her a pass by saying that no 'one person' kept this dust-up alive---(although, everyone knows the ambiguous language cannot eclipse her continued behavior)---and now she continues with her comment pasting on Reharmonizer's blog.

She was upset that JinC gave KC a light apology and told him he should not have done so.

Is "Joan" really not the person spending daily energy keeping these issues alive?

Or is this going to be a right-wing version of "affirmative action" for this woman?

Another free ride at everyone else's expense?

Is it fear that keeps this cover going?

Do some fear her enormous and never-ending mouth which will never stop until she rolls all over other people....all the while issuing shock when someone fights back?

Something tells me that it will take a bit more "convincing" for someone as insanely attached to getting attention from the lacrosse case as is "Joan".

You don't think the lacrosse mothers secretly cringe at such obsessed attention-seeking?

But Chris, let's give her another pass and watch this obsessed and overbearing person explode by her own design.

Debrah said...

And just one more observation.

Those of you who are so drawn to this case and imagine yourselves "on the front lines".....

......please do one of two things as you spend your days kibitzing and creating discord:

1) Move to the Triangle if this place so fascinates you.

2) Or at least use your own names and be identified as the "front line warriors" that you are, who were "there from the start".

Otherwise, as many have already opined, it looks simply bizarre and raises certain questions that a group of adults with their own families get such a rise from hanging onto the lacrosse case just to create endless discord.....

......(attempting to do deliberate harm to the man who single-handedly did the most, in word and deed, (KC) to affect its outcome.)

One might ask this of those who imagine themselves "on the front lines".

Chris Halkides said...

To the Anon. at 1:04 AM,

I was referring only to the nonbanning question, not to the separate issues of Charlie's and KC Johnson's sources. More on those two issues soon.

To RedMountain,
The only reason to ask what happened at Charlie's is because JinC initially expressed doubt about the existence of KC Johnson's confidential sources. I don't think that it is worth one's time to parse the word "credible." In this context I take it to mean not obviously false.

To cks,
I agree with the sentiments of your post at 4:14 AM. With respect to your comment at 4:38 AM, I would say that the content of a comment is the primary responsibility of the commenter. I would also observe that when one makes harsh comments, one has no grounds for complaining about harsh words in return. With respect to Liestoppers, they have a private forum that not everyone can join. That situation is different from most blogs.


Anonymous said...

To Chris @ 9:27 AM,

Responding to Red Mountain you say:

“The only reason to ask what happened at Charlie's is because JinC initially expressed doubt about the existence of KC Johnson's confidential sources.”

That's not true!

I did not express doubt about the existence “of KC Johnson’s confidential sources.”

Everyone who reads the thread of my post, “ KC Johnson Now,” where the matter comes up can see that.

Here’s the link:

I did say KC’s witnesses, whom he insists “corroborated in no uncertain terms” what he calls the Charlie’s “incident,” are false witnesses because you can’t corroborate something that didn’t happen.

I continue to say that.

Chris, please tell the truth about what I've said and say?

To Red Mountain, thank you for your comment.


One Spook said...

To: John (The Blogger who Blogs under the pseudonym John-in-Carolina) who writes @ 9:08 PM:

"I did say KC’s witnesses, whom he insists “corroborated in no uncertain terms” what he calls the Charlie’s “incident,” are false witnesses because you can’t corroborate something that didn’t happen."

You have presented no conclusive evidence that the Charlie's incident didn't happen; not on your Blog; not anywhere. All you have is an opinion and a theory.

KC Johnson has not "corroborate[d] something that didn’t happen." He corroborated Ms Hopman's version of the events, and he has corroborated a different version of the events --- the version you believe.

I will now post two comments below (the first a Two-Part comment; the second a One-Part comment), both of which I submitted at your Blog, but which you refused to clear, even after I wrote a private e-mail to you.

Ironically, by refusing to clear my comments which disagree with your position, you have engaged in precisely the same behavior for which you wrongly accuse KC Johnson.

One Spook

One Spook said...

This is Part One of a comment I submitted at the John-in-Carolina Blog on 7/16 and 7/17/09.

(Part One)

I was all set to leave this discussion, but after Ken and Locomotive Breath’s thoughtful comments on the previous thread, I was struck by this thought:

What we have here is a collision of different perspectives that do not necessarily point to right or wrong; good or bad; truth or lies.

Allow me to examine those perspectives as I see them.

(1) The Theory Perspective

Ken writes: ”The lack of a follow up expose suggests the story was a fabrication.” and LB writes: “”… the fact that there was no news story followup is telling.”

Those views essentially support John’s theory despite the lack of any evidence to support that view, ie. asking reporters present at the scene specifically why they did not do a follow up that would either verify or disprove Hopman’s version of the events; or asking employees or others present what they observed.

(2) Hopman’s Perspective

Hopman, steeped in her “feminist ideology” was spring-loaded to believe the worst about the lacrosse team. She likely believed that at least some of them were guilty of a horrible crime against a woman. Thus, not having even the slightest clue about how men think and react in certain situations, and failing to even consider that the rape claim might be a complete lie, she viewed the toast she purports to have seen and felt an “Acute Embarrassment” at the behavior exhibited. And it is obvious that she laid it on, as thickly as possible; her account is hyperbolic in the extreme. Whether lacrosse players made a toast or not that evening, I’m glad her teammates kicked her off their softball team. Relating that incident in the manner that she did, even if it happened, presumes guilt and is disgusting behavior ... far more so than a defiant toast. By any measure, Hopman is a bimbo.

(3) The Player’s Perspective

If there were indeed, lacrosse players that toasted “Duke Lacrosse!” that evening, and given that they knew the “fantastic lies” that had been told, they were engaging in a behavior that is very typical of men, very understandable, and easily explainable. Call it a “guy thing” or whatever label you choose, but it is indeed a typical male behavior and reaction. Imagine members of the 101st Airborne Division in World War II at Bastogne, surrounded on all sides by a dangerous and able enemy, seeing their fellow soldiers being killed in droves, and realizing they had to fight on, despite overwhelming odds against them. It would not be hard to imagine those soldiers raising a toast of “101st Airborne!” The message conveyed by that toast is “Screw-em, we have our pride and we’re going to fight on!” I honestly believe that any man who has competed in sports or fought in a battle would understand that sentiment, and that spirit is what such a toast by the players (if it did happen) is meant to convey.

Continued …

One Spook said...

This is Part Two of a comment I submitted at the John-in-Carolina Blog on 7/16 - 7/17/2009

(Part Two)

(4) A Reporter’s Perspective

If there were reporters who witnessed the events and if there was a toast raised, perhaps they did not feel as strongly about that act as Hopman did, and simply chose not to write about it, reasoning that the players had a right to let off some steam. As I mentioned above, even Newsweek, as craven as their coverage was, offered a somewhat charitable alternate view that the supposed toast was “a single, regretful toast to the team …”

(5) KC Johnson’s Perspective

Johnson has presented his own views above, and all I would add to that is that he was writing a book intended to be a definitive, accurate account of the events, and with this incident in dispute by sources he actually questioned, he could not possibly take a side in this matter, nor would it be a fair example to use. And Johnson should not be criticized for omitting the story from his book any more than John in Carolina should be criticized for posting under whatever name he chooses.

And so, on the night of March 25 –26, those perspectives, excepting Johnson’s, were all in place at Charlie’s Pub. The truth of those events remains in dispute. I think it is important to examine and understand all of those perspectives and refrain from blaming anyone who offers accounts of the events that are based on evidence.

I think it is interesting to note that 60 Minutes and other news outlets showed a video of Mangum dancing at the Platinum Pleasures Club on March 25-26th, eleven days after the alleged attack. The club manager, H.P. Thomas, told 60 Minutes that she had consistently performed her routine normally. Thomas also told Inside Edition that Mangum was back pole dancing three days on March 17th after making allegations of a brutal sexual assault.

It seems a shame to me that Hopman didn’t attend Mangum’s dance at the Platinum Pleasures Club on March 25-26th, rather than being at Charlie’s Pub. Hopman could have written a lovely Opinion piece for the Chronicle about that dance …

One Spook

One Spook said...

This is a second comment I submitted at the John-in-Carolina Blog on 7/17/09

I’m on record as having said I have no opinion on the veracity of this Charlie’s story; I have my views, but cannot either believe it or not believe it based on the evidence presented to date. The incident is in dispute from accounts of eyewitnesses. And I’ve criticized you for not presenting any evidence to support your conclusion that the Charlie’s incident is a hoax.

Now you present some evidence, from the “hundreds” of media employees you assert were present in Durham at the time of the Charlie’s incident.

You write:

“I talked to many of them [the ‘hundreds’] at the time of the Charlie’s hoax. All said they and members of other crews as well as many news organizations had tried to confirm Hopman’s story but couldn’t. All those I talked with rightly concluded it was a hoax.”

You do not claim that these “hundreds” actually witnessed the incident, but that they were conversant with the conclusions “they and members of other crews” and “many news organizations” had reached about the Charlie’s incident.

For any of us to believe your claim, we will have to presume that all of these reporters, staff photographers, “freelancers,” “stringers,” “independent photographers,” and satellite truck technicians who are all in extreme competition with each other for a big “payday” and, “big time notice by a possible future employer” must all meet each morning for coffee and share with each other all of the story details they have uncovered, just exactly how they view the veracity of various aspects of the story, how those details were confirmed, and exactly how they will treat each of those angles they’ve worked hard to discover.

You have to be kidding! How on earth can you expect anyone to take you seriously about this evidence?

One Spook