Blog and Media Roundup - Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Pages:
1
2

Blog and Media Roundup - Tuesday, June 30, 2009; News Roundup
Topic Started: Jun 30 2009, 04:43 AM (358 Views)
abb	Jun 30 2009, 12:00 PM Post #16
Posts: 8,322 Group: Tier1 Member #4 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/ Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (Yet Another) Comment re Comments Policy I continue to be amazed at how, despite my having written more than 1300 posts totaling more than 1.3 million words on the case, a few readers continue to attempt to discern my attitudes not by examining any of those 1.3 million words but instead by ruminating over comments I have or have not cleared--despite the unequivocal wording of the blog's stated comments policy: "My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only." We saw an example of this pattern a few weeks ago when the blogger who posts under the pseudonym "John in Carolina" slimed me by claiming that I had "banned" a commenter. (To my knowledge, he never retracted the false allegation.) And another example came in this morning, when a reader forwarded me a comment thread from the N&O featuring two pseudonymous commenters (two figures who had spent much of the criminal case functioning as Nifong apologists while always expressing faux outrage as to how anyone could ever claim they were suggesting a rape occurred) speculating as to my motives for clearing a comment. I write this blog with a presumption that readers have college-level comprehension skills. It saddens me, therefore, that the two pseudonymous commenters from the N&O blog apparently lack such skills, and were unable to understand the comments policy. For them, let me try to summarize the comments policy at an elementary-school comprehension level: * Posts = KC's Thoughts * Comments by KC = KC's Thoughts * Comments by Anyone Else ≠ KC's Thoughts For others, I will, from here on out, include a reference to the comments policy at the end of each and every post.
Posts: 8,322 Group: Tier1 Member #4 Joined: Apr 28, 2008


Locomotive Breath	Jun 30 2009, 02:54 PM Post #17
Posts: 472 Group: Tier1 Member #40 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Police: Duke University official offered adopted son for sex WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Duke University official is accused of offering his 5-year-old adopted son for sex on the Internet, according to the FBI and court documents in the case. Frank M. Lombard, 42, was arrested last week at his home in Durham, North Carolina. During an Internet chat, Lombard allegedly offered the child to the person he was chatting with, who was a task force officer from Washington's Metropolitan Police, the FBI said in a statement. The chat was initiated after a confidential source facing child pornography charges told authorities they had witnessed a man, allegedly Lombard, performing sex acts on a child over the Internet. <snip>
Posts: 472 Group: Tier1 Member #40 Joined: Apr 28, 2008


Joan Foster	Jun 30 2009, 03:25 PM Post #18
Posts: 3,838 Group: Tier1 Member #427 Joined: Jan 8, 2009	abb Jun 30 2009, 12:00 PM http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/ Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (Yet Another) Comment re Comments Policy I continue to be amazed at how, despite my having written more than 1300 posts totaling more than 1.3 million words on the case, a few readers continue to attempt to discern my attitudes not by examining any of those 1.3 million words but instead by ruminating over comments I have or have not cleared--despite the unequivocal wording of the blog's stated comments policy: "My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only." We saw an example of this pattern a few weeks ago when the blogger who posts under the pseudonym "John in Carolina" slimed me by claiming that I had "banned" a commenter. (To my knowledge, he never retracted the false allegation.) And another example came in this morning, when a reader forwarded me a comment thread from the N&O featuring two pseudonymous commenters (two figures who had spent much of the criminal case functioning as Nifong apologists while always expressing faux outrage as to how anyone could ever claim they were suggesting a rape occurred) speculating as to my motives for clearing a comment. I write this blog with a presumption that readers have college-level comprehension skills. It saddens me, therefore, that the two pseudonymous commenters from the N&O blog apparently lack such skills, and were unable to understand the comments policy. For them, let me try to summarize the comments policy at an elementary-school comprehension level: * Posts = KC's Thoughts * Comments by KC = KC's Thoughts * Comments by Anyone Else ≠ KC's Thoughts For others, I will, from here on out, include a reference to the comments policy at the end of each and every post. Does anyone know what N&O article he's talking about here? Maybe it's time he found a woman in Argentina or something.



nyesq83	Jun 30 2009, 03:34 PM Post #19
Posts: 513 Group: Members Member #239 Joined: Apr 29, 2008	Uh oh Joan you're starting to sound like me, and/or Tony Soprano! LOL!



Joan Foster	Jun 30 2009, 04:10 PM Post #20
Posts: 3,838 Group: Tier1 Member #427 Joined: Jan 8, 2009	Why in the world is there something under an article in the N&O... about KC and JinC and me? Huh? What is this man talking about?



cks	Jun 30 2009, 04:24 PM Post #21
Posts: 919 Group: Members Member #445 Joined: Mar 1, 2009	I read that earlier today and was wondering what he was talking about? I read through all the postings and could not for the life of me figure out to what he was referring. I don't know why it is that KC has such an animus towards John who has always been a gentleman.



chatham	Jun 30 2009, 04:29 PM Post #22
Posts: 2,775 Group: Tier1 Member #308 Joined: May 2, 2008	Joan Foster Jun 30 2009, 03:25 PM abb Jun 30 2009, 12:00 PM http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/ Tuesday, June 30, 2009 (Yet Another) Comment re Comments Policy I continue to be amazed at how, despite my having written more than 1300 posts totaling more than 1.3 million words on the case, a few readers continue to attempt to discern my attitudes not by examining any of those 1.3 million words but instead by ruminating over comments I have or have not cleared--despite the unequivocal wording of the blog's stated comments policy: "My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only." We saw an example of this pattern a few weeks ago when the blogger who posts under the pseudonym "John in Carolina" slimed me by claiming that I had "banned" a commenter. (To my knowledge, he never retracted the false allegation.) And another example came in this morning, when a reader forwarded me a comment thread from the N&O featuring two pseudonymous commenters (two figures who had spent much of the criminal case functioning as Nifong apologists while always expressing faux outrage as to how anyone could ever claim they were suggesting a rape occurred) speculating as to my motives for clearing a comment. I write this blog with a presumption that readers have college-level comprehension skills. It saddens me, therefore, that the two pseudonymous commenters from the N&O blog apparently lack such skills, and were unable to understand the comments policy. For them, let me try to summarize the comments policy at an elementary-school comprehension level: * Posts = KC's Thoughts * Comments by KC = KC's Thoughts * Comments by Anyone Else ≠ KC's Thoughts For others, I will, from here on out, include a reference to the comments policy at the end of each and every post. Does anyone know what N&O article he's talking about here? Maybe it's time he found a woman in Argentina or something. I believe it is this one Neighbors close in after sex charges http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1586521.html some of the commentorsare TA DAAAA.....debra (with an H) and one such as "agent pierce" and others. I dod not read them all but i would suspect this is what KC is talking about. ETA: sorry my speeling is so bad today...please translate when you can. Edited by chatham, Jun 30 2009, 04:31 PM.



Kerri P.	Jun 30 2009, 04:41 PM Post #23
Posts: 4,882 Group: Tier1 Member #131 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9749628/Coach-K:-I'm-'not-going-to-the-Lakers' Coach K: I'm 'not going to the Lakers' Updated: June 30, 2009, 5:01 PM EDT DURHAM, N.C. (AP) - Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski made it clear: He's not going to ever be the coach of the Los Angeles Lakers Krzyzewski held his annual summer meeting with reporters Tuesday, and one of the first topics he covered was talk that had him taking over the Los Angeles Lakers if Phil Jackson retires. Krzyzewski said he is "not going to the Lakers" and that he won't leave Duke "until I leave coaching." Krzyzewski, who guided the U.S. men's basketball team to the gold medal at the Beijing Games, also said the coach for the 2012 Olympics will be announced on July 21 in Las Vegas.



~J~ is in Wonderland	Jun 30 2009, 04:44 PM Post #24
~J~ is in Wonderland Posts: 3,618 Group: Tier1 Member #12 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	deleted Edited by ~J~ is in Wonderland, Jun 30 2009, 04:45 PM.



sceptical	Jun 30 2009, 04:47 PM Post #25
Posts: 1,073 Group: Tier1 Member #264 Joined: Apr 30, 2008	KC is referring to 2 different incidents. One was regarding Joan, whom KC insists was not banned from DIW. The other was from some N&O posters claiming that comments posted on DIW represented KC's opinions.



chatham	Jun 30 2009, 04:57 PM Post #26
Posts: 2,775 Group: Tier1 Member #308 Joined: May 2, 2008	sceptical Jun 30 2009, 04:47 PM KC is referring to 2 different incidents. One was regarding Joan, whom KC insists was not banned from DIW. The other was from some N&O posters claiming that comments posted on DIW represented KC's opinions. There were over 150 comments to that article I referenced, I did not read them all. Based on some of the people commenting, it would not surprise me that KC and Joan may have come up in the comment conversations. I know on one page debrah had 3 comments.



Joan Foster	Jun 30 2009, 05:12 PM Post #27
Posts: 3,838 Group: Tier1 Member #427 Joined: Jan 8, 2009	I think KC should realize that Debrah (like it or no) is perceived as Tonto to his Lone Ranger. If she comments somewhere...since he uses her as his personal cyber-samurai swatting down his enemies...it is only natural she draws comments to and about him. However...I can't find anything on that N&O thread. Nor do I know anyone WHO CARES a whit at this point whether I was banned from Wonderland or not. Even I do not care. So why does he bring this up AGAIN? Why start in again on JinC? What is his problem? And after all the ugly personal attacks he CLEARED by Debrah against JinC... in my opinion... it will be an HONEST DAY IN DURHAM before he deserves any apologies from anyone else. Furthermore, I'm still waiting for Prof. "Free Exchange of Ideas " to answer the questions in my last Email posted here. (a pet peeve of HIS when others to not flock to his blog to reply to HIM!) I want him to expound on his premise that there exists a class of people "not to be rewarded" till they toss their own beliefs and submit to HIS. Edited by Joan Foster, Jun 30 2009, 05:18 PM.



abb	Jun 30 2009, 06:42 PM Post #28
Posts: 8,322 Group: Tier1 Member #4 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1589726.html Published: Jun 30, 2009 02:50 PM Modified: Jun 30, 2009 02:50 PM 2 men killed in NC town in drive-by shooting The Associated Press GREENVILLE, N.C. - Police say two men were killed in a drive-by shooting that followed a dispute at a bar about a block from the East Carolina University campus. The Greenville Police Department said the shooting happened about 2 a.m. Tuesday after a dispute at The Other Place bar in downtown Greenville. Police said one of the men killed was an ECU student and the other managed a business on the street. The men were struck in their upper bodies by bullets fired from a white sedan. Police didn't immediately identify either man. Multiple media outlets reported that police also said the victims were believed to have been innocent bystanders.
Posts: 8,322 Group: Tier1 Member #4 Joined: Apr 28, 2008


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2