A Dialog with Seeker - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 31, 2005

RE: A Dialog with Seeker

Date: May 31, 2005

Alva-holic wrote:

The problem is that student WAS entitled to her opinion. Her opinion means just as much as yours or mine or anyone else's, regardless of how much or how little "support" she could provide for it. This infatuation with logical arguments is a sham concocted by academics to keep the little man down and only adds to the dislike of the "egghead" professor. I love people for whom I cannot provide concrete evidence as motivation for that love. I have faith in a God that I cannot see nor have I met, and this faith is based on experiences that I cannot justify with words. I have opinions that are based on gut instinct -- the vibe I get deep down -- rather than cold hard facts. Nothing you can say will shake certain beliefs I hold, but the fact that I hold such beliefs scares many on this board because I refuse to let you define my being according to your terms. If you couldn't present objective facts to the young lady you mention in a manner that she could understand and change her views on her own, then you're not much of a teacher. Maybe you should stick to teaching facts and not trying to brainwash the young adults of Mississippi.

Her opinion means just as much as yours or mine or anyone else's, regardless of how much or how little "support" she could provide for it.

It is my opinion that the world is flat and that I can jump off of a ten storey building without falling. Are these opinions to be taken as seriously as those of the astronomer or the physicist? Shouldn't I have to provide some "support" for my opinions?

This infatuation with logical arguments is a sham concocted by academics to keep the little man down and only adds to the dislike of the "egghead" professor.

Without logic, reason, and the scientific method we would be living in very primitive conditions. The "little man" has benefitted enormously from all these things, as you will discover the next time you go to a doctor or get on an airplane.

I love people for whom I cannot provide concrete evidence as motivation for that love. I have faith in a God that I cannot see nor have I met, and this faith is based on experiences that I cannot justify with words. I have opinions that are based on gut instinct -- the vibe I get deep down -- rather than cold hard facts.

Love is not a matter of rational argument. Science is. The young woman mentioned in the post to which you were replying was expressing uninformed opinions about science, not emotions.

All kinds of people have had deep faith throughout the centuries in all kinds of gods -- just ask the Aztecs or a Satan worshipper or the believers in any number of creeds (creeds I suspect you would find ridiculous). Again, the original context mentioned was a science class, not a class in theology. I assume that you would, by your logic (if I can use that term without offending you) also believe that modern-day Aztecs, Satan worshippers, or believers in any other creed would have an equal right to protest if they were asked to justify their opinions in a science class?

Your "gut instincts" are just provisional hypotheses which can be tested against experience. It's my "gut instinct" that it's better to tell the truth than to lie, but I can't logically "prove" this. You are mixing different categories and kinds of arguments. 2+2=4 is fairly indisputable; the existence of a particular kind of god is not.

Nothing you can say will shake certain beliefs I hold

Absolutely nothing whatsoever? Then you are not the kind of person with whom it is possible to have a rational discussion.

the fact that I hold such beliefs scares many on this board because I refuse to let you define my being according to your terms.

Unreasoning fundamentalism of any kind scares me, especially since 9/11.

If you couldn't present objective facts to the young lady you mention in a manner that she could understand and change her views on her own, then you're not much of a teacher. Maybe you should stick to teaching facts and not trying to brainwash the young adults of Mississippi.

You have just admitted yourself that there are certain beliefs of yours about which "nothing" -- no contrary evidence or facts whatsoever -- could ever make you change your mind. Perhaps the young lady suffered from the same mindset, in which case she should never have enrolled for a science course.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

One of the twentieth century's greatest proponents of logical argument, critical thinking, and objective reality was C.S. Lewis. In case the poster is not familiar with Mr. Lewis, he is also the person whose writings possibly led more people to Christian faith than any other writer of his era. Additionally, his book The Four Loves stands as a classic on the subject of love.

Some of the greatest proponents of the idea of objective reality are people of deep religious faith.

This response only shows that the writer has not been taught to think carefully, and bolsters my original statement that we live in a culture which is based almost entirely upon the subjective. In the class I mentioned, I had raised the subject of Lewis's interpretation of "Tao" as the belief in Reality versus the Hesse notion in Damien that Reality is whatever we want it to be. (This was a long time ago and I'm reconstructing from memory, so you philosophy types have pity on me, ok?)

Btw, I'm not a professor, just an occasional adjunct.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Reporter wrote:

quote: Originally posted by: I'll Never Find Another Ewe"It is clear that Seeker does not much care for Professor Polk. But I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. Seeker is expressing his opinion that, like himself, "the community" doesn't care for the antics and letters of Polk, Scarborough, and nameless others. He is trying to explain why he believes there has been no groundswell of popular support for the faculty cause. I don't agree with Seeker, but only because I think the community doesn't give a general rip one way or the other about much of anything -- except higher taxes. We speculate that this could never happen at Ole Miss or Miss State. Maybe that is true, but it is speculation, nevertheless. Yesterday was a good day to remember what all can happen while folks sit passively by, believing that "things can't really be all that bad." Or, "It couldn't happen here." If Seeker is right about the grand design of the IHL being to test their plan on USM, at least UM, MSU and the others are on notice and can see what could happen. We get to play Poland in this re-enactment. Who has a barometer for "community support?" Not me. I get a two totally different reads in my Sunday School class and at my job. Besides, how much difference does community support make, anyway? If the IHL and the legislature have decided to assault USM, the community is not going to be able to do much to sway them. Especially if the authorities can cloak the attack as they have done. USM has been abused. The IHL is the abuser. The faculty said "No!" -- several times. It can't be rape, because the board has the legal authority; but it's abuse, nonetheless. For the most part, the community is that bystander that just doesn't want to get involved. Shelby Thames is just a little thing: a tool, you might say. " The issues must be kept clear. The Faculty Senate never once stated it was against change. There would be no problem at USM, State or Old Miss if the IHL brought in changed using the principle of shared governance. It is the SFT's side that tells the public the faculty oppose change. That is the big lie. The faculty oppose bypassing shared governance. If the IHL and SFT's plans for change can't stand up to the debate under shared governance, then maybe the change is not progress. In addition, the faculty will not stand for change that threatens academic integrity, and neither would the public if they knew abouit it.

Reporter - Im just a guy who lives in H'burg and reads this board and EagleTalk because it is funny. I have never posted, but for some reason felt like I had to say what went through my mind when I read your post about shared governance.

1. We don't, and won't, understand or agree with your idea of shared governance.

2. We don't believe that the academics on campus really want to 'share' anything.

3. We don't believe that the academic integrity of the university is threatened by the administration; but do believe some faculty members are contributing to recruiting hardships.

4. We don't, can't, and won't define what you do as "hard work".

I could go on, you've heard it before, it doesn't matter, you don't care. Just understand that's the way it is, and you arguing with other "just guys" makes it worse.

goodbye

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:

1. We don't, and won't, understand or agree with your idea of shared governance.
2. We don't believe that the academics on campus really want to 'share' anything.
3. We don't believe that the academic integrity of the university is threatened by the administration; but do believe some faculty members are contributing to recruiting hardships.
4. We don't, can't, and won't define what you do as "hard work".
I could go on, you've heard it before, it doesn't matter, you don't care. Just understand that's the way it is, and you arguing with other "just guys" makes it worse.
goodbye

The only problem, guy, is that "shared governance" is the norm throughout academia. Whether you like it or agree with it or not, that's the way it is done in every other university in the country, including MSU and Ole Miss. Why do you think USM should be the exception?

The kind and amount of work the faculty here do is just about exactly the kind and amount done at most other universities of comparable size and mission. The main difference is that the salary is a lot lower at USM. Why do you think that faculty at USM have a different workload than faculty elsewhere.

As for not caring, you don't understand that caring is all that's keeping USM afloat these days.

Oh, and for a community guy you seem to have some inside information on faculty recruiting. How is that?

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:

Reporter - Im just a guy who lives in H'burg and reads this board and EagleTalk because it is funny. I have never posted, but for some reason felt like I had to say what went through my mind when I read your post about shared governance.

1. We don't, and won't, understand or agree with your idea of shared governance.

Well, "just a guy", I'm not sure if this is worth a reply. If you don't understand, and the refuse (won't) to understand any idea, I sure don't expect you to agree with the idea. You have just defined what a closed mind is.

I really don't expect you to understand shared governance because it is a professional principle used for centries in academia and at all respected universities in the country. It isn't my idea.

Your statement is like you saying you don't understand the medical principles of brain surgery. So what and who care?

For those reading who want to understand shared governance is just input from the university community to provide checks and balances and prepare for problems that innovaton and changes produce. Issues are debated before decisions are made. Even business and indiustry use similar methods to be efficient.

2. We don't believe that the academics on campus really want to 'share' anything.

On what do you base this belief? Did someone tell you this? That's odd, academics share knowledge and expertise all the time at universites. There are tons of committees to share ideas. You better check your source of this belief.

3. We don't believe that the academic integrity of the university is threatened by the administration; but do believe some faculty members are contributing to recruiting hardships.

On what do you base this befief? (Boy, you sure believe a lot!) USM is on SACS probation and due for another SACS review it may not pass. Read the paper, commissioner Crofts had to come down and have SFT reverse an order given to the dean of CoB because the order threatened accreditation. The nursing program is in trouble etc, etc. The administraton tried to start an executive MBA program without input from CoB. All of these and more are threats to academic integrety.

I agree faculty are contributing to recruiting hardships because they are stating the truth (which you will never believe no matter the evidence) and this has spread though the academic world.

4. We don't, can't, and won't define what you do as "hard work". I could go on, you've heard it before, it doesn't matter, you don't care. Just understand that's the way it is, and you arguing with other "just guys" makes it worse. goodbye

What do you define as "hard work"? If is so easy why do so few people do it. That is like saying I dion't define brain surgery as hard work. I bet you would be surprised of even the physical labor that goes into science laboratory experiments, not to mention the brain work.

Finally, you are wrong when you say, "you don't care" . Evidence? I just spent all of this time responding to your post.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

To steal a line, you can't correct misperceptions with the facts. I'm tired of trying.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Reporter wrote:

quote: Originally posted by: I'll Never Find Another Ewe" The Faculty Senate never once stated it was against change. There would be no problem at USM, State or Old Miss if the IHL brought in changed using the principle of shared governance. It is the SFT's side that tells the public the faculty oppose change. That is the big lie. The faculty oppose bypassing shared governance. If the IHL and SFT's plans for change can't stand up to the debate under shared governance, then maybe the change is not progress. In addition, the faculty will not stand for change that threatens academic integrity, and neither would the public if they knew abouit it.

I haven't posted here previously as most of my views have been eloquently expressed by colleagues, but I do now have an uncontrollable impulse to opine on shared governance. In my experience at two tier one institutions, prior to coming to USM, shared governance was faithfully and successfully practiced by the administrations insofar as academic matters were concerned, and with great success. However, there was no expectation that faculty would either be consulted, or involved in, decisions that concerned such matters as food service, outsourcing of ancilliary services, or extra-university funded improvements to athletic facilities. Has anyone here had a similar experience, at another university?

I have believed for some time now, since the inception of the Shelby Thames resistance efforts, that our insistence on second guessing and assailing every single aspect of the university's management was both strategically and philosophically in error, particularly in areas where USM management decisions were consistent with those made at many other universities of the first caliber. I certainly have no quarrel with the right of any faculty member to take issue with any managerial decision, and voice those differences in any forum. I do feel however that we have and continue to undermine our primary mission, the purging of the Thames administration, by pi$$ing and moaning about matters which are arguably not within the purview of the traditional notion of university shared governance. After carefully reviewing the various letters and posts from community members who seem to take issue with the faculty perspective on "how to run a university," I remain convinced that they would better understand the principles of shared governance if defined as shared governance of academic affairs, rather encompassing minutiae such as ordering toilet paper and condiments. I put this on the table now as I would not be surprised if the the new USM president, no matter how capable and sensitive to faculty input, were to interpret shared governance in the same manner as do many other first rate institutions. That is to say, if we are expecting a new administration to solicit advice and seek faculty approval of every non-academic managerial decision, we are likely to be sorely disappointed.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Of course you are correct Contrarian Professor--about food service, auxilliary service units, etc. What you see here is the general frustration. Even when decisions are made that are in line with the non-academic decisions at other universities, it seems like they are boggled in the implementation. As in "the gang who couldn't shoot straight." But I agree that we somewhat weaken our case when we take our eyes off the academic prize.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Contrarian Professor wrote:

I haven't posted here previously as most of my views have been eloquently expressed by colleagues, but I do now have an uncontrollable impulse to opine on shared governance. In my experience at two tier one institutions, prior to coming to USM, shared governance was faithfully and successfully practiced by the administrations insofar as academic matters were concerned, and with great success. However, there was no expectation that faculty would either be consulted, or involved in, decisions that concerned such matters as food service, outsourcing of ancilliary services, or extra-university funded improvements to athletic facilities. Has anyone here had a similar experience, at another university? I have believed for some time now, since the inception of the Shelby Thames resistance efforts, that our insistence on second guessing and assailing every single aspect of the university's management was both strategically and philosophically in error, particularly in areas where USM management decisions were consistent with those made at many other universities of the first caliber. I certainly have no quarrel with the right of any faculty member to take issue with any managerial decision, and voice those differences in any forum. I do feel however that we have and continue to undermine our primary mission, the purging of the Thames administration, by pi$$ing and moaning about matters which are arguably not within the purview of the traditional notion of university shared governance. After carefully reviewing the various letters and posts from community members who seem to take issue with the faculty perspective on "how to run a university," I remain convinced that they would better understand the principles of shared governance if defined as shared governance of academic affairs, rather encompassing minutiae such as ordering toilet paper and condiments. I put this on the table now as I would not be surprised if the the new USM president, no matter how capable and sensitive to faculty input, were to interpret shared governance in the same manner as do many other first rate institutions. That is to say, if we are expecting a new administration to solicit advice and seek faculty approval of every non-academic managerial decision, we are likely to be sorely disappointed.

I agree with this opinion. The cause I think is many faculty, completely frustrated with the lack of an appropriate response from the IHL Board, began to complain about everything and all things wrong with USM in an effort to get the IHL's attention. I have tried to limit my remarks to events that have an academic impact.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

LVN wrote:

just a guy wrote: 1. We don't, and won't, understand or agree with your idea of shared governance. 2. We don't believe that the academics on campus really want to 'share' anything. 3. We don't believe that the academic integrity of the university is threatened by the administration; but do believe some faculty members are contributing to recruiting hardships. 4. We don't, can't, and won't define what you do as "hard work". I could go on, you've heard it before, it doesn't matter, you don't care. Just understand that's the way it is, and you arguing with other "just guys" makes it worse. goodbye The only problem, guy, is that "shared governance" is the norm throughout academia. Whether you like it or agree with it or not, that's the way it is done in every other university in the country, including MSU and Ole Miss. Why do you think USM should be the exception? The kind and amount of work the faculty here do is just about exactly the kind and amount done at most other universities of comparable size and mission. The main difference is that the salary is a lot lower at USM. Why do you think that faculty at USM have a different workload than faculty elsewhere. As for not caring, you don't understand that caring is all that's keeping USM afloat these days. Oh, and for a community guy you seem to have some inside information on faculty recruiting. How is that?

really guys, i dont have a dog in this hunt - i'm just telling you the view from the other side of the wall. it's been said before (i honestly dont know why i posted). i didnt say you didnt care about the institution; i said you dont care about the common mans views. and not in the sense that you dont care about the common man but that you wont understand us just like we wont understand you.

also, i didnt say anything about faculty recruiting - i was referring to student recruiting

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Reporter wrote:

I agree with this opinion. The cause I think is many faculty, completely frustrated with the lack of an appropriate response from the IHL Board, began to complain about everything and all things wrong with USM in an effort to get the IHL's attention. I have tried to limit my remarks to events that have an academic impact.

Thanks Reporter and Barney and Nobler. I concur with your assessments as to frustration being the reason for much of our gratuitous bitching. I've done a lot of it myself, and for the precisely reasons you cite. I also agree that even in areas where Thames or his minions have attempted to implement changes that are relatively un-revolutionary, they've managed to do so in the most insensitive and bungling fashion. As for the IHL, well, I continue to be baffled by their support, albeit waning, for Thames. Even if they don't give a rat's a$$ about USM, one would think they would not wish to have their names and reputations sullied by any alliance with a demonstrably corrupt and venal individual.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:

really guys, i dont have a dog in this hunt - i'm just telling you the view from the other side of the wall. it's been said before (i honestly dont know why i posted). i didnt say you didnt care about the institution; i said you dont care about the common mans views. and not in the sense that you dont care about the common man but that you wont understand us just like we wont understand you. also, i didnt say anything about faculty recruiting - i was referring to student recruiting

But, Just a guy, we can't make people seek the truth. What you described are people who are going to believe one way no matter the evidence or the truth.

You do realize that is the mind set that is causing the war in Iraq. People believe in believing. They think your belief threatens theirs. Since evidence and reason can't change belief unless the person listens and thinks logically, there is no resolution.

You say, "I said you don’t care about the common mans views", but that isn't true. The "common man" you described is the one that doesn't care about anyone's views. Your description was of people who believe one way and nothing can change them.

Academics do care about people’s views and opinions. This is why we have a university. In fact that is what it is all about. But to reach truth one must question beliefs. Where did they get these beliefs? Did they just accepted what was told to them by authority (the administration)?

I'm trying to understand you and your "common man". It appears to me it is you that rather not investigate why you have your opinions or why we have our opinions.

P.S. I appreciate your post. You are a good stand in for Seeker. I hope I didn't offend.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Reporter wrote:

just a guy wrote: really guys, i dont have a dog in this hunt - i'm just telling you the view from the other side of the wall. it's been said before (i honestly dont know why i posted). i didnt say you didnt care about the institution; i said you dont care about the common mans views. and not in the sense that you dont care about the common man but that you wont understand us just like we wont understand you. also, i didnt say anything about faculty recruiting - i was referring to student recruiting But, Just a guy, we can't make people seek the truth. What you described are people who are going to believe one way no matter the evidence or the truth. You do realize that is the mind set that is causing the war in Iraq. People believe in believing. They think your belief threatens theirs. Since evidence and reason can't change belief unless the person listens and thinks logically, there is no resolution. You say, "I said you don’t care about the common mans views", but that isn't true. The "common man" you described is the one that doesn't care about anyone's views. Your description was of people who believe one way and nothing can change them. Academics do care about people’s views and opinions. This is why we have a university. In fact that is what it is all about. But to reach truth one must question beliefs. Where did they get these beliefs? Did they just accepted what was told to them by authority (the administration)? I'm trying to understand you and your "common man". It appears to me it is you that rather not investigate why you have your opinions or why we have our opinions. P.S. I appreciate your post. You are a good stand in for Seeker. I hope I didn't offend.

no, you didnt offend me, but this will conclude my time on this board. i will do what i can to explain because i do agree with you in a way.

we dont just believe in believing. we utilize our experiences just like anyone to determine what we believe. we look around us and determine what is true based on the evidence present. for us that evidence is out here - when you mention other institutions that really doesnt mean anything to us - much less than the history of this institution.

i think ANYONE can change their beliefs but the arguments made arent convincing to the "common man." we may be simpletons - so use simpleton arguments. example: belief in God - I believe because something cant exist from nothing - thats simple to me. come down here and have a conversation - that will go much farther.

thank you for being polite - goodbye.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:

Reporter wrote: just a guy wrote: really guys, i dont have a dog in this hunt - i'm just telling you the view from the other side of the wall. it's been said before (i honestly dont know why i posted). i didnt say you didnt care about the institution; i said you dont care about the common mans views. and not in the sense that you dont care about the common man but that you wont understand us just like we wont understand you. also, i didnt say anything about faculty recruiting - i was referring to student recruiting But, Just a guy, we can't make people seek the truth. What you described are people who are going to believe one way no matter the evidence or the truth. You do realize that is the mind set that is causing the war in Iraq. People believe in believing. They think your belief threatens theirs. Since evidence and reason can't change belief unless the person listens and thinks logically, there is no resolution. You say, "I said you don’t care about the common mans views", but that isn't true. The "common man" you described is the one that doesn't care about anyone's views. Your description was of people who believe one way and nothing can change them. Academics do care about people’s views and opinions. This is why we have a university. In fact that is what it is all about. But to reach truth one must question beliefs. Where did they get these beliefs? Did they just accepted what was told to them by authority (the administration)? I'm trying to understand you and your "common man". It appears to me it is you that rather not investigate why you have your opinions or why we have our opinions. P.S. I appreciate your post. You are a good stand in for Seeker. I hope I didn't offend. no, you didnt offend me, but this will conclude my time on this board. i will do what i can to explain because i do agree with you in a way. we dont just believe in believing. we utilize our experiences just like anyone to determine what we believe. we look around us and determine what is true based on the evidence present. for us that evidence is out here - when you mention other institutions that really doesnt mean anything to us - much less than the history of this institution. i think ANYONE can change their beliefs but the arguments made arent convincing to the "common man." we may be simpletons - so use simpleton arguments. example: belief in God - I believe because something cant exist from nothing - thats simple to me. come down here and have a conversation - that will go much farther. thank you for being polite - goodbye.

I have an engagement also, Just a Guy. When I get back I will respond to this post. I enjoyed our discussion. Talk to ya later.

Reporter

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:

1. We don't, and won't, understand or agree with your idea of shared governance. 2. We don't believe that the academics on campus really want to 'share' anything. 3. We don't believe that the academic integrity of the university is threatened by the administration; but do believe some faculty members are contributing to recruiting hardships. 4. We don't, can't, and won't define what you do as "hard work".

just a guy,

Your opinion and my opinion on those four matters is not worth jack ship, anymore than your opinion and my opinion is worth jack ship about how a neurological surgeon should conduct brain surgery. You may not like the site of the surgical incision, you may believe the surgeon is an unsharing creature, you may believe the medical integrity of what the surgeon does is not threatened by the policies of the hospital administration, and you may not believe that what the surgeon does is hard word. Our opinions (yours and mine) are worth jack ship on those matters. All that counts is what is considered good medical/hospital practice. You, my friend, are not qualified to make that judgment. Neither am I. And all that counts at a university is good academic practice. You, my friend, are not qualified to make that judgment. I am.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

authority, are you sure? who am i?

Date: Jun 1, 2005

An Authority wrote:

you may not believe that what the surgeon does is hard word.

Oh, they're hard alright, but isn't it a mission of higher education to teach us the hard words, whether used by surgeons or other professionals and men and women of arts and letters - what they mean, how to spell them, how one hard word can be preferrable to several easy, shorter words? My current favorite surgical hard word is laminectomy. It is so beautiful. And it really isn't that long but yet still contains five syllables!

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:

"when you mention other institutions that really doesnt mean anything to us"

Hi Guy! You've sure hit the nail on the head with that statement. It's becoming increasingly clear that the way other universities do things is of no concern to the anti- faculty types who support continuance of the current stagnated state of affairs at USM. They don't want USM to be a real university. They'd just as soon it was a diploma mill. I'm an advid sports fan, but I want much more from my college than merely a football team to talk to my buddies about at Hooters. I want a degree to be proud of - one nationally recognized as a college of choice.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:

Reporter wrote:

Reporter - Im just a guy who lives in H'burg and reads this board and EagleTalk because it is funny. I have never posted, but for some reason felt like I had to say what went through my mind when I read your post about shared governance.
1. We don't, and won't, understand or agree with your idea of shared governance.
2. We don't believe that the academics on campus really want to 'share' anything.
3. We don't believe that the academic integrity of the university is threatened by the administration; but do believe some faculty members are contributing to recruiting hardships.
4. We don't, can't, and won't define what you do as "hard work".
I could go on, you've heard it before, it doesn't matter, you don't care. Just understand that's the way it is, and you arguing with other "just guys" makes it worse.
goodbye

Since you clearly refuse to understand anything about the functioning of higher education, despite noble efforts by Reporter and others, let me put it in terms that you will understand. In gross terms, USM is part of the free enterprise system. As such, its employees are free to come and go at will. The great majority of USM's employees have concluded that the administration is unethical, corrupt, incompetent, and autocratic. They leave. The word spreads like wildfire among their peers across the country. Qualified academics avoid the place like the plague. Parents of good students (although they, like you, may not sympathize with the faculty) understand that the unstable environment might not be best for their bright son/daughter, and send them elsewhere. Soon nobody wants to teach here, and nobody wants to study here; and Shelby is left with his hand stuffed in his coat shouting "World class" as they turn off the lights and lock the doors. Got it, Guy?

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Voter wrote:

just a guy wrote: Reporter wrote: Reporter - Im just a guy who lives in H'burg and reads this board and EagleTalk because it is funny. I have never posted, but for some reason felt like I had to say what went through my mind when I read your post about shared governance. 1. We don't, and won't, understand or agree with your idea of shared governance. 2. We don't believe that the academics on campus really want to 'share' anything. 3. We don't believe that the academic integrity of the university is threatened by the administration; but do believe some faculty members are contributing to recruiting hardships. 4. We don't, can't, and won't define what you do as "hard work". I could go on, you've heard it before, it doesn't matter, you don't care. Just understand that's the way it is, and you arguing with other "just guys" makes it worse. goodbye Since you clearly refuse to understand anything about the functioning of higher education, despite noble efforts by Reporter and others, let me put it in terms that you will understand. In gross terms, USM is part of the free enterprise system. As such, its employees are free to come and go at will. The great majority of USM's employees have concluded that the administration is unethical, corrupt, incompetent, and autocratic. They leave. The word spreads like wildfire among their peers across the country. Qualified academics avoid the place like the plague. Parents of good students (although they, like you, may not sympathize with the faculty) understand that the unstable environment might not be best for their bright son/daughter, and send them elsewhere. Soon nobody wants to teach here, and nobody wants to study here; and Shelby is left with his hand stuffed in his coat shouting "World class" as they turn off the lights and lock the doors. Got it, Guy?

we dont see that happening

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:

we dont see that happening

It's happening as we write. Cf. also Enron, Worldcom, etc. Bull$hit didn't walk there either.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:

no, you didnt offend me, but this will conclude my time on this board. i will do what i can to explain because i do agree with you in a way. we dont just believe in believing. we utilize our experiences just like anyone to determine what we believe. we look around us and determine what is true based on the evidence present.

Good. Earlier you implied you wouldn't understand and wouldn't change your mind.

for us that evidence is out here - when you mention other institutions that really doesnt mean anything to us - much less than the history of this institution.

This I don't get. If I had an opinion of how a carpenter should do a certain joint in cabinet making and the carpenter told me I was wrong, I would have to be a fool to say I don't believe him because I know nothing of carpentry. If he then told me all carpenters use the same method, I would check with others carpenters if I really, really believed he was lying. But to save time, I would start questioning why I had this opinion about something I was not professionally trained. If my belief was based on someone in authority telling me, I would question if I should believe him or her without backup evidence.

i think ANYONE can change their beliefs but the arguments made arent convincing to the "common man."

This depends. If beliefs are not based or facts, evidence or sound reasoning, but a "leap of faith" then logic and facts usually won't affect that belief.

we may be simpletons - so use simpleton arguments.

Did my carpenter example above get close to "simpleton arguments"?

example: belief in God - I believe because something cant exist from nothing - thats simple to me.

I won't discuss religion at this time. But I must point out that in modern physics particles are created from nothing. These are called "virtual particles" and this model explains a lot of experimental phenomena.

come down here and have a conversation - that will go much farther. thank you for being polite - goodbye.

Well, Guy, how did I do with this conversation? Better I hope. You are welcome and thank you for your patience and politeness.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:

we dont see that happening

You don't see it because you don't attend conferences and academic meetings in other parts of the country, where USM has become a laughingstock. You don't see it because you're not in a department which can't hire qualified professors anymore. You do understand that the nursing school is down to something like six professors and all instructors now, don't you (that's approximate.) You don't see it because when you go to a meeting and say you're from USM people respond, "Oh, you're the ones with that crazy president."
No, I expect you don't see it. But you will.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Reporter wrote:

just a guy wrote: no, you didnt offend me, but this will conclude my time on this board. i will do what i can to explain because i do agree with you in a way. we dont just believe in believing. we utilize our experiences just like anyone to determine what we believe. we look around us and determine what is true based on the evidence present. Good. Earlier you implied you wouldn't understand and wouldn't change your mind. for us that evidence is out here - when you mention other institutions that really doesnt mean anything to us - much less than the history of this institution. This I don't get. If I had an opinion of how a carpenter should do a certain joint in cabinet making and the carpenter told me I was wrong, I would have to be a fool to say I don't believe him because I know nothing of carpentry. If he then told me all carpenters use the same method, I would check with others carpenters if I really, really believed he was lying. But to save time, I would start questioning why I had this opinion about something I was not professionally trained. If my belief was based on someone in authority telling me, I would question if I should believe him or her without backup evidence. i think ANYONE can change their beliefs but the arguments made arent convincing to the "common man." This depends. If beliefs are not based or facts, evidence or sound reasoning, but a "leap of faith" then logic and facts usually won't affect that belief. we may be simpletons - so use simpleton arguments. Did my carpenter example above get close to "simpleton arguments"? example: belief in God - I believe because something cant exist from nothing - thats simple to me. I won't discuss religion at this time. But I must point out that in modern physics particles are created from nothing. These are called "virtual particles" and this model explains a lot of experimental phenomena. come down here and have a conversation - that will go much farther. thank you for being polite - goodbye. Well, Guy, how did I do with this conversation? Better I hope. You are welcome and thank you for your patience and politeness.

Actually, you did, you really did. I like you. You are the most polite and understanding poster I have run into here.

I understand the carpenter analogy and I truly appreciate the gesture. But what if I am not interested in that joint but rather the way you run your business, and I myself am a successful business person of education and experience?

I am truly intrigued about the particles from nothing. How do you create matter that didn't formerly exist?

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:
"we dont see that happening"

Take a look at nursing, criminal justice, and English for starters.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

just a guy wrote:

Actually, you did, you really did. I like you. You are the most polite and understanding poster I have run into here. I understand the carpenter analogy and I truly appreciate the gesture.

Thank you. You're welcome.

But what if I am not interested in that joint but rather the way you run your business, and I myself am a successful business person of education and experience?

Well, in that case I would have to point out that this is not a valid analogy. The reason is the university is not like a regular business. A better analogy would be a a hospital. The "experts" at the hospital are the doctors. They have a large number of medical procedures and principles of how they must perform. Of course the hospital administrator needs to run a business, but the administrator must make sure it is run according to specific guild lines or the hospital will lose accreditation.

If you want an analogy with just regular business, then consider if a business CEO tried to run the business as if the IRS didn't exist. That would be close to what happened at USM as far as SACS goes.

I am truly intrigued about the particles from nothing. How do you create matter that didn't formerly exist?

It takes an understanding of Quamtum Mechanics to explain this and I don't think I'm up to it this evening. I would have to figure out how to do it without math. Maybe later if I find a way to do it.

Oh, we don't create the particles, they occur naturally and continuously.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Reporter wrote:

I am truly intrigued about the particles from nothing. How do you create matter that didn't formerly exist?
It takes an understanding of Quamtum Mechanics to explain this and I don't think I'm up to it this evening. I would have to figure out how to do it without math. Maybe later if I find a way to do it.
Oh, we don't create the particles, they occur naturally and continuously.

This interests me too. I loved physics, couldn't do the math. What is the law that says matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed? [Whoa, it's been a LONG time.] If you feel up to talking about it Reporter, why not start an OT thread?

Date: Jun 1, 2005

LVN wrote:

Reporter wrote: This interests me too. I loved physics, couldn't do the math. What is the law that says matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed? [Whoa, it's been a LONG time.] If you feel up to talking about it Reporter, why not start an OT thread?

Reporter is having a beer and preparing for bed-- not a good time for such a discussion. However, the law you are remembering is the conservation of mass-energy. Neither mass nor energy is constant , because they can be changed into one another, but the total mass plus energy in an isolated system remains constant.

This is a law of physics, at least for now. You never know what new things will be discovered as the unknown is explored.

But what I was discussing with "Just a Guy" wasn't this. The virtual particles pop into and out of existence. IIRC it isn't energy conversion.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Thanks R. I'll Google it. Sweet dreams.

btw, by that law, we really are all made out of stars. Think about that the next time we feel hateful towards someone! Or as my man CSL puts it, everyone you know is an immortal being.