<p>“And exactly what would those be?” </p>
<p>Come on, Iskinner. You’re a smart guy/gal. I think you can figure it out…;)</p>
<p>I agree that the book deal would get them monetary compensation and allow them to tell their story. But again, I don’t think the reason for asking for money from Durham is to just get the compensation. I think they are interested also in a consequence for those who carried out the injustice, which you don’t get from a book deal. In other words, they want the wrongful party to have to “pay”. I realize Nifong has lost his job and license. But I guess there are others involved and so I think there is a “point” to the suit, not just simply getting money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I agree that you can’t get EVERYONE on the planet 
to support these guys, and there would be some who still condemn them…let’s not forget that the “some” even includes 88 faculty from their own school! Even on our own little CC Duke thread, there are those who think ill of them. I do think there are some after-effects of having your name smeared in this way even if it is retracted later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but I’m not gonna guess. Please either spell out your accusation or retract it. What exactly do you think my feelings are?</p>
<p>Retract what? See, two can play this game;).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally agree.</p>
<p>I was discussing the case with a family member who said, basically, “Come on, they must have attacked her somehow”</p>
<p>A lot of Americans read about an accusation, assume that it’s true, and then don’t pay any more attention to the coverage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This statement:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what exactly are my “real feelings”?</p>
<p>“But again, I don’t think the reason for asking for money from Durham is to just get the compensation. I think they are interested also in a consequence for those who carried out the injustice,”</p>
<p>I don’t see as there would be much in the way of consequence for the those in the police dept., or the underlings in the DA’s Office—not unless they would be made to pay that 30 mil out of their own pockets. And and far as I know, it’s still impossible to get blood out of a stone.</p>
<p>The rush to judgment statement was issued by the Faculty 88 fairly early in the developments of this story, before the boys were fully exonerated. Since then, all the most vocal critics have fallen conveniently silent. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more than a few of those who signed that letter that are now lying sheepishly low, hoping no one will remember that they took part in a virtual public lynching. After having been proven so absolutely wrong, how does someone lacking in personal integrity stand up and say, “I was wrong. I apologize.”</p>
<p>“Iskinner, I think you may have just slipped and exposed your real feelings about “precious”.”</p>
<p>You’re right, Iskinner, I <em>really</em> have no way of knowing exactly how you feel about “precious” unless you state it openly. It was a sly accusation, and I apologize. Statement retracted.</p>
<p>I’m almost expecting Tom Metzger to post a message on this thread. But Metzger never had any interest in subtleties.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse me? That’s quite a bombshell to drop - you believe that this thread now has similarities to the White Aryan Resistance? I’d say that is as successful a demonstration of [Reductio</a> ad Hitlerum](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum]Reductio”>Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia) as I’ve seen in a while…</p>
<p>I think that in post 1496, Iskinner was trying to make a point about the circumstances under which the destruction of one’s privacy might warrant monetary damages, and when he (she?) sited an outrageous hypothetical scenario of what could have happened, had circumstances turned out far differently than they did, a couple of us were taken aback by the racial frankness of his language, and jumped to conclusions—unfair ones, I’ll admit, at least on my part:</p>
<p>[Quoting Iskinner] "For example, the Duke lacrosse players are perfectly free to print up a flyer with a picture of Precious passed out on the steps of a lacrosse house, and the caption “This is a stupid <em>BLANK</em> who got exactly what she deserved!!”</p>
<p>The example he dreamed up probably only points out how much he, as well as everyone else who’s been following this case, is aware of how racial politics played a major roll in the Duke Lacrosse case. I was a first willing to think the worst of his comment because he (understandingly), like many active posters on this thread, never went to any lengths to hide his hostility toward the woman who falsely accused the boys and turned their world upside-down. Also, Iskinner had struck me as being a bit of a coy contrarian in some of this responses to Kluge earlier in the thread, with his many, “So?”, “So what?” type of responses. I believed he was ignoring the logic or validity of some of Kluge’s comments, and that, in turn, colored my overall impression of him, and caused me to unfairly leap to the conclusion that he had racist feelings toward the accuser. That’s why I posted my sly accusation to that effect, and later, why I played coy by asking, “Retract what?” Again, I want to be clear that I was wrong to do that.</p>
<p>As far as the Tom Metzger comment, I hope we can stop this discussion from taking that downward spiral. I agree with DukeEgr93 that neither TM, nor The White Aryan Resistance have any logical place in this discussion thus far.</p>
<p>Mod Note: The original post by lskinner has been edited to take out a racist term that we do not allow. The poster was trying to make a point, using a hypothetical, about outrageous publicity and what it might engender. Not someone making a racist statement of his own beliefs (which we would not tolerate). In the original post, the word “prostitute” has been substituted as an example of a slanderous accusation (which appears to be the intent) but without using a term that we do not allow on our forums. On this post by poetsheart, the term was blanked out, but the response about the post in terms of using a racist example remain.</p>
<p>I have no idea what one’s “feelings” may or may not be. I can only know and have perceptions about actual statements, written or otherwise. Comment- makers whom seemingly profess that the King and Louima incidents were relatively mild injustices, or who compose crude hypothetical examples, bring to mind some of the inane thinking typically heard on Tom Metzger’s broadcasts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Morally wrong has never mattered much at the Plantation.</p>
<p>If you are referring to Duke, you are, from my perspective, incorrect in your assessment, xiggi.</p>
<p>Isn’t it wonderful when our individual assessments are still allowed to vary according to our perspectives or our employment.</p>
<p>Yes, indeed. I work at Duke. I have been here almost 20 years. I know that there are many decisions made where what is “morally right” takes center stage with respect to the process followed and the outcome obtained.</p>
<p>It is what allows me to disagree with your assessment. Should you make other negative statements about Duke, however, that I agree with, I will agree with them, because I agree with you; I will not be silenced because of the source of my income. Nor will I allow the latter to happen when I disagree with you.</p>
<p>One of the things learned in this case is how much Duke values academic freedom - perhaps even beyond what is reasonable. Academic freedom, it may be recalled, was tested at Duke during a time when the very morally correct decision about The Bassett Affair came along.</p>
<p>I have used that freedom to publicly state both the positive and negative aspects of this case, as I have seen them.</p>
<p>Not that he needs me (or anyone else) to come to his defense, but now that DukeEgr93’s impartiality has been challenged, it seems appropriate to observe that throughout this whole case - and thread - his has consistently been one of the more articulate, reasonable, valuable, and, yes, impartial voices on CC.</p>
<p>(But for voices like DukeEgr93’s, I doubt that I would have hung around so long myself.)</p>
<p>^^–^^</p>
<p>Since we are on the subject of incorrect assessments, that is another one. My comment about individual assessments that are allowed to vary according to perspectives or employment were NOT meant to challenge DEgr’s impartiality. It did, however, reflect that different people form different opinions, even if they happen to be employed by the same institution. Were there no divergent opinions among the faculty at Duke? </p>
<p>My comment further addressed that it IS wonderful when this is permitted. I could have added that it is also remarkable for anyone to maintain the courage of his of her opinion, as opposed to merely repeating what is supposed to be the policitically correct commentary du jour, especially when it is utterly self-serving. </p>
<p>Today and … yesterday!</p>