Tim Hatten just left the dome... - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 29, 2005

RE: Tim Hatten just left the dome...

Date: Nov 29, 2005

Hush, child. You'll give them ideas!

Date: Nov 29, 2005

Ripper: I have no interest in being attractive to the like of you. If this is that important to you then I suggest that you discuss this subject on Eagle Talk where it belongs.

Date: Nov 29, 2005

disgusted student wrote:

Ripper: I have no interest in being attractive to the like of you. If this is that important to you then I suggest that you discuss this subject on Eagle Talk where it belongs.

Disgusted Student:
The role of athletics in all the upheaval and intrigue at USM should not be dismissed. In fact, many believe that it was a central factor driving the used car cabal and Shelby in the overhaul of the university. If you look back on this board, you will find athletic issues, from the sky boxes to the disastrous administration handling of the bond issue, popping up regularly. Especially since SFT & Co. are so clearly obsessed with athletics, what they do in this area over the next few months can have a serious impact on the university as a whole.

If this thread bothers you, take your own advice and ignore it.

Date: Nov 29, 2005

Disgusted Student -- there are several mistakes in your post (other than the obvious inability to put together a well written sentence). First I was not discussing this thread in my earlier post -- I was only pointing out that it is possibly a thread of some importance and was not worthy of deletion as you suggested. Second -- you seem to make unwarrented assumptions about my identity. Thus as usual your post lacks substance, clarity, and civility. Maybe it is you who should take a walk among your posting peers over at Eagle Talk. Until you can provide proof that you are able to rise above their level of banter, please avoid offering advice to others on this board.

Date: Nov 30, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

The reason the FireShelby Board was orginally founded (and one of the primary reasons this board continues) was to provide a safe spot for discussion about the course of the university and, explicitly, actions of the administration. ... Any virtual community relies on some common agreements about the rules of civil discourse in order to preserve its unity. One of those is the trust that those who use a chat a chat board have good intentions. The signs of good intent are easy -- honest and reasonably continuous engagement in discussion and the establishment of a stable identity. People who violate those principles are not only having a good time at the expense of others, but they are an active threat to the trust necessary to keep this kind of discourse alive.

My Signals catalog attributes the following to Eleanor Roosevelt, "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."

This call for civility, frank discussion, and poster integrity comes rather late in this message board history. There are good people who have tried to expose corruption, ineptness, and mismanagement and there are bad people who have only wanted to smear others even while framing the campaign under the guise of academic principle. Professor Judd, with good intentions but more than a bit of naivete, ignores the petty ugliness within.

I'm tired of trying to decipher between the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Date: Nov 30, 2005

Voter is right when he/she observed that " The role of athletics in all the upheaval and intrigue at USM should not be dismissed. In fact, many believe that it was a central factor driving the used car cabal and Shelby in the overhaul of the university. If you look back on this board, you will find athletic issues, from the sky boxes to the disastrous administration handling of the bond issue, popping up regularly. Especially since SFT & Co. are so clearly obsessed with athletics, what they do in this area over the next few months can have a serious impact on the university as a whole."

The place of athletics at USM should be a topic for discussion. But also correct is the observation that the board is not meant to be a gossip board. Nevertheless, it is imperative that the board not just continue but that it remain an important part of the struggle. It provides a way both to exchange news and to debate ideas. I'm thankful that it exists and hope for its continued vitality.

Date: Nov 30, 2005

Far Away Alum wrote:

Voter is right when he/she observed that " The role of athletics in all the upheaval and intrigue at USM should not be dismissed. In fact, many believe that it was a central factor driving the used car cabal and Shelby in the overhaul of the university. If you look back on this board, you will find athletic issues, from the sky boxes to the disastrous administration handling of the bond issue, popping up regularly. Especially since SFT & Co. are so clearly obsessed with athletics, what they do in this area over the next few months can have a serious impact on the university as a whole." The place of athletics at USM should be a topic for discussion. But also correct is the observation that the board is not meant to be a gossip board. Nevertheless, it is imperative that the board not just continue but that it remain an important part of the struggle. It provides a way both to exchange news and to debate ideas. I'm thankful that it exists and hope for its continued vitality.

My review of the history of the board was not to circumscribe the types of discussions to be had on the board but simply to review its history and to link that history to the issue of anonymous identities. I think anything folks who contribute to the board want to discuss is fair game -- a thread lives or dies by the interest it generates. My issue is with those who use anonymous identities with illegitimate (or malevolent) intent.

Date: Nov 30, 2005

Except that malevolence is in the eye of the beholder. For much of this board's life, any negative comment about any member of the Thames regime was rah-rahed, whether true or not. I'm sure Thames viewed this as malevolent while many here did not.