May Trick .... - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 29, 2005

May Trick ....

Date: Jun 29, 2005

I have heard it confirmed from multiple good sources that the vote was 8 to 4 AGAINST Shelby but that the 4 were completely entrenched. The threat of resignation is a twist I had not heard.

Interestingly, word is that Shelby was completely convinced that he would get a second four year term after his legislative coup de theatre. That he did not came as a very unwelcome surprise and bitter disappointment.

Date: Jun 29, 2005

I have heard the 8-4 story, including the part about the threatened resignations. That story is making the rounds now. Robert Campbell should do an L&P on it --- it's damn interesting.

Date: Jun 29, 2005

I'm always a little uncomfortable when someone suggests that someone else should do something - has that "set-up" ring to it.

Date: Jun 29, 2005

Perpetually Paranoid wrote:

I'm always a little uncomfortable when someone suggests that someone else should do something - has that "set-up" ring to it.

Who's being set up? The story is making the rounds. RC can check into it himself, and, in the end, simply state it's a story making the rounds.

Date: Jun 29, 2005

don't understand wrote:
The story is making the rounds. RC can check into it himself, and, in the end, simply state it's a story making the rounds.

Another story making the rounds is that the biggest supporters of the administration are all Ole Miss and MS State supporters. The conspiracy theory is alive and well.

Date: Jun 29, 2005

Still smarting wrote:

I have heard it confirmed from multiple good sources that the vote was 8 to 4 AGAINST Shelby but that the 4 were completely entrenched. The threat of resignation is a twist I had not heard. Interestingly, word is that Shelby was completely convinced that he would get a second four year term after his legislative coup de theatre. That he did not came as a very unwelcome surprise and bitter disappointment.

Is there any hard information, or even well founded speculation, concerning the identities of the four IHL board members who voted to retain Thames? I'm assuming Klumb was the ring leader, but am wondering about the other three. Was Robin Robinson one of them?

Date: Jun 29, 2005

Perpetually Paranoid wrote:

I'm always a little uncomfortable when someone suggests that someone else should do something - has that "set-up" ring to it.

This is especially true when all posting the rumor and all confirming it use names never before heard of on this board. They have no tract record of providing credible information, and cannot supply any sources or evidence. Then they suggest somebody else, who is credible, post it as fact. I'm sure Robert Campbell will ignore this suggestion until evidence is provided.

Date: Jun 29, 2005

Thirsting for Knowledge wrote:

Is there any hard information, or even well founded speculation, concerning the identities of the four IHL board members who voted to retain Thames? I'm assuming Klumb was the ring leader, but am wondering about the other three. Was Robin Robinson one of them?

Can anyone speak to this issue?

Date: Jun 29, 2005

Reporter wrote:

This is especially true when all posting the rumor and all confirming it use names never before heard of on this board. They have no tract record of providing credible information, and cannot supply any sources or evidence. Then they suggest somebody else, who is credible, post it as fact. I'm sure Robert Campbell will ignore this suggestion until evidence is provided.

The poster suggested that Campbell look into it for a future L&P. I don't see anywhere that it was suggested that RC should post it without fact checking.

Date: Jun 29, 2005

Thirsting for Knowledge wrote:

Still smarting wrote: I have heard it confirmed from multiple good sources that the vote was 8 to 4 AGAINST Shelby but that the 4 were completely entrenched. The threat of resignation is a twist I had not heard. Interestingly, word is that Shelby was completely convinced that he would get a second four year term after his legislative coup de theatre. That he did not came as a very unwelcome surprise and bitter disappointment. Is there any hard information, or even well founded speculation, concerning the identities of the four IHL board members who voted to retain Thames? I'm assuming Klumb was the ring leader, but am wondering about the other three. Was Robin Robinson one of them?

Quoted in the thread "The Independent 5/26/05", http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=24082&subForumID=36767&action=viewTopic&commentID=3063051&commentPage=0&topicPage=4

“… the four Board members who strongly supported Thames four-year extension … Roy Klumb, …Scott Ross…Amy Whitten…Thomas Colbert….”

Date: Jun 29, 2005

The 8-4 story is interesting, but I haven't a clue how to confirm it. I have no reliable sources close to the IHL Board. The only thing the Board is consistently effective at is stopping leaks about the deals and squabbles behind the scenes.

I questioned that story in the Independent when it appeared in late May, because I was under the impression that Shelby's Gang of Four consisted of Klumb, Ross, Colbert, and Davidson. No secret about the first three, and Davidson obliged Klumb with a pro-Shelby pitch to the media right before the special meeting on May 6.

Besides... if the four hard-core Shelby supporters threatened to resign unless their guy got at least one more year, why didn't the rest of the Board inform them that their resignations would be gratefully accepted?

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 29, 2005

Reporter wrote:

Quoted in the thread "The Independent 5/26/05", http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=24082&subForumID=36767&action=viewTopic&commentID=3063051&commentPage=0&topicPage=4 “… the four Board members who strongly supported Thames four-year extension … Roy Klumb, …Scott Ross…Amy Whitten…Thomas Colbert….”

Thank you. I'm pleased that Robin Robinson was not among the supporters, and disappointed that Amy Whitten was. I've always been impressed by Whitten, and expected more of her in this matter. Ross doesn't surprise me, and I know nothing about Colbert. Given the 2-1 sentiment against a contract extension, I'm surprised they board didn't tilt that way.

Date: Jun 30, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

The 8-4 story is interesting, but I haven't a clue how to confirm it. I have no reliable sources close to the IHL Board. The only thing the Board is consistently effective at is stopping leaks about the deals and squabbles behind the scenes. I questioned that story in the Independent when it appeared in late May, because I was under the impression that Shelby's Gang of Four consisted of Klumb, Ross, Colbert, and Davidson. No secret about the first three, and Davidson obliged Klumb with a pro-Shelby pitch to the media right before the special meeting on May 6. Besides... if the four hard-core Shelby supporters threatened to resign unless their guy got at least one more year, why didn't the rest of the Board inform them that their resignations would be gratefully accepted? Robert Campbell

you obviously ain't from around here, those four are the closest to the guv (ie they represent money). a stand against them would cause Hailey to trash the IHL. Logic don work here.

Date: Jun 30, 2005

How can the governor trash the IHL? Does he have the power to do so?

Also, is it true that Shelby's Gang of Four is the closest to Barbour? Or that they represent money in a way that, say, Patterson does not?

RC

Date: Jun 30, 2005

Who are the members of the Gang of Four?

Date: Jun 30, 2005

Gang of Four:

Klumb, Ross, Colbert, and Davidson

(replace Davidson with Whitten, if you accept the Independent's analysis).

RC

Date: Jun 30, 2005

Fifth Wheel wrote:

Who are the members of the Gang of Four?

Please read about 5 post up.

Date: Jun 30, 2005

special K wrote:

Has anyone else heard the story that the IHL vote in May to sack Shelby was 8-4 (or 7-5) in favor of doing it, but the 4 (or 5) in the minority threatened to resign en masse unless Thames was given the last year of his current contract plus an additional year? That's the story I heard. Of course, the majority caved to the threat.

Don't let the facts stop a good story. It is gossip that is the important thing. Don't change your ways at this late date.

Date: Jun 30, 2005

Above the Mire, if you know so much, please share. You come on here and make comments about people gossiping, but where is the truth you possess? Oh, and by the way, this is a message board. Cyber equivalent of a water cooler. And you're shocked there's gossip. Most of us know how to take anything posted anonymously -- with a large dose of scepticism.

Must be wonderful to be "Above" everyone else. If you have such disdain, why are you here?

Date: Jun 30, 2005

Third Witch wrote:

Above the Mire, if you know so much, please share. You come on here and make comments about people gossiping, but where is the truth you possess? Oh, and by the way, this is a message board. Cyber equivalent of a water cooler. And you're shocked there's gossip. Most of us know how to take anything posted anonymously -- with a large dose of scepticism. Must be wonderful to be "Above" everyone else. If you have such disdain, why are you here?

Thanks, TW. ATM needs to head to the house.

Date: Jun 30, 2005

Third Witch wrote:

Above the Mire, if you know so much, please share. You come on here and make comments about people gossiping, but where is the truth you possess? Oh, and by the way, this is a message board. Cyber equivalent of a water cooler. And you're shocked there's gossip. Most of us know how to take anything posted anonymously -- with a large dose of scepticism. Must be wonderful to be "Above" everyone else. If you have such disdain, why are you here?

Not above you or anybody else, but I am proudly and consistently above the "mire" of idle gossip and negative spin that is epidemic on this board.

You hold visitors to your board to a strict set of standards calling for fact, truth, and documentation while you allow yourselves a license to say whatever you wish about whomever you choose with little concern for accuracy and no regard to how much damage it might inflict. Your only requirement for yourselves is that your message promote your agenda. You should be ashamed.

Date: Jun 30, 2005

Troll alert!

RC

Date: Jun 30, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

Don't let the facts stop a good story. It is gossip that is the important thing. Don't change your ways at this late date.

You again.

Date: Jun 30, 2005

Like many other trolls or semi-trolls, A the M trots out the "you" without explaining who "you" is supposed to be. Why is it so hard for some people to grasp the concept of "open board" -- we already told you it was basically a water-cooler. What do you want? If you don't like it, nobody has chained your leg to the desk.