Calling Out Angeline - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Calling Out Angeline

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Standard Bearer: What is good that is going on at USM is done by the faculty, staff, and students. What is good goes without saying; otherwise, we'd faculty would be bragging on themselves. Almost all that is bad can be laid at the foot of this administration. There have been bad things in the past--mistakes, injustices--but those things could be forgiven in the spirit of comraderie--in the missionary spirit that many of us had. These guys have destroyed all that.

Yes, there is good. There was good when I left and I'm sure its still there. But it is not good generated by SFT and his henchpersons.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

P.S. Keep up the good posts Angeline.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Standard Bearer wrote:

Angeline: Your recent posts indicate that you have a bad attitude about almost everything related to USM: administration, students, etc. Is there even 1 thing currently going on at USM that is a positive? Give me a real answer not something like "Shelby only has 1 1/2 years left." Leave him out of it. Do you have anything positive to say about the things going on at USM? You seem like an ultra-negative personality type. Here's your chance to rectify that perception.

SB, you can run and create another thread - but you can't hide. I'm the one who has been turned into an untra-megative personality type. Angeline is a nice person. But USM has made me meaner than a corncob in a three-seater outhouse. It might ruin you too if you remain too long.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

I enjoy teaching my classes.

I enjoy doing my research.

I enjoy performing service.

I enjoy my time with colleagues at USM.

I will not allow those who find fault with every facet of our institution to run my life.

I will not, however, continue to stand by while others run down my profession and demand rewards for doing the right thing.

If you don't like teaching and service, then you need to go to a research consortium, a thinktank, a private company, or other outlet.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Standard Bearer wrote:

I enjoy teaching my classes. I enjoy doing my research. I enjoy performing service. I enjoy my time with colleagues at USM. I will not allow those who find fault with every facet of our institution to run my life. I will not, however, continue to stand by while others run down my profession and demand rewards for doing the right thing. If you don't like teaching and service, then you need to go to a research consortium, a thinktank, a private company, or other outlet.

It sound like you should stay off of this message board, Kiddo, because you're not going to like reading very much you'll find here. This is not a "Let's hear it for the Gipper" type of message board. Lots of posters here are not very keen about the Gipper.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Eight Track wrote:

It sound like you should stay off of this message board, Kiddo, because you're not going to like reading very much you'll find here. This is not a "Let's hear it for the Gipper" type of message board. Lots of posters here are not very keen about the Gipper.

If this is patently true, then those who post here are truly ignorant. I am not pro-Thames. However, Thames' presence does not absolve me of my duties to our students. To hear you tell it, the USM faculty is on an unofficial sick-out.

My students deserve better than that. If you're participating in that foolishness, then you're stealing from the taxpayers.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Oooh - I love being called out - it seems sort of naughty, like coming out of the closet or some such thing. (No insult to my other-than-heterosexual friends intended.)

SB: I, too have loved, and often still love, my students (professionally-speaking, of course) teaching, community outreach, research, and working with my colleagues. Without the faculty the students would get nothing positive from this institution, and don't you forget it. But when we are forced to endure the utter incompetence and meanness of a petty-tyrant of a Ivory-towered blow-hard bidness-wanna-be named Shelby, you darn right I get negative. To watch academic and ethical standards fall by the wayside while cronyism, corruption, and, well, crap, become the norm is intolerable. I will not ever stop fighting against the low standards set by the Administration of this university. We were once much more and we should all be striving to be more - my and others' insistence that Shelby and his minions be humane, ethical, academically-minded leaders will never stop. You don't like, I suggest that you abstain from reading this board. You might have noticed that I am far from the only one who feels the way I do.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Angeline wrote:

Oooh - I love being called out - it seems sort of naughty, like coming out of the closet or some such thing. (No insult to my other-than-heterosexual friends intended.)
SB: I, too have loved, and often still love, my students (professionally-speaking, of course) teaching, community outreach, research, and working with my colleagues. Without the faculty the students would get nothing positive from this institution, and don't you forget it. But when we are forced to endure the utter incompetence and meanness of a petty-tyrant of a Ivory-towered blow-hard bidness-wanna-be named Shelby, you darn right I get negative. To watch academic and ethical standards fall by the wayside while cronyism, corruption, and, well, crap, become the norm is intolerable. I will not ever stop fighting against the low standards set by the Administration of this university. We were once much more and we should all be striving to be more - my and others' insistence that Shelby and his minions be humane, ethical, academically-minded leaders will never stop. You don't like, I suggest that you abstain from reading this board. You might have noticed that I am far from the only one who feels the way I do.

For someone who is supposedly educated, you have a startling lack of comprehension. Also, three or four of your buddies (or worse--you using three or four names) does not a majority make.

There are plenty of faculty who are taking a positive attitude in making USM a better place. I suggest you look around and realize that you're a dinosaur. Your tactice were necessary to get Thames' term limited. Now is the time to become a positive influence.

Students have noticed our negativity, and they don't like it. Negativity projects our feelings for Thames onto others. It is not the students' fault that Thames is an idiot, yet negativity is pointed at them.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Standard Bearer wrote:

Angeline:

Is there even 1 thing currently going on at USM that is a positive?

Yes: Angeline.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Fangeline wrote:

Yes: Angeline.

Obviously not. Too many faculty are taking the attitude that we're constantly under attack from all sides.

When we treat students like attackers instead of students, they notice and get turned off. Is this a good use of our charge as educators?

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Standard Bearer wrote:

Fangeline wrote: Yes: Angeline. Obviously not. Too many faculty are taking the attitude that we're constantly under attack from all sides. When we treat students like attackers instead of students, they notice and get turned off. Is this a good use of our charge as educators?

Man, you make things up like its going out of style. Why do you insist on putting words in people's mouths? Please point out who said viewing students as "attackers" is being done much less condoned. You clearly are either 1. a persistent troll or 2. sadly naive.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

My $.02:

Angeline has been a consistent, valuable poster on this board from the beginning. Standard Bearer, I've never heard of you until lately. Now that doesn't disqualify you from posting...on the contrary. It just means that we have no idea from whence you come, while we have over 2 years' worth of posts from Angeline that give us a pretty good idea of where she stands.

SB, I'm not sure exactly what you want, other than to create a little drama on the board. There are plenty of folks here who agree with Angeline (and they are not her "make-believe" friends, as I can personally vouch for their separate identities!). What's your point, exactly?

Truth (like "truthiness" only better!

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Standard Bearer wrote:

I enjoy teaching my classes.

I enjoy doing my research.

I enjoy performing service.

I enjoy my time with colleagues at USM.

I will not allow those who find fault with every facet of our institution to run my life.

I will not, however, continue to stand by while others run down my profession and demand rewards for doing the right thing.

If you don't like teaching and service, then you need to go to a research consortium, a thinktank, a private company, or other outlet.

Ahhhhh, my dearest Standard Bearer!

Dis is de type of vunderful mind set und attitude dat ve at de Ministry uf Publik Relations luf to zee in our excellent fakulty members! It ist zo gratifying to zee dat dere are still professors who luf dere universitat und it's Reichsfure . . . er, President Thames!!! Tank jew so very much fur expressing dese toughts und feelings to us all!!!

Herr Doktor Mengela, PhD
Chancellor of Propoganda

Date: Jan 13, 2006

I frequently disagree with Angeline, but at least I know she's for real, and a consistent presence and voice on this board.
I don't understand Standard Bearer's purpose here, but I note that s/he tends to project the content of this board ("negativity") to wider world of USM and then sound an alarm about that. Frankly, I don't know that the board has all that much impact on students or the community. It exists primarily for faculty, staff, friends, and those who have moved on but still care about USM to exchange news, feelings, silliness, profound insights and everything in between. It's almost the only place people in some departments have to vent. Therefore a lot of the content is going to seem negative, but that doesn't mean that the poster, having vented, isn't back doing the work with all possible dedication and energy.
SB, I'm not sure what ground you have telling someone to do their job, when you don't even know who that someone is, nor he you. Please remember that many posters are not faculty (including me.)

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Though the argument has sunk to lows, SB has a point. While standing for academic standards and standing against a bad administration are certainly good things -- there reaches a point where it can sidetrack and otherwise impact performance. I for one want to perform at even higher levels now -- for myself (I can expect nothing less of myself) and for the USM that I remember. Doing the "right thing" can be its own reward, and it certainly looks like we might have to be happy with that for a while. Struggling hard against the problems here MUST be done, but it must also be balanced with not accepting anything other than the best from ourselves. All that being said, I think that SB assumes FAR TOO MUCH by reading some negative posts on this board. Posting in a negative fashion does not mean that faculty behave poorly or work any less hard. SB also claims that Angeline only has the backing of a few on this board, but then seems to make a blanket statement that Angeline has the backing of seemingly much of the university in being less than positive in their work attitudes. You can't have it both ways SB. I am willing to bet that in the end Angeline and others vent on this board (that is its function in part) and continue to do their dead level best when going about their jobs. So I am not sure that in the end SB has a leg to stand on.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

I have asserted that Angeline is negative. Consider that in the past 12 hours, Angeline has stated that

(1) faculty have not received any sort of reward for their work during and after Katrina and that they should receive NOT recognition BUT reward:

"Shelby says: "We’ve seen our faculty and staff devote long hours, days and months to help Southern Miss recover from the storm and to serve the students, despite suffering terrible hardships themselves. We want to recognize them during this difficult time."

So, fellow faculty and staff members, how have you been "recognized" (rewarded?) for your extra work this past semester?"

In the SFT quote above, he RECOGNIZES our efforts in a PUBLIC forum and in a VOLUNTARY manner. I can only assume that recognition is not enough for Angeline.

(2) a student who reportedly earned 4 A's and 1 F is clearly and automatically lying about the circumstances surrounding the F

"Wow, things at USM are in worse shape than even I thought - and I don't mean the student's supposed reasons for getting a poor grade. I am astonished that folks on this board take a third-hand account of a student's explanations for their poor grade without a critical eye. How is a student going to explain an F to their parent - that they didn't work hard enough or grasp the material? Not likely. More likely they make up some baloney that they know plays well in conspiracy-minded Republican land. Although the identity of this student must remain confidential, I hope that the original poster keeps us informed as to the real reason why this student failed a course."

{{Well, if a student can earn 4 A's at USM, it's unlikely that they will EVER get an F, given our current student body and level of grade inflation.}}

(3) I have read this board since the switch from fireshelby. Unproven names have popped up to support and defend Angeline today: Phil; Blood, Sweat, Tears; USNewsworthy; gone, gone, gone.

And yet I am the one who is unproven. I have clearly stated consistent pro-faculty positions (because I am faculty). However, my positions are also positive positions. I have suggested that having positive discussions about how to move USM forward are superior to the same "Shelby Thames is a piece of s**t" threads that cover pages and pages on this board. It's been done to death, people. We won. Thames is on the way out. There will be a new president.

Will this board be only a place to vent full hate for Shelby Thames, or will posters one day begin to use this forum to discuss ways to move USM forward after Thames' departure?

When the new president comes in, will we still be in attack mode? Or will we have a positive agenda to show prospective presidential candidates that we have our act together? Now is the time to get such an agenda together. Now is the time to begin discussing what we want in a president: Mitch Berman and others have met with Meredith and have assurances that USM faculty will be included in the search process. What should Mitch ask for? What characteristics should he insist on? What characteristics should he insist be avoided?

I know Thames is a p.o.s. I want to have positive discussions. Why is there such resistance to this type of dialogue?

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Standard Bearer wrote:

I have asserted that Angeline is negative. Consider that in the past 12 hours, Angeline has stated that (1) faculty have not received any sort of reward for their work during and after Katrina and that they should receive NOT recognition BUT reward: "Shelby says: "We’ve seen our faculty and staff devote long hours, days and months to help Southern Miss recover from the storm and to serve the students, despite suffering terrible hardships themselves. We want to recognize them during this difficult time." So, fellow faculty and staff members, how have you been "recognized" (rewarded?) for your extra work this past semester?" In the SFT quote above, he RECOGNIZES our efforts in a PUBLIC forum and in a VOLUNTARY manner. I can only assume that recognition is not enough for Angeline. (2) a student who reportedly earned 4 A's and 1 F is clearly and automatically lying about the circumstances surrounding the F "Wow, things at USM are in worse shape than even I thought - and I don't mean the student's supposed reasons for getting a poor grade. I am astonished that folks on this board take a third-hand account of a student's explanations for their poor grade without a critical eye. How is a student going to explain an F to their parent - that they didn't work hard enough or grasp the material? Not likely. More likely they make up some baloney that they know plays well in conspiracy-minded Republican land. Although the identity of this student must remain confidential, I hope that the original poster keeps us informed as to the real reason why this student failed a course." {{Well, if a student can earn 4 A's at USM, it's unlikely that they will EVER get an F, given our current student body and level of grade inflation.}} (3) I have read this board since the switch from fireshelby. Unproven names have popped up to support and defend Angeline today: Phil; Blood, Sweat, Tears; USNewsworthy; gone, gone, gone. And yet I am the one who is unproven. I have clearly stated consistent pro-faculty positions (because I am faculty). However, my positions are also positive positions. I have suggested that having positive discussions about how to move USM forward are superior to the same "Shelby Thames is a piece of s**t" threads that cover pages and pages on this board. It's been done to death, people. We won. Thames is on the way out. There will be a new president. Will this board be only a place to vent full hate for Shelby Thames, or will posters one day begin to use this forum to discuss ways to move USM forward after Thames' departure? When the new president comes in, will we still be in attack mode? Or will we have a positive agenda to show prospective presidential candidates that we have our act together? Now is the time to get such an agenda together. Now is the time to begin discussing what we want in a president: Mitch Berman and others have met with Meredith and have assurances that USM faculty will be included in the search process. What should Mitch ask for? What characteristics should he insist on? What characteristics should he insist be avoided? I know Thames is a p.o.s. I want to have positive discussions. Why is there such resistance to this type of dialogue?

All:

Stephen Judd and I had a brief discussion today about how things seem hotter than usual on the board for the past few days. Stephen and I have some ideas about ways to make the board a bit more useful as we transition to a new administration.

1. If comfortable, use your real name in a post. People are less likely to flame or merely vent if real names are used (yes, I understand everyone's concerns).

2. If you use a board name, stick with one name so folks can follow who says what and can respond accurately.

In addition, let's start with the assumption that the overwhelming majority of faculty and staff work hard, and, as with other public employees, are undercompensated. Another useful assumption is that the overwhelming majority of community folks, alumni, and boosters support and appreciate the work we do.

There is a lot of fixin' and cleaning up to do around here. Like almost everyone else, I still have my moments of anger and frustration when I think about how we got into this position, and some of the missteps that continue to happen. On most days, I try to remember what a good friend says: Ain't matter how the donkey got in the ditch-what matters is how we are going to get it out. Sounds strange, but anger and resentment, for these past few years, have just about worn me out--I am eager for some degree of normalcy and stability (as much as can be expected at a university).

I read your comment about my (really our-the AAUP) interaction with Meredith with interest. Although lines of communication between the AAUP and the commissioner have been opened, and we hope to keep the dialog going, the Faculty Senate must be the primary point of contact for conveying faculty opinions on issues related to the search (the FS has the organizational structure in place to do this). However, I encourage all faculty to join the AAUP (we will have a voice in many issues in the near future).

My recommendation is that we (faculty and staff) observe the MSU search process and outcome closely, have systematic and reasoned discussions about this issue, and be prepared to respond accordingly.

Date: Jan 13, 2006

Mitch,

That was a thoughtful and very positive post. Some of your sentiments are exactly what I have been trying (but failing) to communicate today.

I apologize for any ruffled feathers, but Mitch's post was exactly my idea of the direction that discussion needs to take.

Date: Jan 14, 2006

SB wrote: "(3) I have read this board since the switch from fireshelby. Unproven names have popped up to support and defend Angeline today: Phil; Blood, Sweat, Tears; USNewsworthy; gone, gone, gone."

Wrong. I wrote in support of Angeline and LVN wrote to support Angeline. We both use our real names (or initials, for brevity) and we both have been around since the beginning (of the FireShelby board). SB, I have never seen you post until recently. It's possible that my memory is fading, but this may be why you were initially perceived as a troll or other such negative presence.

Also, if you truly want to turn this board into a "positive" place, then why did you start a thread entitled "Calling Out Angeline?" Last time I checked, "calling" someone out was not a very positive thing to do. Play nice, model the behavior you want to see in others, and perhaps you can have a hand in making this board a more "positive" place to be.

Truth (aka Andrea Hewitt)

(PS--have you ever heard of PTSD? There are a lot of legitamate reasons why folks have a negative attitude on this board sometimes).

Date: Jan 14, 2006

truth4usm/AH wrote:

SB wrote: "(3) I have read this board since the switch from fireshelby. Unproven names have popped up to support and defend Angeline today: Phil; Blood, Sweat, Tears; USNewsworthy; gone, gone, gone."

Wrong. I wrote in support of Angeline and LVN wrote to support Angeline. We both use our real names (or initials, for brevity) and we both have been around since the beginning (of the FireShelby board). SB, I have never seen you post until recently. It's possible that my memory is fading, but this may be why you were initially perceived as a troll or other such negative presence.

Also, if you truly want to turn this board into a "positive" place, then why did you start a thread entitled "Calling Out Angeline?" Last time I checked, "calling" someone out was not a very positive thing to do. Play nice, model the behavior you want to see in others, and perhaps you can have a hand in making this board a more "positive" place to be.

Truth (aka Andrea Hewitt)

(PS--have you ever heard of PTSD? There are a lot of legitamate reasons why folks have a negative attitude on this board sometimes).

Be careful. I was involved in an argument about USM faculty and PTSD quite some time ago, and it didn't turn out well. I remember there was one poster who was really angry about my suggestion that profs could have PTSD...he/she made quite a scene and derailed several threads.

Date: Jan 14, 2006

Is this the same Angeline who stated Bill Bennet advocated aborting black babies? If so this is someone whose veracity is in doubt.

Date: Jan 14, 2006

There are reasons people here are negative. There are also reasons to begin focusing on the bright side. Continued focus on the negative creates a negative feedback loop, which works against anything positive that may come along.

We cannot control what happens to us. To an extent, we can control how we react to it.

Date: Jan 14, 2006

Whole Truth wrote:

Is this the same Angeline who stated Bill Bennet advocated aborting black babies? If so this is someone whose veracity is in doubt.

Um, do you mean this?

No veracity in doubt here, it seems, unless you doubt CNN's veracity as well.

Date: Jan 14, 2006

Bennett did NOT call for aborting black babies, as the article itself makes clear. He said that such a call would be morally reprehensible. Since Bennett opposes abortion in general, it stands to reason that he would oppose abortion in specific cases -- especially cases involving whole population groups. By charging Bennett with saying something he specifically did NOT say, you weaken (and cheapen) your own reputation for rational argument.

People on the right often do the same thing when they refer to Cindy Sheehan's alleged support for terrorists. If you look at her comments in context, it is perfectly clear what she meant, but it is easy to take her words out of context and distort their meaning. I am no fan of Sheehan, but I think it's as wrong to distort her meaning as it is wrong to distort Bennet's.

Date: Jan 14, 2006

Here we go again ... wrote:

Bennett did NOT call for aborting black babies, as the article itself makes clear. He said that such a call would be morally reprehensible. Since Bennett opposes abortion in general, it stands to reason that he would oppose abortion in specific cases -- especially cases involving whole population groups. By charging Bennett with saying something he specifically did NOT say, you weaken (and cheapen) your own reputation for rational argument.
People on the right often do the same thing when they refer to Cindy Sheehan's alleged support for terrorists. If you look at her comments in context, it is perfectly clear what she meant, but it is easy to take her words out of context and distort their meaning. I am no fan of Sheehan, but I think it's as wrong to distort her meaning as it is wrong to distort Bennet's.

Look, what he said was that aborting every black baby would reduce crime. While he did not specifically call for aborting black babies, but what he did say was equally reprehensible. He needs to be more careful with his words if he is such an "anti-abortion" proponent.

Date: Jan 14, 2006

Truth, did you read the next paragraph? He SAID it was morally reprehensible. He pulled a very, very poor example out of the air to demonstrate hyperbole. I'll bet he would give anything to take it back, and the way it's been wrenched out of context is grossly unfair. Nothing else in his career or his writings has ever indicated that he is a racist or a bigot.

Date: Jan 14, 2006

I too support Angeline. Attacking regular members of the board with highly questionable accusations is no way to validate oneself in this particular community. I would suggest that those who are quick to attack might ought to start their own message board with their own stated purposes.

Date: Jan 14, 2006

LVN: I agree. I think it was an extremely unfortunate choice of words, terms, analogies, etc. I didn't mean to steer the thread off-topic.

Back to our regularly scheduled topic at hand!

Truth

Date: Jan 15, 2006

truth4usm/AH wrote:

LVN: I agree. I think it was an extremely unfortunate choice of words, terms, analogies, etc. I didn't mean to steer the thread off-topic. Back to our regularly scheduled topic at hand! Truth

My point is this: If someone deliberately distorts someone's statement on a very sensitive topic,their credibility is diminished.If you can't tell the truth on one topic why should you be believed on other subjects?