qwerty,

I am sorry, but I do not recall the exact testimony in question. I am going on what was told to me by someone involved in the process. I never saw a transcript and only heard the radio broadcast of the hearing. My impression is that what SFT said conflicted with some material that he had written. I do know that when the lunch break was called, the Judge met immediately with the two parties and suggested a settlement without the two professors testifying. I do not think the process would have been halted abruptly if there had not been a problem with SFT's testimony. The lawyer for the two professors would not agree to talk settlement unless the charges could be rebutted. You may recall that the in soliciting the professor’s rebuttal statements, there was no question about the evidence such that a false statement by SFT would be brought up. Perhaps we will know more when the two-year gag order is lifted.

A Face in the Crowd wrote:

---

Cossack wrote:
 My impression is that what SFT said conflicted with some material that he had written.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that your president's testimony that he started the email monitoring in January of 2004. His attorneys provided emails to/from Gary Stringer dated January and August of 2003 in the evidence packet and your president testified about them.

---

This is correct. The operative word for what he did is "perjury."

My understanding is the email monitoring began in January 2004 and the S.S. number was discovered in an email.  This was SFT’s basis for going after G&S.  After G&S were locked out of their offices and their computers confiscated, the other earlier emails were found on the hard drive. 

Now all of this may be wrong so please correct my misunderstanding.

 

Above the Mire wrote:

---

You need to take your Moltrin boys.  Your PMS is affecting your judgement.  If SFT had been wrong about Starsky and Hutch, the judge would have made him give them their jobs back, and they would have sued the school for about umpteen billion dollars.  Like usual you sound like a bunch of bitter, gossipy old women.    

---

"Above the Mire" needs to get an altimeter.

But they never had Stringer's hard drive after the afternoon Hanbury grilled him and Glamser. It was not available for them. It was a lap top and it was not in the office--so they did not get anything off of it then.

Interpretation wrote:

---

My understanding is the email monitoring began in January 2004 and the S.S. number was discovered in an email.  This was SFT’s basis for going after G&S.  After G&S were locked out of their offices and their computers confiscated, the other earlier emails were found on the hard drive.  Now all of this may be wrong so please correct my misunderstanding.  

---

 

Go with what you "remember".  Facts are just hinderences to good gossip on this board.  As a matter of fact, I would stretch your rememberance a little farther to make it a really good story.

JoJo, Son of Bubba, and Above the Mire sound like the same poster. Read one and you've read them all.

Tired prof wrote:

---

The only way they got emails off of anyone's hard drive was by breaking into the offices. I was told that someone in the computer science department had looked at the evidence packet and he could prove that Stringer's emails HAD to come from the hard drive. I also know that they broke into other offices--one in particular--but the computer was a lap top and had been taken home. Candy Santell knows all about this.

---

Breaking into offices. Sounds like Watergate. We even have our own Nixon.

How High is the Water, Mama? wrote:
it's just silly to play the victim role to such a level.

---

The things that happened at USM don't impact the nation in the way Watergate did, but the USM victims are still victims. Name recognition does not define who is a victim. The USM incident may be only a ship in a bottle, but those on that ship were nonetheless victims.

Robert Campbell wrote:

---

I was wondering whether Above the Mire was the same troll as Son of Bubba... or the same as Mama Troll/Gracie's Mom/USM Product/whoever. Looks like the answer is, same as Son of Bubba. RC

---

I agree, Robert.  I have thought for some time that it is only one person or at the most two.  We need some expert in linguistics to give us an analysis, but even I can read the same exact statements, i.e. "faculty are part of the problem", "faculty are losing support of community",  "people on this board attack anyone with a diffierent opinion", etc, etc.

Out of the COOp wrote:

---

Robert Campbell wrote: I was wondering whether Above the Mire was the same troll as Son of Bubba... or the same as Mama Troll/Gracie's Mom/USM Product/whoever. Looks like the answer is, same as Son of Bubba. RC Don't forget last year's trolls, a goodly number of them are back too.  Interesting timing...

---

I happen to know Gracie's Mom. After listening to her thoughts about our USM woes I encouraged her to post her opinions here, thinking that some of them had merit and deserved to be heard.  She was not a troll.  I am embarrassed by the way she was received, and even attacked by some of our more aggressive colleagues.  I'd be very surprised if she ever returns to this message board.

Third Witch wrote:

---

Faculty Grande Dame wrote: I am embarrassed by the way she was received, and even attacked by some of our more aggressive colleagues.  I'd be very surprised if she ever returns to this message board.

She started off ok. Many posters, including USM Symp, made a strenuous effort to be polite and responsive. She degenerated into the same-old-same-old and it was clear she was not here to be informed or to discuss, her original protestations to the contrary. If she never returns, it'll be too soon. You know, she or you or anyone is perfectly free to start their own board.

---

You're correct, Gracie's Mom wasn't here "to be informed,"  but to provide a perspective shared by many non-faculty members of the USM community,  potential supporters of our cause.  I mistakenly believed it would be instructive if we could hear first hand what they were thinking, and why.  She was by no means a pro-Thames agitator.  You're also correct in that USM Sympathizer and several others were civil to her.  Others were not, and they're the ones to whom I referred. I don't believe she became argumentative until attacked,  when she adopted the same angry posture as her attackers.  I have no idea whether they were faculty members, or just board (bored?) interlopers looking for a fight.  Not to worry, she won't return.  By the way,  teaching, committee responsibilities,  and research are consuming and I have neither the time or inclination to start a message board.  But thank you for the suggestion.

Prince of Paupers wrote:

---

Faculty Grande Dame wrote: Gracie's Mom wasn't here "to be informed,"  but to provide a perspective shared by many non-faculty members of the USM community,  potential supporters of our cause. 

Faculty Grande Dame, I see where you're coming from, but the problem is that if USM adopts anything but the perspective shared by respected academic institutions elsewhere, it will remain on probation, it will reman in tier four, and it will continue to be the red headed stepchild of the IHL. USM's choice is between (1) adopting a national perspective and moving upwards, or (2) adopting a local perspective and moving sideways at best.

---

I absolutely agree with everything you just said.  I suppose I didn't express my original intentions clearly.  I never thought that Gracie's Mom's perspective would become ours, or that she would  convert any of us.  I simply felt that in the face of repeated posts here by individuals I believe to be members of the USM faculty,  expressing consternation over the apparent anti-faculty sentiments of the community-at-large, it would be helpful to hear from one of them directly.  I think it's helpful to know what the other side is thinking, and why. It could have been an instructive, if not constructive exchange.  Instead she was labeled a troll, insults were exchanged,  and the dialogue went up in smoke. I'm sorry I ever suggested that she participate. It was an ill conceived idea from the start. As the young folks say, my bad.

Faculty Grande Dame wrote:

---

 Gracie's Mom wasn't here "to be informed,"  but to provide a perspective shared by many non-faculty members of the USM community,  potential supporters of our cause.  I mistakenly believed it would be instructive if we could hear first hand what they were thinking, and why.  She was by no means a pro-Thames agitator.  You're also correct in that USM 

---

F. Grande Dame:

Everyone should be treated in a courteous manner, no question about it, but I think Gracie's Mom stumbled into a nest of hornets totally unprepared. Dumping her onto this message board was like advising a friend to visit Brazil with no knowledge of some of the basic phrases in the language of that country (like "I'm lost," "Where is the nearest police station?", "How much does that dress cost?," or "I demand to see a lawyer." There are some basic prerequisites for engaging in an intelligent discussion about academics matters. Gracie's Mom seemed to posses none of that knowledge. You say that Gracie's Mom was not a troll. I'll accept that. I suspect that some posters confused her with being a troll, however, because most of the trolls who surface on this board are also lacking in the basic language and knowledge of academics. Posters had no way of knowing Gracie's Mom's level of sophistication in academic matters. That's no excuse for any poster being discourteous, but neither is there an excuse for directing somebody into a nest of hornets totally unprepared.