Duke Defenders Duck Frame/Cover-up Questions

Last Sunday I posted Refuting Duke/Durham Frame/Cover-up Enablers.

The short of it: the facts of the case easily refute what the Duke/Durham frame/cover-up enablers want to believe. That explains why so many enablers, instead of responding to fact-based questions with facts and logic, now instead resort to name calling, ad hominems, threats, misstatements, lies and fantasies.

You can see examples of what I’m talking about on the thread of "BOT expected to select Blue as next chair."

I posted the comment you’ll read below on the TC thread knowing many members of the Duke community, including trustees, administrators and faculty, would silently monitor the thread.

Most people, myself included, understand the content of comment threads is not always useful. But often individual comments and “conversations” between commenters “add to the story.” So people with a strong interest in an online story typically read at least some of the story’s comment thread, and often return to the thread for a few days to read later comments.

Anyone doing that on TC’s BOT to select Blue thread (now with 61 comments) will find my comment followed by a variety of others.

What Duke trustees, administrators, faculty, students, parents and others won’t find is any comment making fact-based, coherent responses to my questions.

I’ve included after my comment a few examples of the responses that have been made to the questions.
_____________________________________

John in Carolina

posted 4/27/09 @ 11:01 AM EST

[Commenter] Expected Attack @ 9:05 AM has it right.

"[T]he only response [of the Brodhead/Steel frame/cover-up defenders] is to attack the person posting -- nothing on the substance of the discussion."

Why is that when there's so much to examine and discuss?

Why, on Mar. 25, 2006, did Brodhead fail to mention in his first public statement about the frame-up attempt the extraordinary cooperation the players had given police?

On Mar. 29 Brodhead apologized on behalf of Duke to the woman then known as "the first caller." The police had known for 15 days she was Kim Pittman, the second dancer.

Did Brodhead know that? I don't know. Brodhead's never answered the question.

Do any of you who defend Brodhead here know why he hasn't?

Or why Brodhead, the trustees and almost all faculty never said a public word critical of the black racists who shouted threats, including death threats, at Reade Seligmann at the Durham County Courthouse on May 18?

About those student records protected under FERPA: did Duke give them to DPD and Nifong without required student and parent consent and then latter engage with Nifong in an open court charade intended to deceive the court into believing Duke had not already turned over the protected records?

I hope Brodhead/Steel frame/cover-up defenders' will start to engage in reasoned discourse instead of resorting to ad hominems which make the already absurd Brodhead/Steel defense - - "Who knew? And besides, the facts kept changing. Let's move on." - - appear nasty as well.

At least it does to decent people.

John in Carolina

_______________________________________



What Lies John ?
posted 4/27/09 @ 2:03 PM EST
Originally posted by
John in Carolina

"Now, is there any chance you and other Brodhead-Steel [ALLEGED]frame/cover-up defenders will engage in serious, discussion of [ALLEGED]Duke's actions and inactions in response to Crystal Mangum's, DPD's, the N&O's and Nifong's [ALLEGED]lies?"


Sorry John - not a Chance.

You could ask KC Johnson about
his PROVEN LIES though.

HA HA HA

Idiot...ad the man.

____________________________

What frame John? The one in the brain of Bob Ekstrand?
posted 4/28/09 @ 4:48 PM EST


Ha Ha Ha

John, we forget to remind you

today your blog really sucks

and you are a dishonest, racist asshole.

...

Folks, what do trustees and others embracing the Duke defendants think when questions such as mine go unanswered?