HA: Mary Beth, you work for Moulder. - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 31, 2005

HA: Mary Beth, you work for Moulder.

Date: May 31, 2005

Charles R Moulder - (601) 544-1710 - 4 Jasmine Dr, Hattiesburg, MS 39401

The HA seems to the piling up the pro-SFT letters, while sitting on several anti-SFT letters (Campbell, Evans, et al) of late. Seem right?

Date: May 31, 2005

One thing that continues to amaze me is the outspoken segment of the public's misunderstanding of the faculty response to reorganization. The letter writers (and all Thames supporters) can't understand that we were not reacting to change. The university had been reorganized before and though there were some unhappy folks, it was done correctly--with input from the people who really understand the organization of the university. In several cases, these few (5 at most?) made huge mistakes. Just one--the dismantling of the graduate school--and I would wager that the solution is costing more money that the original unit did.

Date: May 31, 2005

Mr. Moulder has revealed himself by calling Ms. Applin's reasoned and thoughtful letter "ranting" -- and by his own logic, she works for me too, and I liked her letter. He forgets that Dr. Thames also works for us.

You don't think he could be Son of Bubba, do you?

Date: May 31, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
". . . . . . . You don't think he could be Son of Bubba, do you?"

I could be wrong, LVN, but I don't think so.

Date: May 31, 2005

I will call Moulder this afternoon and ask for his sig on a travel voucher. I am also waiting for my teacher evaluations from Spring. I will ask him if he has those, or at least where I can get them. I also want to know the balance in my development account. I will ask about that as well.

Date: May 31, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: spencer for hire
"The HA seems to the piling up the pro-SFT letters, while sitting on several anti-SFT letters (Campbell, Evans, et al) of late. Seem right?"

Actually, it's the CL that has been sitting on a couple of pro-USM letters; I have been generally impressed by the HA's fairness in the past year.

Date: May 31, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: moulder's employee
"I will call Moulder this afternoon and ask for his sig on a travel voucher. I am also waiting for my teacher evaluations from Spring. I will ask him if he has those, or at least where I can get them. I also want to know the balance in my development account. I will ask about that as well. "

If he is one of your bosses, as he seems to think, he should be able to supply you with all of those things.

Date: May 31, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: letters
"http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050531/OPINION03/505310317/1014/OPINION"

"...you are an employee of every hard-working citizen in this state......"

Do you think Moulder would use that tone if he were speaking to an IRS agent or to a patrolman who was in the process of issuing him a speeding ticket?It seems that only USM faculty members are the public employees who have no respect

Date: May 31, 2005

As Robert Evans pointed out, it's Clarion-Ledger that has been sitting on his letter, mine, and some more. The only letter the CL has published since May 23 has been a pro-Thames letter.

The editorial page editors at the HA are probably letting Moulder keep going because they are short on "provocative" letters at this time of year. They may also think that letter writers like Ware and Moulder don't show Thames supporters in a good light.

One benefit of all the play that Moulder is getting: his letters provide a better than adequate excuse for an op-ed on the three myths of the Thames administration, or on the impossibility of turning USM into an "economic development university."

Robert Campbell

Date: May 31, 2005

...its the Clarion-Ledger...

Date: May 31, 2005

My own sense is that the HA welcomes letters, especially if they have anything new to say and are from "new" people. The only letter of mine they have rejected was rejected because it made arguments that had already been made recently by someone else. I think there's good potential for someone to write a letter making the point that USM faculty do not oppose (and have not opposed) change per se; they simply have opposed lame-brained and unilaterally imposed change. Someone else on another thread made the very valuable points that change has frequently occurred successfully at USM when it has been done through accepted processes of shared governance. Another person made the point that universities are often at the forefront of adopting changes, especially technological changes. Both of these points would make excellent material for a good letter.

Date: May 31, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"One benefit of all the play that Moulder is getting: his letters provide a better than adequate excuse for an op-ed on the three myths of the Thames administration . ."

Thor

Date: 5 days ago
Views: 517

"The Three Myths that Won't Die"

Three Myths that Won't Die"
by Thor, by golly

As another thread has pointed out there is a myth that the reorganization was bold and innovative and a source of great savings. The second major myth about the current administration is that external funding has greatly increased. An analysis in an earlier thread demonstrated that real, after inflation growth in this area has been about 2% a year. This figure is well below the growth rate under the Fleming administration. The third myth is that the administration has presided over a period of great enrollment growth. As a Faculty Senate analysis has shown, university wide growth of FTE enrollment has been about 1/2% a year. Because of on line and off campus courses, headcount has grown while full time residential enrollment in Hattiesburg seems to be stable or in decline. One has to wonder if the IHL and the business boosters will ever get the picture.

Date: May 31, 2005

Does Mr. Moulder have a business we can boycott?

Date: May 31, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Arnold
"Does Mr. Moulder have a business we can boycott?"

Arnold, that would hardly be worth fooling with. If you examine the newspaper archives, I believe you will find that in the past he has written on topics unrelated to USM. A "regular," you might say.

Date: May 31, 2005

He is really quite a nice guy. He comes across as someone you would want to have as a next door neighbor. My guess is that if you engaged him in a face-to-face conversation about this matter you would view him as articulate and one who would listen attentively and respond appropriately. His letters about the USM faculty are certainly off base, but I don't think he fully realizes that many USM faculty members are very conservative and are not as liberal as is depicted in those terrible letters from our detractors. It would surprise me if he watches this board, but then who knows.

Date: May 31, 2005

Reference wrote:

He is really quite a nice guy. He comes across as someone you would want to have as a next door neighbor. My guess is that if you engaged him in a face-to-face conversation about this matter you would view him as articulate and one who would listen attentively and respond appropriately. His letters about the USM faculty are certainly off base, but I don't think he fully realizes that many USM faculty members are very conservative and are not as liberal as is depicted in those terrible letters from our detractors. It would surprise me if he watches this board, but then who knows.

Well, if he is, then I think he should apologize to Mary Beth. She's a true professional AND a fine teacher. In fact, I'm suprised she isn't on Babb's list.

Date: May 31, 2005

spencer for hire wrote:

Charles R Moulder - (601) 544-1710 - 4 Jasmine Dr, Hattiesburg, MS 39401 The HA seems to the piling up the pro-SFT letters, while sitting on several anti-SFT letters (Campbell, Evans, et al) of late. Seem right?

is it just me, or does anyone else have problems with publishing phone numbers and addresses? We are in a free society that allows free speech (outside of the university and mostly in spite of the Patriot Act), letters should be answered with letters not with personnalization. Individuals who publish, regardless of their viewpoint, take a protected stand. Given that we are mostly anonymous would we want to be tracked down and have our numbers published? One's name is one thing, but personnal information attracts those on the fringe to do stupid things. I myself don't want to be associated with an effort that is going to act this way. Should we publish the home addresses, phone numbers and work places of all who post here?

Date: May 31, 2005

wrote:

spencer for hire wrote: Charles R Moulder - (601) 544-1710 - 4 Jasmine Dr, Hattiesburg, MS 39401 The HA seems to the piling up the pro-SFT letters, while sitting on several anti-SFT letters (Campbell, Evans, et al) of late. Seem right? is it just me, or does anyone else have problems with publishing phone numbers and addresses? We are in a free society that allows free speech (outside of the university and mostly in spite of the Patriot Act), letters should be answered with letters not with personnalization. Individuals who publish, regardless of their viewpoint, take a protected stand. Given that we are mostly anonymous would we want to be tracked down and have our numbers published? One's name is one thing, but personnal information attracts those on the fringe to do stupid things. I myself don't want to be associated with an effort that is going to act this way. Should we publish the home addresses, phone numbers and work places of all who post here?

FWIW, this bothers me, too.

Date: May 31, 2005

My mother always told me to wrote:

Reference wrote: He is really quite a nice guy. He comes across as someone you would want to have as a next door neighbor. My guess is that if you engaged him in a face-to-face conversation about this matter you would view him as articulate and one who would listen attentively and respond appropriately. His letters about the USM faculty are certainly off base, but I don't think he fully realizes that many USM faculty members are very conservative and are not as liberal as is depicted in those terrible letters from our detractors. It would surprise me if he watches this board, but then who knows. Well, if he is, then I think he should apologize to Mary Beth. She's a true professional AND a fine teacher. In fact, I'm suprised she isn't on Babb's list.

I wasn't defending the letter he wrote by any means. I was only giving an informed impression. I'm surprised he didn't write a scathing rebuttal to a letter of mine that was published.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

wrote:

is it just me, or does anyone else have problems with publishing phone numbers and addresses? One's name is one thing, but personnal information attracts those on the fringe to do stupid things.

I agree. There is no need for that kind of information......

NO Quarter!

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Let Freedom Ring wrote:

wrote: is it just me, or does anyone else have problems with publishing phone numbers and addresses? One's name is one thing, but personnal information attracts those on the fringe to do stupid things. I agree. There is no need for that kind of information...... NO Quarter!

only one word is necessary g o o g l e

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Let Freedom Ring wrote:

wrote:
is it just me, or does anyone else have problems with publishing phone numbers and addresses? One's name is one thing, but personnal information attracts those on the fringe to do stupid things.

I agree. There is no need for that kind of information......
NO Quarter!

He made this personal when he wrote his anti-faculty letter to the paper. I don't care who knows his personal information now, and tom is correct: GOOGLE can get you all you need to know about him. It's not private information.

More weakness from mealy-mouthed faculty. Don't boycott. Don't take action. Be passive and wait for things to go your way. What a joke.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Oscar Meyer wrote:

More weakness from mealy-mouthed faculty. Don't boycott. Don't take action. Be passive and wait for things to go your way. What a joke.

How ridiculous. What's to boycott? This is not like we're dealing with a powerful General Bullmoose at General Motors. Would you suggest boycotting a citizen who earns her living by selling junk on eBay but who writes a letter we don't like? We'd be the laughing stock of Mississippi if such a boycott were attempted.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Could it be that Oscar Meyer is trying to biat the faculty into doing something stupid?

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Gone Fishing wrote:

Could it be that Oscar Meyer is trying to biat the faculty into doing something stupid?

It is obvious to me that little man and Gone Fishing are either new to the board or have no memory of the "boycott/no boycott" discussion that took place here months ago.

Don't boycott the local businesses who are anti-faculty because it may negatively impact our students.

Don't call these anti-faculty letter writers out, because they have a right to their opinions.

Don't do anything that may hurt someone's feelings, no matter how badly they treat you.

Time to kick the "Why faculty will Lose the War..." thread.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Oscar Meyer wrote:

More weakness from mealy-mouthed faculty. Don't boycott. Don't take action. Be passive and wait for things to go your way. What a joke.

Oscar Meyer,

The dudes in Criminal Justice (when they were housed in COAL) used to give several reasons for imprisonment: (a) to punish, (b) to protect the public, (c) to rehabilitate. Which of these are you trying to accomplish?

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Oscar Meyer wrote:

Gone Fishing wrote: Could it be that Oscar Meyer is trying to biat the faculty into doing something stupid? It is obvious to me that little man and Gone Fishing are either new to the board or have no memory of the "boycott/no boycott" discussion that took place here months ago. Don't boycott the local businesses who are anti-faculty because it may negatively impact our students. Don't call these anti-faculty letter writers out, because they have a right to their opinions. Don't do anything that may hurt someone's feelings, no matter how badly they treat you. Time to kick the "Why faculty will Lose the War..." thread.

I don't have a problem at all with refusing to patronize vociferously pro-Shelby businesses. (If I had any paving to do, I certainly wouldn't using Warren Paving!) However, what exactly do you want to do to individual letter writters? Call them up and harrass them? Drive by their homes and blast your boom box? Change the locks on their doors? (Oops -- that sounds like the behavior of someone else we know . . . .)

The best way to deal with the pro-Shelby letter-writers is to answer them in print. I just read a letter in my local paper that blew the previous letter of another writer out of the water and made the first author seem extremely foolish. Please consider answering Moulder's letter with one of your own.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

Oscar Meyer wrote:

Gone Fishing wrote: Could it be that Oscar Meyer is trying to biat the faculty into doing something stupid? It is obvious to me that little man and Gone Fishing are either new to the board or have no memory of the "boycott/no boycott" discussion that took place here months ago. Don't boycott the local businesses who are anti-faculty because it may negatively impact our students. Don't call these anti-faculty letter writers out, because they have a right to their opinions. Don't do anything that may hurt someone's feelings, no matter how badly they treat you. Time to kick the "Why faculty will Lose the War..." thread.

The Good book says to love thine enemies.

Patti says makes them look and feel like fools when we do.

Date: Jun 1, 2005

I concur with Patti and with Just an Opinion. The pen is mightier than the sword.