tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post6511608583993080269..comments2024-01-04T07:21:18.243-05:00Comments on John In Carolina: INNOCENT: Chafe responded; I’m holdingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-49315340842950876822007-05-15T13:27:00.000-04:002007-05-15T13:27:00.000-04:00This post puzzles me. With his earlier reply, you...This post puzzles me. With his earlier reply, you deliberately allowed his response to be here, seen in its own context, before your reply was posted. Now, you want to hold his reply until yours can be posted as well. I'm curious why this is being handled differently.<BR/><BR/>On the more general subject, I'd sincerly like to hear Chafe's comments on the specific lines in the ad which clearly referenced the lacrosse case, by date and by repeated clear references to the accuser. Does he, like one of his colleagues, choose to argue that "a party" happened to the woman, or will he acknowledge that a reasonable reader, given the context of the date of publication, might infer that the statement meant that "a rape" happened to the woman (irrespective of any possible conscious intent by the signatories)? If he agrees that the references to the specific date, and to 'something happening to the woman', could reasonably be so interpreted, does he at least genuinely regret that the ad did not explicitly deny such an implication?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-36275629602098502282007-05-14T19:27:00.000-04:002007-05-14T19:27:00.000-04:00Change . to ? last mark.Change . to ? last mark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-42518458601216146872007-05-14T19:25:00.000-04:002007-05-14T19:25:00.000-04:00"That can only be good for Duke and justice." JiCJ..."That can only be good for Duke and justice." JiC<BR/><BR/>Justice being the beneficiary of paramount importance. Had that been the criterion in use at Duke, what would be good for Duke would be a non-issue, wouldn't it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com