Cox-Purvis Poll - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 11, 2005

Cox-Purvis Poll

Date: May 11, 2005

Cox-Purvis, I doubt you will get a meaningful response to your question because of the super suspicion that has been created at USM during the mishandling of the G&S matter. Using a recordable ballot like the one you present creates some anxiety even in me. I may be wrong about that, but its how I feel. Therefore, I will give my response as a "write-in": YES. I enjoy the Cox-Purvis reports. It livens up things during periods when academic matters are going slow on the board. Keep it up!

Date: May 11, 2005

Doesn't bother me, though I wonder why it's here. I can ignore it. I do resent the impression that we're all against USM athletics.

Date: May 11, 2005

A write in "yes" for me too. I enjoy the reports.

Date: May 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"Doesn't bother me, though I wonder why it's here. I can ignore it. I do resent the impression that we're all against USM athletics."

LVN,

While you may not care for sports, the Cox-Purvis Report generally provides 3 types of posts: 1) reporting sports and athletic department news, 2) commentary about USM sports and the athletic department, and 3) "word on the street" posts about rumors related to athletics. I generally find that these posts are revealing similar types of mismanagement on the athletics side as on the academics side. Considering that SFT's greatest pockets of support come from athletics types, this is an important source of information for us.

Date: May 11, 2005

There have been times when I thought the discussions threading from some of the CPRs should have been over on EagleTalk. But overall, I see no problem with the CPRs being posted here.

Date: May 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"There have been times when I thought the discussions threading from some of the CPRs should have been over on EagleTalk. But overall, I see no problem with the CPRs being posted here."

Which is a ridiculous statement, considering that this message board is really about academic freedom/freedom of speech issues about 95% of the time. CPR can post anything (s)he [or they] want to. If you stop the sports-related posts, what's next? Eliminate CoB posts (Because the CoB doesn't really count?)? Eliminate Gulf Park-related posts (Because they're not really part of USM?)?

If you're going to eliminate something, for God's sake, eliminate the Password thread. That thing is both irritating and ridiculous.

There have been a number of posts by Cox-Purvis that have "outed" Thames blunders/dirty dealings/mismanagement/etc. in the athletics arena.

Date: May 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: 1st Amendment Freddy
" Which is a ridiculous statement, considering that this message board is really about academic freedom/freedom of speech issues about 95% of the time. CPR can post anything (s)he [or they] want to. "

I'm not sure what the "ridiculous statement" was, but it doesn't matter. I'm not sure what the point in this poll is, but that doesn't matter either. None of this really has anything to do with the first amendment, unless this is a government moderated board.

With all due respect Freddy, the WebMaster can delete anything he or she wants to without in anyway doing violence to the Bill of Rights. I expect WM will continue to allow Cox-Purvis to post. For one thing, it would be a heck of a lot of trouble to monitor this board consistently. Thus far, the old WM has been very tolerant. Presumably, even this poll is being tolerated.

The first amendment applies to expression that is restricted by the government or an agency of the government. Remember that business about "Congress shall make no law . . .." ? I realize that the courts have expanded the application beyond Congress, even down to political subdivisions and agencies of the several states, but they have not yet extended it to private message boards such as this one.

I mainly point this out because it is no abridgement of my first amendment rights when someone who disagrees with something I said calls me an idiot and tells me I shouldn't say anymore. My critics have rights equal to my own.

Nor do I have to heed what they tell me. We're all bozos on this bus.

Date: May 11, 2005

Actually, I don't see any posts so far "against" the CPR or advocating its removal, and hope my previous remark wasn't read that way. I should have clarified that I resent, not CPR itself, but those commentators who assume we're all rooting for USM to lose.

Date: May 11, 2005

ram,

Just pointing out that the board is about freedom of expression in all its forms. Cutting out posters because they take a different tack would be pretty hypocritical, IMO.

LVN,

Didn't take it that way. However, there are some Eagle Talkers who think that and accuse CPR of that very thing. If they took a good look at the history of CPR's posts they would see that [assume: they] are presenting a pretty balanced view of what's going on in USM athletics. That wouldn't work for the Eagle Talkers, because to paraphrase the USM SGA representative: we don't need to be presenting the whole story, just the side we like.

Date: May 12, 2005

Hypocritical, maybe. A breach of the First Amendment, no.

I remember a post on the old FireShelby message board that compared the site to FireShelby's house and the posters to invited guests. We were all allowed to come in and speak, but FireShelby was free to "un-invite" any of us at any time.

I missed the original statement by the SGA rep, but I actually understand the underlying sentiment. Often, on this board and elsewhere, there is a tendency to blur the distinction between objective observation and zealous advocacy. You may feel that it is important to see and communicate all sides of an issue as fairly as possible. If so, you'd be acting as a good judge, voter, jury member, or reporter. But you'd be acting as a fairly mediocre advocate.

By distinction, if "the other side" is employing risk managers, media consultants and public relations departments to get out their story in the most favorable of all possible lights, what may be called for is counterbalancing advocacy.

There's a time to tell the whole story and a time to tell only a part of the story. Turn, turn, turn.

Date: May 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"Hypocritical, maybe. A breach of the First Amendment, no.
I remember a post on the old FireShelby message board that compared the site to FireShelby's house and the posters to invited guests. We were all allowed to come in and speak, but FireShelby was free to "un-invite" any of us at any time.
I missed the original statement by the SGA rep, but I actually understand the underlying sentiment. Often, on this board and elsewhere, there is a tendency to blur the distinction between objective observation and zealous advocacy. You may feel that it is important to see and communicate all sides of an issue as fairly as possible. If so, you'd be acting as a good judge, voter, jury member, or reporter. But you'd be acting as a fairly mediocre advocate.
By distinction, if "the other side" is employing risk managers, media consultants and public relations departments to get out their story in the most favorable of all possible lights, what may be called for is counterbalancing advocacy.
There's a time to tell the whole story and a time to tell only a part of the story. Turn, turn, turn."

I think you're missing the point here, so I'll stop headbutting the wall trying to get my point across. You've made up your mind.

Also, it troubles me that you want to tell part of the story, not the whole story. You're doing exactly what SFT has been reviled for doing on this board for ages.

Date: May 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: 1 A F
" . . . . . . it troubles me that you want to tell part of the story, not the whole story. You're doing exactly what SFT has been reviled for doing on this board for ages. "

1 A F,

Perhaps you do not understand that the matter of which you speak is an adversarial one. The "other" side of the story has already been told by the administration which has declared war on the faculty. Why should the "other" side be repeated? I believe that ram's strategy is the correct one.

Date: May 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: 1 A F
" I think you're missing the point here, so I'll stop headbutting the wall trying to get my point across. You've made up your mind. Also, it troubles me that you want to tell part of the story, not the whole story. You're doing exactly what SFT has been reviled for doing on this board for ages. "

I think I understand your point, and I applaud it. I am just making a different point.

I think you are saying the free exchange of ideas is good, and that society, in general, and the posters to this board, in particular, benefit from uninhibited discussion. You are saying that it would be hypocritical to allow the expression of some ideas but not others. I am saying that we are guests here at the pleasure of the AAUP and it is only by the grace of the AAUP, not the First Amendment, that we post on this board at all.

Some folks may have reviled SFT for telling only part of the story. Not me. I revile him for lying, for not telling the truth, for calling two good men "criminals". I think he is a really vindictive, ineffective, horrible manager and an extreme egotist who seems hell-bent on promoting his own personal wealth and self aggrandizement at the expense of the university. I think he is a person of modest ability but enormous ambition, who by sheer will and the willingness to use and abuse subordinates has risen to a level of power and authority where he can and is doing much harm to many . . . oh gosh, it's a long list, but the fact that he may tell only part of the story hardly rises to the level where it merits my revulsion.

I am for the telling of the whole story. (Well, sort of. Many of us know about the removal of SFT from his earlier administrative office, but discretely dance around the "whole story" -- maybe because we don't want innocents victimized all over again.) While I am generally in favor of telling of the whole story, I don't believe that I have to be the one to tell it. And I certainly don't think it all has to all be told on this thread or even on this board.

Date: May 12, 2005

CPR really hates anything other than admiration. When I was in high school I would get on a few message boards and post ideas, stories, and rumors that I thought were what everyone needed to hear. Occasionally people would tell me to stop/grow up/die. I would get so ticked that I would make up all these aliases and post support for myself, I even think I referred to myself as a group. I've played the game before CPR, granted I was a teenager.

Date: May 12, 2005

Well, ram, Invictus and I are real people and I at least am not using any of the above aliases. You must have secret information.

Date: May 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: PostingLikeCrazy
"CPR really hates anything other than admiration. When I was in high school I would get on a few message boards and post ideas, stories, and rumors that I thought were what everyone needed to hear. Occasionally people would tell me to stop/grow up/die. I would get so ticked that I would make up all these aliases and post support for myself, I even think I referred to myself as a group. I've played the game before CPR, granted I was a teenager. "

CPR gets lambasted alot more than admired. If they like admiration, I wouldn't think they'd stick around.