KK:

If you think that the Fleming administration was as divisive and destructive to USM as the Thames administration has been, I have some swampland in Florida to sell you. Let's hope to the Great God above that, post-SFT, USM gets more competent leadership. If not, I fear for the future of my alma mater.

Truth

Kudzu King,

Although you have addressed Dr. Folse directly, I have chosen to comment.  You are still ignoring the fact that over a month ago, community leaders deliberately tried to incite concern about violent faculty at the Warren Paving meeting.  That was the original attack and it was far worse than the way that either Dr. Polk, or Drs. Henry and Folse reasonably responded to the comments of a public figure, the President of the USM Foundation.  Your position on this issue is hypocritical and that is the problem so many of us have with the Thames administration and his supporters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Kudzu King
"You saw it as a joke, just as did everyone else. "

---

KK-

Did everybody recognize that the alleged "threat" on this board toward "community leaders" was just a joke?  If so, why did Mr. Mixon say he was carrying a gun to protect himself from AAUP posters?  Was he just joking, too? 

This ain't tragedy; it's a sit-com.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Kudzu King
"Ray Since you asked my opinion on your letter, I will honor your request. Your letter was at least much more honest than the one Noel Polk represented. You and Myron admit that in reality you didn't see a problem with McLaughlin's joking post about getting on the Admin building with a rifle. You saw it as a joke, just as did everyone else. It was refreshing to see you admit that your real problem was with the comments he made about the faculty. I also understand that without the more sensational post, that you wouldn't have gotten the pawns at the Hattiesburg American to take notice. The post that most on this board had a problem with couldn't get you any press. Because too many people agree with it. You had to bring in the mention of a gun. That always gets the the attention of the gun grabbing liberals in the media. All in all I disagee with most of what you stated in your letter, but it was honest, and for that I do respect you. The University is divided, but it was divided before Thames and will be afterwards. I remember a time when many faculty refered to you friend Myron as "Flemings Flunkie". My, how times have changed."

---

KK,

Where, in the letter to the editor of the HA by Drs. Henry and Folse does it say that they saw Toy McLaughlin's post about the rifle as a joke?  It simply isn't there. 

"Everyone" absolutely did NOT see it as a joke.

Amy Young

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Kudzu King
"Ray Since you asked my opinion on your letter, I will honor your request. Your letter was at least much more honest than the one Noel Polk represented.

Thanks for responding.  We can discuss Dr. Polk's letter on another thread.  I thought it was excellent.  But let's us not get off topic.

You and Myron admit that in reality you didn't see a problem with McLaughlin's joking post about getting on the Admin building with a rifle.

This is not true.  We were limited to 250 words and the paper had already addressed this unfortunate statement.  Let's not put words and ideas into our letter that didn't exist.

You saw it as a joke, just as did everyone else.

I figured it was meant to be a joke. What do you think would happened if a faculty member said those words on this board in reference to SFT?  We are speaking of the President of the Foundation who must convince people to donate money. But let's not get off topic.

It was refreshing to see you admit that your real problem was with the comments he made about the faculty. I also understand that without the more sensational post, that you wouldn't have gotten the pawns at the Hattiesburg American to take notice.

Why do you use the word "pawns" when the H.A. prints a  letter from citizens of USA, but not when they publish press releases of USM PR department?  Are you aware of the misinformation provided by the USM PR department?  Remember the enrollment figures, Number of faculty needing post-tenure review, "the dog ate my report to US News and World Report", "I forgot to send the SACS info to them etc etc.  I find it odd how you judge credibility. 

The post that most on this board had a problem with couldn't get you any press. Because too many people agree with it. You had to bring in the mention of a gun. That always gets the the attention of the gun grabbing liberals in the media.

Go back and research the Letters to the Editors form faculty.  Almost all are responding to some stupid thing.  I just responded to the latest. If your side would be quiet, there would be no messages getting to the public.  For that I must thank you and SFT supporters.

All in all I disagee with most of what you stated in your letter, but it was honest, and for that I do respect you.

Now we get to the meat of your critique and we get this.  Be specific.  Say what you  disagree with and why.  You apparently have some very hurt feelings, but have not been able to verbalize the feelings with logic.

The University is divided, but it was divided before Thames and will be afterwards. I remember a time when many faculty refered to you friend Myron as "Flemings Flunkie". My, how times have changed."

Did you know that people actually change when they learn more about things.  I know I have.  So what?  It is poor argument to call names when you can't think of anything to say.

Now I'm off to the faculty-staff golf league. (It helps to unite a divided USM.)  I will check this board after I get taught some golf.  

 

I would consider a post on this board from a faculty member about pulling a gun and starting to shoot a joke. Unless said poster was one certain professor in the CoB, I don't think we need to name names here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"

Ah, Seeker. You have been missed! Have you been spending all of your time over at ET? You need to start a Troll School for all of the new AAUP trolls around here...I think you could teach them a thing or two!

Your friend,

Truth
"

---

Andrea

I know you must have missed me terribly. But, you know my wife dosen't like you flirting with me.

I think this is the funniest thing you guys have done yet. Keep it up it just keeps getting better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Kudzu King
" You are assuming that I condone the Warren Paving meeting. I have not, nor will I. . . . But, to be honest with you I see that meeting as being little different than meetings that individuals here have held.

---

What meetings "that individuals here have held" are you talking about? 

Should I feel slighted?

But it seems to me that you are just dragging us back into the old "there's blame on both sides" diversion.  There may be blame on both sides, but nothing like in equal proportions.

The answer to "blame the profs" is to ask how does the USM faculty differ from the faculty at UM, MSU, or any other similar school?  Contrarywise, how does SFT differ from other presidents?  I am not really in a position to answer those questions from experience, but in general, a group tends to resemble another group similarly constituted with far more correlation than does an individual.  Put otherwise, 500 people with similar backgrounds is likely to act like any other 500 with the same background. 

Anyway, I doubt the faculty at USM is lazier, whinier, liberal, or whatever you want to call them, than any faculty anywhere else.  The distinguishing feature here is that ego in the dome, who promoted himself for his own needs, was endorsed by people who thought they would  benefit by his ascension, and selected by people who recognized that he would allow USM to regress to the mean.

Or maybe I'm just joking.  One can never tell.

But Joe, I'd love to hear your take on Mr. Mixon and the threats that he feared. 

Ram,

My take on Mr. Mixon's statements is:  I was not at the meeting.  I don't know the context in which he said it.  I will assume that he alluded to threats of violence by faculty members made on this, and the previous fireshelbythames.com, message board, and how the business community of Hattiesburg should be wary of the faculty.  I will further assume he said it in order to gather support for his position.  If that was the case, I thoroughly disagree with him.  I have followed this, and the fireshelbythames.com, message board since their inceptions, and have seen no threats of violence made by the posters meant to be taken seriously.  Mr. Mixon did exactly what Mr. Polk, Mr. Folse, and Mr. Henry did, except that I have never found evidence supporting Mr. Mixon's argument.  I don't agree with either tactic. 

My recollection is that Trent Lott made a "joking" or "sarcastic" remark at Strom Thurmond's birthday party and it cost him his leadership position in the U.S. Senate (and it didn't involve threats of violence). I recall that a famous sportscaster made a "joke" that got him fired. If you don't have a great sense of humor, don't make "joking" remarks in public.

As for idle chatter about shooting paperboys who throw your paper in the ditch, that's inappropriate but you are talking about "regular Joes" when you bring that up. Mr. McLaughlin is supposed to be a respected businessman AND he is a public figure by virtue of his positions both as President of the USM Foundation and a member of the CoB Advisory Council. He didn't say it casually to his wife over dinner or to his neighbor in the front yard. He posted it on a public forum where he was clearly identified by name and has since admitted it. That changes the standard for public statements dramatically.

Charlie Whitman saw a UT-Austin psychiatrist and told him what he was going to do, but the psychiatrist considered it "idle chatter." In 96 minutes atop the tower at University of Texas, he killed 14 and injured I have now forgotten how many. Plus he killed his wife and his mother.

You don't joke about bombs when you are standing in the security line at the airport. They not only won't let you on the plane, they will detain your person for an unspecified period of time. Threats are threats. Mr. McLaughlin has well exceeded his freedom of speech. In fact, there could be a case made that he has violated the civil rights of people who frequent the USM Hattiesburg campus (such as students and faculty).

Do I think he is seriously planning an assault on the campus with a high-powered rifle? No. Did anyone think Charlie Whitman would on August 1, 1966 in Austin? No. Do I think Mr. McLaughlin is guilty of extraordinarily poor judgment? Bet your buns, I do. And, I think he ought to resign and SFT ought to force the issue if he does not resign.

And, in case you are wondering, I've made those thoughts known to Tim Ryan at the Foundation and to Dr. Thames as well directly.

What I'm doing here, as Ray and Myron and Noel did in the paper, is a constitutionally protected exercise of free speech. What Mr. McLaughlin did can hardly be considered as such, notwithstanding the Einsteins on Eagle Talk. What is more, his mistake, while it can be forgiven, should not go without penalty. He's a big boy, and he should take his medicine and go away.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Toy's Story
"Actually, Shelby should take his Toy and go home."

---

If wishing would only make it so.

Wow! I went to play golf and came back to a full thread.  I hope Kudzu King read my reply to his critique of the letter.  I was hoping we could build on those ideas.  Good to see Seeker is back too.  Thanks of responding David Johnson and Robert Campbell.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Joe Average
"... However, you are connecting Toy's "shooting" statement to his earlier statement denegrating the faculty.  The two statements were completely unrelated to each other.  You are improperly (in my humble opinion) taking advantage of the fact that Toy said something sarcastically threatening violence to draw attention to his earlier statement, and make it seem like he was threatening to shoot faculty members. Toy's earlier statement concerning the faculty stands on its own.  ... "

---

Joe, some of what you say is partly correct.  I was very upset by the statements attacking the faculty, but didn't think I could respond with a letter to the H.A. about statements on the EagleTalk Board.  I never saw the "shooting statement" until later on this Board.  When the H.A. ran the story on the "shooting comment" I realized I could then comment on the statement about the faculty.  We didn't "relate" the comments in our letter other than to point out no apology was made about the attack on the faculty.

Please realize that the President of the Foundation has no connection to evaluations of faculty performance.  This implies to me that he was simply repeating something he was told by the administration and believed without questioning.  (Many people apparently believe without questioning.)

Today faculty thanked me for the letter Myron and I wrote.  These faculty are working on SACS committees and spending 60 to 70 hours a week on work that doesn't relate to their research.  They must meet their classes so they can only find extra time via decreased research.  They have only a few months to finish something they could have started two years ago without any problem if the administration did their job. 

Yet they will be evaluated next year as if they spent 40 to 50% of their time on research and 40% teaching and the remainder on service.  

On top of this they must put up with attacks from the likes of the President of USM Foundation and stay motivated to work on SACS.  I hope now do you can see why Myron and I rebutted Troy's statements?