Readers Note: For background to the email to KC Johnson which follows, please read my KC Johnson Now and KC's Durham-in-Wonderland post here.
John
___________________________________
KC,
I promised to be back to you regarding criticisms you’ve made of me and my blogging.
Let’s start with your June 30 Durham-in-Wonderland post which included this:
[T]he blogger who posts under the pseudonym "John in Carolina" slimed me by claiming that I had "banned" a commenter.I take it you were referring to what I said in KC Johnson Now:
I think DIW lost something important when KC barred Joan Foster, one of the people who's been most effective from the first in the fight for DL justice. All Joan did was to civilly and persausively disagree with KC over his ridicule of Prejean.After a look at all the related material I can find, I can see that you never said you'd banned Joan.
If I’d have checked first with you and Joan, I know you both would have told me that.
I’m sorry I didn’t do that.
As for whether my saying you’d banned Joan was a slime, people can judge that for themselves.
The hour is late. I’ll say more soon.
John
9 comments:
John,
You do not owe KC an apology on this matter. You repeated the word I used. "Checking with me" would have served no purpose either. After the incident,even as late as July 1, I wrote to KC trying to clear up the matter and apologize "if I was mistaken." His reply centered on you alone and made no attempt to clear up any misunderstanding. If there was any confusion over this matter, KC shared at least an equal responsibility for the communication breakdown.
A "bigger" man might have been able to admit that...and the matter might have quickly disappeared. The fact is it was unimportant to him until he was called on it. Only then was he willing to write many angry posts to defend himself rather than one kind post to clear the matter.
That is KC Johnson.
To that point,i have some friendly parting advice for him. He states in his comment that his proof that I was not banned is an email reply to a third party wherein he recounts this masterful example of his intra=personal skills: No, she said she was banned and I said best wishes to you. (paraphrasing)
So, helping out here,if at any point,in his real life,KC should have a friend say in stunned amazement, "You're throwing me out of your apartment!" I would submit if he has truly been misunderstood, his clearest reply is not "Best wishes to you. There are 100's of apartments in NYC where you are welcome to go."
The clearing of Debrah's attack posts is a matter neither Professor Halkides nor Gregory has ever touched upon...at least in public.It was reading her remarks about you... that he indulged himself by clearing over and over.... that convinced me the comment about me had been no "accident." This fed into my belief it was my cyber person, not my hypothetical, that was sent into the darkness.
If this is all an exercize in "fairness" and in analyzing this incident,why no comment from these gentlemen on the clearing of attack posts on a blog that states they will not be tolerated??
Lastly, John, what I see in your posts is the kind of man you are: defending a "colleague", called out by name in a way that even a commentator who uses profanity and remarks about the personal appearance of another poster...was NEVER treated on that Blog.
And I see a man defending the reputation of the Lacrosse team, so terribly maligned in the N&O, as has been your mission since day one.
Your kindness, integrity, and people skills have been on display here day after day for years. You have a beautiful legacy of selflessly involving yourself in this case with no previous agenda nor future financial gain.
Thank you.
Joan: You have my admiration and respect, as does John. Always has, always will. Steve in New Mexico
John,
It is too bad you do not realize you are burning your blog to the ground.
Your legacy is a multi year record of search for justice in North Carolina. Your "Churchill Series" was a gift. Nothing can take these away from you.
You announced several weeks ago this blog was closed. Well....
This final pissing contest with KC Johnson is just not worthy of you, or what you have stood for these past years.
Jim Peterson
Jim in San Diego,
When is KC going to tell us why Hopman's story "could have been correct?"
Duke Alum
Did KC talk to Bob Ekstrand's
sister-in-law?
Is that the problem?
John,
Keep up the good fight.
KC has lost a lot of credibility with his "confidential witnesses" and "could have been correct."
Duke Mom
John,
Have you confirmed the individual posting as "Joan Foster" really is Joan Foster?
Just asking.
The effulgent praise, ("you are protecting a colleague") and her condescending dismissal of KC Johnson ("That is KC Johnson") do not sound like the fact filled, analytical style we have come to expect.
Jim Peterson
It's me, Jim, and I have the email exchange to prove what I say is "fact-filled."
Jim in San Diego:
"It is too bad you do not realize you are burning your blog to the ground."
I think you may be mistaken.
If anything, KC Johnson has a command of vocabulary and a writing style that is clearly exceptional. When he chose to make the statements on Jill Hopman's story, he picked his words carefully.
I stated previously I was puzzled by his statements. I still am.
Let's see where this goes.
Ken
Dallas
Post a Comment