The Purposes Of The Piot Posts

In response to Where's Piot's "KC - Shut Up?" a commenter said in part:

Even if [Piot] had replied it would have been easily fabricated BS which you would have spent much time proving wrong.

His non-reply is his indication of his contempt for you.

Why reiterate his contempt. It only serves his purpose.

Based on previous comments and this one, I judge the commenter to be an intelligent, serious and fair-mined person.

To the commenter and all of you, I offer the following explanation for my Piot posts:

Between Feb. and Oct. 2007 I did spend a lot of time documenting and commenting on matters related to Duke professor Charles Piot’s Feb 12, 2007 reading at a public forum held on Duke’s West Campus of his paper which he said was a study of the role of blogs in the Duke lacrosse case.

Piot’s paper was, in fact, largely an ad hominem targeting historian and Brooklyn College professor KC Johnson, one of those who led the fight to expose the Duke/Durham frame-up attempt as well as the disgraceful conduct of many of Piot’s Duke faculty colleagues whose heinous and reckless actions did so much to enable the trashing and endangerment of the students on the lacrosse team, and to sustain the attempt to imprison three Duke students who were transparently innocent.

I listened to Piot’s reading and took notes, but no taping was permitted and no print copies of his ad hominem were available.

So I emailed Piot the day following his reading and asked that he post a copy of his paper on the Internet.

That was a fair way to give KC a chance to respond; and it would allow anyone to read what Piot had said and judge his paper for him/herself.

I had no doubt KC would effectively rebut and expose Piot; nor did I have any doubt informed, reasonable people would see Piot’s paper for the vicious, very likely slanderous ad hominem it was.

I think even Piot realized that.

How else to explain his never making a copy of the paper he actually read Feb. 12, 2006 available; nor his ever releasing for public viewing the tape which Duke AV made which contains his reading of his ad hominem?

Instead, Piot published in a journal an airbrushed copy of his paper.

Documenting and commenting on Piot's actions and inactions with regard to his ad hominem, including documented instances of his refusal to make his paper as originally read available to KC and others, may have earned me Piot’s contempt.

If it did, it’s a very small consideration when placed beside the importance of placing “on the record” and calling attention to Piot’s egregious conduct which should trouble all at Duke who value academic disputation based on fairness and honesty.

As for reiterating, that reminds and informs people of what Piot did and what Duke tolerates.