Here in italic is part of a comment KC Johnson admirer skeptical left on the thread of Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie's Hoax? followed by my comments below the star line.
I am confused. Weren't you the one who resurrected the "Charlie's" story in your "KC Johnson Now" attack?
The way I understood it, you were criticizing KC for going easy on the N&O and you used the "Charlie's" episode as an example.
Then KC explained why he had left out the "Charlie's" incident from UPI-- because he had different stories from different sources.
I am not sure why you are criticizing KC for "hyping" the "Charlie's" incident when you were the one who brought it back. …
I didn’t bring Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s story “back” because it’s never been “away.”
Her Charlie’s story, really a hoax, has been mentioned by major news organizations.
It’s known to people who’ve closely followed the DL case.
If the suits go forward, which I think they will, every statement, claim, piece of evidence and much else will be reexamined again and again.
The players, parents and many others supporting them know that.
One of their hopes is that the intense scrutiny the suits will generate will this time produce a truer account of events in Durham in Spring ’06 than the one which emerged the first time.
With that understood, let’s be clear about what I said and what KC and Chris Halkides subsequently said and did.
I said on May 25 in KC Johnson Now:
No one in the bar at the time of the alleged shot slammings and shouts has ever substantiated her charges and Blythe and Stancill offered no substantiation in their story.I think most of you will agree what I posted isn’t hyping a story; it’s knocking it down.
People who were at the bar at the time in question and who have spoken publicly have said what the woman claimed was false; and that's why she was barred from the bar and thrown off the softball team.
Blythe & Stancill reported nothing from witnesses who denied what the woman said.
The two reporters & the N&O just went with a smear story they knew would add to the community’s “flaring tensions.”
Now here on the thread of KC Johnson Now is part of KC's response to what I said about the hoax and the N&O’s story:
I have spoken to four other people who were in the bar that evening. Two corroborated--in no uncertain terms--the story in Blythe and Stancill's article.In the same comment KC also said Hopman’s story “could have been correct.” (bold added)
But, in fact, Hopman’s Charlie’s hoax story was so quickly and thoroughly discredited that not even Mike Nifong tried to use it against the players.
Now three years later on the Internet of all places KC Johnson claims it “could have been correct.”
Then Halkides embraces KC’s claim in this post.
KC in turn links to Halkides.
And after they do all of that, skeptical says I hyped Hopman's story.
Some days you just can’t win.
In any case, you have the facts now.
I plan to persist.
Thanks for reading.
UPDATE @ 9:10 PM EST:
Anon @ 6:54 commented:
Sceptical did not say you hyped the story. He said "you were the one who brought it back." There's a huge difference there.As we can all see looking back, skeptical said:
I am not sure why you are criticizing KC for "hyping" the "Charlie's" incident when you were the one who brought it back. …I think Anon has offered a distinction without a difference.
But judge for yourselves.