Thank you and Goodbye - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 11, 2006

Thank you and Goodbye

Date: Mar 11, 2006

I am reminded of Robert Campbell being chased off the board.

Date: Mar 11, 2006

Everyone has to decide for themselves how they want to post to the board. I've never chided anyone for posting anonymously here...I have the luxury of being able to post with my real name as I am no longer at USM and therefore have nothing to lose. As I have repeatedly stated on this board, if I was still at USM in my former job, I would have no choice but to post anonymously. I applaud the courageous faculty, staff, and students at USM who choose to post under their real names. But, it's not for everyone.

So, Mitch, if you have made the decision to continue to participate on the board by posting anonymously, then I support your decision. I don't see this as Mitch being "chased off" the board, but rather a personal decision that he has made on how to post.

Truth (Andrea)

Date: Mar 11, 2006

I too hope Mitch reconsiders. Nothing that happened today resulted in loss of life or limb, or even lawsuits. Let's not let everyone's stress and exhaustion play into the hands of the Dome, which loves to see dissension in our ranks.

Date: Mar 11, 2006

Mitch, AAUP is fortunate to have you as its president. I just happen to know for certain that you were an AAUP advocate long before USM got its chapter. Don't let the trolls bother you. FLIT has worked in the past. It will work now.

Date: Mar 11, 2006

Oh Mitch, you are such the martyr. This "offering your resignation" routine is getting old. It only works so many times within a year.

Date: Mar 12, 2006

heard it all before wrote:

Oh Mitch, you are such the martyr. This "offering your resignation" routine is getting old. It only works so many times within a year.

At least Mitch had the courage to say whatever he said under his own name. You, on the other hand . . . . . .

Date: Mar 12, 2006

heard it all before wrote:

Oh Mitch, you are such the martyr. This "offering your resignation" routine is getting old. It only works so many times within a year.

Judgment's a tricky thing. The same standard by which you judge others will be used on you, and the same means you measure another will be used to measure you. And why do you point out that little speck in your brother's eye, but forget about the 2 x 4 that is in your own? Or how will you say to your brother, "Let me get that speck out of your eye," when you've got that plank in your own eye? You hypocrite! First get that plank out of your own eye, and then you'll see clearly how to get that speck out of your brother's.

Date: Mar 12, 2006

Cowardly lion wrote:

At least Mitch had the courage to say whatever he said under his own name. You, on the other hand . . . . . .

Date: Mar 12, 2006

heard it all before wrote:

Oh Mitch, you are such the martyr. This "offering your resignation" routine is getting old. It only works so many times within a year.

Now Shelby, I told you to let me handle all the PR tasks around here.

Date: Mar 12, 2006

From the COEP Dean tread:

SCM - why would i want to go to a AAUP meeting where you could verbally assault me there if you disagreed with me?

Mitch - I also think your notion that I would "verbally assault" someone in an open meeting is pretty ludicrous--

Although I posted by my name on the board, and the previous board, I have posted many more times under several board names.

I'm sure Mitch would not attack someone in an open meeting, but I know he would still go after them, therefore, I am anonymous.

And, even your hero admits that sometimes it is necessary to post under different names. I also think it is funny that those who attacked me also posted under names that I have not seen before. Something about a pot and a kettle is coming to mind.

Date: Mar 12, 2006

heard it all before wrote:

I'm sure Mitch would not attack someone in an open meeting, but I know he would still go after them, therefore, I am anonymous.

I'm sure SFT and crew are shaking in their boots. A lot of people have gone after that crowd, frontal assaults and flank movements. But General SFT is still calling the shots.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Renewed Anger and Sadness wrote:

I am reminded of Robert Campbell being chased off the board.

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, Robert Campbell was not chased off this board. After much deliberation, he voluntarily took a sabbatical following an unpleasant exchange with a senior USM faculty member whom he'd accused of being a troll. He later apologized to her, decided he'd become too emotionally involved in board issues, and took a break. And how do I know this? I know Robert, and he told me so. He'd probably tell the same to any of you who care to communicate with him directly. His contact info at Clemson is readily available.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Two people have now objected to the use of my term "chased off" and one of those individuals I respect greatly so I will stand corrected as to word usage. Nonetheless, after another "unpleasant exchange" with a poster on this board we lose another valuable member who posted by name. Perhaps I see more similarities there than you but that is my right.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Renewed Anger and Sadness wrote:

Two people have now objected to the use of my term "chased off" and one of those individuals I respect greatly so I will stand corrected as to word usage. Nonetheless, after another "unpleasant exchange" with a poster on this board we lose another valuable member who posted by name. Perhaps I see more similarities there than you but that is my right.

If an unpleasant exchange has anything whatsoever to do with a poster leaving the board, I'd say your term "chased off" is an appropriate way to describe it. How else could it be described in a word or two? "Gone Underground?" I prefer "chased off."

Date: Mar 13, 2006

My problem with "chased off" is that it connotes power in the hands of the "chaser" when in fact the "chasee" made the decision to leave. "Gave up" might be more accurate.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

LVN wrote:

"Gave up" might be more accurate.

But doesn't "Gave up" attribute a sense of helplessness and defeat?

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Wordy wrote:

LVN wrote:
"Gave up" might be more accurate.
But doesn't "Gave up" attribute a sense of helplessness and defeat?

Good point. Any other suggestions?

Date: Mar 13, 2006

We don't know whether an unpleasant exchange had a thing in the world to do with a poster leaving (even temporarily). Perhaps it is a coincidence. But we do have two prominent examples. How many do we need? Two out of two? Three out of three? Four out of four? If there are any statisticians out there maybe they can answer that.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

How about "voluntarily withdrew"?

I do hope, though, that Mitch will continue to post, even if only under a nom or two.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Wordy wrote:

But doesn't "Gave up" attribute a sense of helplessness and defeat?

Not really. We are still here, but rather post under other names. The freedom that anonymous posting gives is enormous, because we don't have to worry about major disagreements affecting our reputation or organization. It just levels the playing field; nobody has left.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Just an opinion wrote:

How about "voluntarily withdrew"?

I'll buy that. At least we'd not be attributing motive to the exodus. I suspect that many posters withdraw for a variety of reasons. I'd like to hear it in their own words.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Spirit wrote:

We are still here, but rather post under other names.

So you've "gone underground." Like me. Is that term O.K.?

Date: Mar 13, 2006

First Ant at the Picnic wrote:

Spirit wrote: We are still here, but rather post under other names.

So you've "gone underground." Like me. Is that term O.K.?

Yes, "gone underground" like everyone except the few who still post under their real names. You can count those on your fingers. I find it funny when an "underground" poster discribes a poster as being "run off" when they also go underground. For me only a "real name" poster has the right to say those words.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

LVN wrote:

Wordy wrote: LVN wrote: "Gave up" might be more accurate. But doesn't "Gave up" attribute a sense of helplessness and defeat? Good point. Any other suggestions?

How about "redirected his energies?"

Date: Mar 13, 2006

First Ant's proposed term, "gone underground", seems like the most appropriate. That term says only that the former poster is still around and still posting but under an alias.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

"Gone underground" is also a good term because it implies continued resistance of the guerrilla-army type.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

What is truly sad is that we have been divided so thoroughly by the Thames administration that we must each consider "going underground." A few have profited from the Thames administration and continue loyalty, though they are "underground," too.

We must think about what is in the best interest of our students and of higher education in this state. I simply cannot believe that the actions of the Thames administration from the first enrollemnt scandals to the latest raise scandal are in the best interest of our students or of higher education in Mississippi.

Amy Young

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Renewed Anger and Sadness wrote:

Two people have now objected to the use of my term "chased off" and one of those individuals I respect greatly so I will stand corrected as to word usage. Nonetheless, after another "unpleasant exchange" with a poster on this board we lose another valuable member who posted by name. Perhaps I see more similarities there than you but that is my right.

Sure it's your right. That's the beauty of this board. It allows each of us the right to interpret events and characterize them as we wish. We also have the right to take a break, leave this forum permanently, and post anonymously. To me, "being chased off" implies the use of force, compelling an involuntary action. I'm not trying to quibble over semantics but there was no force involved here. Robert and Mitch posted using their real names. Both were, and are strong advocates for the interests of USM's faculty. I don't see other similarities, but realize that you do. I regret Robert's departure from the board and valued his outsider's perspective. There was a contretemps and Robert, gentleman that he is, apologized and opted to take a breather. As I recall, the lady with whom he quarrelled also left the board. It was unfortunate that we lost them both. Mitch was attacked by anonymous posters with questionable motives. He hasn't left the board and I'd guess his antagonists are still with us as well. I take him at his word when he says he'll continue to post using a pseudonym, just as most of us do, and for many of the same reasons. Robert left us, at least temporarily, and Mitch did not. I hope to toast both gentlemen at the board's coming out party, which can't come too soon.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

I think it is disingenuous to characterize the situation from this past weekend as running anyone off. I posted some views that, while unpopluar with the psychology group, represent a perfectly defensible attitude for those of us who are somewhat removed from CoEP. Mitch's responses were passionate, but I felt that (and, apparently Mitch (upon reflection) felt that) at least one went beyond passionate to offensive (personal name-calling), and apparently others who saw that post agreed, including Cossack and stinky cheese man.

I understand Psychology's argument pretty well, but I remind everyone that USM's "pie" is only so big and that there are those of us who only get enough pie to sustain our basic programs, much less offer elective courses. At my current point of near exhaustion, it is pretty hard to take the Psychology argument when everyone in my unit teaches at least a 3/3.

I didn't run Mitch off the board; he chose to go underground, which is fine because every poster has the right to post anonymously. Perhaps the dismissal of nom-ed posters will dissipate and arguments will be judged irrespective of the cache built by posting using one's real name.