Hanbury's OP-ED Piece Rebutted - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 29, 2005

RE: Hanbury's OP-ED Piece Rebutted

Date: Jul 31, 2005

No, Invictus, I am not trolling. I am raising some issues that are apparently too difficult for the bulk of the posters here to grasp.

My first point in the thread was that Kate Green's response was fueled by her passions and biases and not by facts. She made claims that (I am sure) she believes to be true; however, she did not provide enough specifics to support her claims that JH is an idiot. Further, she makes the outright ludicrous remark that JH would be welcome to sit through her classes in constitutional law. When I stated my baseline opinion (questioning KG's credentials in offering her critique), I was attacked for not providing facts or specifics. I then did so in a subsequent post. I find it amusing that the message board community here assembled elevates KG (as well as other "favorite" posters) to champion status through her opinion-heavy (and fact-lean) op-ed letter-writing but demands more from new posters on the board. Note this as Double Standard #1: Those who do not toe the message board line play by a much stricter standard than those who simply say "SFT is the devil and JH, AD, MD, KM, and LM are his minions." If you expect anyone to use facts and logical argument, then you should force everyone to do so. No opinions presented as fact. No argument without documentation. No allowance for who the poster is or where they work or what their opinion is.

When I was attacked for suggesting that KG might not have a dominant position with respect to constitutional law when compared to JH (because of their respective credentials), I was attacked again for questioning the authority and motives of one who, according to one poster, has done "so much" for USM. This sounds like the same type of reasoning that SFT's supporters use when lifting him up. No specifics were given regarding KG's contributions. Am I just supposed to take the poster's word that KG is a valuable member of the USM community wo is beyond reproach? Again, this is an example of Double Standard #1.

Then, I was attacked vis-a-vis the "conservatives are evil" movement that permeates this board at times. I had made no statement about conservatism or liberalism. Reference Mickey M.'s first post. Call this Double Standard #2: If something can be remotely tied to conservatism (through whatever ends justify the means), then it will be attacked and destroyed. [Corollary: Liberalism is good. Always.] While I had made no real issue of politics at this point, I was awash in a wave of baseless criticism for doing so.

Then, Stephen Judd interjected a thoughtful comment regarding argument, point of view, and thoughtful discussion that, though I fundamentally disagree with it, provided a well-thought-out argument. I am considering opening a can of worms with him, though it will have to follow this post.

Then truth4usm/AH decided she wanted to take a portion of my argument out of context and try to use it against me. Double Standard #3: Use whatever dirty tricks necessary to put down the opposition but demand fair treatment when they rebut.

Then I was labeled a troll and was hit with Flit. Nice. An opinionated person who provides facts and logic (see Left ASAP's post...thanks, by the way, for the response) gets the usual troll treatment. "Graduate of Honkeytonk U" raised some specific claims to which there was no response. Is it OK to throw books at students for any reason? Is is OK to use the f-word in class as a matter of course? Nobody bothered to respond to those claims. Then "litup" made a point that was totally missed by the collective mind here. At this point, I figured that the groupthink machine was in full effect.

I knew it was going to the dogs when Strephen Judd told a poster that "we don't always agree on what a fact is" or some such nonsense. The qualifications for being a fact are pretty clear, but I guess we're starting to argue about what the meaning of "is" is. I then said that the "facts" in the G&S case were just items upon which some of the faculty and the Thames administration did not agree, a statement that has been misunderstood and twisted while I was away on a golf trip to Georgia. Now that I'm back, let me say this:

As a member of the academic community, Kate Green should have written a more thoughtful letter that was supported by (and that did not merely allude to) factual information to bolster her claims against JH's column. Further, she should have left off the invitation to attend her classes, as it paints her (and the rest of the faculty) as know-it-alls who always have to have the last word. In short: Make your point in a clear and concise manner and then gracefully exit the scene.

If someone would like to tell me what is wrong with the paragraph immediately preceding this one (other than any grammatical issues), I would like to see it in a response here.

Date: Jul 31, 2005

Now:

Stephen Judd,

I want to ask some questions, and maybe you'll be good enough to respond to them so that I can get a grasp of where you're answers are coming from. Is it your job to shape young minds, or is it your job to allow young minds to shape themselves?

The statement has been made that the liberal point of view presented in USM classes may be the only exposure these students have to such views. What does this say to you?

Whose progeny are these young people, or does that even matter? Should we be trying to affect a mode of thought that is 180 degrees against the thought process of the students' parent(s) or family?

Is it OK to always push one side of the argument in class without ever showing students that other views are OK to argue as well? Specifically (and just for instance), do you advocate always arguing "conservative" viewpoints as fact, or do you think the instructor should also show students that it's OK to argue "liberal" viewpoints as well?

What recourse is there (beyond the professor) for a student to appeal a grade if they think they are being discriminated against based on their religion, politics, or upbringing? Is this process double-blind?

Date: Jul 31, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote [in part]:

Should we be trying to affect a mode of thought that is 180 degrees against the thought process of the students' parent(s) or family?

Could you clarify your position here?

Are you suggesting that the university needs to be the agent of conserving whatever presuppositions a student brings to the university? If so, isn't this suggestion antithetical to the realities of a university education?

I've heard it said that education comes from the Latin educo, to lead out. I've also read studies that indicate university education tends to change students' presuppositions permanently. That is, university education tends to challenge and change students, often away from their families. Thus, one of the salient features of a university education is, in fact, a change in thought process.

So, are you saying that the university's changing a person's perceptions is universally wrong? Or are you making a particular claim about something locally overlooked?

Date: Jul 31, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

I had made no statement about conservatism or liberalism.

You made no statement about conservatism of liberalism? What you said is a matter of record, Mr. Thomas. You said: "I agree that both conservatives and liberals have been activists in the past. However, the conservatives on the court have not acted to overturn any "liberal" cornerstones."

Date: Jul 31, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

I was away on a golf trip to Georgia. Now that I'm back, let me say this...

Away on a golf trip to Georgia. Imagine that.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Mickey M. wrote:

Doubting Thomas wrote:
I had made no statement about conservatism or liberalism.
You made no statement about conservatism of liberalism? What you said is a matter of record, Mr. Thomas. You said: "I agree that both conservatives and liberals have been activists in the past. However, the conservatives on the court have not acted to overturn any "liberal" cornerstones."

This is a simple statement of fact, not a value judgment. KG states that currently the most activist justices are conservatives. I simply point out that the "conservative" dominated SC has not overturned any "liberal" cornerstone cases. I make no statement about the activism of "liberal" justices with respect to "conservative" cornerstones. In short, I am simply pointing out that the current "activists" aren't that "activist." Just a fact.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

19th hole wrote:

Doubting Thomas wrote:
I was away on a golf trip to Georgia. Now that I'm back, let me say this...

Away on a golf trip to Georgia. Imagine that.

So what? It was the weekend. Are you so paranoid that you'd like to dictate/criticize my weekend activities along with what I do M-F at USM?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

So what? It was the weekend. Are you so paranoid that you'd like to dictate/criticize my weekend activities along with what I do M-F at USM?

It's not that I care what you weekend hobbies might be, D.T., it's that I wasn't previously aware that we were dealing with such an important and affluent person. I'm so glad you felt compelled to tell us about it.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Mickey M. wrote:

It's not that I care what you weekend hobbies might be, D.T., it's that I wasn't previously aware that we were dealing with such an important and affluent person. I'm so glad you felt compelled to tell us about it.

Are you suggesting that if one's hobby is golf, it follows that the individual is "important and affluent?" Or are you just attempting to be clever? Or snide?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Bobby Jones wrote:

Mickey M. wrote:
It's not that I care what you weekend hobbies might be, D.T., it's that I wasn't previously aware that we were dealing with such an important and affluent person. I'm so glad you felt compelled to tell us about it.
Are you suggesting that if one's hobby is golf, it follows that the individual is "important and affluent?" Or are you just attempting to be clever? Or snide?

MM might be suggesting that anyone who can travel two states over to play golf might have a fuzz more disposable income that some of the rest of us. Or a different set of priorities. And MM might be suggesting that the simple statement about being on a "weekend golf trip to Georgia" sounded a tad self-important.

Personally, I don't give a rat's hindquarters what DT did this weekend, nor do I expect him/her to care what I did.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Invictus wrote:

... Personally, I don't give a rat's hindquarters what DT did this weekend, nor do I expect him/her to care what I did.

I agree, Invictus. It's all in the logic. Some people get distracted by the icing on the cake.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Invictus wrote:

MM might be suggesting that anyone who can travel two states over to play golf might have a fuzz more disposable income that some of the rest of us. Or a different set of priorities . . . . . And MM might be suggesting that the simple statement about being on a "weekend golf trip to Georgia" sounded a tad self-important.

Both of the above.

Neither of D.T.'s statements about golf and Georgia are relevant to this board.

Taken together they sound rather pompous. And a bit contrived.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Yep, I agree, Philosopher. Plus, I missed that part in HS debate where you are supposed to overwhelm your opponent with a list of your expensive, extracurricular activities.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Mickey M. wrote:

Invictus wrote: MM might be suggesting that anyone who can travel two states over to play golf might have a fuzz more disposable income that some of the rest of us. Or a different set of priorities . . . . . And MM might be suggesting that the simple statement about being on a "weekend golf trip to Georgia" sounded a tad self-important.

Both of the above. Neither of D.T.'s statements about golf and Georgia are relevant to this board. Taken together they sound rather pompous. And a bit contrived.

I took the comments to be an explanation of DT's delayed response to an earlier post. What if the disclosure had been that he/she had been in D'Lo helping W.J. Johnson and Emma weed the flower bed in front of the new USM admin building? Would that have sounded less pompous, or would it constitute name dropping?

I'm 100% with Invictus on this one. I couldn't care less what DT or anyone else does in his/her spare time, so long as it's legal and harms no one.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Bobby Jones wrote:

I'm 100% with Invictus on this one. I couldn't care less what DT or anyone else does in his/her spare time.....

That was also my expressed sentiment, Bobby J. But I went a step further by saying that citing a golf trip to Georgia sounded pompous. If D.T. said only that he had been detailed, the mention of his weekend activities would have been unnecessary. But he seemed to go out of his way to give us a not so subtle clue about his self- perceived importance. If I said that I flew to Cannes this weekend to preview some of the film festival nominees, I would have been hooted off the board for making such a transparent statement about myself.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

My interpretation is that Doubting Thomas was losing the battle on the grounds of logic so he tried to impose the grounds of self importance.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Donald D. wrote:

My interpretation is that Doubting Thomas was losing the battle on the grounds of logic so he tried to impose the grounds of self importance.

You make this type of statement, yet no one has challenged my last "thoughtful" post. Unless you do so, you are the one who is deflecting the issue. I have offered a position backed up by my logic and thoughts. No one has addressed those as of yet. Your continued name-calling doesn't qualify as logical discussion.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Bobby Jones wrote:

... I'm 100% with Invictus on this one. I couldn't care less what DT or anyone else does in his/her spare time, so long as it's legal and harms no one.

OooWeee, I sur glad ta hear dat, ya. Cause, me, I been away from dis board for some time making love, cher. Let's see der was Marie', ElerMa, dem twins whos names I ferget and... Oh well, I be back after dem girls leave, ya.

DT can have dat golf.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

The Georgia remark was to head off any comments about my weekend absence from the board...like "you ran and hid for a weekend" type of BS. By the way, (and since nobody cares), my trip to Georgia was to visit my brother who lives there and play a little golf.

For those who claim that golf is an expensive hobby, if you amortize the cost of clubs over a period of years (which is reasonable), a round of golf can cost about $60 with a cart. That's 4 hours of entertainment for $60. If you're a football fan, tickets cost more than this. If you're a drinker, you can easily run up a bar tab for $60 rather quickly. Since golf is one of my few "passions," I don't feel badly about playing once a week. I have to wonder what the cause of the contempt for golfers is.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

You make this type of statement, yet no one has challenged my last "thoughtful" post. Unless you do so, you are the one who is deflecting the issue. I have offered a position backed up by my logic and thoughts. No one has addressed those as of yet. Your continued name-calling doesn't qualify as logical discussion.

Um, which one was your last "thoughtful" post? I'm pretty sure your last post wasn't the one you consider "thoughtful." Some folks probably don't consider any of your posts to be very thoughtful. Moreover, was your last thoughtful post really your last thoughtful post?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

The Georgia remark was to head off any comments about my weekend absence from the board...like "you ran and hid for a weekend" type of BS. By the way, (and since nobody cares), my trip to Georgia was to visit my brother who lives there and play a little golf. For those who claim that golf is an expensive hobby, if you amortize the cost of clubs over a period of years (which is reasonable), a round of golf can cost about $60 with a cart. That's 4 hours of entertainment for $60. If you're a football fan, tickets cost more than this. If you're a drinker, you can easily run up a bar tab for $60 rather quickly. Since golf is one of my few "passions," I don't feel badly about playing once a week. I have to wonder what the cause of the contempt for golfers is.

I don't agree with DT about much, apparently, but I think the veiled ad hominum remarks that get made on this board do not elevate the level of discourse and often sidetrack genuine discussion of the issues - as this particular set of remarks about DT's hobbies have done. Just because someone creates an opening (or seems to) that offers the possibility for a literary jab below the belt , it doesn't necessarily follow that such a jab needs to be taken.

That having been said DT, you'd have been better off to have indicated you went to visit your brother, which seems to be the primary motivation for your trip, than that you were off on a golfing trip, which by your own witness was a byproduct of your visit to your brother -- I think it was the sense that there was some ego inflation going on that may have made you vulnerable.

No sin -- we've all done it occasionally . . .

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Doubting Thomas wrote:
You make this type of statement, yet no one has challenged my last "thoughtful" post. Unless you do so, you are the one who is deflecting the issue. I have offered a position backed up by my logic and thoughts. No one has addressed those as of yet. Your continued name-calling doesn't qualify as logical discussion.

Um, which one was your last "thoughtful" post? I'm pretty sure your last post wasn't the one you consider "thoughtful." Some folks probably don't consider any of your posts to be very thoughtful. Moreover, was your last thoughtful post really your last thoughtful post?

Alright, SmartAss:

"As a member of the academic community, Kate Green should have written a more thoughtful letter that was supported by (and that did not merely allude to) factual information to bolster her claims against JH's column. Further, she should have left off the invitation to attend her classes, as it paints her (and the rest of the faculty) as know-it-alls who always have to have the last word. In short: Make your point in a clear and concise manner and then gracefully exit the scene.

"If someone would like to tell me what is wrong with the paragraph immediately preceding this one (other than any grammatical issues), I would like to see it in a response here."

Date: Aug 1, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

Doubting Thomas wrote:
The Georgia remark was to head off any comments about my weekend absence from the board...like "you ran and hid for a weekend" type of BS. By the way, (and since nobody cares), my trip to Georgia was to visit my brother who lives there and play a little golf. For those who claim that golf is an expensive hobby, if you amortize the cost of clubs over a period of years (which is reasonable), a round of golf can cost about $60 with a cart. That's 4 hours of entertainment for $60. If you're a football fan, tickets cost more than this. If you're a drinker, you can easily run up a bar tab for $60 rather quickly. Since golf is one of my few "passions," I don't feel badly about playing once a week. I have to wonder what the cause of the contempt for golfers is.

I don't agree with DT about much, apparently, but I think the veiled ad hominum remarks that get made on this board do not elevate the level of discourse and often sidetrack genuine discussion of the issues - as this particular set of remarks about DT's hobbies have done. Just because someone creates an opening (or seems to) that offers the possibility for a literary jab below the belt , it doesn't necessarily follow that such a jab needs to be taken.
That having been said DT, you'd have been better off to have indicated you went to visit your brother, which seems to be the primary motivation for your trip, than that you were off on a golfing trip, which by your own witness was a byproduct of your visit to your brother -- I think it was the sense that there was some ego inflation going on that may have made you vulnerable.
No sin -- we've all done it occasionally . . .

Stephen,

You are right on this one. If you note the time of my "golf" posting, you'll see that I was probably not yet through my first cup of java. Didn't mean to be egocentric with the comment.

DT

Date: Aug 1, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

I don't agree with DT about much, apparently, but I think the veiled ad hominum remarks that get made on this board do not elevate the level of discourse and often sidetrack genuine discussion of the issues - as this particular set of remarks about DT's hobbies have done. Just because someone creates an opening (or seems to) that offers the possibility for a literary jab below the belt , it doesn't necessarily follow that such a jab needs to be taken. . . .

Stephen,

Thank you for being brave enough to make this observation. Doubting Thomas, whomever he may be, deserves better than he's been given here in the way of contra-argument. We bitch and moan about trolls who have nothing constructive to say, yet an articulate individual with a contrarian view finally comes along and we attack him as an elitist for having mentioned a golfing trip.

For what it's worth, having read and re-read Kate Green's HA letter, I thought it could have been much better crafted. Her tone struck me as condescending, reinforcing one of the more common knocks against our faculty.

Still the Least Venerable

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Alright, SmartAss

DT, did I hear you call Invictus a SmartAss? Whooee! You've done it now. You've also won the prize for the most direct verbal assult ever on this message board.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Alright, SmartAss:

Who's calling whom names around here, Leroy?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Who's calling whom names around here, Leroy?

Still no response to my questions?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Still no response to my questions?

I didn't know you had any questions, only freakin' answers. So why should I want to feed your ego?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Invictus:

"As a member of the academic community, Kate Green should have written a more thoughtful letter that was supported by (and that did not merely allude to) factual information to bolster her claims against JH's column. Further, she should have left off the invitation to attend her classes, as it paints her (and the rest of the faculty) as know-it-alls who always have to have the last word. In short: Make your point in a clear and concise manner and then gracefully exit the scene.

"If someone would like to tell me what is wrong with the paragraph immediately preceding this one (other than any grammatical issues), I would like to see it in a response here."

DT