text:
In her peculiar January 2007 N&O essay, Group of 88 member Cathy Davidson invented a past that never existed—she claimed rampant racist defenses of the lacrosse players on the "campus quad" in the days after the story first broke—to rationalize the Group's ad. The Davidson essay, for the most part, took its appropriate place in the "Group of 88 Rehab Tour" as an initiative that only made the Group look more foolish.
One claim in the essay, however, had staying power—at least among the beleaguered defenders of the Group. Consciously imitating the most outrageous Nifong slime against the lacrosse team, Davidson denounced the Group's internet critics as "right-wing blog hooligans." This line of attack was later taken up by Duke administrators, and by Jim Coleman and other Group defenders among the faculty.
It's undeniable that there have been vile and sometimes racist comments about the case posted on various blogs, including this one (although I have deleted any such comment brought to my attention).
The critique of Group defenders, however, suggests ignorance of how blogs function. The anonymity of the internet permits angry or vile comments, items whose authors doubtless would say them differently if forced to do so in their own name. This is, of course, a drawback of the internet.
The idea, however, that such angry or vile remarks were confined to anonymous defenders of the lacrosse team is absurd. Anyone who followed the case through the TalkLeft discussion forums would be familiar with the daily character assassinations against the lacrosse players made by a handful of pseudonymous commenters. Similar comments appeared on pro-Mangum blogs, such as the one maintained by the North Carolina NAACP or the CourtTV forum, which for months was wildly slanted against the lacrosse players.
This blog, as well, has featured its share of sneering, angry comments—although, in the case of DIW, these comments almost always have been directed at critics of the Group of 88 rather than the lacrosse players.
It would be presumptuous of me to suggest that any of these comments reflected the beliefs of Group members (although some of these statements, which were always anonymous, purported to come from people at Duke)—just as it would be preposterous of Group defenders, such as Charlie Piot, to suggest that scattered vile comments on DIW reflected my beliefs.
In the end, as Daily Kos' Markos Moulistas pointed out, occasional vile trolls are part of doing business on the internet, and their significance is dwarfed by the democratic promise that the blogosphere holds. (Both Group defenders like Piot and likeminded anti-intellectual figures on the other side of the ideological spectrum, such as Bill O'Reilly, disagree with Moulistas, and argue instead that anything posted by anyone on a blog necessarily reflects the viewpoint of the blog author.)
A couple of additional items are worth noting.
1.) Critics of the Group of 88 and other faculty excesses have offered lengthy critiques (over 900,000 words, in my case) in their own voice. So the idea that a reviewer would need to turn to anonymous comments to determine the views of Group critics is a stretch.
2.) Just as it's hard to miss the ill-concealed anger in the anonymous comments left by Group defenders, so too has it been hard to miss the anger in statements offered by Group defenders in their own name—such as Charlie Piot; or Prasad Kasibhatla (who urged people to read the Piot piece, and then boasted he would not even look at a critique of the Piot article).
In this respect, the anger of which Davidson claimed to be so concerned is far more characteristic of the Group and its defenders than of critics of the Group. Indeed, a level of fury appears to be a consistent element of the Group and its defenders.
Last December, Liestoppers did a frightening post that compiled the voices of the "Durham street," solely in the form of comments left on the Liestoppers blog. With that as a model, I decided to reproduce some comments offered by Group defenders on this blog. That many of these comments purported to have come from intellectuals is depressing. But at least they give the lie to the Davidson/Piot argument that "anger" in this case is largely a problem of defenders of the lacrosse team. If nothing else can be said of the comments below, it's that their authors appear to be deeply angry individuals.
All spelling errors are unchanged from the original comments. I added only three [bracketed] items to provide context to three of the comments.
You know, the real question is why are you so obsessed with some of these Duke faculty. It seems a bit envious to have spent this much time and attention on them.... Your motives begin to emerge as the more interesting topic the more you harp on the 88. Is it institutional envy? I mean I love Brooklyn College, but NYU and Columbia are also in New York. Maybe you could go on the market with this book and find a way to feel better about yourself so that you don't have to go looking over the publication histories of those who have done some better than you, professionally speaking that is.
My son goes to a well-regarded private school. Duke is still one of the popular places to apply. Ditto U. of Chicago, Cornell, and Stanford, and probably many of the other places you and your luncheon-mates are planning to have your kids give a miss. I say, keep it up! Makes it easier for the rest of the kids to get in!!! Please, send your kids to Brooklyn College. Pretty please.
Indeed, if you have the less prestigious teaching fellowships (the research fellowships are generally considered more prestitigous, requiring as they do, knowledge of languages of research) [in fact, this year I am the Fulbright Distinguished Chair in the Humanities, which is "generally considered more prestigious" than a regular fellowship, of either the teaching or research variety], but I wonder how it looks for future Fulbrighters--especially teaching Fulbrights--to see that one of their own spends his time obsessing about Duke. If I were the Israelis, I'd feel like you weren't such a good Fulbright choice, since you're mind is pretty obviously on Durham...
Nice to see what a high-quality readership you have, KC. To Duke's great credit, they have not -- and will not -- limit the ability of their faculty to express their opinion. Or do you readers agree with your National Socialist (Nazi) buddies, who believe that Duke's black faculty should be lynched?
Folks, plan to be discouraged, outraged, blah blah blah. Your ire will go exactly as far as this blog. Sure some of you will write irate emails to the 88. And poor pitiful KC will continue his pathologic obsession with Duke faculty members so you folks can be disgusted and have a safe space to share.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, as somebody copied from another site, the Duke faculty you love to hate will continue their patterns of reward, speech, high salaries and other perks of academe. But do not completely despair, you always have this site to talk among yourselves. That is exactly how far your outrage extends, except to those of us who check in to collect our bets on how long KC will be unable to disentangle himself from his obsession. It's really getting quite pitiful, if not borderline hilarious. He can't let go. even from Israel. This has become his identity, and he obviously needs all your praise cause he's not getting it from the academy where he has become a laughingstock. I won money today. Keep it up y'all.
When are you going to stop "big brothering" the Duke faculty, KC Johnson? I fail to see why John Thompson's name is on your hit list today, Prof! And what, pray tell, is "going off syllabus"? Is correct "going off syllabus" allowed? And are you up there somewhere at good old Brooklyn College to tell faculty when they may or may not "go off syllabus"?
Get a life, KC Johnson. What business is it of yours what kinds of fellowships/programs Duke has? In short: it's not your business. If you're on your Fulbright, I'd've thought you should be doing work connected with that, not sticking your nose in Duke's business.
I'm sure all of your right-wing blog buddies will think you're just great, but I think you should be ashamed. You've gone from defending the LAX to an on-going attack on a university, indeed, perhaps, attacking intellectual diversity, by going after that which you don't like. For shame.
KC has a LONG career harrassing anything at Duke that doens't match his vision of what a university should be. Lord knows he has little influence at Brooklyn College, and what inifluence he has doesn't much matter since it's Brooklyn College. And he is overseas on a fellowship made possible by his Republican and rightwing buddies--academic graf if there ever was such a thing--which means that he can blow off working on whatever project he said he was going to work on and instead blog about Duke! Way to go KC!
This stopped being about the Lacrosse accusations a long, long, long time ago, and has been the 'KC the righteous and aggrieved academic Show' for quite some time. It's all about KC! Why on earth do you think he spent so much time writing about Piot's article? Because it gets to be about him! (And by the way KC, just how long *did* you spend on that blog entry! It's gi-normous!)
Now we know the trutth! The Duke Lacrosse Scandal is about KC Johnson! He will be the Blog Decider of the World and say what is good and bad about anything at Duke! All Hail Wingnut KC! Yay!! LOLOLOL!!
So show me how KC Johnson is a workaholic? Prodigious schoarlship? I don't think so. Where are his sources? In the US, true? In English, true? Many published, true? Not so difficult to produce a narrative, is it? Or do you know? What are you comparing his output with?
Now, if KC had a life, maybe he'd spend time on that rather than this blog.
13,000 copies?! No wonder this appeared on the Reader's Digest List. Of course, you may have noted that yesterday's USA Today's top sellers mentions NO lacrosse related book at all. OMIGOSH! But, then, after all, that's a wider reading audience survey than that accomplished by the esteemed Reader's Digest. By the way, the Harvard Coop, has no Stuart Johnson/KC book either. (Lots of 88 publications on the shelves though). Seems there's a standard being applied someplace. But we must all be thankful for the dependable Reader's Digest. The publication that edits the text down to the most readable for the common reader...and leaves all that other stuff that might challenge out. Good location. And let's hope the next 13000 are similarly snapped up. I stand by my October surprise prediction. A Halloween night bargain on the remainders shelves.
I'm not marginalized. Why would I be? And certainly not by you. Not a chance our paths would cross. I don't have any reason to be around your sort. Bottom feeders who talk baby talk. Such an adult behavior. I'm impressed.
Why would you think I'm scared? Of you, not hardly. Indeed, not of much.
Fine, if it's an observation. I guess your observations are just sort of useless.
It doesn't matter to me very much that KC Johnson is--in my opinion--right wing. Nor does it matter much to me that many of the people who comment here are.
What bothers me is that he provides a blog spot for racist comment. Oh, yes, I know many of you think you're not racist--and some of you may not be, BUT some of you say things that reasonable people can construe that way. I understand that. I understand some of you think white men are on the defensive in the US, however unlikely this may be. You are entitled to your opinions . . .
You seem to think only KC can argue cogently. I'm not overwhelmed by his forensics abilities. He's ok, but he's a bit self-impressed & doesn't always write well.
Sign me: Yep! I'm a professor and I don't support the 88, but I think that KC should just shut up. Please.
Sorry, KC -- he's got you on this one. You can splutter, but fair minded people see you as a one sided, unfair crank -- shalom and you won't be missed...
You are not the only one who has noticed KCs tone, a bit petty, a bit braggadocio, a bit over the top. He's lost major academic credibility, so the effort is to try to create blog credibility. Well,if that's his audience of choice, so be it. I guess we all need some place where people 'know our name'.
Your hope that you matter to someone other than yourselves is so sorry to watch (but not without its own humor). News flash. You don't. And we write because you guys are sooooo easy. And there are bets about how many comments we can get. And then a lot of lunch time laughter. So here's bait people. Go for it. But geesh, can't you make it a little more difficult? Thin skinned, wishful thinking, failures that you are. How many comments can I get for that?
Trust me. If KC were such a hot scholar, he'd be at a better school.
He makes errors of omission all of the time in his blog & he frames arguments to back his right-wing, in my opinion, racist, assumptions. And he provides a safe home for racist commenters in the blogosphere. That's his business, but, old son, it ain't scholarship.
Meanie? No, I don't think I'd say that. He's more whiney. The Eddie Haskell type crossed with one of the kiddie show hosts. I mean, in look/style.
What a burn, KC -- Coleman calls your position "destructive," "biased and inaccurate." He specifically rebuts your contention that "the Lacrosse Committee report... is a 'stunning vindication" of the team.' Any authentically impartial reader would find that it 'very carefully details a pattern of behavior that the committee characterized as 'socially irresponsible' that should 'have been a cause for alarm.'" But wait -- the knife goes a lot deeper -- "Dismissing this finding as trivial is a biased and unjustified misrepresentation of the facts."
"Biased and unjustified" -- wow, if the shoe fits...
And as for your ranting on the faculty? "Nothing could be further from the truth."
Coleman ACCURATELY says that faculty -- including the 88 -- "care deeply about students and are passionately committed to their personal and intellectual growth. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the daily life of a faculty member will quickly appreciate the time, effort and energy that faculty put into teaching, advising and mentoring students."
But wait -- there is a cherry on this cake: "To suggest otherwise, on the basis of isolated and selective incidents that occur over the course of complex events and are taken out of context, is nothing more than a tragic rush to judgment."
Tragic rush to judgment -- sound familiar? Maybe you and Nifong are soul mates...
KC, darling, I'm not worried at all. I'm laughing at you. You're so pompous. You tactic is so cute. Someone disagrees with you, so you call them angry. But when folks agree with you, angry is just great.
I can imagine why you don't go off syllabus. You'd get your knickers in a twist just like you are over this.
I was laughing as I typed the first post, because I thought you were so silly. Now I am laughing even harder. AT YOU.
KC has a long history of engaging in pointless disputes with people, in which he harasses people endlessly, claiming to have the "facts." It's a shuck.
Why don't *you* stop beating a dead horse? The lacrosse case is over. Leave these people alone. Who cares what happens at Duke? How about giving a shit what happens to all those nice white -- as well as black and brown -- kids over in Iraq who are getting their legs and heads blown off at the rate of twenty or thirty a week?
KC Johnson is a fictional character that used o be a real person who did real scholarship. Now he's just an athletic supporter with a large fan club.
Scary, isn't it, KC, when folks get to *your* dirty little secrets.
I must say, however, I do wish that Brooklyn had managed not to tenure you. You seem really difficult to be around: you're somewhat thick when you choose to be. You put words into people's mouths and onto their comments. A bad idea. I'd think you'd be a better historian if you didn't do that.
KC, you have some, perhaps conscious, version of multiple personality, in which you write respectably in respectabel publications and then choose other personae for your more lunatic remarks?
Does anyone but me think that mac is just KC comenting under another identity? I think he does that a lot -- including, I am pretty sure, a lot of the trashy, harassing emails people get from the supposed "supporters" of KC are actually him operating under other email accounts. I keep getting snail-mail letters from someone who mysteriously has no return address, and yet keeps demanding replies.
KC, you have a long history of mysogynist behavior, words and deeds, which is part of what got you into trouble at Brooklyn when your scholarship should have allowed you to sail through your promotion review with no problems. You were a polarizer in that department, to the extent that conservatives wanted you gone too. [In fact, the only two members of the department who in any way could be considered "conservative," Margaret King and David Berger, publicly and repeatedly supported my tenure candidacy.] Any google search picks up on it immediately, even in stories that are very sympathetic to how you were wronged in your tenure case: you have a penchant for taking absolute stands, judging others relentlessly, and harassing them in contemptuous, unprofessional ways when they don't give in to you.
Ah! So that's what this is about! They [Duke] didn't hire you!
I don't do psychoanalytic criticism, but this entry is screaming for a therapist to help it sort out a whole lot of emotional and professional baggage.
Oh, goody! Another hard-hitting expose on ... someone nobody reads [Tim Tyson], no one cares about, and who is non-tenure track, who makes no decisions about anything besides his reading list, at the far periphery of his department. Way to go, KC! Next up, detailed write-ups of pot-sellers and housewares employees at Sears who fuel this angry mob!
I am not horrible for stating the obvious: in attacking the G88, KC plays the data. There is no "truth," capital T about their work. You aren't horrible either for assuming there is one "TRUTH" about the G88. Mostly, you are STUPID. You know, STOOO POD. KC plays data in his attacks on the G88. DATA. What is the "truth" about these people's research? You are much safer in talking about data.
KC is indulging in academic politics. Oh, yes, he could have stayed at Williams. It's a good school as he is so fond to tell us. A small, good, rich kids school FOR UNDERGRADUATES. A research power house? Not hardly. And, I'm so glad he had a commitment that brought him to Brooklyn. It ain't Columbia. It ain't NYU. It ain't even Fordham or Hunter. And this is the man you let explain the research of people well outside his field...can he read the languages of all of their research? And that's just a first question.
Saying that your summaries are badly done is not an argument but rather an assertion.
It happens to be an assertion that is true. It is also true that it needs an argument, but others have started to do that work in comments below (for example, pointing out how you smear and obfuscate non-tenure and tenure stream faculty and only focus on the small fry instead of assessments of the big folk).
No college that I can think of would in their right mind put you on an APT committee--not because you hold certain cultural or political beliefs but rather because you so badly and baldly misrepresent the work of scholars who you're gunning for . . . Do you treat your colleagues at BC this way? I hope not.
Oh, sure. Get rid of tenure, Ralph and company. KC would be fired so fast his head would spin. Personally, that would make me happy.
I'm always amused when my students tell me what I think because they are more often than not incorrect. I've never felt it my job to let them know. I assume others feel that way as well.
You strike me as a bit of a know-it-all. You know, the kind of person who tells others what they think. An Ugly American sort.
I was simply identifying your politics as fascist. It's fine. You can be a fascist. And, of course, fascist thought is studied and respected. May not be liked. What's the problem?
It really is tiresome at this point to read your empty-headed exhortations. You wonder why none of the people you excoriate and few others will engage with your "arguments"? Because your reasoning, like your prose, is facile, depressingly jejune, and means only to incite emotion rather than offer serious critique.
This is it? This is the great expose that we waited so breathlessly for? This is the routing of the PC forces? Where are the hot-and-heavy quotations from the scholarship on race/gender in modern society that prove that this sort of work leads to Stalin-like oppression and Soviet-like ideological dogma? Where are the careful tools of the historian, where you show that the cultural, social, and political conditions of the writing of Chafe's books lead to Nifong? . . .
OMG, it's too rich. Thanks for all the laughs, KC. I thought this was gonna be the piece de resistance, but it turned out to be a piece of something else entirely. LOL
You must get quite a kick out of being called right wing and Republican so many times. It's my understanding that those are not terms that you generally use to describe yourself.
This post is most effective.
Once again, KC kills them with their own words.
These two examples below are definitely from the same anonymous attacker on the previous thread.
He/she always uses (***) asterisks to highlight words.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"KC has a long history of engaging in pointless disputes with people, in which he harasses people endlessly, claiming to have the 'facts'. It's a shuck.
Scary, isn't it, KC, when folks get to *your* dirty little secrets."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are they supposed to serve as teeth for these hilariously personal little diatribes?
There's definitely a number of people from Duke--Gang of 88 and/or their buddies--who show up inside Wonderland all the time.
Quite amusing in their anonymity!
Consider this a badge of honor. You are a very good scholar, and you have more integrity in your little finger than the G88 and their minions have in their entire bodies.
(By the way, I have received the "Gee, Bill, don't you wish that YOU were good enough to be at Duke?" messages, too. Comes with the territory.)
If these so-called "elite" faculty members were really secure in what they are doing, then they would not be demanding that Duke and every other university become something akin to Maoist re-education camps. People who are secure in what they are doing do not have to resort to coercion and insults.
Remember this. Large portions of the Duke faculty and administration were willing to believe something that was demonstrably false on its face. They had to convince themselves that Harry Potter Science really was true, and that people who did not believe like they do must be morally suspect.
Those members of the Duke faculty and administration who did not jump on this bandwagon were told in no uncertain terms that to openly dispute this transparent lie would damage their Duke careers. Secure people do not have to resort to intimidation.
So, I will make a statement for all you G88 enablers: K.C. is a better scholar than the 88ers, and he is person much more secure in what he is doing than any of them. K.C. does not have to resort to thuggish tactics like those "elite" faculty members of whom we speak.
And he does not engage in academic fraud like some professors we know. Nor does he operate anonymously. So, if any of you 88ers want to post, please identify yourselves. If you don't then consider yourselves to be pathetic cowards.
The intellectually weak members of the G88 have no other defense than to dismiss, and condemn, their critics as "right-wing blog hooligans".
There is no "right-wing" nor "left-wing" to the defense of civil liberties. The G88 are a disgrace to Duke University.
One can go to dailykos and look up old diaries to find left-wing bloggers sympathetic to the lacrosse players. With, of course, support getting stronger and stronger as 2006 wore on.
For those trying to zing KC appealing to vanity, I'd suggest reading his biography. He comes across as a monk.
KC - President of Iran has now called our dollar "a worthless piece of paper." Those dopes at Columbia are fooling around with the American People. Hope their support of the terrorist bites them in the $$$. Read today that your Fullbright is one of the most distingished. The 88 must be furious.
Thanks for reprinting the post of the Anon who claimed you were sock puppeteering under my blog name.
It was an honor to be compared with you! (I doubt that you thought it was an honor, though.)
Let the potbangers, 88, and others of their ilk try to "repair" everything they did as best (and dishonestly) as they can. It's obvious what they are. And let Christina Headrick try to hide behind her cutesy-dutesy Durham "scrapbook" store- Carolina Memories- as some kind of benevolent creature. The fact is she gave out the names and addresses of the lacrosse team players on the Durham Responds Yahoo Group, making them available to every psychopath in Durham and nationwide. (We're talking homes with parents, children, pets, old people. Endangering those people). May Headrick still learn that such hateful behavior involves consequences.
Dante said...
The anonymity of the internet permits angry or vile comments, items whose authors doubtless would say them differently if forced to do so in their own name. This is, of course, a drawback of the internet.
That vile comments and sometimes slanderous anonymous statements are made on the internet is indeed unfortunate.
However, given the increasing encroachment of free speech by the government, and the PC crowd trying to stop even certain thoughts through various means, I for one am glad there exists the anonymous outlet of the internet.
Also, given that abrogation of rights seems to be a one way street, imagine how important the anonymous internet might be in the future.
I suspect that an e-mail has been designed by the G88 and sent to all Women's Studies Departments, AAABlack Studies Department and All Students Affairs employees in the USA and asked that they jump up on the lacrosse boards and offer comments using these seven(7) concepts as idea generators.
(1) KC is obsessed and ...
(2) Brooklyn College is less than ...
(3) White men who comment are racists...
(4) Quality of KC's writing, his tone and quality of the comments offered are...
(5) Know-it-all mentality of KC, Right Wing Bloggers and ...
(6) "Big brothering" the Duke faculty and ...
(7) Intellectual capacity of KC and his bloggers are...
It might be helpful if we update this list of seven occasionally so that we can save some space and just say...Ah...another # 7 arrived yesterday and two or three # 4's bounced harmlessly off the DIW wall.
Not to worry! so it goes.
Vote for the Top Stories in Lacrosse in 2007:
"If nothing else can be said of the comments below, it's that their authors appear to be deeply angry individuals."
I think anger is the typical emotional reaction of anyone telling lies and getting caught, and it is an emotion used to fire up people to a point of view while trying to prevent them from using their reasoning power to understand the real issue at hand.
Now with that said, I think you should do some more serious research on Mr. O'Reilly. His statements about the Daily Kos were not anti intellectual or against free speech, but one of using emotions like anger, envy, and hate to drive opinions. This is where the nazis and kkk remark came from.
Your statement "anti-intellectual figures on the other side of the ideological spectrum, such as Bill O'Reilly" does not come with your normal facts, and references other then from the comedian Colbert (whom I watch often). I respect the opinions of both you, and O'Reilly. But if you want to sway me to your side present some more information regarding him being anti intellectual.
Keep up the good work, and I think the odds 1 against 88 are still in your favor!
After reading those negative comments directed at KC,the phrase,"shooting the messenger" come to mind. Rather than simply admit that they hitched their wagons to a loser of a case/defendant/biased,pandering DA/corrupt police department,the "Group of 88" and their ilk have resorted to personal attacks. Surprise surprise. God forbid,somebody offer an objective (and KC HAS been objective throughout)evaluation of the case.
Grendal said...
"so glad he had a commitment that brought him to Brooklyn. It ain't Columbia. It ain't NYU. It ain't even Fordham or Hunter."
I used to live in Brooklyn and I've been to Durham many times. I'll take Brooklyn.
The Lax farce that went on over a year never would have taken place in Brooklyn.
Is Davidson a Communist?
Oh, man...oh, man.
Just came back to finish reading this nutty stuff and saw this one.
"Does anyone but me think that mac is just KC comenting under another identity? I think he does that a lot -- including, I am pretty sure, a lot of the trashy, harassing emails people get from the supposed "supporters" of KC are actually him operating under other email accounts. I keep getting snail-mail letters from someone who mysteriously has no return address, and yet keeps demanding replies."
This is the mentality we're met with, unfortunately.
I remember most of these; however, seeing them all together is really quite stunning.
Street cred at Duke!
Interesting bunch, those guys.
If KC (who is a true Liberal in the old-fashioned sense) is consistently defined as a "right wing reactionary" by the commenters cited above, we know what those left wingers value. The difference is quite clear, and the leftos have correctly noted that most right wingers value honesty, ethical behavior, adherence to principles, etc. Thus, KC, a true Liberal, can also lay claim to being a right wing-nut as well!! Checkmate 88!!
I recall that KC Johnson admits to errors and corrects them when they are brought to his attention and even, as in his response to the recent poster on Coleman, thoughtfully reconsiders his views.
(I must admit to some sympathy for the redneck from the Liestoppers thread referenced in this post who complained about Yankee boys relieving themselves on his lawn ... but what that has to do with the case eludes me.)
It's all becoming very post-modern ... the blog post about the blog posts about the blog.
I am looking forward to the filing of the Motion to Dismiss and the start of motion hearings in the civil suit.
well, the latest amazon.com listing puts your book overall at about #1300 on the best-seller list.
In the Law category, the book in #1!!
In the Law History category, it's #1 again!
hmm...i guess for the 88's who have their books "in press" we can only speculate how they fill fair....
Its interesting to me how many people who couldn't keep their mouths shut in their rush to judgement now resort to attacking your employer in hopes of stopping the truth from being told.
I think I would rather teach at a comedy driving school than be a Group of 88 member at Duke.
Keep up the good work!!!
P.S. I was able to find your book on the best seller list, however I haven't been able to find anything from the group of 88 on the best seller list. Certainly since they are professors at a better school... anything they write should be an "automatic best seller" or am I missing something?
Search for Meaning said...
In order for criticism to be valid it has to be supportable. When KC criticizes someone he usually offers quotes and other back up to support his opinion.
If you have a complaint with KC why not quote his blog or his book and then state why the writing is unfair. This could then led to a useful debate as opposed to just name-calling.
Very few of these commentors write or think like college professors. They're good at The Sneer and The Insult and the Unsupported Assertion - which leads me to suspect they're not far from their teenage years.
Something like college students, or the learned philosophers at the local beer hall.
Professor Johnson continues to run circles around the pathetic Duke professors, who have become a national laughingstock.
From one of the anonymice excerpted above:
Does anyone but me think that mac is just KC comenting under another identity? I think he does that a lot...
Nope, you're only one who's clueless.
As everyone here knows, mac is really amac, before the "a" was surgically removed, aka ralph phelan, a well-known pseudonym for his preferred identity as professor steven horwitz, not to be confused with Duke Prof, who may or may not really be a duke, but in any case is actually Debrah, played by on this blog by MOO! Gregory, or would be if she would let him wear her outfits, that is, when he's not posting as Ken in Dallas, who isn't in Dallas at all because he's really no justice, no peace, the alter-ego of w. r. chambers (it is well known that everyone who refuses to capitalize his or her pseudonym suffers from multiple-personality disorder and has authority issues), though in fact he has been identified as Texas Mom, formerly commenting as RRH, futilely attempting to conceal his true identity as r. r. hamilton (the authority issues again), more commonly known to all as Gary Packwood, or "GP" to his friends, who also bills himself as dsl, or lsd if you really think about it, though in actuality she is the only real anonymous who comments here as inman, all of whom are forged identities for One Spook, who is the real mastermind behind it all. I apologize to all of valued and respected blog hooligans at DIW whose names did not come immediately to mind. But you're all the same person anyway and you know who you are. KC Johnson, remarkably, plays Himself, when he is not being his evil twin Stuart Taylor, who is really... but don't get me started. "Me" being, most of the time,
On the one hand, these half-literate malcontents are effectively revealed as such by merely quoting them accurately.
On the other hand, only readers with some sense will get it.
I mean, these postings were sent out by folks who were not embarassed by them in the first place. And some others no doubt sat in the bleachers and cheered when they got to read such jejune out-pourings.
I am an optimist. The good guys will win in the end. But there is plenty of evidence that it will be a long fight.
And he is overseas on a fellowship ..."
Soldiers and sailors go overseas. K.C. goes abroad.
It is depressing and not hopeful that so very many who choose to comment choose not to argue from verifiable facts.
It is completely impossible to have a dialogue leading to either (a) a mutually satisfactory understanding of difficult issues, or (b) an agreement to respectfully disagree, when the dialogue is at the level of "you are an idiot" "No, I am not an idiot - your are". Or, "you are right/left wing, and for that reason and no other your motives are/are not suspect and your ideas should/should not not be considered."
Is it that those who argue from verifiable facts are not paying attention, or do they not exist?
Wonder what this nut is smoking in his pipe?
Obviously not a DIW follower or he/she/it would know that KC is a Democrat not a Republican, a liberal not a conservative, an honest man not a grammatically inaccurate slob.
Jealousy makes people say strange things and I just read most of them.
Scholarship--you question KC's scholarship. Maybe the rest of us dismiss your insanity and one-sided rant.
Till you become a legitimate talk show host.
"You strike me as a bit of a know-it-all. You know, the kind of person who tells others what they think. An Ugly American sort."
Perhaps we can introduce one small fact into the venom stream. The title character of the book "The Ugly American" was the good guy. Of course, PC means never having to concern yourself with the facts.
Me? Just another anonymous blog hooligan, saving himself a few bucks by telling his kids not to apply to Duke. Less competition for your kids? Fine, what makes you think anyone wants to be in school with them anyway?
This one is rich. Now, here are people who really like their judges (at least in the Duke case) to be like Roland Friesler -- and they are calling someone else "fascist"?
You see, K.C., a Duke faculty member did not like the idea that Nifong was wrong. Oh, no. These Duke faculty members are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, and because we do not bow down and worship a modern day Roland Friesler, we, too, are fascists.
From what I can tell, none of them "engaged" you because they are damned cowards and faux intellectuals. William Chafe an intellectual? He can't even tell the difference between Reade Seligmann and Roy Bryant. The guy is a joke, period, his many books notwithstanding. A pathetic joke.
By the way, not one -- not one -- Duke professor would identify himself on this blog. Now, we do know that a number of them -- including Orin Starn -- posted, but did so anonymously. That means they are cowards.
K.C., do not worry that these despicable cowards are choosing to throw insults without identifying themselves. And remember this: they were demanding that three students of Duke University be falsely accused, falsely convicted, and falsely imprisoned. They are cowards, and moral cowards at that.
Fascists? It was fascists who imprisoned people for political reasons, which was why so many Duke faculty members and administrators wanted Reade, Collin, and David thrown into prison.
So, tell me who are the real fascists. I think I know. Fascist, thy name is Lubiano, Starn, Chafe, Baker, Holloway, Neal, Fart-Head, Dorfman (Oh, I'm sorry, Dorfman -- Flounder -- is a communist, which is a fascist by another name), Curtis, and so on. Consider it an honor, K.C., that these fascists are so worked up. You challenged them and exposed them for the empty suits that they are.
It is patently obvious that these intellectual maggots have not the slightest clue how they are being viewed out in the real world. Let them rave on. They are in fact becoming the butt of jokes and ridicule and think they can drown it all out with inane assinine attacks on you. And they can call me and my ilk anything they want...I have responded in the only effective way I can. I cut off the money...at least a very small part of it. And have redirected several kids to other schools (three of whom had been accepted to Duke). And they are probably right...all the poor clutzes who could not get in before are going inundate the school now with applications. And they will probably get in.
To these people and any other Leninists, I am right wing etc, etc. But that's the way it is folks.
NO MORE MONEY as long as brodhead and his band of synchophantic nut cases are in place.
happiness is being labeled by the likes of the aclu duke, the petty president, the steelcast board, the groupof88 prtected voices who refuse to admit error, the graham cracker editors of the left wing chronicle, with one excpetions...
the problem is the 'world is flat' and now they have no mountains of PC to hide behind...we here at the blog durham have the IMAGINATION to connect the dots at duke and expose the cabal that is led by the group of 88
More anti-white racist hate speech in Academia--except this is in a public school system.
I guess the debacle at University of Delaware didn't teach 'em a thing.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58750
The District of Seattle (WA) definiition of racism:
"The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). The subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society."
And in another development, a teacher in this school district who is originaly from the southern US was accused of being racist. Why? Because of her accent.
Amazing. And we wonder why Johnny or Quantavious can't read?
There seems to be an underlying assumption in all of this bile and venom that being tenured at Duke is somehow a sign of greater accomplishment than being tenured at Brooklyn College.
KC has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that, at least for select faculty members, being tenured at Duke is nothing to be proud of.
Judging by similarities in writing style, I suspect that all the quoted comments were made by no more than three different people, and probably just two.
I know KC is too nice to call them the Gang but since they seem to hate it and it is what they are, the Gang and their ilk do indeed continue to make themselves look more and more foolish.
More importantly people are seeing them in full bloom, not just at Duke but at Columbia, Delaware, etc. Plus we see the results at Antioch. They are so removed from reality, they have no clue they're heading for a cliff.
KC we already knew your obsessions. It was not necessary to prove that we are right. This post is a sorry show of your inability to find a life, a subject, an issue. It's rehash. Same ole, same ole. And way beyond tiresome. And you with a Fulbright and all. Man up! Get to work.
One Spook said...
dave @ 8:43 PM writes:
" ... all of whom are forged identities for One Spook, who is the real mastermind behind it all."
Dave ... I asked you not to tell anyone this ... ever ... please take the small pill I left for you ... sweet dreams.
One Spook
No doubt, the gang has made public fools of themselves. As Brodhead and Steel have made themselves public cowards. Forever and ever when this case is discussed. Yow, Thuga and Alex - how are you doing?
To Bill Anderson (10:53)
"By the way, not one -- not one -- Duke professor would identify himself on this blog. Now, we do know that a number of them -- including Orin Starn -- posted, but did so anonymously. That means they are cowards."
Just a minor point of fact. Professor O'Neal did comment on the thread while identifying himself. I realize that fully demonstrating this is to point to the comment by Professor O'Neal, but I'm sure many will recall this fact and it is probably easily searchable.
Dan G In Washington
Mark Anthony Neal posted here under his own name a few weeks ago.
Is 1:35 am a member of the Korrectology Klan?
Looks like they're only one Special K short of a KKK.
(apologies to MOO Gregory for utilizing his term)
On Neal, I stand corrected. I had not read his post (which I am sure was a contribution to intellectual development).
My favorite one was where Orin Starn posted anonymously, but K.C. recognized the IP.
Lions and tigers and bears . . . oh my! We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. No, Miss Dorothy, we are in Durham . . . somwwhere in Durham . . . the way these folks talk you would think that we had all gone down the rabbit hole with them . . . to wonderland. These people cannot apologize . . . just simply apologize for participating in an attempted lynching complete with racist and arrogant behavior by so-called intellectuals of the Duke faculty . . . yes, a lynching . . . all of them holding a rope in there voices and their so-called scholarship and opinions no matter what the facts always "othering" and always marginalizing anyone not of their own biased ilk. Lyching is group behavior at its worst. Bigots, apologize!
I agree with 1:35. This is one beats KCs classic whines. BTW, were we supposed to think these posts you list and list and list, were vile? That's how you characterized the blogs related to the 88. But I forgot, you are the injured one here. So vile is in the mind of... But, I think the best response is from
the earlier post. LOL!
KC, Man up!
It's amusing that Ashley and company try to insert an allusion to the lacrosse case every time there's a chance.
Rewriting their own sorry history....as if they were not a leader of the pack railroading the Duke 3.
Bonds case could overturn records
After a four-year federal investigation, home run king Barry Bonds now knows what the government has on him. Last week, Bonds was indicted by a federal grand jury on four counts of perjury and one charge of obstruction of justice. Strangely, the case against Bonds isn't about using steroids. It's about lying about using steroids.
If convicted, Bonds will almost certainly spend time in jail. What a spiral that would be for the slugger, who a little more than 100 days ago was celebrating breaking Hank Aaron's home run record. But even amid the celebration, the threat of an indictment hung like a dark cloud over Bonds' historic accomplishment.
After topping Aaron, Bonds told reporters he didn't consider his record of 762 home runs tainted. Federal investigators might disagree. They say they have proof Bonds took performance enhancing drugs, courtesy of a positive blood test seized during an investigation of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO), the California outfit whose founder, Victor Conte, pleaded guilty to illegal steroid distribution.
Sprinter Marion Jones, who tearfully admitted last month to using steroids and gave up her Olympic medals , is among the many top-tier athletes Conte claimed as clients. But none was bigger than Bonds, whose conviction could turn Major League Baseball upside down.
If Bonds is found guilty, what would MLB do about what is arguably professional sport's most prestigious individual record? Should Bonds be stripped of the record? Given what happened to Jones and to Pete Rose for gambling, we would have to say yes
And should baseball rewrite its records for other players found to have used performance enhancing drugs during the "steroid era"?
One player who comes to mind is retired slugger Mark McGwire. In 1998, McGwire hit a then-season record of 70 homers. Like Bonds, he has never tested positive for drugs or admitted taking them. But his refusal to answer questions about steroid use during a congressional hearing in 2005 is almost universally viewed as an admission of guilt.
Remember that Bonds is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the Duke lacrosse case, we've seen how presuming guilt can taint the judicial process. Let's not make that mistake with Bonds.
What's great is that the 3 players and the authors of UPI continue to move this debacle in a positive direction. In the meantime, Duke's academic frauds foolishly reinforce their clownish stereotype by piling on lowbrow commentary. Intelligent people would be embarrassed. They're too stupid to realize America snickers at them.
Flashback: Why we must persist?
The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy
Being an Angry Faculty Radical Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry
Group of 88 protected
By Jon Sanders
"And they're surprised that the surrounding community is awaiting their apology (calls for which they "reject").
Why, they've harbored those sentiments for years and no one's ever objected before! Then again, they don't normally take those sentiments outside the Gothic halls into what people in the university and out of it call "the real world."
http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=1860
The university system in the United States has accomplished a great deal of good, but we believe that higher education in the United States, including North Carolina, has strayed from its chief goals of scholarly inquiry and responsible teaching.
All too often, universities allow teaching to become shallow and trendy, failing to challenge students intellectually and disparaging traditional principles of justice, ethics, and liberal education.
Students know little about the history of their country or the institutions that led to this nation's prosperity and liberty. Students can get by without taking rigorous courses, and non-academic activities overshadow scholarship.
As a result, many college graduates have poor skills in computation, communication, and logical analysis. Faculty are allowed excessive latitude in what they teach and often get away with little teaching at all, because research is emphasized.
Taxpayers as well as students and their families pay hefty prices to support a system that often appears to provide little educational value.
Anyone who ever doubted the axiom, "The truth hurts", need doubt it no more.
--Haywood Patterson
wine country dude said...
Those who disparage KC for teaching at Brooklyn College, and not at Columbia or Princeton, are the first to label the latter institutions (and others like them) "elitist", when it suits their purposes.
There's just an enormous lack of integrity in the academic world these days.
Good points. We do snicker at the academic frauds at Duke (and elsewhere) especially when they use language like "man up."
Perhaps the man-child (one assumes) who wrote those posts (Anon 1:35/8:19) is jealous of his own inadequacies, and needs to "man up" himself? Language like that is appropriate under some circumstances - for a 13 year old with some real doubts about his masculinity.
If that's the best they can do in response to this thread, I would recommend to the Anon 1:35/8:19 that he do something else: grow up.
"Man up! Get to work."
That is one of the funniest comments I have read on this blog. Imagine telling K.C. that he needs to be more productive. ROTFL
KC:
This was a very interesting post.
It puts to bed the lie that Duke is a place of tolerance. Why any parent would send their son or daughter into this type of environment is unknown.
Little by little, Duke has become exposed as a bastion of liberal hypocrisy.
In the real world, people go to University and Trade schools to obtain the skills necessary to get a job.
why not eliminate anonymous postings?
Anonymity tends to promote irresponsibility, among some.
It is mostly impossible to evaluate the credility of the writer of an anonymous post.
Since there are many "anonymous" posters, it is not possible to follow the thread of an argument over time from a particular poster.
Students for an Ethical Duke do not accept anonymous blogs (actually, they are not yet posting anything, but their announced policy prohibits anonymous posts).
The internet is noisy. Reducing anonymity might reduce the ratio of noise/sense.
Just some thoughts.
Mr. Aubrey: Not only an interesting bunch, a dangerous bunch. Their captive audience is Americas youth.
I would very much like to sit down with Professor Coleman over a cup of coffee and talk about the Duke hoax and its aftermath, which is a separate issue. Since he stood up when it counted, he will always have credility with me. I would like to hear what he has to say, now, privately.
There are two separate issues to talk about. The hoax is one. Its aftermath is the other.
It appears from here that those at Duke, including Professor Coleman, actually believe the hoax is history, and we should "move on". Yet it is the second issue, the aftermath, which is still troubling many of us following this story and this blog.
For example, I still have three white, male, more-or-less privileged children. My children are still at risk in a world where they may be accused and prosecuted for crimes without due process because they are white, male and more-or-less privileged. That is to say, a racist world of bigotry.
Nothing in my extensive education has ever prepared me for the spectacle revealed at Duke. A culture where racism, bigotry, and anti-intellectual behavior are celebrated. Argument starts and ends with conclusions based on articles of faith, not from verifiable facts. It never progresses beyond the articles of faith, very much like religious prosecutions across history.
But, this is DUKE UNIVERSITY. I dont get it.
I would pay good money to talk to Professor Coleman one-on-one for an hour over a cup of coffee.
Jim Peterson 12:06
Some of us handle-bearers are more careful of our 'brands' than the glitterati of the social register.
To negate ad-hominem damage to ourselves, and particularly those who we work with (guilt by association and all that), the handles ensure that our contributions to discussions focus more on ideas than personalities.
Recommended: as soon as you see a poster indulging in the quaint British custom known as 'slagging' her debate opponent, quit reading immediately and move to the next post. You'll miss nothing important, unless you fancy crude language.
traveler said...
Maybe it's only because I was a journalism major, but when reading the writings of Elliot Wolf and Ken Larrey about their recent brouhaha, I was struck by how badly they write. Their writing seems only slightly more comprehensible than that of Karla "Bem didn't apologize either!" Holloway.
I have to attribute this to the fact that while the "sciences" of American academia are still world class, the "arts" (where students should learn communication skills) are ... 88 class.
TO RRHamilton (1:34 PM)--
I don't think that's really fair.
It might be suggested that Wolf doesn't write clearly enough and that Gustafson doesn't express himself clearly enough---after all, that exchange was the genesis of the argument---but I don't find Ken Larrey's correspondence lacking clarity.
As a sidebar: I find that your absence and the absence of a few other regulars from the argument yesterday on the previous thread more telling.
An absence I won't soon forget.
anon @11/19 8:19 AM, in a show of man-upmanship, says:
BTW, were we supposed to think these posts you list and list and list, were vile?
You're only expected to think, period.
The comments that have been reiterated– as yours also does– amply demonstrate that you don't.
"I would like to hear what he [Coleman] has to say, now, privately."
Probably something totally different from what he has to say publicly. And if you quoted him in public, he'd deny he ever said it.
I have to give the man credit for this much: when he found it a career necessity to make clear his allegiance to the campus radicals of Duke, at least he did it by slagging off Taylor & Johnson rather than the LAX players.
Re: Gang of 88 Publisher a Laughingstock?
Anonymous writes:
By the way, the Harvard Coop, has no Stuart Johnson/KC book either. (Lots of 88 publications on the shelves though).
Laughingstock Press: "The Duke University Press is the laughingstock of the publishing world.
Offering such titles as Appropriating Blackness: Performance and the Politics of Authenticity and An Archive of Feelings: Trauma, Sexuality and Lesbian Public Cultures.
Phrases such as 'race, gender, and class' and 'privileged white males' come as second nature to the academics who do this kind of writing, which analyzes nearly all social phenomena in terms of race, gender, class, and white male privilege."
Pro-Existence
The Pearcey Report Weblog -- Featuring Rick and Nancy Pearcey
http://proexistence.blogspot.com/2007/01/rape-of-justice-duke-universitys.html
Marc Anthony Neal (thugniggaintellectual) left a comment using his real identity. I give him credit for that, but I doubt he read my sharp-tongued reply comments.
"Jim in San Diego said...
11/18/07 9:40 PM"
Only slightly less depressing are those who insist that anything which does not fit their desired reality is self-evidently the result of witness tampering and payoffs. In fact, it's possibly more depressing, because these people may seem superficially more reasonable, until you realize that their argument all boils down to circular logic: "My belief is correct because it's supported by the facts. Of course, I only accept as 'the facts' those things which support my belief."
This weekend, I discovered a particular egregious offender in this regard, a blog called "Oh No a WoC PhD" (http://profbw.wordpress.com).
Apparently when you are a Ph.D., you are allowed to entirely invent quotes and falsely attribute them to someone who didn't say them, and then "remind" people of that non-existent quote in order to "prove" your point. For instance, here we are admonished not "to ignore the email circulated the following week saying "next time lets not only rape her lets kill her" the language of which implies a rape occurred."
Of course, the e-mail in question contained no such language. It contained no reference to rape; it stated, in fact, "There will be no nudity." It made no reference to "next time" or "last time". What kind of Ph.D. must resort to inventing quotes and putting them into someone else's mouth to support their theories?
Other non-fact facts from the same post:
* there was "witness tampering" on the part of the defense. Evidence for this notion? "footage of team members conversing with the key witness that night ..." How, exactly, does one become a Ph.D. when one cannot tell the difference between a chain of logic and a chain of unsupported suppositions? By similar logic, if I saw our Ph.D. conversing with some stranger unknown to me, I could call that evidence of our Ph.D. trying to hire an assassin to rub out some academic figure she disagrees with. I have no evidence that the stranger is an assassin, of course; even if I knew that to be true, I would have no evidence that our Ph.D. knew that, and no idea whether their conversation was "Make it look like an accident" or "Well, my watch says it's 4:10 but it's been running a bit slow lately." But if our Ph.D. can consider the mere existence of a conversation between two parties to be "evidence" of an illegal act that could have taken place during such a conversation, why should she be judged by standards any different?
* "They were not found innocent, it was determined that there was "insufficient evidence"". This is a theme that our Ph.D. has repeated in multiple posts, conveniently ignoring that the State Attorney General Roy Cooper in his Summary of Conclusions stated very bluntly, "the Attorney General and his prosecutors determined that the three individuals were innocent of the criminal charges". Is it possible that she was simply unaware that such a thing had happened? At the time she wrote that post, perhaps she was. However, when informed of it, her reply was "I don't lie. If a court had determined they were innocent of the charges than I would refer to it as such." What are the chances that a casual reader would understand that her phrase "a court" meant that she was choosing to completely ignore a comprehensive investigation conducted by the highest legal authority of the state? This is where we started: People who claim "oh, the facts are 100% on my side, because anything that's not 100% on my side, I refuse to accept as facts. If the State Attorney General had said 'there's sufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution' then I'd be quoting his words as gospel, but since he said that there wasn't any credible evidence that an attack had occurred I'll simply ignore everything he said and do my best to keep anyone else from knowing that he said it."
I cannot believe the sexism displayed by 1:35 and 8:19 in their calls to "man up". Do these patriarchal buffoons realize just how their language betrays their primitive Western false consciousness equating "man" with everything "up" and "good" and conversely assigning everything "down" and "bad" to "woman"?? It's disgraceful and disgusting; obviously these two chauvinist reprobates are just the sort of men who would force themselves on women, because in their prejudiced minds, "Man up" is equivalent to "go out and rape a woman! Since you're better than her, she should be grateful to you for violating her!" Hopefully someone can discover the IP addresses being used by these two vile rapists; if we do, it should be no trouble to fake an e-mail from one of them to the other, boasting about their exploits in gang rape, and leak a copy to the police for immediate action.
FYI--Kim Curtis has only 5 students (out of a possible 30) signed up for her spring course.
[re: William Anderson's remark - "On Neal, I stand corrected. I had not read his post (which I am sure was a contribution to intellectual development)."]
Actually, it wasn't. In which case, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Merit is still a prerequisite for respect in almost all professions. At least the professions that use metrics to evaluate individual productivity. That's why academia is so attractive to diversity's beneficiaries. Non-compeitive professors can hide out and deflect professional criticism by perpetuating artificial threat agendas. This appeals to their non-competitive students because it provides them with justification for their own lack of ability and accomplishment. Everyone's too busy fighting racism to get much done. Peer review? Easy. It becomes an ideological exercise. If you don't like what's going on, you must be racist.
If these comments were "generated" by members of the group of 88 it only furthers the perception that they lack integrity, honesty and have no use for the truth. Unfortunately for Duke, it tarnishes that fine University's reputation each time one of these people's comments appear. The message it sends to me is that honest academic inquiry is dead at Duke. To outsiders it makes the entire faculty look foolish and incompetent. I'm sure there are many fine professors at Duke that are not happy with this situation. Too bad they lack the courage to stand up to the administration, the Group of 88, and their supporters. Too bad they chose to be bound by the dogma of "political correctness".
You would think that tenured faculty members would have more courage....
I love the comments questioning KC's academic credentials and Brooklyn College's ranking. They only serve to further deflate Duke as an elite university. It also speaks volumes when a single professor from a small college can "school" an elite university and it's faculty on a daily basis. The 88 Duke professors that speak, write or post comments need to stop, they are not intellectually equipped to rebuke KC and only lower the academic perception of Duke University.
This opinion has been disparaged before, but I still maintain that there is an uncivil war going on at Duke, and at other places.
The bullets aren't apparent from the hillside where the rest of us sit eating fried chicken and having a picnic, as in the 1st battle of Mannassas (Bull Run.) As the spectators soon found out, war ain't no picnic.
We're seeing this, too, as the KKK (Kommunist Korrectology Klan) are resilient, like MRSA.
Yes, sir; there is a battle.
Battles like these are like the battle a body wages against bacteria.
If there isn't a battle in the halls of higher education, then why did Dr. Piot Envy write his fetid review?
6:22PM Good News. The Market Place will decide the issue. What a country.
Flashback: Kathy Rudy
(A professor of "women's studies")
".. I managed to live most of my daily life [avoiding men all together], and spent most of my social time reading, dreaming, planning, talking, and writing about the beauty of a world run only by women, . . free of men's patronizing dominance."
WSJ Opinion Journal
"They say America has the world's finest system of higher education. If that is true, there are scores of other systems--perhaps as many as 200--that are worse than the one that produced Kathy Rudy. This is going to give us nightmares for a long time."
Academentia Watch
Rudy……defends erstwhile NFL player Michael Vick's involvement in illegal dogfighting on the ground that he is black.
Upon first coming to Durham, Rudy recalled that she "moved quickly into the lesbian community because there was a growing sentiment in feminist discourse that lesbianism was the most legitimate way to act out our politics."
Within this "progressive" neighborhood in west Durham, "Many of us thought that by avoiding men and [building a parallel, alternative culture, we were changing the world] . .
Rudy and her fellow radical feminists oriented their activities around "the ideas that [women were superior] and that a [new world could be built on that superiority.]
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010567
With the current stealing of "handles" going on, it does look like the annonymous folk knew what they were doing.
4:24PM Right on - Troll is also part of the groupthink - which is anyone who disagrees with their "interpritation" of the "facts." Moron, idiot and stupid are part of it arsenal. That is how we know who they are.
"FYI--Kim Curtis has only 5 students (out of a possible 30) signed up for her spring course."
I find the fact that Kim Curtis is still teaching even 5 students at Duke very troubling and I have to wonder about these five students. Why would any student enroll in her class? Duke settled the "grade retaliation" against Curtis but I wonder if she also inflates grades for PC students. Easy A's for some students.
Any course grade* from Kim Curtis should have an asterisk ... *this grade may or may not reflect the Professor's bias.
In reading comments attacking KC, the blog and the Hoax critics, an opportunity presents itself.
Perhaps Duke can retain its academic excellence and yet reduce salary expenses.
Hire 4 year olds for tenured faculty positions.
They certainly develop the same level of cogent reasoning on issues :
"You are a poo poo head"
"No, I won't play with you"
"Stick your head in the mud"
"Get out of MY sandbox"
And their published work equals the quality and quantity of many of the present tenured faculty.
Of course, their discourse is much clearer.
To all Gang of 88 types
Wherever you are:
"It's hard to parody these [multicultural mobsters], but some anonymous bloggers (likely on campus) have done a good job.
At "Why We Act, Why We Eat," there's a satirical manifesto that incorporates the bloated rhetoric and self-absorption that have become the bread and butter (pardon the pun) of college campuses."
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/12/columbia-u-hunger-strike-update-and-a-satirical-counterprotest/
Why We Act, Why We Eat...
We eat against a group that seems not to care for the well-being of its students or itself. We eat because we feel the urgency of a student voice that is continually marginalizing itself.
Comment: JayI said...
Speak Tooth to Flour!
PatCA said...
Poundage to the People!
*burp*
http://we-eat.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-we-act-why-we-eat.html
I think there are fifteen AA or AAA students to the thirty three Professors - I quess five of them come out of this group. Certainly, not calling the police for crowd control.
A large fraction of those comments seem to amount to "We're still in the elite club and you're still not. Nyah nyah!"
Because that's all they've got.
If the people whose money these "elite" live off of ever notice the naked imperial elephant in the room: the fact that "elite" status is purely self-granted and self-referential, there could be one heck of a market correction in their industry.
...5:38
...This opinion has been disparaged before, but I still maintain that there is an uncivil war going on at Duke, and at other places.
...The bullets aren't apparent from the hillside where the rest of us sit eating fried chicken and having a picnic, as in the 1st battle of Mannassas (Bull Run.) As the spectators soon found out, war ain't no picnic.
...We're seeing this, too, as the KKK (Kommunist Korrectology Klan) are resilient, like MRSA.
...Yes, sir; there is a battle.
...Battles like these are like the battle a body wages against bacteria.
War against Extremists is a bitch.
Wear a helmet.
I love the stuff about Duke being a "top college". They reminded me of the fine schools I attended, and some of pompous liberal "academics" I had to endure to get my sheepskin. I knew then, and better now, just how knowledgeable they were in their subject matter. I can only hope to be able to hold my nose while writing big checks for my daughter to earn her degree(s), and to sucessfully coach her on how to parrot back what the PhD wants to hear, while keeping her own believes private.
mac @11/20 7:18 AM said:
Mark Steyn, writing in Macleans, shares that opinion. He calls it 'the cold civil war.'
There is a lot more anger from the responders to your posts than in the earlier posts you cut & pasted for this entry.
10:28, presumably it is your daughter's *beliefs* you want to teach her to keep private. Equally presumably, you learned the difference between *beliefs* and *believes* while enduring so very much suffering at such fine schools to get your sheepskin!
Anonymous blogging doesn't bother me (obviously, I'm an anonymous poster - sometimes it's just easier and faster). In the case of the pathetic Group of 88 and their pathetic supporters, it is kind of fun to try an figure out just who it is who is posting anonymously...and the more astute among us here must certainly have recognized contributions not only by the likes of Orin Starn, but(if I am not mistaken) by the preposterous clown Houston Baker and that old fool Alex Rosenberg, as well. The style, in many cases, is almost unmistakable. To give Mark Anthony "Does-this-make-my-butt-look-big?" Neal credit for posting under his own moniker is moot. His postings were, as usual, self-serving and, even more commonly, full of crap.
Anon 11 am
"There is a lot more anger from the responders to your posts than in the earlier posts..."
Wrong. Back then, they were taken to the woodshed and cyberbeaten.
And it is commonly repeated by people with little imagination: "commenting about spelling shows a lack of imagination." And so it goes, even if the repeater of that line is a total dipshit.
Commenting about the "anger level" is silly and pointless.
Just in case anybody is interested one of two courses Lubiano is 'teaching' this semester (Fall 2007) is Lit. 90-01, a course required of literature majors and entitled THE TRIAL. Here is Lubiano's synopsis of the course:
"The "trial" is about the various ways across history and geography that the idea of the trial, actual trials themselves, and cultural representations of trials show us what is important to social formations, how societies understand themselves, and how the spectacle of a trial offers both a place for tradition and ritual to unify people within given societies and a vantage point from which to see processes of negotiation and contestation within those same societies."
Re: Broadhead "…good to gather just the women of Duke together."
Every mother with a son needs to attend these so-called
"supportive" clan events. Man haters 'en masse' probably would better describe what I saw time and time again.
I didn't read about Duke's "Just Men" luncheon. Does Duke spend equal money and faculty time on "Just" men's issues? Donna Lister should be putting a "Male" alumnae get-together to discuss mindless male issues right now. She can call it a "Testicle awareness luncheon." Particular focus given to men's health issues, to fight testicular cancer, and prostrate cancer.
They could discuss preventative measures to the "Thrown under the bus syndrome," a serious problem facing men today.
The Chronicle Blogger
Alumnae discuss Women's Initiative
Duke invited female alumnae back to campus this weekend to discuss issues of women's health. President Richard Brodhead was present at Friday afternoon's luncheon --"Whenever Dukies gather, women gather among them…. But there are occasions when it is [ good to gather just the women of Duke together."] "Brodhead was the only man present …ongoing discussion of the success of the Women's Initiative."
I agree with the 11:37 that commenting about anger level is silly. I wonder why Professor Johnson did it in his original post?
When someone is being a jerk in a post, I think correcting their spelling or grammar is a good idea. If you're going to be a jerk, please be a literate one.
anon @11/20 5:50 AM said
I love the comments questioning KC's academic credentials and Brooklyn College's ranking. They only serve to further deflate Duke as an elite university. It also speaks volumes when a single professor from a small college can "school" an elite university and it's faculty on a daily basis.
Especially when that professor holds both his undergraduate A.B. and his Ph.D. from Harvard, while his critics carp from a me-too university known for branding itself as "the Harvard of the South."
They have no idea how much quiet mirth their green-eyed elitism generates among the genuine elite, who have no need to tout the "prestige" of their university and who, in any case, recognize one another by the quality of their work.
[re: "A large fraction of those comments seem to amount to "We're still in the elite club and you're still not. Nyah nyah!"]
Maybe I'm just a 'damned Yankee', but it has never occured to me to think of Duke (much less Vanderbilt) as 'elite'. Now, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, University of Chicago, that's a whole different story. But Duke?! Ah, I don't think so - at least not where I hail from.
11:37 I agree about the anger to your posting. Where have all your cyberbeaters pals gone? That would be an interesting post.
I guess we missed you or you ran away screaming. The rest of the Anon wusses (featured above in the original post) tapped out as soon as we got an armbar on them.
Most of the comments KC has reposted read like they're written by some 15 year old girl who used the same tactics to successfully piss of her older brother.
When I was at Berkeley in the early 90s, an AA undergrad was gloating to me about her minority scholarship. She was so proud of it.
All I could think is: How can you be so proud of something you didn't earn?
You did miss me Mac but not from lack of trying. Fifty years in the Emergency Department has made me tough. Where are your pals?
12:17 correcting grammer and spelling makes one a pompus jerk with no ideas.
Interesting datum from anon @ 11/20 12:04 PM:
Just in case anybody is interested one of two courses Lubiano is 'teaching' this semester (Fall 2007) is Lit. 90-01, a course required of literature majors and entitled THE TRIAL.
In fairness, and without commenting on Lubiano's ability to teach it, this is a great idea for a course. There have been trials throughout history that have assumed cultural and historical significance far beyond the legal proceedings.
Think of the trials of Socrates, Jesus, Joan of Arc, Thomas More, Galileo, Dreyfuss, Oscar Wilde, the show-trials of the Stalin era. Or in this country: the Salem witch trials, the Amistad trials, John Brown, Sacco-Vanzetti, Leopold and Loeb, the Scottsboro boys, Hiss, Rosenberg, Chicago 7, McMartin Preschool, and O. J. Simpson. In every case, their impact extended well beyond the courtroom; and the proceedings and convictions or exonerations have told us as much about the societies and times in which these trials were conducted as about the guilt or innocence of the defendants. Trials like these cause us to examine ourselves and our values, and become touchstones for an era or an idea.
Personally, I'd like to see the LAXers' civil suit against Durham achieve the same status– especially if Duke is dragged back in. Sort of a Scopes Trial for political correctness.
Funny thing, Mac, I figure your posts read like a 12 year old brat. It's Debrah's that read like those of a 15-year-old girl.
"In fairness, and without commenting on Lubiano's ability to teach it, this is a great idea for a course."
While I, too, think it is a great idea for a course, I find the Literature Department an 'unusual' venue for such a course. Moreover, regardless of her ability (or lack thereof) to [shut up and] teach, Lubiano (for any number of obvious reasons) is hardly the person to be teaching such a course.
"..correcting grammer [sic] and spelling makes one a pompus [sic] jerk with no ideas."
In fairness, and without commenting on Lubiano's ability to teach it, this is a great idea for a course.
The course is a great idea.
Lubiano teaching it is a hilariously terrible idea.
Lubiano (for any number of obvious reasons) is hardly the person to be teaching such a course.
you're right. She should be teaching a course on literary treatments of the role of motherhood in shaping the next generation.
"Your posts read like a 12 year old brat."
I should be worried, then, if that's what attracts you. (I believe that describes a different type of troll.)
Try not to get too excited.
I'm really not 12.
Inre: "...Soldiers and sailors go overseas. K.C. goes abroad."
re: my 11/20/07 3:38 PM-
Whoops! Wrong 88er.
That's Karla Holloway's course.
While I, too, think it is a great idea for a course [i.e.,trials], I find the Literature Department an 'unusual' venue for such a course.
Rhetoric, for starters. Debate. Speech-making. Persuasion. Rhetorical strategy. Very much the stuff of traditional English and literature departments, although more likely to wind up in something called "Communications Arts" these days. But literature necessarily touches upon any number of other subjects, as well, such as history, politics, law, religion, philosophy, and science, and their literary treatment, so the idea of a course on "trials" in a literature department is not so far-fetched.
The idea of Lubiano being in any way qualified to teach it obviously is far-fetched, as others have commented.
Wondering who came up with the idea for the Nowicki Committee. It appears to be a sound idea.
Some speculation: Brodhead and the BoT may have actually learned something (probably from some attorneys,) or Professor Coleman et al came up with the idea. Another possibility: Duke is getting the house fumigated and in order, as a new president is being lined up.
I wonder if this means "Grade Gremlin" Curtis and some of the rest of the Korrectology Klan will have a permanent magnifying lens aimed in their general direction? One hopes, and one also hopes for a sunny day.
To answer the questions:
"This is it? This is the routing of the PC forces?"
The Nowicki Committee (next thread) is a front-line charge. You can tell by the uniforms who is in pursuit and who is in retreat.
The above-quoted poster expects to see things happen as if in a James Bond movie, when in reality, most revolutions start in the pews of a church, in the silence of a mosque, or in the company of fellow beer-hoisters at the corner pub.
Nowadays, the seeds of a revolution may be sown at the screen of a single PC. And frankly, my PC beats your PC. And mine is the least of them.
Your Korrectology Klan buddies are now in full retreat.
Nope. Not exactly a routing yet.
It is, however, the very first instance of motion in the correct direction at Duke in almost two years. That does make it a good sign.
I think the evidence of retreat was illustrated when the Blue Hens' President dismantled their indoctrination program, with an alacricity that was as beautiful as it was surprising.
It was like watching a NASCAR race run in reverse.
"......the seeds of a revolution....."
Exactly, Mac.
I have been trying to tell the clueless ones from the academy that KC has ignited a revolution!
"In the real world, people go to University and Trade schools to obtain the skills necessary to get a job."
I disagree. With knowledge and information changing so quickly a worker in a professional job needs to constantly upgrade his skills in order to be competitive. Therefore the most important skill a school can give a student is the ability to self educate.
This includes how to research, draw logical inferences based on the research and communicate the results in a professional manner. One of the things that bothers me most about the group of 88 is that they seem to lack these abilities.
Indeed, and congrats on catching my obvious typo. Shame on my for not proof-reading, lest some tool like yourself ignore what I'm obviously saying, opting to point that out. I tip my hat in awe in your general direction.
Faculty like the group of 88, and those who support them, underscore my point. Colleges and Universities, including the most expensive, aka 'top', are filled with frauds who hide behind the fact that they have chumped their way to a PhD in the absurd, "publishing" tripe through editorial review boards they control. If you find yourself in their classroom, you have to pretend they're not complete kooks in order to 'earn' a passing grade.
I acknowledge two battles won. But these aren't the first battles PC has ever lost, so I remain agnostic as to whether it's the start of a trend or just a fluke.
12:24 In my little RN world, not only do we need to upgrade our education, but the Board of Nursing insists on it for license renewal. It is called Continuing Education = they want it from a Professional provider. Not to interested in self education.
There are professors who have quit their tenured Ivy League positions for jobs at the University of Hawaii, Manoa. You know....one life, why spend it in shit weather. When you're windsurfing in January, it's hard to focus on prestige.
Great. Glad you continue to take courses, and don't consider the value of self-education. I'm sure your patients feel very lucky, and would love to hear that when you visit them with a catheter in hand.
Personally, most of my continuing education is stuff I don't get credit for, and it's better than 98% of the crap I see at seminars, I can promise you.
When I've gone to seminars, I've had to correct the constant flow of misinformation coming from the providers, and so much so that it's not even worth going to them any more.
If I were to compare self-education tp what I pay lots of money for: self-education wins, hands-down.
And I self-educate because it matters, regardless of credit.
Does anyone not value self education? The Licensing Boards want to see the signed certificate of attendence. Thats life.
You are the target of hate mail for a very simple reason.
In the final analysis, events proved, beyond any doubt, that you were right all along and the knee jerk, left-wing PC crowd was wrong, wrong, wrong.
If there is ANY thing the arrogantly self righteous left wing PC crowd can't tolerate..it's being proven wrong for all the world to see and then having their noses rubbed in it.
Doing THAT to them puts them into a mindless, seething mouth foaming rage and they will NEVER forgive you for that affrontery.
Regardless of the fact that they brought it upon themselves, how DARE you make them look like foolish monkeys!
Consider yourself in good company.
To this day, they still hate Ronald Reagan for the same reason..proving them wrong about everything they believed about the Soviet Union, Communism and the Cold War. They fought his policies to win the Cold War every step of the way..and in the end.. he proved he was right and they were wrong.. through the success of his policies..WINNING the Cold War without firing a shot.
As a wise man once said.."success is the best revenge."
Consider the intensity of their hate, as demonstrated by the messages you posted, as proof of your effectiveness and success.
Keep up the good work ..KC.
NEW IDEA:
PUNCH YOUR PC PROFESSOR IN THE FACE
America wasn't built on the premise of sucking up to mediocrities, America was built on the simple premise of violently revolting against arbritrary rule.
Ergo, if you are a good American, it is your duty to attack PC bullshit wherever you encounter it.
Wow. That's just sad. I love the comment from the "fair-minded" individual. So, just who decides this fair-minded thing? Because everyone has a slant, an angle, a view, and an opinion. No one is completely fair-minded...this individual is proof of that. Feeling free to judge someone he/she most likely doesn't know personally and knows very little about doesn't seem very fair-minded.
What these people don't understand is that they are guilty of the same crime they complain about. THAT is sad. Free speech works both ways.
You haven't been embarrassed enough? Your obsession with KC's "obsession" is just a bit ironic. It's a pretty easy problem to solve, this obsession...stop reading.
bella @11/26 3:36 AM (!!!) wrote:
KC we already knew your obsessions. It was not necessary to prove that we are right.
Who is "we"? Pluralis majestatis? "Speaking-on-behalf-of-all-obsessives-obsessed-with-KC's-obsession, I..."? Sybil?
Man up! Get to work.
I'd love to hear a feminist definition of "man up," if one of you speaks from that perspective.
The bottom lines are- Will endowements, donations, grants etc. (money)be lost at Duke. Will the quality of students that apply to DUKE drop. (esp at the graduate level programs)
I will not allow my kids to apply to DUKE nor contribute unless there are changes. It will take 5 years to see the effects on DUKE unless changes are implemented.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
using namespace llvm;

namespace {

class AMDGPUELFObjectWriter : public MCELFObjectTargetWriter {
public:
  AMDGPUELFObjectWriter();
protected:
  virtual unsigned GetRelocType(const MCValue &Target, const MCFixup &Fixup,
                                bool IsPCRel, bool IsRelocWithSymbol,
                                int64_t Addend) const {
    llvm_unreachable("Not implemented");
  }

};

} // End anonymous namespace

AMDGPUELFObjectWriter::AMDGPUELFObjectWriter()
  : MCELFObjectTargetWriter(false, 0, 0, false) { }

MCObjectWriter *llvm::createAMDGPUELFObjectWriter(raw_ostream &OS) {
  MCELFObjectTargetWriter *MOTW = new AMDGPUELFObjectWriter();
  return createELFObjectWriter(MOTW, OS, true);
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Today we are pleased to feature author Amber Gross as our Authors Talk series contributor. She speaks about the similarities between writing and acting. Experience and emotion and how they manifest in concrete ways lend themselves to both in her craft.
You can read Amber's short story, "Shooting Day" here.


text:
Fan ejected from Staples Center after altercation with Lakers guard Rajon Rondo
Ryan Young
October 23, 2021, 12:41 AM ·2 min read
American basketball player
The NBA, it seems, isn't done dealing with fan incidents during the 2021-22 season.
A fan sitting courtside during the Los Angeles Lakers' 115-105 loss to the Phoenix Suns on Friday night was ejected from Staples Center after appearing to get into an altercation with Rajon Rondo.
It's not clear what started the incident in the second half, but Rondo was seen making a finger gun gesture with his hand at the face of a fan sitting courtside. After doing it a few times, the fan was seen slapping Rondo's hand away.
And now Rondo is pointing a finger gun in a fans face??? What is happening in LA tonight?!?!
Warriors in five pic.twitter.com/JObBrruJu9
— jason@calacanis.com (@Jason) October 23, 2021
Rondo returned his hand to the same position briefly, and then the fan was kicked out of the game.
It's unclear what was said between the two, or who the fan was.
Rondo has his back to the action at the time, too.
A fan slapped Rondo's hand. SMH.pic.twitter.com/uOXRE1G8yc
— Complex Sports (@ComplexSports) October 23, 2021
Rondo said Saturday that he and the fan were "exchanging words," and that he "just wanted to get the guy out of the game," via The Athletic's Jovan Buha. He didn't elaborate on what was said, but did say that nothing was threatening.
As to why he was making a finger gun at the fan, Rondo said, "I was pointing at that guy." He said it wasn't his intention to make a finger gun, though that was clearly the gesture he was making.
Rondo, 35, is currently on a one-year, $2.6 million deal with the Lakers. He finished with six points and four rebounds in 14 minutes off the bench as the Lakers dropped to 0-2.
The incident marks just the latest fan altercation at an NBA game since fans were allowed back in after the COVID-19 pandemic limited attendance. Last season during the playoffs, fans sprinted onto the court during a game, spit onto Trae Young, dumped popcorn onto Russell Westbrook, threw beer onto Immanuel Quickley and threw a water bottle at Kyrie Irving — which resulted in a fan getting arrested. The Utah Jazz banned three fans for using abusive language toward Memphis star Ja Morant's family in the stands, too.
While Rondo was seen clearly interacting with the fan on Friday night, it's obvious the NBA's problem with fans hasn't disappeared completely just yet.
Rajon Rondo was seen pointing a finger gun in the fan's face multiple times before the fan slapped it away — which led to his ejection on Friday night. (AP/Ringo H.W. Chiu)
L.A. County wants to put Vanessa Bryant through hell ... again
Which players were snubbed from the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team?
The hockey team that wants to save the planet
The NFL didn't want a written report on the Washington Football investigation. Congress just showed why.


Make D2 Boost your one stop for Diablo 2 items. We have a large selection of ladder and non-ladder items available at competitive prices. We are the only Diablo 2 store offering fast delivery, with automatic mule helper and AAA customer support.


If a merged CK-APA would have undue concentration in gas transmission, that's entirely down to the APA side of the deal. CK group companies have just four tiny transmission pipelines in Australia: two of them serving a handful of country towns in Victoria and two others supplying the minor cities of Rockhampton and Alice Springs. Another is being built to fuel remote gold mines in Western Australia.
In total, they can move a bit more than 36 terajoules of gas a day. APA, by contrast, shifts about 4,428 terajoules a day on its transmission pipes. The country's antitrust regulator has already examined the deal and found no reason to block it on competition grounds.
Reading between the lines of Frydenberg's statement, it's clear there are two real issues afoot.
One is the dominance that APA has already attained in the domestic market. That's an obvious issue: Australia, on track to become the world's largest LNG exporter, is looking to build multiple gas import terminals because of the difficulty of getting competitively priced methane from domestic fields to consumers in the country's southeast. That was the fault of Frydenberg's predecessors, but if he's serious about the problems it's causing he needs to look at ways to break up this company.
The relationship of CK billionaire founder Li Ka-shing's dynasty with the mainland is complex and awkward, but everything about the history of CK's investments in recent years suggests the group is more wary of Beijing than inclined to do its bidding. Even then, Australia this year passed legislation giving the Treasurer wide-ranging powers to block any nefarious foreign activity in its critical infrastructure.
Still, the decision indicates just how narrow a line CK will have to walk in the future as Beijing attempts to increase its control over Hong Kong and the wider region. A few years ago, Australia was happy to let Li buy numerous local infrastructure assets on the basis that 2047 (the date of expiry for the "one country, two systems" arrangement under which Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty) was far distant.
Back then, the prospect of a privately controlled Hong Kong business becoming a proxy for the Chinese state seemed absurd. Right now, it looks a little less outlandish. Victor Li, who replaced his retired billionaire father as group chairman this year, will have to tread carefully in his dealmaking if this view spreads more widely.


text:
Q: How to rollback a jquery buttonset I have a buttonset, with a change event. On change, to event calls an ajax post to save the value. In case of error, I want the buttonset to be set back to its initial state.
So I keep the initial state into a variable on page load (intital).
If the ajax call fails, in the "error" function, I use  'initial'  to check corresponding button.
The issue is that the graphical buttonset doens't get back to its initial value.
Worse, when I do an alert of the two buttons, I see the checked attr is correctly set, but not reflected on screen.
Help appreciated, because I googled a lot about this:-(
the JS code:
//keep initial buttonset checked value
var intial = $( '#radio :checked');

//on buttonset change, do a ajax post, and in case of failure, set original value back
$( "#radio" ).buttonset().change(function(){
    $.post("/to/somewhere",{showList:'show', id:123})
        .error(function(){
            if (intial.val() == "show"){
                $('#visibleYes').attr("checked", true);
            }
            else {
                $('#visibleNo').attr("checked", true);
            }
        })
    })
});

the html code

   <input class="yesNoRadio" type="radio" id="visibleYes" name="visible" value="show" checked="checked"/>Show
   <input class="yesNoRadio" type="radio" id="visibleNo"  name="visible" value="hide" />Hide

A: You should refresh the button widgets after updating the checked attributes of the augmented elements:
$(intial.val() == "show" ? "#visibleYes" : "#visibleNo")
    .prop("checked", true).button("refresh");

Note that I used prop() instead of attr(), which is recommended with boolean properties like checked.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange