The Truth About COB - USM Forum -- Message Board

Cossack · Status: Offline

The Truth About COB

Cossack · Status: Offline

Sorry,

I forgot about the problem with mentioning Dr. xxx name. I understand his request and I understand your constraint. If you feel comfortable banning me from the Board, so be it. The posts that come from people who do not use their own identity and then slander an individual or part of a college make the Board less desirable.

Tom Lindley

-- Edited by Moderator at 17:04, 2007-05-08

LVN · Status: Offline

Dr. Lindley, maybe you should edit your post above quickly. I think the moderator said "any context."

I doubt that anybody would feel comfortable banning you or any responsible poster.

Moderator · Status: Offline

You will please note that the Webmaster has returned the board to registration. Sorry.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

One of the most telling things about the assembled FireShelby/AAUP Message Board/No Quarter Message Board crowd (recognizing that there have been many departures and retirements from both USM and te message boards) is that there are two standards: one standard for popular kids and one standard for unpopular kids.

I always supported the side of reason when, say, stephen judd, Invictus, Robert Campbell, or some other reputable poster would thrash those who defended Thames without presenting a logical argument. It seemed appropriate to me that academics -- those who spend their lives espousing and cultivating the power of thought -- would require participants on their message board to use those tools.

Unfortunately, there have always been individuals who got a "free pass" because of the topics they chose to address. At certain times, groupthink has been acceptable on this and the other forums, especially when the target of the groupthink wasn't one of the popular kids. We've seen another example today.

The letter's author signed his name to the letter. Not a screen name. Not a pseudonym. His real name. He presents useful facts. These facts can be confirmed. He presents an idea that makes sense. Why hire a consultant when you've paid good money to train an expert who is currently on faculty? And then the abuses roll in. Name-calling. Epithets. Innuendo. Anti-intellectual responses that aren't worthy of an academics' message board.

The problem is that you've got the letter's author just like you want him. You have created -- in your minds -- the ogre you want him to be. He couldn't possibly have a serious thought. He couldn't possibly be correct in his assertions. You have him in your mind just the way you want him to be, and you don't want to hear anything that might suggest your preconceptions might be wrong.

Likewise, for the letter's subject, you've got him the way you want him as well. He was a noble dean who stood against Grimes and Thames. That's the way you want to perceive him, and you forceably ignore any factual presentation that indicates his fatally flawed deanship was a product of his own actions. No, that would also challenge the preconceptions.

The letter's author wasn't challenged with facts or logic in this morning's attacks. He was mobbed by a group of anonymous posters -- probably some of the same posters that hid like cowards behind an assistant professor in the CoB faculty meeting last Friday. That wasn't the spirit of FireShelby's message board. That wasn't the spirit of the AAUP message board. That isn't the spirit of this message board. If you can't beat the guy with facts, then you shouldn't be allowed to run him down with low-brow B.S.

constant confusion · Status: Offline

I guess since Thames is gone there will be no more issues at Southern Miss. Therefore I assume that issues such as Cossack mentioned are not relevant or worthy of mentioning. cry

Lily · Status: Offline

Dr. Van, checked out the Hattiesburg paper's comments? It looks like the mods cleaned up around here, but it's something else over there.

Oh, and I'm pretty sick of having anybody in business compared to Gary & Frank. Get real people. Gary and Frank got fired by the president of the university for checking out his sweetie, not because of any quarrels among faculty or deans. Not on the same order of magnitude. Who in biz got called criminals on TV by an IHL member and by the prez?

It's amazing that no other college at USM uses this board to fight its battles.

-- Edited by Lily at 22:35, 2007-05-08

constant confusion · Status: Offline

COB I guess all of you need to just suck it up and quit whining.
And yes none of you can be compared to gary and Frank, I havent heard about any of you taking the money and moving on and never saying anything after your time of silence is up.

Now, since I know some of the anon posters would have liked to have said that but couldnt anymore

LVN · Status: Offline

Similar remarks, and worse, about Dr. Stringer and Dr. Glamser have been made time after time after time on this board and the previous board, so you're not striking some noble blow for truth, cc.

In fact, terrible things have been said about Dr. Doty, but I see that I am still allowed to type his name.

Web Master · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:
In fact, terrible things have been said about Dr. Doty, but I see that I am still allowed to type his name.

For now. We haven't heard from his lawyer.

constant confusion · Status: Offline

I do think it is ironic that we can discuss people like doty on here and he can discuss others in return. Most people can say what they want to about most others on campus without being blocked from mentioning them.
I would not think bad of Doty if he insisted on not being mentioned in this forum but never used it to talk about others. However, if made such a request and was known to attack the Dome or "others" then that would show immaturity.

(not sure how many times I went around that bush)

Frank Glamser · Status: Offline

constant confusion wrote:

COB I guess all of you need to just suck it up and quit whining.
And yes none of you can be compared to gary and Frank, I havent heard about any of you taking the money and moving on and never saying anything after your time of silence is up.

Now, since I know some of the anon posters would have liked to have said that but couldnt anymore

Mr./Ms Confusion,

If you will be kind enough to call me at home and identify yourself, I will explain what I did and why I did it. You may come to understand why I accepted a settlement rather that trust my fate to Roy Klumb and and IHL Board who hired and supported the president and subsequently extended his term.

Frank Glamser

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Lily wrote:

Dr. Van, checked out the Hattiesburg paper's comments? It looks like the mods cleaned up around here, but it's something else over there.

Oh, and I'm pretty sick of having anybody in business compared to Gary & Frank. Get real people. Gary and Frank got fired by the president of the university for checking out his sweetie, not because of any quarrels among faculty or deans. Not on the same order of magnitude. Who in biz got called criminals on TV by an IHL member and by the prez?

It's amazing that no other college at USM uses this board to fight its battles.

-- Edited by Lily at 22:35, 2007-05-08

Lily,

Nobody on the letter writer's side of the argument uses this board to instigate arguments. It's the cowards who mysteriously disappeared when the board went back to registration only who ran over here and started the same old defamatory garbage in response to Reporter's posting.

For the record, Doty has made several attempts to fire faculty members who disagreed with his running of the CoB. One was an Aubrey & Ella Lucas Teaching Excellence finalist. Another was voted the outstanding faculty member in the CoB for 2006. Sound fishy? I think so, too. You probably don't care, since it doesn't affect CoAL.

LVN · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote:

Lily,

Nobody on the letter writer's side of the argument uses this board to instigate arguments. It's the cowards who mysteriously disappeared when the board went back to registration only who ran over here and started the same old defamatory garbage in response to Reporter's posting.

For the record, Doty has made several attempts to fire faculty members who disagreed with his running of the CoB. One was an Aubrey & Ella Lucas Teaching Excellence finalist. Another was voted the outstanding faculty member in the CoB for 2006. Sound fishy? I think so, too. You probably don't care, since it doesn't affect CoAL.

I beg to disagree. There have been extremely nasty remarks on this board about Mr. Doty, and they have been just as anonymous as "Dr. Van Nostren" is.

Also, I don't recall Lily ever telling us she is in COAL. I, however, am not even at USM, so please don't tell me what I do or don't care about.

Dr. Glamser, thanks for your response and please let us know if you ever hear from Constant Confusion. I'll be holding my breath ---> cry

Invictus · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote:

One of the most telling things about the assembled FireShelby/AAUP Message Board/No Quarter Message Board crowd (recognizing that there have been many departures and retirements from both USM and te message boards) is that there are two standards: one standard for popular kids and one standard for unpopular kids.

I always supported the side of reason when, say, stephen judd, Invictus, Robert Campbell, or some other reputable poster would thrash those who defended Thames without presenting a logical argument. It seemed appropriate to me that academics -- those who spend their lives espousing and cultivating the power of thought -- would require participants on their message board to use those tools.

Unfortunately, there have always been individuals who got a "free pass" because of the topics they chose to address. At certain times, groupthink has been acceptable on this and the other forums, especially when the target of the groupthink wasn't one of the popular kids. We've seen another example today.

The letter's author signed his name to the letter. Not a screen name. Not a pseudonym. His real name. He presents useful facts. These facts can be confirmed. He presents an idea that makes sense. Why hire a consultant when you've paid good money to train an expert who is currently on faculty? And then the abuses roll in. Name-calling. Epithets. Innuendo. Anti-intellectual responses that aren't worthy of an academics' message board.

The problem is that you've got the letter's author just like you want him. You have created -- in your minds -- the ogre you want him to be. He couldn't possibly have a serious thought. He couldn't possibly be correct in his assertions. You have him in your mind just the way you want him to be, and you don't want to hear anything that might suggest your preconceptions might be wrong.

Likewise, for the letter's subject, you've got him the way you want him as well. He was a noble dean who stood against Grimes and Thames. That's the way you want to perceive him, and you forceably ignore any factual presentation that indicates his fatally flawed deanship was a product of his own actions. No, that would also challenge the preconceptions.

The letter's author wasn't challenged with facts or logic in this morning's attacks. He was mobbed by a group of anonymous posters -- probably some of the same posters that hid like cowards behind an assistant professor in the CoB faculty meeting last Friday. That wasn't the spirit of FireShelby's message board. That wasn't the spirit of the AAUP message board. That isn't the spirit of this message board. If you can't beat the guy with facts, then you shouldn't be allowed to run him down with low-brow B.S.

Although this might astound Dr. VN, I agree. Free speech is a foundation of our nation as well as one of the founding principles of this board. Professor XXXXX (I deleted my own expletive here) has every right to continue his obsessive vendetta in his little corner of the universe.

The chief difference is that XXXXX has used his free access to "legal advice" to stifle any discussion of what he says. I would assume that if the subject of his LTE in the newspaper had a lawyer sitting at the breakfast table, the HA would have received the same sort of cease-and-desist that the mods on this board have received, at least enough sabre-rattling to shut some things down.

I have looked at XXXXX's website & frankly, I thought it was satire. Satire is generally protected speech, even if it is lame.

truth4usmAH · Status: Offline

Dr. VanNostren wrote: The problem is that you've got the letter's author just like you want him. You have created -- in your minds -- the ogre you want him to be. He couldn't possibly have a serious thought. He couldn't possibly be correct in his assertions. You have him in your mind just the way you want him to be, and you don't want to hear anything that might suggest your preconceptions might be wrong.

Um, I believe the letter writer's actions and website speak for themselves--no preconceptions needed. So, when he is locked out of his office, has his computer confiscated by the administration, is threatened and subsequently fired by the President, etc., then perhaps those on this board could muster up some sympathy for him. Until then, he can continue to use his "free legal advice" to threaten the board's webmaster/moderator--actions that are not very conducive to making friends on this board, now are they?

evileye

Truth

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

truth4usmAH wrote:

Dr. VanNostren wrote: The problem is that you've got the letter's author just like you want him. You have created -- in your minds -- the ogre you want him to be. He couldn't possibly have a serious thought. He couldn't possibly be correct in his assertions. You have him in your mind just the way you want him to be, and you don't want to hear anything that might suggest your preconceptions might be wrong.

Um, I believe the letter writer's actions and website speak for themselves--no preconceptions needed. So, when he is locked out of his office, has his computer confiscated by the administration, is threatened and subsequently fired by the President, etc., then perhaps those on this board could muster up some sympathy for him. Until then, he can continue to use his "free legal advice" to threaten the board's webmaster/moderator--actions that are not very conducive to making friends on this board, now are they?

Truth

I'm not too sure he or anyone else is concerned about making friends on this board. I'm not too sure he's concerned about making friends, period. As is, this board is a shell of its former self. Many of the true academics are gone, and many, many pretenders remain. The fact that you continue to use such lightweight comebacks indicates your self-selection into type. You'd get more laughs if you just started talking about his Mama.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Invictus wrote:

Dr VanNostren wrote:

One of the most telling things about the assembled FireShelby/AAUP Message Board/No Quarter Message Board crowd (recognizing that there have been many departures and retirements from both USM and te message boards) is that there are two standards: one standard for popular kids and one standard for unpopular kids.

I always supported the side of reason when, say, stephen judd, Invictus, Robert Campbell, or some other reputable poster would thrash those who defended Thames without presenting a logical argument. It seemed appropriate to me that academics -- those who spend their lives espousing and cultivating the power of thought -- would require participants on their message board to use those tools.

Unfortunately, there have always been individuals who got a "free pass" because of the topics they chose to address. At certain times, groupthink has been acceptable on this and the other forums, especially when the target of the groupthink wasn't one of the popular kids. We've seen another example today.

The letter's author signed his name to the letter. Not a screen name. Not a pseudonym. His real name. He presents useful facts. These facts can be confirmed. He presents an idea that makes sense. Why hire a consultant when you've paid good money to train an expert who is currently on faculty? And then the abuses roll in. Name-calling. Epithets. Innuendo. Anti-intellectual responses that aren't worthy of an academics' message board.

The problem is that you've got the letter's author just like you want him. You have created -- in your minds -- the ogre you want him to be. He couldn't possibly have a serious thought. He couldn't possibly be correct in his assertions. You have him in your mind just the way you want him to be, and you don't want to hear anything that might suggest your preconceptions might be wrong.

Likewise, for the letter's subject, you've got him the way you want him as well. He was a noble dean who stood against Grimes and Thames. That's the way you want to perceive him, and you forceably ignore any factual presentation that indicates his fatally flawed deanship was a product of his own actions. No, that would also challenge the preconceptions.

The letter's author wasn't challenged with facts or logic in this morning's attacks. He was mobbed by a group of anonymous posters -- probably some of the same posters that hid like cowards behind an assistant professor in the CoB faculty meeting last Friday. That wasn't the spirit of FireShelby's message board. That wasn't the spirit of the AAUP message board. That isn't the spirit of this message board. If you can't beat the guy with facts, then you shouldn't be allowed to run him down with low-brow B.S.

Although this might astound Dr. VN, I agree. Free speech is a foundation of our nation as well as one of the founding principles of this board. Professor XXXXX (I deleted my own expletive here) has every right to continue his obsessive vendetta in his little corner of the universe.

The chief difference is that XXXXX has used his free access to "legal advice" to stifle any discussion of what he says. I would assume that if the subject of his LTE in the newspaper had a lawyer sitting at the breakfast table, the HA would have received the same sort of cease-and-desist that the mods on this board have received, at least enough sabre-rattling to shut some things down.

I have looked at XXXXX's website & frankly, I thought it was satire. Satire is generally protected speech, even if it is lame.

Maybe the webmaster will publish the entirety of the professor's attorney's communication regarding the alleged "cease and desist" order. It is my understanding that the communication was very reasonable.

Web Master · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote:
Maybe the webmaster will publish the entirety of the professor's attorney's communication regarding the alleged "cease and desist" order.

No.

-- Edited by Web Master at 11:35, 2007-05-09

truth4usmAH · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote:
Maybe the webmaster will publish the entirety of the professor's attorney's communication regarding the alleged "cease and desist" order. It is my understanding that the communication was very reasonable.

The "professor's attorney?" You mean, "his wife?" Or is it "She Who Must Not Be Named?" I doubt many will think it was "reasonable" for any self-respecting attorney to send a cease-and-desist letter to a moderator of a relatively low traffic message board that is a "shell of its former self," as you call it. But, if you've got an attorney sitting across the breakfast table from you who doesn't charge for her services....well....you can look up the definition of "too much free time" in the dictionary and go from there.

truth4usmAH · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote:
I'm not too sure he or anyone else is concerned about making friends on this board. I'm not too sure he's concerned about making friends, period. As is, this board is a shell of its former self. Many of the true academics are gone, and many, many pretenders remain. The fact that you continue to use such lightweight comebacks indicates your self-selection into type. You'd get more laughs if you just started talking about his Mama.

Well, this board wasn't started for laughs or to make friends (though friends have definitely been made along the way). It was started for a noble purpose, and tangible results have been accomplished regarding its original purpose. Now, it serves as a gathering space for those who care about USM and what goes on there (from inside and from afar). Unfortunately, He Who Must Not Be Named seems to think that his plight is equal to what happened to Frank and Gary, and I'm sad to inform him that this simply isn't true.

And, if this board is shell of its former self, then why are you still posting here?

evileye

qwerty · Status: Offline

The issue raised in the initial post in this thread by Cossack hasn't been addressed, and it is very important: the various and often capricious ways in which faculty have been evaluated at this institution in the last few years.

Although SFT will be gone, many of the systems and people who implement those systems are still here. This is a very important issue for Dr. Saunders.

Just a thought.

Moderator · Status: Offline

qwerty wrote:

The issue raised in the initial post in this thread by Cossack hasn't been addressed, and it is very important: the various and often capricious ways in which faculty have been evaluated at this institution in the last few years.

Although SFT will be gone, many of the systems and people who implement those systems are still here. This is a very important issue for Dr. Saunders.

Just a thought.

Why don't you start a new thread since this is a university-wide issue. The title of this thread refers to the COB.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Web Master wrote:

Dr VanNostren wrote:
Maybe the webmaster will publish the entirety of the professor's attorney's communication regarding the alleged "cease and desist" order.

No.

-- Edited by Web Master at 11:35, 2007-05-09

I thought not. Publishing the email would destroy the "cease and desist" fable that is being created.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

truth4usmAH wrote:

Dr VanNostren wrote:
Maybe the webmaster will publish the entirety of the professor's attorney's communication regarding the alleged "cease and desist" order. It is my understanding that the communication was very reasonable.

The "professor's attorney?" You mean, "his wife?" Or is it "She Who Must Not Be Named?" I doubt many will think it was "reasonable" for any self-respecting attorney to send a cease-and-desist letter to a moderator of a relatively low traffic message board that is a "shell of its former self," as you call it. But, if you've got an attorney sitting across the breakfast table from you who doesn't charge for her services....well....you can look up the definition of "too much free time" in the dictionary and go from there.

Now there you go again, making it personal. Can you refute his claims, or are you able only to take weak stabs at the individual? The latter seems most probable.

truth4usmAH · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote:
Now there you go again, making it personal. Can you refute his claims, or are you able only to take weak stabs at the individual? The latter seems most probable.

I believe it was They Who Must Not Be Named who made things personal by emailing the moderator/webmaster of this public forum to ask that a certain name not be "mentioned" on this board ever again (and threaten legal action if their request was not carried out). Lucky for me, it's not my job to refute any claims or counterclaims or counter-counterclaims put forth by Mr. or Mrs. Must Not Be Named. It is incumbent upon them to show how Must Not Be Named's situation is "just like Frank and Gary's." Haven't seen those facts yet, and I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Truth

Incredulous · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote: Maybe the webmaster will publish the entirety of the professor's attorney's communication regarding the alleged "cease and desist" order. It is my understanding that the communication was very reasonable.

Unless you wrote it or are close to the person who did, you have no idea what it says. Surely you are not encouraging the moderator to publish a private communication without explicit permission from the author. Perhaps you could arrange such permission.

truth4usmAH · Status: Offline

PS--Why don't you just go back to your own website, Mrs. Must Not Be Named...er...I mean, Dr. Van N and leave our little "shell of a forum" alone? I mean, it's not like we matter or anything...

evileye

PS--Well, Incredulous, I think it's clear that Dr. Van N *did* write it...or else she would have no idea about the contents, now would she?

-- Edited by truth4usmAH at 16:13, 2007-05-09

Moderator · Status: Offline

I should make it clear that no legal action was explicitly threatened. However, a request re: a specific action was received by email on legal office "stationery." And that's all we will say about that. No myth is being created.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

truth4usmAH wrote:

PS--Why don't you just go back to your own website, Mrs. Must Not Be Named...er...I mean, Dr. Van N and leave our little "shell of a forum" alone? I mean, it's not like we matter or anything...

PS--Well, Incredulous, I think it's clear that Dr. Van N *did* write it...or else she would have no idea about the contents, now would she?

-- Edited by truth4usmAH at 16:13, 2007-05-09

If I had written it, then I would feel comfortable posting it publicly. Since I didn't, I won't. Just one more instance of truth being false, so to speak.