This morning I left two comments on the thread of professor Halkides' "John in Carolina' post, 'KC Johnson Now" post.
Here's the first - - -
Anonymous said...
Here’s the full text of KC Johnson’s comment on the thread of http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/04/suggested-panels-for-stone-center.html.
It's the last comment of the thread and he makes it immediately following Joan Foster ending her comment with “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:”
_______________________________
KC Johnson @3:05 AM 4/27/09
To Joan:
My best wishes to you.
I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.
Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.
____________________________
Folks, notice KC comments directly “To Joan” and only “To Joan.”
And notice that, despite subsequent claims by KC and others that he was announcing the closing of the thread, in his actual comment KC says NOTHING about closing the thread.
John in Carolina
July 12, 2009 9:07 AM
*******************************************************
Now my second comment which responds to a comment by Halkides in which he says he's satisfied KC meant to close the thread because there's now an announcement at the end of it that says that. My comment has not yet been cleared.
Professor Halkides,
I don't know anyone who disputes KC said AFTER I posted "KC Johnson Now" that he had shut down the thread.
There now is posted at the end of the thread: "NEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DISABLED FOR THIS POST BY A BLOG ADMINISTRATOR."
But this morning is the first time I saw it.
And you only mentioned it just now.
When did you first see it?
I've received about 20 comments totaling thousands of words defending KC's evolving claims concerning Joan Foster and banning.
Almost all of them made the point KC was really just closing down the thread.
But NOT ONE of those comments mentions the notice you and I found there at DIW this morning.
Why do you think that is?
Have you asked KC when he posted it?
John in Carolina
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Something New At KC Johnson's DIW
Posted by JWM at 10:26 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The "NEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DISABLED FOR THIS POST BY A BLOG ADMINISTRATOR." message is automatically added on end the of a closed comment thread, but shows up *only* if the comments are being viewed in a pop-out box (versus read in the page). It has been there since the thread was closed and would have shown up any time anyone *tried* to add a comment to that thread. It is not something a blog admin adds independently of closing the thread. However, you would have only seen it if you tried to add a comment or if you viewed the comments in a pop-out box.
**this may be a double-post; blog's acting strange this morning...**
The "NEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DISABLED FOR THIS POST BY A BLOG ADMINISTRATOR." message is automatically added on end the of a closed comment thread, but shows up *only* if the comments are being viewed in a pop-out box (versus read in the page). It has been there since the thread was closed and would have shown up any time anyone *tried* to add a comment to that thread. It is not something a blog admin adds independently of closing the thread. However, you would have only seen it if you tried to add a comment or if you viewed the comments in a pop-out box.
Anon-
What you are saying may be true, depending on your browser and operating system configuration, but in my experience with blogger (pretty extensive) that is not what I've seen on PC's running IE/FF. Realistically blogger has no way of knowing if a window is popup or open in new tab. I would also find it odd if "read in page", which I take to mean inline reading, really used different code to display "end of thread" stuff. I know one of the founders of Blogger is both a UNC-CH graduate and a google employee, but, really, that would be peculiar.
I'd also be surprised if there was such a swirl of controversy for several months without anyone even mentioning this message.
And, finally, JinC is a pretty keen observer and he just noticed this today as well. And felt the need to post on it.
My gut is: this is new.
Not saying it is nefarious, just visually new.
-xc
xc -
Please compare the results from following links:
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/04/suggested-panels-for-stone-center.html
to
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32542246&postID=8346744108951900402&isPopup=true
In FireFox, at the very least, the former has NO indicator while the latter does.
With respect to, "Realistically blogger has no way of knowing if a window is popup or open in new tab," there is an isPopup=true tag in the link - that is how Blogger knows.
I had previously submitted this comment, but somehow it did not appear. Knowing the high ethics of the blogger who posts under the pseudonym of "John in Carolina," I'm sure it was accidentally deleted, and that he did not follow a policy of attacking someone in a post and then refusing to allow the attacked party to respond. I therefore took the liberty of reposting it.
--
To the blogger who posts under the pseudonym of "John in Carolina:"
The item to which you refer is an automatically generated message from the blogger software, which appears whenever anyone attempts to comment in a closed thread (as, I assume, you know from your own experience with blogger software).
It was not written by me, nor is it anything "new." In contrast to the erroneous statement in your post, it does not appear now, nor has it ever appeared, when a reader goes to the following URL: http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/04/suggested-panels-for-stone-center.html. Nor does it appear at the URL: http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/04/suggested-panels-for-stone-center.html#comments.
It only appears when a reader tries to comment, as any reader--including Ms. Foster or, indeed, you--would have discovered anytime after April 27, 2009, at 3.05pm. That is why there were no more comments in the thread.
I would have been delighted to have provided you with this information via email before you wrote your post--but, as we know, your habit on this matter has not been to verify facts before posting.
Folks,
In a short while I'll respond on the main page to KC's email, the first I've received from him on this matter.
John
Post a Comment