quote:

---

Originally posted by: ssDude
It troubles me that students have been placed in your care."

---

Excuse me. Did you say that students have been placed in our care? By order of what court? We try not to treat students like they were children.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: ssDude
" You are neither keen or astute at judging character. It troubles me that students have been placed in your care. Also, your blasé medicinal analogy is just that . . . blasé. Try something original next time instead of something you have read somewhere else. Try to be original, if you can? Now see. I have sunken to your level by being just as ugly as you. Now even fewer people will take me seriously. What Thames did to the deans was wrong. What he has done to my department was bad. My opening comments (and the rest of my letter) of what you have labeled a screed were sincere."

---

I'm too happy to acknowlege a mistake if I have made one. I'm not convinced I have . . . but I am willing to admit my fallibility.

Given the way in which this mode of communication can be, and has been, misused by unethical characters using false identifies and false pretenses to subvert the legitimate discussions on this board, I can't suggest a better way for you to verify your sincerity than by paying me a visit -- or giving me a call. If your sincere, I'll be more than happy to clarify your legitimate questions. Since I'm a fairly public person, you don;t need to worry that I am a mass murderer in academic garb.

My office is TAD 201. 266-4995. I am also usually at Javawerks in the morning from 6:30 am tto 7:30 before going in to the office. You'll know me -- very close cropped silver hair. If you are a student, that meeting place might feel a little less threatening, although I think mostpeople will agree I'm not generally perceived as being a threatening personality.

My email is stephen.judd@usm.edu

 

 

 

  ss,  I'm not facutly.  I have no affilation with USM at all.  I just happen to have a couple of friends who are affiliated with the university.

Playing along....

Here's a bolded list of words and phrases from your first post on this thread that can be read as "attacking"....

"However, I am worried about your most recent tirade against part of the Hattiesburg business community.


Now you have expanded your attack outside of USM and you are intimidating a portion of the business community. This is not good. This is not wise. Do you not remember how more determined the IHL became when you started threatening and criticizing them?


Some of your actions have already turned a portion of the community against USM faculty. Now you are directly criticizing some of the community for just meeting with Thames in an off campus environment and in a non-USM function. You have already done the damage with the business community, but I still tell you this in the hopes that you will not make the mistake again.

I do not think you should be criticizing the Hattiesburg business residents. This latest ploy makes you look very bad."

quote:

---

Originally posted by: ssDude
" Because I asked for a link to evidence of it and I have been provided with a link to something I am trying to read. Because Judd came after me. Because Truth4USM came after me. And because I am trying to keep up as best I can. Because some other things were mentioned in the replies to me that I am trying research. Now, the differences you and I have are not about reading. They are about "spoke out" and "attack." The other posters here could equally be accused of confusing "criticizing statements and actions with attacking people." Consider how the other posters responded to me for example. Regardless if I am confused, it is the letters that confused me. One of my central points was that other public members would think the same and feel the same way based on those letters. Right now, I still have to say that the way the business community was responded to (or in reference to) was bad."

---

Dude:

If you are sincere, then a friendly lesson in use of approrpriate language:

"I am worried about your most recent tirade against part of the Hattiesburg business community."

I am not aware of what I would characterize as a public tirade from the Senate, the AAUP, or any other recognizable body representing faculty. Therefore, your use of the word seems either to misidentify expressions of legitimate concern with something you call a tirade,  or (as I suspected) a real agenda to discredit those who expressed concern with the business community.

Tirade is a loaded word -- and I took it as a judgement that seemed not in keeping with your first expressions of sympathy. We have many wolves in sheeps clothing on this board . . .  one of the ways we detect them is a frequentinability to handle the paradox of trying to play the sheep while trying to hide the long bloddy teeth.

Please understand -- the fears in this university community are legitimate. People have lost jobs. People have been demoted. People have failed to get raises.People have been slandered. People have been accused of criminal activity. People have been monitored in theoir proivate communications. We feel vulnerable. BUsiness people in this town, especially when collaborated with the administration, have an access to power the faculty can never have. You cannot completely blame those who are under attack if they start preemptively striking out -- we are under seige.

I renew my invitation in the interest of good will.

 

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
"unfortunately my previous post is so full of mispelling and typos I'm too tired to correct all of them . . . but accept the apology again to all for clumsy fingers . . . "

---

Yes, I am getting tired. I don't know how all of you have time or strength for this. I have read Campbell's article that Truth4USM sent me. That alone seems to justify my initial letter. But I have to go to bed now. I am really tired. I will post directly to Campbell tomorrow about his letter.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/10716.html

Regarding my bold-faced words, I have to say the criticism of them might say more about the people who are offended by them than they say about me. But I also understand the heightened awareness of insincere posters as S. Judd explained.

G' night.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: ssDude
"
Regarding my bold-faced words, I have to say the criticism of them might say more about the people who are offended by them than they say about me. But I also understand the heightened awareness of insincere posters as S. Judd explained.
G' night."

---

If you are a doctoral student (as you say you are), then you must understand the power of words. I can't imagine how anyone would think that the words "tirade," "attack," and "threatening" are anything but negative. That says more about you than any response does. Plus you need to know that this board was singled out at the "bidness meeting" for inciting violence against business leaders when we did no such thing. We are under attack from many corners, and we are justifiably defensive.

Keep this in mind when making your snap decisions and throwing negative words around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" Do you not also have a "clear agenda?" And what's wrong with having a "clear agenda?" Much rather read someone's clear agenda rather than a muddy one."

---

What can be wrong with some source having a clear agenda is that the researcher gets only one side of the story. People giving one side of the story often exaggerate or stretch the truth. 

Your posts are a perfect example of this actually. In fact the only substantive and useful post I got from you was when you sent me just that one link to Campbell’s article. There was no comments of yours in the post, which I guess makes it ironic that that was the only one useful to me. The researcher cannot really make an informed decision when the source is so biased and non-objective.

For another example, there was another post here about the recent article in the Hattiesburg American about objectivity. The article was clearly about objectivity and how the original author (Gene Guice I think) distorted the facts by making people think USM was the only institution in the country with SACS probation and it was the end of the world. Nothing was mentioned in the original article about the steps being taken to remove the probation. Readers got only one side of the story. . . and it was a misleading one.

Yet, Invictus and some others on that thread have decided to go after the author who called for greater objectivity. I responded to Invictus and the others who were  taking the article to shreds based only on his wrong address of two of the schools, which was probably the result of sloppy editing. The article’s title, which had nothing to do with objectivity, was probably created by the editor too. But nobody in that post would listen. Instead of addressing the author’s content, all I heard was things like “Invictus, chill this guy.” They were blinded by their biases and clear agenda. Anything that came down even remotely as disagreeing with the AAUP-USM was immediately set upon.

The AAUP-USM is now known as an attack organization because, in part, of its single mindedness, and because it brings people down. I don’t mind listening to them, though, but as the article in response to Gene Guice showed, there is always another side of the story.

That is what can be wrong when someone has a clear agenda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: ssDude
" What can be wrong with some source having a clear agenda is that the researcher gets only one side of the story. People giving one side of the story often exaggerate or stretch the truth.  Your posts are a perfect example of this actually. In fact the only substantive and useful post I got from you was when you sent me just that one link to Campbell’s article. There was no comments of yours in the post, which I guess makes it ironic that that was the only one useful to me. The researcher cannot really make an informed decision when the source is so biased and non-objective. For another example, there was another post here about the recent article in the Hattiesburg American about objectivity. The article was clearly about objectivity and how the original author (Gene Guice I think) distorted the facts by making people think USM was the only institution in the country with SACS probation and it was the end of the world. Nothing was mentioned in the original article about the steps being taken to remove the probation. Readers got only one side of the story. . . and it was a misleading one. Yet, Invictus and some others on that thread have decided to go after the author who called for greater objectivity. I responded to Invictus and the others who were  taking the article to shreds based only on his wrong address of two of the schools, which was probably the result of sloppy editing. The article’s title, which had nothing to do with objectivity, was probably created by the editor too. But nobody in that post would listen. Instead of addressing the author’s content, all I heard was things like “Invictus, chill this guy.” They were blinded by their biases and clear agenda. Anything that came down even remotely as disagreeing with the AAUP-USM was immediately set upon. The AAUP-USM is now known as an attack organization because, in part, of its single mindedness, and because it brings people down. I don’t mind listening to them, though, but as the article in response to Gene Guice showed, there is always another side of the story. That is what can be wrong when someone has a clear agenda."

---

ssDude, after your initial post I pointed out that we were not talking or reading the same letters for you to make the statements you made. I did your research for you and posted letters and articles that you referred to as the faculty attacking the business community.  You haven't quoted from those letters to support your original statements.  While those statements go unsupported, you start other attacks on the members of this board, most of whom are NOT faculty at USM nor members of AAUP.

All of these actions destroy credibility and productive communication.  They are the signatures of a troll.  If you wish to conduct civil discussion, back by evidence for assertions, then board members welcome you to begin.  Otherwise you will be considered a troll and no one will respond to your post.  I for one would like to hear your logic back by evidence, but I'm too busy for trolls.

 

ssDude

The process of getting employed in academia is rather straight forward. First, you have to finish high school. Next you have to attend an accredited college or university, USM was a fully accredited university until recently when it went on probation. Fortunately, we have not lost accreditation all together yet. Next, you have to apply to, and be accepted into, an accredited graduate program. Some get a masters and then a Ph.D., and some go straight into a Ph. D. program. To graduate from the Ph.D. program you have to pass the courses and then write a dissertation that is acceptable to a committee of faculty and is relevant to your discipline. You can then apply for a position at a college or university and compete with the many other people who have done just what you did. Often you will have to have publications before you get hired, but certainly by the third year review you will need to have some research articles published, or in some disciplines a book or at least a manuscript under review for a book publisher. If you do not pass the third year review, you are given a one year terminal contract. Assuming you pass third year review, you have three more years to publish research, in journals and or book, in sufficient quantity to meet the tenure standards. During this 6 or 7 years, you will be teaching classes, meeting with students, serving on committees, going to meetings, and even going to graduation to watch your students blast off into the job market or further education. It all sounds very easy, there is little stress, and you can spend a lot of time at the beach or in the mountains. Of course some of us work more than 40 hours a week. This semester, by Wednesday morning, I have already logged 23 hours at the university. By Friday, it is up to around 44 or 45 hours. I usually spend 5 to 6 hours on the weekend in the office. Fortunately, I love what I do. I feel fortunate to know that if I had a choice to do it over, I would still be doing what I do today. Something else you should know, I am not at all unusual. I am surrounded by faculty in the various colleges at USM who work as much or more than I do. I would not have it any other way. I feel fortunate to be around such dedicated people and be a faculty member.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Cossack
"ssDude

The process of getting employed in academia is rather straight forward. First, you have to finish high school. Next you have to attend an accredited college or university, USM was a fully accredited university until recently when it went on probation. Fortunately, we have not lost accreditation all together yet. Next, you have to apply to, and be accepted into, an accredited graduate program. Some get a masters and then a Ph.D., and some go straight into a Ph. D. program. To graduate from the Ph.D. program you have to pass the courses and then write a dissertation that is acceptable to a committee of faculty and is relevant to your discipline. You can then apply for a position at a college or university and compete with the many other people who have done just what you did. Often you will have to have publications before you get hired, but certainly by the third year review you will need to have some research articles published, or in some disciplines a book or at least a manuscript under review for a book publisher. If you do not pass the third year review, you are given a one year terminal contract. Assuming you pass third year review, you have three more years to publish research, in journals and or book, in sufficient quantity to meet the tenure standards. During this 6 or 7 years, you will be teaching classes, meeting with students, serving on committees, going to meetings, and even going to graduation to watch your students blast off into the job market or further education. It all sounds very easy, there is little stress, and you can spend a lot of time at the beach or in the mountains. Of course some of us work more than 40 hours a week. This semester, by Wednesday morning, I have already logged 23 hours at the university. By Friday, it is up to around 44 or 45 hours. I usually spend 5 to 6 hours on the weekend in the office. Fortunately, I love what I do. I feel fortunate to know that if I had a choice to do it over, I would still be doing what I do today. Something else you should know, I am not at all unusual. I am surrounded by faculty in the various colleges at USM who work as much or more than I do. I would not have it any other way. I feel fortunate to be around such dedicated people and be a faculty member."

---

Well, this is nicely put, but I'd like to add that in many disciplines, one is competing against well over a hundred people every time one applies for a university position. Also, a large portion of the available positions are no longer tenure track. Many young academics take one-year positions (all over the country) in order to get a start in the profession. I had three of them (and moved 4 times in 5 years) before I got my first tenure-track job. I got really good at packing and unpacking. The competition can be very fierce and many, many of the qualified people never get academic positions at all. I have a friend with two books out, a fine scholar and teacher, who never got a job in academia. And I've known people finishing their doctorates, already with teaching experience and a published book, just so they could compete.