Confusing Details about the Willis-Starbuck Shooting
The Berkeley Daily Planet recently ran a column following up on the shooting. The column is largely a human interest piece, recounting the conversation the writer had with Willis-Starbuck’s mother. There was this intriguing piece of information, though:
The San Francisco Chronicle on Oct. 2 reported that, according to George Strait, UC Berkeley’s vice chancellor for public affairs, Cal football player Gary Doxy, although wounded at the scene, did not realize his flesh wound was related to the gunshots, therefore did not reveal his injury to the police until a month later. Rumors of a cover-up are beginning to emerge, not uncommon when it comes to protecting potentially big money-making athletes.
So, there were multiple shots fired, a young woman was killed, and Gary Doxy didn’t realize that the flesh wound he received at the time was related? Did he think it was the stigmata?
Are there any inconsistencies or odd facets to this story. During previous threads, these types of questions have been raised, but I’m curious what everyone else who has been following this story has found confusing? Who has been saying “no comment” and what haven’t they been commenting on? If anyone has any good questions to ask any of the relevant actors (the police, the football administrators, etc.) I’ll be happy to follow up on those and make some phone calls.
Well, to be fair, I notice minor cuts and holes and bruises on my body that I don’t remember the source of all the time. It’s probably even more common for athletes.
Comment by Beetle — October 4, 2005 @ 3:11 pm
Now I’ve never been shot, but I have to assume that even if you are only grazed by a bullet that you would know that something just happened. Now if you hear a ‘pop’ and then feel something sting wouldn’t a logical conclusion be that you’ve just been shot?
Comment by Josh — October 4, 2005 @ 3:45 pm
Based on the stories I’ve read it seems pretty clear that the football players have not fessed up. Tedford always says ‘they’ve’ cooperated fully, but he also said in one article that, or one article says he thinks there were others who haven’t stepped up. So, the jerks who were there and are known to the police aren’t naming their friends. For that, for that alone they should definitely be bounced from the team and out of the school. Burris said he intends to direct blame away from his client and toward the players. If he’s going to do that I bet he will also throw blame on the victim herself, which she may firmly deserve, though her friends and family will never admit it that she called for ‘heat’. A whole lot of lying going on.
Comment by uncle joe — October 4, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
Beetle: holes? really?
:-)
Comment by Andy R. — October 4, 2005 @ 4:27 pm
Josh, based on the stories I’ve read from folks who have been shot, that’s not really the case, and if you’re in the middle of doing something intense (like running for your life), you won’t necessarily feel it.
Comment by Beetle — October 4, 2005 @ 5:22 pm
For once, I think I agree with Beetle. In such a life-threatening, adrenaline-pumping situation, a slight graze that leaves nothing more than a gash on your skin may not be felt for several hours or more. I think the shock that they almost got killed over a stupid argument, coupled with the fact that the woman who called for the shooting acutally got shot, put many of those in the scene in some type of shock. This shock would prevent someone from feeling a skin wound.
Comment by Anonymous — October 4, 2005 @ 9:18 pm
dis stowy has all makings of a satire were it not so tragic.
one ting is fo sho. if willis-starbuck did in fact call in da heat to cap dose football players… den she was no “peace activist” of any sort. kinda sad seeing how da community invested a lot in her.
=/
Comment by smashT — October 4, 2005 @ 10:17 pm
wow. never thought i’d agree with smashT. But, honestly, he has a point. It’s been bugging me throughout this whole thing that she called for the guy to bring a gun - if she hadn’t been the one that was shot, she could be in jail at this moment.
Comment by Anonymous — October 4, 2005 @ 10:49 pm
ya i wonder why she called da heat in da first place… insider is sayin daT she was da one provoking da fight wiT da football players and was da one daT didnt want to leave.
waT thought pwocess could have made her decide to become an accessory to murdah? i mean she was a darmouth student and even tho dey have affirmative action she muss still have had some intelligence to get into daT school… so why was she callin in her fwend to cap dose football players?
hmmm….
Comment by smashT — October 4, 2005 @ 11:31 pm
The bullet left no more than a scratch. It didn’t pierce his flesh or anything. Doxy thought it could have been a scratch made running for the car. I’m not sure who finally realized it was from a bullet, but there was no major cover-up — again, these guys were the targets of a gunman — they were the intended victims of a crime. What are they covering up?
Do they want their names in the paper? No. Anytime a black athlete is involved in anything police related, they get smeared. Look at what is happening to David Gray — that’s his reward for going back to the scene and revealing himself to the police. The other guys do not want to have their names dragged thru the mud — which is exactly what Burris has announced he will use as his defense for Hollis. He plans to explore the football player’s “culpability” in this incident. Word is that he will claim that the players were making threats that Hollis heard over the cell phone.
By the way — the first person piece in the BDP? It reports that Willis-Starbuck was “patiently” trying to explain to the guys why disrespecting women is a bad thing. Now that I would like explained — how can she be patiently talking, yet feel threatened and need backup at the same time?
Comment by Insider — October 5, 2005 @ 10:11 am
Uncle Joe — tossed off the team for being there? Is JonP your nephew?
The cops have decided they have enough people they have spoken to. They have interviewed David Gray and Doxy. I’ve heard mixed reports on whether the cops have the names of the other guys, but they could have them if they want them and could interview them if they want to. All they have to do is ask Gray and Doxy. They probably already have.
Again, these guys are the victims of an intended crime — not the criminals. You gotta be wacked, unclejoe, to think being shot at deserves being tossed off of the team.
Comment by Insider — October 5, 2005 @ 10:14 am
One more thing to keep in mind. Willis-Starbuck and her friends had just left a party and were fairly wasted. Wilson and Hollis were at the same party. Being intoxicated probably contributed to Hollis’ bad judgment and bad aim. It would also account for W-S over-reacting.
There is also a story that the two groups had an encounter the previous night at Blake’s — and that most involved were pretty drunk then as well.
Comment by Insider — October 5, 2005 @ 10:17 am
I have a real problem with their not stepping forward. Surely you can agree with that. You are pretty touchy when it comes to anything negative being said about the team. Makes one wonder….hmmmm….2…plus….2……….
Sorry, but my views are pretty much 180 degrees from jonp.
And good luck at UCLA this weekend.
Comment by uncle joe — October 5, 2005 @ 1:25 pm
Doxy’s wound is a red herring. As a witness to the shooting (at the very least), he had an obligation to talk to the police, regardless of whether he was wounded or not. A lot of the women at the shooting (who presumably aren’t built like football players) talked to the police. So Doxy has no basis saying that he was too scared of Hollis to talk.
In addition, Insider is once again misrepresenting the total lack of cooperation by the football team with the investigation. If Insider had bothered to read this article by the San Francisco Chronicle, he/she would have found this:
That does not suggest cooperation by the football team. Insider says, “The cops have decided they have enough people they have spoken to.” How the hell would Insider know? What makes him/her such a goddamn expert? Being a football player or friends with football team does not give you the prerogative to tell how the Berkeley city police or Hollis’s defense attorney should conduct an investigation.
And, yes, I’ll say it. Some of the witnesses probably should be kicked off the team or receive some other form of disciplinary punishment. Some of them evidently think it’s OK to harass women and stonewall an active police investigation. I should hope that the administration thinks differently.
Insider may know some inside info, but his/her biases are showing. He/she is obviously on the football or close friends with somebody on the team.
Comment by jonp — October 5, 2005 @ 3:34 pm
And Jon doesn’t like football players. But really, why should the university kick students off campus for non-university crap? Do you want them in students’ personal lives making determinations about whether students can continue or not?
Comment by Beetle — October 5, 2005 @ 3:40 pm
hello tiny Berkeley world!
part of your tininess, it seems to me, is the sick local obsession with university sports. i of course don’t know if those named are responsible. but these guys — and, through them, the university — have long needed to be deprived of their curiously untouchable status. that they are a bunch of ill-educated assholes has long been on the record, as has the fact that more of the few of them behave like thugs. they never had a place on the campus; berkeley should down a few leagues. it would be nobody’s loss.
Comment by g — October 5, 2005 @ 3:59 pm
Jon, your biases have been showing ever since you started posting on this topic. So what’s your point?
Also, are you suggesting that it should be legal to punish people for verbally provoking a shooting? Then it’d be legal for a gunman to justify shooting somebody he/she doesn’t like and arguing that the victim provoked the shooting. In this case, the blame falls on Hollis and W-S and only then one can argue that the other party to the confrontation was partially to blame for instigating the incident. But the bulk of the responsibility is still on W-S and Hollis. If you don’t see that simple truth, you must be blinded by your ideology.
Comment by anonymous — October 5, 2005 @ 4:06 pm
You shouldn’t be thrown in jail for provoking a shooting, but if you do it as a member of the football team, it’s probably something that should warrant getting thrown off the team or at least some form of censure. Probably getting thrown off campus is going a little too far, but people have been disciplined by colleges and universities for much, much less. There are due process issues involved if the university tried to discipline the football players, but I’m not sure if it would be considered as much of a due process issue if they were thrown off the team, since the team presumably resumes the right to throw people off for many other probably less severe reasons.
Comment by jonp — October 5, 2005 @ 4:23 pm
Uncle Joe: Yeah, I would want to step forward, but keep in mind that Doxy and the others were victims, and it’s not unusual for victims in this society to not want to come forward. It is especially normal for AFRICAN AMERICANS to not consider the police as friends and feel that if they go to the police, they will only get jacked. It surely has happened before and their victimization is just repeated when they turn for help. Again, David Gray did go forward and now his parents have to read again and again about his “weapons violation” without anyone giving context to that incident. What is happening to Gray is not making anyone think that it’d be a good thing to come forward. Instead, his example shows that you’d be dumb to come forward if you don’t have to. And again, the cops can interview the other guys any time they want to — they have elected not to. I don’t know the reason — I know the other guys involved are relieved that they haven’t had to get involved, especially after seeing their friend’s name and reputation trashed in the media.
Comment by Insider — October 5, 2005 @ 4:58 pm
Time to move to a red state and vote republican, JonP. Are you still smarting from the bitchslapping you are getting on a regular basis here? Because you are now abandonng all your progressive views in order to make yourself look better — and all this does is make you look hypocritical. Are you, as a good progressive boy, going to tell me you don’t understand why members of the African-American community are distrustful of police and unwilling to go to them for help? Are you now going to tell us all that the police/justice system are fair to minorities? In your desperate need to make me look bad, you are now abandoning all your progressive views and acting like a Bush RedState republican, saying Doxy had a responsibility to go to the police. By your logic, you are now saying all rape victims who don’t report their rapes are bad. Doxy was a victim of a shooting who decided the injury wasn’t enough to get involved in a police investigation because he knew he would get trashed for it — just like his honest but foolish friend David Gray. Or is it that you just think football players (and frat boys, of course) should be held to a different standard?
As for the punishment, I think a lot of Roberto Hernandez’ friends stalled the University and police trying to investigate Roberto’s biting of a policeman. I think many of the progressive folks took over a courtroom and stymied the judicial process. By your logic you now think that your old friends (I can’t imagine they are your friends any more after reading your ultra-conservative views) were wrong and should have been punished, right. Oh, I’m sure the Angry Clam and Res Ipsa must be loving your words right now.
You’re so pathetic, JonP. You now are abandoning all your ideals because I’ve bitchslapped you one more time. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for your comments about the insider info on the third passenger and how a woman can be considered being harassed when she is actively trying to keep her “harassers” talking to her.
Comment by Insider — October 5, 2005 @ 5:10 pm
And Jon, in your continuing abandonment of progressive views you now argue that provoking a shooting is a valid argument. Take that logic a little farther and start telling women in short dresses that they provoked the rape, or that a woman who burned dinner provoked her husband’s beating. Tell an Israeli protestor that she deserved to have the bulldozer kill her for getting in the way. Tell the victims of police brutality that they should have shut up instead of provoking the police and they should be punished for it.
Only you think that being disrespectful means you should be shot.
You know, if being stupid was valid reason to provoke a shooting, your Mama would have soooo many black dresses by now.
Comment by Insider — October 5, 2005 @ 5:16 pm
Insider, I never insisted that being disrespectful means somebody should get shot. On the other hand, you get these football players talking trash to the local women, the way they probably have done a few times before. Except this time, the locals overreact in a manner that the football players were not prepared for. No, it’s not fair. Life isn’t fair. But it’s hard not to see a little bit of hubris on the part of the football players.
Oh yeah, the reference to the “Israeli” protester is Rachel Corrie. Corrie was an American protester who objected the demolition of a Palestinian house, not an Israeli house. Read some newspaper articles that don’t have to do with the football team next time, Insider. You may learn something.
Comment by jonp — October 5, 2005 @ 9:14 pm
And really now… Insider… you’ve used that stupidity/”yo mama”/black dress quip of yours so often, it’s more played out than MC Hammer.
Comment by jonp — October 5, 2005 @ 9:17 pm
Hey jon, it’s obvious from his comment that “israeli protestor” meant someone protesting the Israelis. If that is supposed to be a comeback, you have swung and missed yet again.
Comment by thomas — October 6, 2005 @ 5:42 am
so now jonp knows that this wasn’t the first time these evil football players have harassed women? what evidence do you have that similar events happened before? your bias against the football team is blindingly obvious.
Comment by anon54 — October 6, 2005 @ 9:30 am
also, you’re an idiot for saying that Doxy had no basis for not going to the police, since M-WS’ friends talked to the police.
Doxy was the intended target of the shooting. Her friends were not. Of course he had reason to be afraid. That comparison is pathetically useless.
Comment by anon54 — October 6, 2005 @ 9:35 am
PS If you want to see hubris, look at Rachel Corre
Comment by anon54 — October 6, 2005 @ 9:37 am
JonP, so now you’re picking on Hammer? Man, you don’t want to touch that. How come you keep hating on African-Americans?
And you also hate my constant use of your Mama’s black dress? Again with the hating on all things black. You’re such a republican.
That’s it. I’m calling my friend to come and shoot you. Can you please stay here and keep arguing with me in the meantime and not go anywhere else?
Comment by Insider — October 6, 2005 @ 9:58 am
This reminds me of the David Cash fiasco back in my day, when there was a fairly strong (and unsuccessful) drive to kick him off campus. Those of you who are older may remember the case.
The argument for Doxy being kicked off the team or off campus sounds a bit dubious. By not volunteering information to the police, he has not violated the Code of Student Conduct. I am not certain whether the team has any rules that are more stringent than that, so I’ll defer to anyone with knowledge on the subject. But let’s all be thankful that our Code of Conduct, unlike Stanford’s, actually defines the offenses that students can be disciplined for.
Comment by AMK — October 6, 2005 @ 10:02 am
That’s because Stanford is a communist university and ours uphold the rule of law.
Comment by DTI — October 6, 2005 @ 10:06 am
From what I understand, it seems that Willis-Starbuck may only have been calling her friend for help. Hollis brought and fired the gun on his own discretion.
So this doesn’t fully discredit her as “peace activist” (although for many, “peace” is often a pretense for war..)
If you can find a source that states she asked him specifically to bring the gun, please post it.
Comment by Anonymous — October 6, 2005 @ 1:38 pm
anonymous, at this point we only have the rumors/insider stories that have the girl overheard saying to “bring the heat”.. I’ve heard this a number of different times now, so I assume that it’s true (though I dont know it first-hand).
Comment by thomas — October 6, 2005 @ 1:55 pm
Hollis is willing to testify that W-S told him to bring a gun and made it seem like she was in mortal danger.
Of course, that could just be a killer lying to save his ass from the electric chair.
Comment by Insider — October 6, 2005 @ 4:17 pm
I am assuming the police can get access to the actual phone conversation from the cell phone company. Or am I wrong?
Comment by anonymous — October 6, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
Today in the Contra Costa Times
Emotions ran so high, he said, that Willis-Starbuck placed several calls to Hollis, a friend whom she sometimes referred to as her “brother.” He and Wilson were nearby, attending another party near the campus, Burris said.
At one point, Burris said, Willis-Starbuck told her friend to “bring the heat,” an apparent request for Hollis to bring a gun. According to Burris, she also said: “If you were my brother you would come here now.
“You can’t let them do this to me.”
Comment by uncle joe — October 6, 2005 @ 4:45 pm
I love JonP’s selective arguments. When he can’t rebut a point, he acts like it was never even made.
He’s sounding eerily like Rumsfeld or Dumbya.
Comment by PBE — October 6, 2005 @ 7:32 pm
Dissing MC Hammer is racist? If that’s so, that would make Saturday Night Live, In Living Color, the Simpsons, and probaby a few comedians on Def Comedy Jam racist as well.
Comment by jonp — October 6, 2005 @ 11:53 pm
Failure to volunteer information probably isn’t a violation, but there are two segments of the Code of Student Conduct that may apply to some of the football players at the scene of the Willis-Starbuck incident:
102.02 Other Dishonesty
Other forms of dishonesty including but not limited to fabricating information, bribery, furnishing false information, or reporting a false emergency to the University.
(If any football team member is guilty of “furnishing false information” to the police because of an on-campus incident, that’s a potential campus disciplinary matter. On the other hand, it’s not clear whether witnesses to the incident were simply omitting the truth or not coming forward rather than actually lying.)
102.11 Harassment
Harassment by a student of any person. For the purposes of these policies, ‘harassment’: (a) is the use, display, or other demonstration of words, gestures, imagery, or physical materials, or the engagement in any form of bodily conduct, on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, alienage, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability, that has the effect of creating a hostile and intimidating environment sufficiently severe or pervasive to substantially impair a reasonable person’s participation in University programs or activities, or use of University facilities; (b) must target a specific person or persons; and (c) must be addressed directly to that person or persons.
Prior to applying this provision of policy to any student conduct, the campus is required to consult with the Office of General Counsel regarding its proper interpretation and application in light of the specific circumstances.
(I’m not sure Insider wants to be so dismissive of “harassment” after reading this section of the Code of Conduct, but this looks like a clear violation.)
Comment by jonp — October 7, 2005 @ 12:04 am
Excuse me, PBE, but what point would you like me to rebut? I’m serious. Having to respond to six different interlocutors at once is not an efficient method of argumentation. Every time I try to rebut one point, six or seven new football groupies want to bring up another point. You try keeping track of all of it.
Again, I’m not trying to be hostile. What point would you like me to rebut?
Comment by jonp — October 7, 2005 @ 12:08 am
The players should be kicked off the team if they did in fact hit on a beast of a woman like Meleia
Comment by Ry — October 7, 2005 @ 12:33 am
You should read your whole quotes, Jon. University != Police, and Willis-Starbuck wasn’t trying to participate in university activities or use university facilities.
Comment by Beetle — October 7, 2005 @ 12:50 am
Sorry, Beetle, but your nit-picking is full of crap here. The Code of Conduct states:
The Willis-Starbuck incident clearly occurred within this “box,” so the University has the opportunity to exercise jurisdiction if it chooses to.
Comment by jonp — October 7, 2005 @ 2:38 am
Excuse me, but there’s a difference between flirting or “hitting on” somebody and harassing them. Being a target of harassment often has nothing to do with whether the harasser finds you attractive.
Comment by jonp — October 7, 2005 @ 2:42 am
#42: Of course the University could exercise jurisdiction here. But the issue is not one of jurisdiction. The issue is whether the alleged acts constitute an enumerated violation of the Code. And from what I read so far, it is a bit of a stretch.
Beetle’s point in #41 is not that the conduct occurred outside of the geographic area that is subject to University jurisdiction. (That would be wrong.) Rather, Beetle correctly states that to be punishable under the code, regardless of location, the allegedly harassing conduct must be of the kind “that has the effect of creating a hostile and intimidating environment sufficiently severe or pervasive to substantially impair a reasonable person’s participation in University programs or activities, or use of University facilities.”
The victim in this case plainly was not seeking to participate in University programs or activities, or use University facilities, even though she was in the geographic box that is within the Code jurisdiction.
There may well be other issues, including some potentially more serious than harassment - physical abuse, disorderly conduct, disturbance of the peace, etc. - that are otherwise involved in the incident that would be subject to the Code. However, if all we are discussing here is that one or more football players did not volunteer certain information, it doesn’t look like there is much there.
Comment by AMK — October 7, 2005 @ 8:27 am
So of course, JonP, you want to apply the code equally to all, right, so the Wheeler criminals, the ones who impaired students from going to class should all have been punished, right? I just want to make sure you are not unfairly targetting frat boys and football players.
Comment by Insider — October 7, 2005 @ 10:59 am
Insider, you’re making a moot point, because the students at the Wheeler sit-in WERE punished. Of course, based on my undergrad experiences at Brown University, I knew about athletes escaping punishment all the time. In fact, there was considerable protest in my first year at the university, because athletes were committing date rapes, but not getting disciplined by the university or they’d get a slap-on-the-wrist punishment like having to run a few laps. If you’re going to get in a tit-for-tat over the Wheeler demonstration, then any time you call for athletes’ misbehavior to go unpunished, then you should also call for every protester to be retroactively pardoned as well.
In addition, it’s not just an issue of punishment vs. no punishment, but how proportional a punishment is to the offense. You can argue that Wheeler protesters should have been punished, but still received a disproportionate punishment. If all the football players face is getting a censure or getting suspended temporarily from the team, then issues of disproportionality aren’t as much of a problem.
Comment by jonp — October 7, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
why did the wheeler hall dumbasses get? i would say that “slap on the wrist” would be a pretty apt description. why wasn’t roberto “the biter” hernandez expelled? isn’t assaulting a police officer a pretty serious crime?? you think Doxy should be expelled for not voluntarily contacting the police, but Roberto should get off easy??? hypocrite.
Comment by anon54 — October 7, 2005 @ 3:22 pm
JonP, just stop and think about what you just wrote. You’re letting your emotions get the best of you and your hatred for athletes impairs your ability to think logically. You are having a hard time separating crime perpetrators from its victims. Let me break it down for you:
W-S shooting: Perpetrator - Hollis following the plea to help by W-S. Unintended victim - W-S, intended victims - the ones you hate.
Wheeler sit-in: Perpetrator - the extreme progressives, the victim -students, faculty, the university, police.
You are advocating to punish a victim in the first case, and are claiming that the perpetrators in the second case were punished, when they weren’t at all. JonP, just stop, man.
Comment by anonymous — October 7, 2005 @ 4:00 pm
Doxy shouldn’t get expelled, but maybe getting kicked off the team should be considered. Playing football is a privilege not a right. Should obstructing a police investigation be considered standard operating procedure by the football team?
By the way, anon54, why are you so defensive about athletics? Could it be because we constantly lower this university’s academic standards for athletes, more so than for affirmative action cases? Yet you don’t seem to be bothered by that, do you? If affirmative action goes, lower standards for athletes should go too.
Comment by jonp — October 8, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
Hollis is a perpetrator. That’s not what is at issue. Even his defense attorney agrees that he fired shots. The issue is (1) whether they were warning shots vs. shots actually aimed at anybody in particular; and (2) whether Hollis could reasonably believe that his friend Willis-Starbuck was in physical danger. These two issues are issues of fact that need to be adjudicated by a jury in a court of law, not a godd*mn blog dominated by right-leaning Berkeley students.
Comment by jonp — October 8, 2005 @ 4:42 pm
By the way, Anonymous, if you think I should “stop,” insulting me is not the way to do it. And that goes for the other anonymous commenters on this blog as well…
Comment by jonp — October 8, 2005 @ 4:44 pm
Man, if any academic standards have been lowered, it’s the Sociology grad department for letting in someone with absolutely no clue how to present and support a thesis.
I wonder if the Sociology Chair has been reading these threads. Maybe he or she should. Hmmmmmmmm.
Comment by Insider — October 10, 2005 @ 8:59 am
Ad hominem argumentation will get you nowhere.
Comment by jonp — October 12, 2005 @ 9:23 pm
Kind of like claiming Republican ideas won’t work because Republicans are a bunch of pricks?
Comment by Anonymity — October 12, 2005 @ 11:02 pm
Hey, its a good theory — at least its based in fact.
Comment by mano — October 12, 2005 @ 11:08 pm
Good job for being “open-minded”
Comment by Anonymity — October 13, 2005 @ 7:58 am
Jon — that arguement has proof. Anyone who reads these posts can see you put your mouth into motion without knowing published info, you blatantly attack frat boys and include them in the arguement when they have nothing to do with the case and it’s obvious your hatred for them clouds any judgment you might have, and that you are a total idiot.
Which again begs the question — why did Soc dept accept you? How desperate are they? And how will the chair respond to the thread links sent to Voss?
Comment by Insider — October 13, 2005 @ 9:49 am
How McCarthyite of you…
Comment by jonp — October 14, 2005 @ 9:36 pm
Bad analogy, JonP, but it’s not like I expected you to make an insightful or intelligent response.
Linking McCarthy to this exhange would be valid if I had Sociology grad students ratting you out for being an idiot. I’m sure there are many who would be willing to testify to that fact, but your own words condemn you, JonP. We don’t need any witch hunts, Arthur Miller need not write a play about you, we just need Voss to read what you write in your own words and realize what a mistake they made admitting you.
Comment by Insider — October 17, 2005 @ 4:46 pm