Respected according to whom? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Sep 23, 2005

Respected according to whom?

Date: Sep 24, 2005

Much to the chagrin of the USM faculty,the people listed in this article are held in high regard by a large majority of the citizens of the state. With the passage of time it becomes more and more evident that King Shelby has bested the university community in the field of public opinion.I personally agree with most of the complaints of the faculty but have been disappointed to see them respond to the Thames onslaught in such an amateurish,uncoordinated,bitter sounding way.

Date: Sep 24, 2005

Everyone knows SFT caused Katrina and Rita!!! He is at fault for everything!!

Date: Sep 24, 2005

Here's the problem, all the highly qualified faculty have already evacuated the man-made disaster that is USM. What you are left with are those who couldn't make it out. They are the bitter inhabitants of Nitchampburg.

Date: Sep 24, 2005

It's clear when reading the article that SFT is on there because he is the president of USM, a school that's coast campus was destroyed. It is not because he is highly respected, at least not by the other people on that panel.

Date: Sep 24, 2005

Bottom of the Barrel Faculty wrote:

Here's the problem, all the highly qualified faculty have already evacuated the man-made disaster that is USM. What you are left with are those who couldn't make it out. They are the bitter inhabitants of Nitchampburg.

Absolutely not true. You obviously don't understand the financial/retirement/personal issues that have kept many excellent faculty on board. Not everyone is able to ditch a ten, fifteen, or twenty year career and move elsewhere.

Date: Sep 24, 2005

If you will recall, the governor and Barksdale were at odds because of the education issue (Barksdale was going to give more money to education if the legislature would match it. Barbour insulted Barksdale by calling it a bribe - enough said.) The list of people looks to me as if there are appointees by both Barbour and Barksdale. Thames and Barbour are friends. Look carefully at the top of the list at the executive committee - especially Winter Winter's name. Then look at the executive director listed on the bottom (Barbour's son) In my opinion the rift continues and and the list of people are from both camps. This should be interesting.

Date: Sep 24, 2005

Objective Bystander wrote:

If you will recall, the governor and Barksdale were at odds because of the education issue (Barksdale was going to give more money to education if the legislature would match it. Barbour insulted Barksdale by calling it a bribe - enough said.) The list of people looks to me as if there are appointees by both Barbour and Barksdale. Thames and Barbour are friends. Look carefully at the top of the list at the executive committee - especially Winter Winter's name. Then look at the executive director listed on the bottom (Barbour's son) In my opinion the rift continues and and the list of people are from both camps. This should be interesting.

Curious because I've missed some connections here.

Thames and Barbour are friends? Is that through the Nicholson connection? Or Trent Lott? I thought that Chain and Barbour were friends? Has Chain changed his mind about Thames or is he just staying low?

The last time I talked with my friends in the area, they were of the opinion that people like Anderson and Winter know the truth about Thames.

Date: Sep 24, 2005

QFAC:

One of the the things that it indicates to me is that while Barbour has asked Barksdale to be in charge of the committee, he is not giving him complete control. On the outside it looks as if the make-up is to keep it impartial. To an insider it looks as if Barbour is keeping his enemy close and will later claim credit for a good outcome. Barbour can also keep a certain amount of control over what happens. Not to worry however. Barksdale is a lot smarter that Barbour.

Date: Sep 25, 2005

Objective Bystander wrote:

QFAC:

One of the the things that it indicates to me is that while Barbour has asked Barksdale to be in charge of the committee, he is not giving him complete control. On the outside it looks as if the make-up is to keep it impartial. To an insider it looks as if Barbour is keeping his enemy close and will later claim credit for a good outcome. Barbour can also keep a certain amount of control over what happens. Not to worry however. Barksdale is a lot smarter that Barbour.

This is typical hogwash.These people are all accomplished successful individuals.They all have a ton of work to do but have agreed to take this job in order to help the state. I'm sure some of them like or dislike others in the group but will do their best to help Mississippi. Many of them don't like Barbour but,believe it or not,some people put politics to the side and rise to the occasion in a crisis. I don't know if Obj.Bystander is a college prof or not.His pettiness suggests he may be.

Date: Sep 25, 2005

Helping Hand wrote:

This is typical hogwash.These people are all accomplished successful individuals.They all have a ton of work to do but have agreed to take this job in order to help the state. I'm sure some of them like or dislike others in the group but will do their best to help Mississippi. Many of them don't like Barbour but,believe it or not,some people put politics to the side and rise to the occasion in a crisis. I don't know if Obj.Bystander is a college prof or not.His pettiness suggests he may be.

We college professors may appear to have petty battles-but that is simply because we don't play on the rarefied fields of your big bucks and big politics good ole boys and girls (from your post, this is probably your crowd). If you think that these folks do not have personal and political agendas, axes to grind, and turf to claim, then you are either blowing smoke or extremely naive.

Date: Sep 25, 2005

LVN wrote:

Bottom of the Barrel Faculty wrote: Here's the problem, all the highly qualified faculty have already evacuated the man-made disaster that is USM. What you are left with are those who couldn't make it out. They are the bitter inhabitants of Nitchampburg. Absolutely not true. You obviously don't understand the financial/retirement/personal issues that have kept many excellent faculty on board. Not everyone is able to ditch a ten, fifteen, or twenty year career and move elsewhere.

Some truth in both statements. You see and hear some bitterness. Perhaps the most common reaction is now indifference to the "institution". Where there are still pockets of decent management, you see some departmental or college-level loyalty. This gets diluted every semester by the exodus of pre1989 people as they hit the magic 25, 28, or whatever. The real damage here is that many who had no intention of ever leaving USM until 3 years ago now have rethought that position. Short of the appointment of a saint as the next President, that isn't likely to change.