Responding mostly to JinC commenters

Folks,

The post title says "mostly" because anyone in the blogosphere can "walk in" here at any time. In most circumstances, they're always welcome.

That said, this post is really intended for almost everyone who has been commenting at JinC these past few weeks. I have JinC regulars especially in mind.

I only exclude from what I'm about to say a very few whose comments here were --- I'll just leave it at that.

Now on -

I tip my hat to all of you.

Your comments have been well-stated, reasonable and informed. They've added to this blog and helped me in what is for many of us here in Durham a defining time.

Your comments have often reminded me of things I should have paid more attention to. You've shared information I didn't have. You've made civil criticisms of each other.

I see some of you are starting to comment at N&O blogs. Right on. The paper needs the kind of help you can give it.

But, hey, I'm going to stop with the praise.

At some blogs you can put up pictures of your dog and the blogger gives you huge praise for being:

"the greatest group of people. You're all my dearest friends. And don't miss tomorrow's post. I'll give you a full account of Bobo's graduation. Pictures, too (I seem to be in the center of all of them. Well, whatever.)"

But not at JinC. And you don't come here for piffle.

In fact, if I did much gushing, you wouldn't be here at all, would you?

I don't like the thought of that, so I'll move on.

I need to be very careful with my next comment because I'm going to single out one commenter.

When a blogger does that it often upsets trolls who hang out at blogs and seem to hate it when other people get attention. About a month ago I turned a reader's comment into a post and a troll appeared and started flaming the reader.

But I think I can take the risk now because the person is a critic. He calls himself Cracker. He objected to my use of the word "prosecutorial" when describing The N&O's handling of the Duke lacrosse.

I have no trouble respecting Cracker's criticism. Perhaps I should have done more to make the case. I plan to do some of that this weekend.

Meanwhile, I hope Cracker is reading this. I'll say to him that I'll have a post with links soon but meanwhile I hope he considers the following: All with reference to The N&O: Please take a look at Ruth Sheehan's columns. Citizens have rights to remain silent; prosecutors badger and sometimes threaten in various ways citizens to waive their rights. They must necessarily make prejudgments.

Sheehan has done all of that. But she didn't have too. She's a journalist, after all.

Which newspaper was the first to print priors? Who's twice run photos of the infamous "wanted" posters? Isn't that all stuff prosecutors do?

For weeks The N&O told us how important DNA evidence is. No question the players must all submit to DNA testing.

Than the results came back. Things changed at The N&O

We've since gotten two stories telling us DNA really isn't all that relevent.

That's how many prosecutors treat evidence. Try to collect anything they think will help the case and than if it goes against them talk it down.

Did you read Sunday's "Swagger" story? The "they should be in jail now" crowd loved it. Most other people who read it saw it as an agenda driven hit piece.

Cracker, what did you think of it?

Also, along with The N&O have you been reading The Durham Herald Sun and visiting the blog Signifying Nothing?

You say you've been speaking out for fairness for the players. Good for you. Not enough people are doing that.

And please keep visiting and commenting.

Moving on.

Some of you complain about "comments" on the thread that are just spam.

I'm sorry about that. I try to remove them but I miss some.

There's been a pickup in spam here because I'm gradually getting more links from heavy traffic bloggers. Whenever I do my traffic count "jumps" and spammers have programs that notice that and direct spam to such a blog.

Today, for instance, Realclearpolitics.com linked to yesterday's Nifong post. Look for plenty of spam in the next few days.

I'm going to end now. I've enjoyed doing this post and may do something like it again soon.

One last think. I'm working on a special Churchill post concerning an incident which has some remarkable parallels to what we are seeing in Durham now.

At group of Sandhurst cadets and three employees in a barracks section were dismissed when none of them came forward and disclosed who had set some fires at the school. They were all denied presumption of innocence and due process.

Churchill was at the time a young member of Parliament. I'll bet you can guess how he reacted. You're right.

The episode had a good outcome in the sense that as many wrongs as possible were later righted. Churchill saw to it that they were.

I'll have it up in a day or two.

Every good thing to all of you.

John