A few thoughts from the guy that started it all.
1. I sincerely doubt that Dan Rocha thought his personal views made in private about JK would be made public on a message board. Only Thinker and Dan know if that was a violation of the tenents of the meeting. Being in media/pr/politics, I know that people believe all the time that they are saying things that are "off the record" and then find out otherwise the hard way. Should he have been surpised? Please. He was meeting with a known blogger. If he's now embarrassed with Jack he's got no one to blame but himself.
2. I'm astounded that Dan or anyone wouldn't have thought I was intending to post his reply here, first, becuase I first chellenged him to reply here on the board, and moreso because I opened the frickin' letter with the follwing line: "I have a question prompted by something that is being attributed to you on the GWHoops.com board. I believe it merits clarification on your part, or a least a chance for you to eplain." Add the fact that I was writing anonomously, (and that clearly made him suspicious based on the fact that he "instructed me" to tell him who I am, where I live etc etc. if I wanted him to engage. I mean, seriously. Give me a break.
3. I don't subsribe to the notion that somehow to be a man I've got to go personally meet with Dan Rocha or anybody else in the University. beyond the fact that I live in another country and wouldn't waste my time meeting with dan, this also ain't a gulag, last time I checked, and people don't get know "who I am and where I live" unless I decide to tell them. That doesn't make me ineligible to comment on whatever I want, including GW Basketball. This is a blog. Blogs have a lot of power today. Maybe Dan and the rest of the attractions in Jurrassic Park should bone up a little bit on the information flow in the 21st century.
4. Why did I do this? First, see point 3. above about this being a blog. Second, I believe that the