Some weeks ago, I posted a long monologue about my feelings regarding faculty's future course of action to have Shelby Thames removed as USM's president.

In that post, I used an analogy. I likened playing Thames' "games" by Thames' rules to the Colonial Army fighting British Redcoats using the old "row and column" style of fighting. If you are not sure about this style, just rent Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" to see what I mean. At the start of the Revolutionary War, the Colonists fought the Redcoats using this structured style, which left the vastly outnumbered Colonists at a severe disadvantage.

The Colonists adopted guerrila warfare, fighting the battle by changing the rules of engagement and playing to their strengths: better knowledge of the terrain and a desire to defend their homes and families. The Colonists' decision to fight the Redcoats in a manner that could yield Colonial victory was a turning point in the Revolutionary War.

This analogy was intended to illustrate to readers that by fighting under Thames' rules, faculty are not allowing themselves the opportunity to achieve their desired outcome -- removal of Thames fom office. I believe this board's posters understood that.

At no time did I advocate violence against Thames, the community, Thames' supporters, or Thames' administrators.

One of two things happened here: 1) You didn't take time to read or think about my post before circling it and handing it out at the meeting, or 2) You read my post but are unable to understand it. If the answer is #1, then you should do the honorable thing and apologize publicly, as you have misrepresented this board's members' opinions publicly. If the answer is #2, then perhaps you need some of that much-maligned Liberal Arts education to help you become better able to function around those who use polysyllabic words.