Okay, guys....keep it clean or I'll report you to the Webmaster!!!

Truth, who is somebody's mama

Invictus, I'm disappointed in you.  That was inappropriate and not funny.  Doug Chambers supported the cause in a very public and articulate way.  Okay, enough said (from me anyway).

No Quarter!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
"I might note that the "ignore the senators and they'll go away" strategy worked very well for Washington DC & it's MLB franchise..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
"

I suggested the "corner a merchant" approach & I stick with it. I would regard an honest, "You know, I'm not sure" or "I've not given it much thought" answer as acceptable & an opportunity to do some friendly indoctrination. In fact, "I don't care, I'm an MSU grad" is OK in my book.

When one side uses restrictive "rules of engagement" to combat a foe that has repeatedly used a "no holds barred" philosophy, then the outcome has already been decided."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
"The authentic Invictus did not post the above comment regarding Dr. Chambers."

---

Invictus, I am so sorry.  Please accept my apology.  I am so furious over yesterday's lack of events that I am not thinking clearly (or I would have certainly realized it wasn't you).  Arghhhh!  D*mn trolls!!!!!!!

NO Quarter!

see the above post (and GASP) think.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: A Senator
" This could get very interesting, Robert and Invictus.  Robert was responding to Invictus, who said,"When one side uses restrictive "rules of engagement" to combat a foe that has repeatedly used a "no holds barred" philosophy, then the outcome has already been decided."  Some call on the faculty to violate their commitment to work on SACS accreditation as a tactic.  Others say that would be unprofessional.    The question: "Is it ethical to violate the constitution in order to save it?"  Must the side defending the moral high ground become unethical in order to win the war?  Where do you draw the line once you go down that road?  Why do you stop before terrorism?  In Vietnam they used to destroy villages in order to save the village.  I suggest we all take a deep breath and think clearly.  "

---

I meant a couple of things.

One I have brought up before, with regard to this edition of the USM Faculty Senate.  Do not assume, except for a minute for rhetorical purposes, that Thames and his crew are honorable people.  They are not, and they have provided ample proof that they are not.  But I'll assume you've learned that lesson from the disastrous and totally unnecessary concession regarding Angie Dvorak's vita--or to take an example from the PUC's history, Thames' meaningless promises to get the approval of a committee for his future email snooping.

(Whether Board members should be assumed to be honorable is trickier.  Roy Klumb clearly is not; he's played dirty on many occasions, and is directly complicit in some of Thames' worst actions.  It's probably best to accord the benefit of the doubt to most of the others... though as evidence keeps mounting for the conspiracy theory, this may not be the a good policy much longer.)

As for promising to do the committee work necessary to get USM off SACS probation... is the Faculty Senate bound to keep this promise, not when Thames pretends not to need help, and remains poised to hog the credit... but when he vigorously promotes courses of action that will end USM's accreditation, and desists only when ordered to stop by the interim IHL commissioner?  (And now that commissioner is getting no thanks for saving USM, either from Thames and crew, or from Thames' long-time ally and apologist the Board president.)

There's a long novel tyat I've been rereading for a project unrelated to the rolling series of crises at USM.  Two people who keep a railroad running, despite a credit-hogging chief executive who would ruin the enterprise in a trice if his policies were carrried out as intended, and political intervention that increasingly chokes off the enterprise's prospects of survival, have to decide whether to keep their commitments to the railroad or not.  One eventually decides to leave the railroad because it is no longer worthwhile trying to keep it alive for the benefit of the corrupt chief executive and his political buddies, who are going to destroy it eventually and are feeding off it in the meantime. The other stays with the commitment to the bitter end.

Robert Campbell