Fourth Tier Question - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 13, 2005

RE: Fourth Tier Question

Date: Jul 14, 2005

AtM,

By now, if you had learned anything at all from this board, you would know that the national AAUP is not a labor union. (Some of its chapters--the ones that serve as "collective bargaining agents"--are unions, but they are in the minority and AAUP-USM isn't among them.)

As for my alleged status as an outside agitator... No outside agitators were necessary, to stir up a crisis at USM. Shelby Thames and a handful of his flunkies did more than enough agitating, all by themselves.

Robert Campbell

PS. Of course you aren't going to provide a link to your CV. Trolls never provide genunine information about anything. Might it also be because all your talk about who's a lightweight and who's a heavyweight is empty bragging?

Date: Jul 14, 2005

Even if Robert Campbell is outside of Mississippi, he isn't outside of academia. This struggle is between academia and the barbarians, not just between USM faculty and SFT. They are just the participants on this front of the battle.

Date: Jul 14, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

AtM, By now, if you had learned anything at all from this board, you would know that the national AAUP is not a labor union. (Some of its chapters--the ones that serve as "collective bargaining agents"--are unions, but they are in the minority and AAUP-USM isn't among them.) As for my alleged status as an outside agitator... No outside agitators were necessary, to stir up a crisis at USM. Shelby Thames and a handful of his flunkies did more than enough agitating, all by themselves. Robert Campbell PS. Of course you aren't going to provide a link to your CV. Trolls never provide genunine information about anything. Might it also be because all your talk about who's a lightweight and who's a heavyweight is empty bragging?

I wasn't bragging at all. I simply said that my accomplishments were greater than yours. As a matter of fact, I have a twelve year old daughter whose accomplishments are greater than yours. That's not bragging. That's simply pointing out that pretty much anybody who has gone out in the world and done anything at all has accomplished more than you.

I love your scientific arguments and your citing of evidence such as, "Trolls never provide genunine (whatever that is) information about anything blah blah blah." That something never happens is a very difficult supposition to support, but I'm sure a true man among men like you can do it.

I also love your argument earlier where you spin this fantasy about why I must be someone you have attacked, a friend of someone you attacked, or someone who is about to be cut off the USM dole. That one is a true masterful piece of logical reasoning, and your evidence is overwhelming. Dr. Judd, where are you? There must be a few dozen reasons for not liking you with a big "you are pompous ass who is attacking our alma mater" right up there at the top. Wake up man. Some of us "trolls" are trying to get our own faculty to lay off the gossip and the personal attacks and get on with rebuilding. How could you possibly be surprised that we don't like you sticking your petty and uninformed nose in our affairs? Are you so dumb that you think we should like and respect you?

As far as the reasons behind the way Shelby's contract was renewed - you don't have a clue. Like in most matters, you run you mouth and run your mouth, but nothing of consequence comes out. It would really frost you if you knew the real story behind SFT's contract renewal. To the ones who are privileged to acurate information, you are pretty pathetic. You might just want to add that to the reasons that many of us find you so abrasive.

Date: Jul 14, 2005

You were "privileged" to have "accurate" information? That narrows down who you are, doesn't it? How come "accurate" information is only available to the "privileged" few? This is, the last time I looked, a public institution, and its doings should be transparent.

And your 12-year old daughter has a PhD and is a tenured professor? That's amazing.

Date: Jul 14, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

Actually it's so simple even you should be able to understand it. The aaup is a labor union, and you are an outside agitator. Outside of your little circle of misfits, nobody has much respect for either.

Where I come from, AtM, you piece of reactionary trash, it's a mark of honor to say you're a union man/woman.

If it weren't for unions in this country, the 14 hour day/6 day week would still be standard, children would start work at 9 or 10, workers would have no retirement, no healthcare insurance, no on-the-job safety and health protections, no chance at a decent life. Geezus, even the idea for Social Security originated in progressive era union retirement initiatives!

Further, hundreds, even thousands of union activists trying to secure a better life for working people were gunned down by folks who, like AtM, called them "outside agitators" and who considered "labor union" a derisive term. I have the deepest respect for those people, those agitators. I have the deepest respect for those union men and women and who fought and bled and sometimes freaking DIED so that their children had a shot at a decent life. And I know LOTS of people who feel the same way. Lots. And none of them, not a freaking one, is anywhere near RC and his circle.

To hear some rancid piece of petty bushwa town boy scum like AtM malign labor unions after all that they've done for regular folks in this country. . . . well it's only too bad that the AAUP isn't a REAL union, like the Mineworkers, or the ILA (longshoremen). Real unions know exactly how to deal with the kind of garbage that's been served up by Thames and his henchscabs: they seek injunctions, they boycott, they strike, they picket, they sabotage and if push comes to shove, they ain't afraid to push back.

If the AAUP was that kind of union, the Dome Dummy'd have been out on his bulbous, incompetent petty bushwa ear last year.

Solidarity Forever . . . the AAUP keeps us strong

Date: Jul 14, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

I wasn't bragging at all. I simply said that my accomplishments were greater than yours. As a matter of fact, I have a twelve year old daughter whose accomplishments are greater than yours. That's not bragging. That's simply pointing out that pretty much anybody who has gone out in the world and done anything at all has accomplished more than you. I love your scientific arguments and your citing of evidence such as, "Trolls never provide genunine (whatever that is) information about anything blah blah blah." That something never happens is a very difficult supposition to support, but I'm sure a true man among men like you can do it. I also love your argument earlier where you spin this fantasy about why I must be someone you have attacked, a friend of someone you attacked, or someone who is about to be cut off the USM dole. That one is a true masterful piece of logical reasoning, and your evidence is overwhelming. Dr. Judd, where are you? There must be a few dozen reasons for not liking you with a big "you are pompous ass who is attacking our alma mater" right up there at the top. Wake up man. Some of us "trolls" are trying to get our own faculty to lay off the gossip and the personal attacks and get on with rebuilding. How could you possibly be surprised that we don't like you sticking your petty and uninformed nose in our affairs? Are you so dumb that you think we should like and respect you? As far as the reasons behind the way Shelby's contract was renewed - you don't have a clue. Like in most matters, you run you mouth and run your mouth, but nothing of consequence comes out. It would really frost you if you knew the real story behind SFT's contract renewal. To the ones who are privileged to acurate information, you are pretty pathetic. You might just want to add that to the reasons that many of us find you so abrasive.

Keep up the good work, Robert! It's great to see how you can really get the goat of this kind of nitwit! You are obviously doing something very right.

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Beelzebubba wrote:

Keep up the good work, Robert! It's great to see how you can really get the goat of this kind of nitwit! You are obviously doing something very right.

Professor Campbell is just too swift for AtM whose head must be rockin' 'n reeling everytime he receives a reply from the professor.

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Smarty Pants wrote:

Professor Campbell is just too swift for AtM whose head must be rockin' 'n reeling everytime he receives a reply from the professor.

I agree, SP. AtM's comment about his alleged 12-year-old daughter was a pathetic response and is the main reason I decided to call him a "nitwit."

Date: Jul 15, 2005

"I also love your argument earlier where you spin this fantasy about why I must be someone you have attacked, a friend of someone you attacked, or someone who is about to be cut off the USM dole. That one is a true masterful piece of logical reasoning, and your evidence is overwhelming. Dr. Judd, where are you?"

I'm a bit busy at the moment . . . trying to do my job.

However, I'm not very sympathetic here. Most of the "evidence" you claim should be put forward on this thread has already been forward throughout this website and its previous incarnation Fire Shelby. Regular discussants are under no obligation to keep reinventing the wheel for those who those who are more interested in provocation and attack than in an exchnage of ideas.

An academic's first loyalty is to his or her profession. And while our home community is important to us, it is less important than the much broader community to which we have dedicated our lives. I'd advise you to read Richard Florida's book "The Rise of the Creative Class" in which he analyzes how technology and market forces have changed our traditional view of individuals and communities.

" Our fundamental social forms are shifting as well., driven by forces traceable to the creative ethos. In virtually every aspect of life, weak ties have replaced stronger bonds that once gave structure to society. Rather than live in one town for decades, we now move about. Instead of communities defined by close associations and deep commitments to family, friends, and organizations, we seek places where we can make freidns and acquantiances easily and live semi-anaonymous lives. The decline in the strength of our ties to people and institutions is a product of the increasing number of ties we have . . ."

In this new world, it is no longer the organizations we work for, churches, neighborhoods,, or even family ties that define us. Instead, we do this ourselves, defining our identities along the varied dimensions of our creativity."

By the way, this is NOT limited to academics. Business people operating at the national and international level have similar sets of ties and conflicting and complicated loyalties as well.

The fact is, Dr. Campbell knows the situation at USM as well as any academic here knows it because there are cultural patterns and community ethos that transcend the particularizations of locale. USM, believe it or not, by the nature of its work is a regional, national and international community before it is a local one. That may be difficult for some members of the Hattiesburg community to take -- although it should be a source of pride. This means that it is inevitable that the goals of the university and the town may collide -- just as such things happen when an international business moves in to a town.

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

I wasn't bragging at all. I simply said that my accomplishments were greater than yours. As a matter of fact, I have a twelve year old daughter whose accomplishments are greater than yours. That's not bragging. That's simply pointing out that pretty much anybody who has gone out in the world and done anything at all has accomplished more than you. ...
...There must be a few dozen reasons for not liking you with a big "you are pompous ass who is attacking our alma mater" right up there at the top. Wake up man. Some of us "trolls" are trying to get our own faculty to lay off the gossip and the personal attacks and get on with rebuilding. How could you possibly be surprised that we don't like you sticking your petty and uninformed nose in our affairs? Are you so dumb that you think we should like and respect you?
As far as the reasons behind the way Shelby's contract was renewed - you don't have a clue. Like in most matters, you run you mouth and run your mouth, but nothing of consequence comes out. It would really frost you if you knew the real story behind SFT's contract renewal. To the ones who are privileged to acurate information, you are pretty pathetic. You might just want to add that to the reasons that many of us find you so abrasive.

AtM,

When I said that trolls never provide genuine information, I meant that trolls traffic in lies, bull$hit and insults, not genuine evidence or argument. In the process, though, trolls do often let things slip that they would prefer their audiences didn't know about them.

One thing you let slip: By refusing to disclose your professional accomplishments, while keeping on with your aggressive putdown of mine, you are showing your complete contempt for professors everywhere. From your point of view, academics much more famous than I will ever be have also never "gone out in the world" or "done anything at all." I guess your dismissal is also meant to apply to academics who have worked in the private sector, since I am one of them (or did you read far enough down the first page of my CV to notice?).

Another thing you let slip: Your talk about "our alma mater" and "our faculty" indicates that you are either an upper administrator at USM, a person tightly connected with the upper administration at USM--or a damned good imitator of one or the other.

You go on to claim that you are "privileged to accurate information" about the IHL Board's reasons for giving Shelby Thames another year, instead of letting his contract expire in May 2006 (or firing him on the spot, as he actually deserved). I certainly do not have any inside sources on the Board. I don't know of any regular contributors here who do. The only thing the IHL Board has been consistently good at, over the last 3 years, is plugging leaks about its behind-the- scenes maneuvering.

So tell us what really went on. We're all ears. Tell us what USM professors aren't "privileged" to know. Tell us what most USM administrators aren't "privileged" to know.

Keep on talking. You're close to giving away who you really are.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jul 15, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

"I also love your argument earlier where you spin this fantasy about why I must be someone you have attacked, a friend of someone you attacked, or someone who is about to be cut off the USM dole. That one is a true masterful piece of logical reasoning, and your evidence is overwhelming. Dr. Judd, where are you?" I'm a bit busy at the moment . . . trying to do my job. However, I'm not very sympathetic here. Most of the "evidence" you claim should be put forward on this thread has already been forward throughout this website and its previous incarnation Fire Shelby. Regular discussants are under no obligation to keep reinventing the wheel for those who those who are more interested in provocation and attack than in an exchnage of ideas. An academic's first loyalty is to his or her profession. And while our home community is important to us, it is less important than the much broader community to which we have dedicated our lives. I'd advise you to read Richard Florida's book "The Rise of the Creative Class" in which he analyzes how technology and market forces have changed our traditional view of individuals and communities. " Our fundamental social forms are shifting as well., driven by forces traceable to the creative ethos. In virtually every aspect of life, weak ties have replaced stronger bonds that once gave structure to society. Rather than live in one town for decades, we now move about. Instead of communities defined by close associations and deep commitments to family, friends, and organizations, we seek places where we can make freidns and acquantiances easily and live semi-anaonymous lives. The decline in the strength of our ties to people and institutions is a product of the increasing number of ties we have . . ." In this new world, it is no longer the organizations we work for, churches, neighborhoods,, or even family ties that define us. Instead, we do this ourselves, defining our identities along the varied dimensions of our creativity." By the way, this is NOT limited to academics. Business people operating at the national and international level have similar sets of ties and conflicting and complicated loyalties as well. The fact is, Dr. Campbell knows the situation at USM as well as any academic here knows it because there are cultural patterns and community ethos that transcend the particularizations of locale. USM, believe it or not, by the nature of its work is a regional, national and international community before it is a local one. That may be difficult for some members of the Hattiesburg community to take -- although it should be a source of pride. This means that it is inevitable that the goals of the university and the town may collide -- just as such things happen when an international business moves in to a town.

This is one of the best posts -- in substance, clarity, and style -- that I have read in a long time. Kudos to Stephen Judd.

(AtM: "kudos" is not a particular breed of kudzu; in means "congratulations.")

Date: Jul 15, 2005

PS:

In the quotation I gave above, I apologize for not extracting Stephen Judd's thoughtful post from AtM's frothings. It pains me that I allowed these two contrasting pieces of prose to come in contact with one another. I wish activeboard had never changed its old quotation method.

Date: Jul 15, 2005

In answer to your questions as to who is to blame, it doesn't matter how good the faculty are and the standards. Once USM gained the reputation in the last two to three years as a bad place to work and study, kiss it goodbye. Face it, our reputation has suffered far and wide. Nothing to do with faculty or other things. News like that we have generated in the last few years travels fast, and when officials at other universities do their rankings, they stick it to us. You don't flaunt the rules of the academy like Shelboo has done and expect anything better.

Date: Jul 15, 2005

donald wrote:

In answer to your questions as to who is to blame, it doesn't matter how good the faculty are and the standards. Once USM gained the reputation in the last two to three years as a bad place to work and study, kiss it goodbye. Face it, our reputation has suffered far and wide. Nothing to do with faculty or other things. News like that we have generated in the last few years travels fast, and when officials at other universities do their rankings, they stick it to us. You don't flaunt the rules of the academy like Shelboo has done and expect anything better.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. If the school is as bad off as you all say, you faculty members have to share the blame. Many of you have been running USM down at every opportunity and in every medium possible including professional conferences, conversations with colleagues at other schools, and with emails, personal letters, and letters to the editor. Of course public and professional perception has been affected.

Here's where I have a problem. You all have spread more negative gossip in the past couple years than a town full of beauty shops. Now if the quality of education at USM is actually down, you have to share the responsibility. If it is not down, you have been at least quilty of exagerating the problem on the campus. Now which is it? I happen to believe that our plight is a matter of perception to a large degree, and it can be turned around in a reasonable period if we work together. If you continue to pursue your "no quarter" attacks, we can probably kiss the quality of our product goodbye.

I'll never change your opinion, but you can.

Date: Jul 15, 2005

When SFT pulled his shenanigans with the deans, the Kenbot, and the attempted firings, word was out all over the academic world. The faculty did not have to talk.

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

I happen to believe that our plight is a matter of perception to a large degree

I hate to be the one to break the news to you, AtM, but the "perception" extends back many years.

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. If the school is as bad off as you all say, you faculty members have to share the blame. Many of you have been running USM down at every opportunity and in every medium possible including professional conferences, conversations with colleagues at other schools, and with emails, personal letters, and letters to the editor. ...

Just like Seeker, JoJo, Gracie's Mom (and how many others?) you have not showed, explained or given any reason to believe "faculty must share the blame". It is the responsibility of all faculty to communicate truth. That is what has been done at professional conferences, conversations with colleagues and in letters to the editor. You, Above the Mire, like SFT and the IHL seem only to be affected by public opinion. If it wasn't out in the open you couldn't care less about what goes on at USM.

The faculty have been trying to save USM. They tried every way they knew to warn the administration, the IHL and the public and only get the mindset you dish out above.

You blame the faculty for the truth getting out. Wow!

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

Above the Mire wrote: I wasn't bragging at all. I simply said that my accomplishments were greater than yours. As a matter of fact, I have a twelve year old daughter whose accomplishments are greater than yours. That's not bragging. That's simply pointing out that pretty much anybody who has gone out in the world and done anything at all has accomplished more than you. ... ...There must be a few dozen reasons for not liking you with a big "you are pompous ass who is attacking our alma mater" right up there at the top. Wake up man. Some of us "trolls" are trying to get our own faculty to lay off the gossip and the personal attacks and get on with rebuilding. How could you possibly be surprised that we don't like you sticking your petty and uninformed nose in our affairs? Are you so dumb that you think we should like and respect you? As far as the reasons behind the way Shelby's contract was renewed - you don't have a clue. Like in most matters, you run you mouth and run your mouth, but nothing of consequence comes out. It would really frost you if you knew the real story behind SFT's contract renewal. To the ones who are privileged to acurate information, you are pretty pathetic. You might just want to add that to the reasons that many of us find you so abrasive. AtM, When I said that trolls never provide genuine information, I meant that trolls traffic in lies, bull$hit and insults, not genuine evidence or argument. In the process, though, trolls do often let things slip that they would prefer their audiences didn't know about them.

One thing you let slip: By refusing to disclose your professional accomplishments, while keeping onwith your aggressive putdown of mine, you are showing your complete contempt for professors everywhere.

No slip at all RC. MY dislike for you is for you as an individual. It has nothing to do with our faculty. Your statement is just another in a long series of inflamatory, groundless allegations.

From your point of view, academics much more famous than I will ever be have also never "gone out in the world" or "done anything at all." I guess your dismissal is also meant to apply to academics who have worked in the private sector, since I am one of them (or did you read far enough down the first page of my CV to notice?).

Yep. You must be proud of your voyage on the sinking IBM ship. I'm sure that if you had continued there you would have turned that corporation around - or was Shelby Thames involved in that demise also?

Another thing you let slip: Your talk about "our alma mater" and "our faculty" indicates that you are either an upper administrator at USM, a person tightly connected with the upper administration at USM--or a damned good imitator of one or the other.

No slip here either old boy. USM is an important part of the community so the the word "our" is perfectly appropriate whether I have ever set foot on campus or not. That I am an graduate is certainly not a slip. I'm proud of it. As far as your other allegations, well maybe or maybe not, but nothing I said "slipped" and nothing I said lent any evidence that I am or that I am not.

You go on to claim that you are "privileged to accurate information" about the IHL Board's reasons for giving Shelby Thames another year, instead of letting his contract expire in May 2006 (or firing him on the spot, as he actually deserved). I certainly do not have any inside sources on the Board. I don't know of any regular contributors here who do. The only thing the IHL Board has been consistently good at, over the last 3 years, is plugging leaks about its behind-the- scenes maneuvering. on tSo tell us what really went on. We're all ears. Tell us what USM professors aren't "privileged" to know. Tell us what most USM administrators aren't "privileged" to know. Keep on talking. You're close to giving away who you really are. Robert Campbell

Even though the IHL Board's discussions of individual personnel issues would make juicy gossip for you and your menions, it has to be privileged for obvious reasons. It is also obvious that the personal attacks served to allienate the IHL Board toward your cause more than they helped. Even though that stuff is an age old labor union tactic, nobody likes it. It drives people away. It is also obvious that the discention on the campus has to be ended, and that that would never happen as long as Shelby is president. Now can you figure the rest of it out or do I need to draw you a picture?

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Stephen Judd wrote:

I'm a bit busy at the moment . . . trying to do my job.

Dr. Judd, I had sincerely hoped for more than this from you. I would sincerly like to set up a debate over where we go from here and how do we get there.

I understand the phenomenon of the mobile modern society and technological advances in the telecommunications industry. I have even heard of the internet.

Can you honestly tell me that even with all these modern advances you wouldn't mind if I came into your home and started telling you that everything about it including your family was corrupt? Would changing social mores and technological advances keep you from kicking my ass out of your house?

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

I would sincerly like to set up a debate over where we go from here and how do we get there.

What qualifies you to debate this?

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. If the school is as bad off as you all say, you faculty members have to share the blame. Many of you have been running USM down at every opportunity and in every medium possible including professional conferences, conversations with colleagues at other schools, and with emails, personal letters, and letters to the editor. Of course public and professional perception has been affected. Here's where I have a problem. You all have spread more negative gossip in the past couple years than a town full of beauty shops. Now if the quality of education at USM is actually down, you have to share the responsibility.

AtM,

With all due respect, this doesn't make much sense. If I perceive that my house is on fire and I suspect that the guy to whom I rented an upstairs room started the fire (along with a couple of his irresponsible buddies) and that he is presently dousing it with gasoline, am I to blame for (1) alerting the fire department; (2) reporting my suspicions about the renter and hus buddies to the police; and (3) talking to a newspaper reporter who shows up on the scene? According to your logic, I would be to blame for all of these actions, while the most you seem to be able to say about the renter is that maybe it's time for him to find a new place to live. The logic of this escapes me.

Now, if you HONESTLY want to have a discussion about how to improve the future of USM, please make a civil suggestion about how YOU would improve it, and then I promise to respond with civility as well. I can assure you that you will get other civil responses as well. The only reason you have been treated as a troll previously is that you have acted like one (e.g., claiming that your 12-year-old daughter is more accomplished than a full professor at a university with a much better reputation than USM's).

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

Can you honestly tell me that even with all these modern advances you wouldn't mind if I came into your home and started telling you that everything about it including your family was corrupt? Would changing social mores and technological advances keep you from kicking my ass out of your house?

I'm not sure where you're going with this AtM Machine, nor am I 100% certain that you know where you're going with this, but... If you're suggesting that USM is Shelby Thames' "house' any more than it's Stephen Judd's house or my house or even Frank Glamser's house, you're dead wrong.

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

Can you honestly tell me that even with all these modern advances you wouldn't mind if I came into your home and started telling you that everything about it including your family was corrupt?

Whoa, no wonder you are unset Above the Mire. I had no idea USM was your personal property. If you would had informed this board earlier I'm sure your comments would have been considered with more respect.

But we do see how you think. To you USM is yours and the faculty (outsiders) are saying negative things about your university.

If I'm faculty living in H'burg in my 38th year at USM, would you let me consider USM my university also?

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Above the Mire...

or should I address you as Son of Bubba?

Let me see if I get this straight.

You keep running down my professional accomplishments because you don't like me. End of story.

You seem just the kind of guy who for whom all professors who support Shelby Thames are hard-working and productive, and all professors who oppose him are lazy, self-centered gossipers. Such easy judgments to make! All you need to know is their political allegiance. There's no need for you to address what they've taught, what they've published, or any remotely objective indication of their productivity. If they support Thames, they work wonders; if they don't, they haven't done diddly.

Meanwhile, I haven't dismissed your professional accomplishments. I've merely asked you what they are. A shower of abuse is not an answer.

You say:

Even though the IHL Board's discussions of individual personnel issues would make juicy gossip for you and your menions, it has to be privileged for obvious reasons. It is also obvious that the personal attacks served to allienate the IHL Board toward your cause more than they helped. Even though that stuff is an age old labor union tactic, nobody likes it. It drives people away. It is also obvious that the discention on the campus has to be ended, and that that would never happen as long as Shelby is president. Now can you figure the rest of it out or do I need to draw you a picture?

You know, a lot of people could say what you just said about the IHL Board's recent deliberations and behind-the-scenes politicking. Not a smidgeon of inside knowledge required. Even I, in my gross ignorance, have opined that the Board figured it would have to get rid of Thames, or the dissension on campus and resulting bad publicity for the Board would never end. You could have gotten the same idea from reading a couple of newspaper editorials.

As for "personal attacks" alienating the Board, I doubt that most Board members have ever liked seeing their choices openly criticized, but--how far are we supposed to take this? Are you telling us that if faculty members had all refrained from public criticism of Shelby Thames. the Board would have gotten rid of him in 2004? If they'd been extra quiet, in 2003? Or, if the faculty had behaved like old-fashioned British children, the kind that are seen and not heard, the Board wouldn't have made him President at all?

If you're really privy to the deliberations of the IHL Board, yes, prove it to us by drawing that picture. I've seen newspaper horoscopes that are more specific than you've been so far.

Otherwise, we'll all have to conclude that you don't have any more of an inside track on this stuff than we do.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

Meanwhile, I haven't dismissed your professional accomplishments. I've merely asked you what they are. A shower of abuse is not an answer.

He aims; he shoots; he SCORES!

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

As for "personal attacks" alienating the Board, I doubt that most Board members have ever liked seeing their choices openly criticized, but--how far are we supposed to take this? Are you telling us that if faculty members had all refrained from public criticism of Shelby Thames. the Board would have gotten rid of him in 2004? If they'd been extra quiet, in 2003? Or, if the faculty had behaved like old-fashioned British children, the kind that are seen and not heard, the Board wouldn't have made him President at all?

And the crowd goes WILD as Campbell once more makes a fool of AtM!

Date: Jul 15, 2005

My question remains unanswered. It is a serious question that needs to be answered. If you refuse to address it in this medium, there are those who will address it in a more public format.

I have not attempted to defend the administration, but you continue to rebutt my arguments with SFT accusations. It isn't logical and it's not reasonable, but it's your way of avoiding a painfully obvious problem that you have created yourselves.

Out of your hatred for an individual you have damaged an institution who is loved by thousands, and upon which thousands depend on for nuture and support. The individual who has been the target of you ire for the last couple of years is on his way out. The damage he caused will be repaired quickly. The damage that you caused will go on for a long time.

You don't play the game the way you played it. There is no honor in what you have done. You have been foolish. You have angered many, not because you challenged an administration, or because you defended what you see as right, but because of the way you fought. There is no victory here - only destruction and hard feelings, and you do have culpability.

There are several of us who have come on this board and let you know that we are not sorry to see Shelby Thames go - not because we hate him, but because it is obvious that our problems cannot be solved with him at the helm. We have been insulted and accused of lying about this point. I'm not sure what we would accomplish by lying to you about this, but somehow it is important to you to think so.

I don't even have an agenda here unless you count my dislike for RC. I would just like my original question answered. Obviously is is somewhat of a dilemma, but it is not a trick question. It is a very serious one.

Date: Jul 15, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

If they support Thames, they work wonders; if they don't, they haven't done diddly.

Isn't this the definition of quality at USM? Loyalty to Shelby is job one. Shelby, when you read this please know that the loyalty is leaking...who is it that you can count on? Are you sure? Your most recent dumps have sent shock waves.

Date: Jul 15, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Just like Seeker....you have not showed, explained or given any reason to believe "faculty must share the blame".

Why do certain of you insist on including Seeker with the various faculty-bashers who surface on this message board? I happen to find his posts thoughtful and incisive. I think we're fortunate to have him as a semi-regular contributor. I, for one, appreciate his insights and find many of his comments to be constructive.