H.A. Letter--Quit bashing USM president - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 18, 2006

H.A. Letter--Quit bashing USM president

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Bonus points to Mr. Atwood for the memorable line "(t)he Faculty Senate reminds me of the Democrats" & the concession that "Yes, I did think he was a bit arrogant."

However, as a good resident of Lumberton, Mr. Atwood should recognize that Dr. D. Thames' current NINE MONTH salary of over $90K sort of reinforces my friend Earl Loghauler's long-standing contention that professors are grossly over paid for precious little dangerous or manual labor. (Before y'all get your hackles in a wad, bear in mind that Earl says every load he hauls to the mill ensures the continued employment of about twenty people and en route he is able to scare enough people to keep four rural churches in business!)

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Does this qualify as praise by damning?

Date: Apr 18, 2006

According to Atwood, what is the big deal, it is just a little nepotism between family members.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Great letter!

YES QUARTER

Date: Apr 18, 2006

"Perhaps their nose is out of joint because of his management style"

Yes, our "nose" is out of joint - and yes, his managment style is a big reason!

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Maybe someone here should write a letter with the tag line "SFT: Quit bashing USM Faculty"

Truth

Date: Apr 18, 2006

I notice that Mr. Atwood's letter does not give the specific salary figure. I wonder if that omission was deliberate.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

Way to go Shelby! You have convinced the general public that USM's poor achievement record is all the faculty's fault. I really must start to wonder why it is we strive so hard to improve the quality of education at USM when the thanks we get is blame for things we not only have little control over but have adamantly warned and fought against. Sheeesh.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

My experience is that there is way too much cognitive dissonance surrounding Mr. Thames to allow for an admission that he is primarily to blame. The problems at USM, now widely recognized MUST be due to the actions of the faculty by default. If only the faculty had been quiet for 8 years, things would not be so bad. Most people have to be quiet even if their boss is a screw up. Etc., etc., ..............

Date: Apr 19, 2006

local prof wrote:

If only the faculty had been quiet for 8 years, things would not be so bad. Most people have to be quiet even if their boss is a screw up. Etc., etc., ..............

You are obviously not a professor of history.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

History 099 wrote:

local prof wrote: If only the faculty had been quiet for 8 years, things would not be so bad. Most people have to be quiet even if their boss is a screw up. Etc., etc., .............. You are obviously not a professor of history.

Sorry, simply voicing an opinion made by others on several occassions. My own opinion doesn't matter. Only IHL's opinion matters. I just wish that collection of provincial hicks would let us know precisely what that is.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

Maybe "History 099" is confused about the eight years. I know I am.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

SFT's 8 years of being president, if he hadn't bungled it. Sorry, for the obfuscation. I've been writing narrow jargon all day where one can leave half the words out without loss of meaning.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

LVN wrote:

Maybe "History 099" is confused about the eight years. I know I am.

Perhaps the "eight years" refers to SFT's desire to serve two four-year terms as President, you know, like

and

.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

LVN wrote:

Maybe "History 099" is confused about the eight years. I know I am.

That too, LVN, but I was referring primarily to what history teaches us about remaining silent in the midst of mistreatment.