The errant and undisciplined ruminations of a Conservative public interest attorney, GOP activist, and father of two sons. Nothing herein should be confused with tolerance of folly, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), sufferance of fools gladly, or endorsement of perversion.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Hampden-Sydney In The News
A wonderful story on the alma mater in today's Richmond Times-Dispatch.
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
What about the story in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on Thursday, April 12th? Of course, what happened at Duke should be a lesson for us all.
I did not imply you went to Duke. I meant that there is quite often more to a story than the first allegations. The Duke example is one that shows the initial rush to judgment can be very wrong. It helps to wait for the facts to develop before forming an opinion about guilt, innocence or culpability.
Since I hadn't yet seen the story, I didn't know what you meant by "the story in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on Thursday, April 12th" when I responded. I thought you were referring to a story about Duke.
Of course, I agree that "the initial rush to judgment can be very wrong," which is one reason why I try to avoid it. I certainly hope that the allegations against the students at issue are false, but I have no way to know one way or the other.
On the other hand, "the initial rush to judgment" has nothing whatsoever to do with this post. I appreciate the visit and the comment, but please try to be less obscure in your references.
5 comments:
What about the story in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on Thursday, April 12th? Of course, what happened at Duke should be a lesson for us all.
I didn't go to Duke.
I did not imply you went to Duke. I meant that there is quite often more to a story than the first allegations. The Duke example is one that shows the initial rush to judgment can be very wrong. It helps to wait for the facts to develop before forming an opinion about guilt, innocence or culpability.
An allegation is one thing; evidence is another.
Since I hadn't yet seen the story, I didn't know what you meant by "the story in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on Thursday, April 12th" when I responded. I thought you were referring to a story about Duke.
Of course, I agree that "the initial rush to judgment can be very wrong," which is one reason why I try to avoid it. I certainly hope that the allegations against the students at issue are false, but I have no way to know one way or the other.
On the other hand, "the initial rush to judgment" has nothing whatsoever to do with this post. I appreciate the visit and the comment, but please try to be less obscure in your references.
Sure.
I thought you read the Richmond paper since your original post post was related to that publication's article on Duke. My faulty assumption.
I also thought you might take care to check the story before replying. Again, my faulty assumption.
Post a Comment