Who is Seeker? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 19, 2004

Who is Seeker?

Date: Jun 19, 2004

That boy sure full of hisself. Say he a Christian, don' got no heart, no love, arrogant child. Maybe he grow up . So who give you the bad grade, child?

Christians don't hate, don' tear down, don' sneer. well, trys not to, forgets sometimes.

Mercy in a fraternity too. Brotherhood of all believers. Communion of saints. All God's chilren. You, boy, you got lots to learn.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"For those who are becoming aware of me for the first time let me introduce myself. Seeker is a straight, white, conservative, Christian . . . .There are so few individuals at Southern Miss it's freighting. Want to see walking stereotypes, come to Southern Miss.

Young man, I think you might be surprised about how many of the posters on this message board match the description you provided about yourself . . . straight . . . white . . . conservative . . . Christian . . .

Also, You might be surprised how many flower children on university campuses during the '60s characterized their felllow students in the same manner as you characterize your fellow students . . . walking sterotypes.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Junk Yard Dog
" Young man, I think you might be surprised about how many of the posters on this message board match the description you provided about yourself . . . straight . . . white . . . conservative . . . Christian . . . Also, You might be surprised how many flower children on university campuses during the '60s characterized their felllow students in the same manner as you characterize your fellow students . . . walking sterotypes. "

What Junk Yard Dog is telling you, Seeker, is that none of what you say is in the least related to what this message board is all about. You too, will understand when you grow up. For the moment, I will repeat what I told you yesterday. It sounds to me as if you are a "Mugwump" sort of guy. You seem to have your Mug on one side of the fence, and your Wump on the other.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

Seeker - with each post you add to this board you come across as more arrogant, more self-righteous, and more ignorant than you did with your last post. I guess the earlier poster (The Rock, maybe....) who described you as a disgruntled student wasn't too far off, I suppose.

Get this too - I'm white (Irish, actually, so I'm really pasty), conservative (long-time Republican, always will be), Christian (Episcopalian), and member of a fraternity in college. So, we're not that different. However, I made much better grades in college (probably because I worked harder than you and respected all of my teachers, whether I thought they were worth a damn or not). So, quit your whining and try to do something productive with yourself. And hope one day to be 1/10 the man that either Frank Glamser or Gary Stringer are today, you bum....

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"
He thinks that a very large number of the faculty have no concern for the well being of Southern Miss, and are far too self-absorbed to be real educators and mentors.
"

Seeker,
The very nature of a profession is that its practitioners place proper performance of their duties above the immediate desires of their present employer. The idea is that if you follow the ethical demands of your profession, you are best serving your clients and your employer. Thus, the physicians at Hattiesburg Clinic have a responsibility to practice good medicine which takes precedence over the bottom line at the Clinic. The accountants at Arthur Anderson working for Enron violated this principle and ultimately destroyed their company.

Your professors are trying to teach and pursue knowledge in a professional manner. If they are successful, the university prospers and the students benefit. If they believe the university leadership is behaving in ways which endanger the quality of their work, they have an ethical responsibility to be critical in a constructive manner. As a general rule, the better the university, the more heavily involved the faculty is in decision making. And yes, they are also more critical. The most talented and productive faculty members are drawn to such institutions. As a student, your best interest lies in having a professional faculty whose allegiance is to the ethical demands of their profession, not to a particular university.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

Seeker, you forgot to mention that you can't (or won't) provide any reasons, facts or evidence for your opinions that the faculty leadership is week.
Why do you think negatively of Glasmer and Stringer?

Oh, I know, "you refuse to believe one side can be right". Both sides must to equally guilty. That is a nice safe intellectually safe position.

P.S. You better work on your studies. With the grade inflation at USM, if you graduate with a 3.0 you are in the bottom half of your class.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

I apologize to everyone for falling into Seeker's trap - I'm ashamed to have posted (twice, now) on a thread started by a guy arrogant enough to have started a thread just to talk about himself. I promise I won't do it again.....

Date: Jun 19, 2004

When you demean this young man, remember who used names like Shelbot, Kenbot, Dome Gnome. Is Seeker any less entitled to speak his mind than others who post here? Must we all agree on all issues? Can we not honestly and sincerely disagree without being subject to ridicule? I have never believed that agreement is either necessary or necessarily appropriate in an academic environment. It is our diversity, and not ridicule of those who disagree, that allows each of us to grow.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Does it matter
"When you demean this young man, remember who used names like Shelbot, Kenbot, Dome Gnome. Is Seeker any less entitled to speak his mind than others who post here? Must we all agree on all issues? Can we not honestly and sincerely disagree without being subject to ridicule? I have never believed that agreement is either necessary or necessarily appropriate in an academic environment. It is our diversity, and not ridicule of those who disagree, that allows each of us to grow."

Of course, we all don't have to agree. But all ideas and opinions are not equal. "Everyone has a right to their opinion" is a nice saying, but it is only valid if the person has evidence or reasons to support their opinions. To do otherwise is self-deception.

Seeker can't or won't give any reasons for his negative statements of the faculty. He just makes assertions; as if that means something other than he isn't mature enough to reason.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lewis and Gilbert
"I apologize to everyone for falling into Seeker's trap - I'm ashamed to have posted (twice, now) on a thread started by a guy arrogant enough to have started a thread just to talk about himself. I promise I won't do it again..... "

No trap here, there was just some questions on the other thread about who I am. So, I told people.

Lewis or Gilbert, you did point out some traits that we have in common. But, there is one you left out, me and my family will still be involved with Southern Miss long after you've retired and gone away to collect you state retirement.

I care more about this University than you can understand. My family has been on this campus since the doors opened, literally. My family has more invested in this University than you would ever realize, and I can see the big picture. I understand what has happened and what will happen. I understand why you wish to try to take the moral high ground and say that I am arrogant and self-righteous.

We do have more in common that what you believe, you want half of what I want. Thames removed from his position. That is coming in due time. But, I want a complete clean slate. That's where our paths part. You want to see half the job accomplished; I want it completed.

Thames time as President is nearing it's end. But, without a clean slate in faculty leadership, it will hobble the next admin.

As for Glamser and Stringer, I understand their side of the story. They were on a noble quest to insure academic freedom and accuracy. I have no doubt they fully believed they were in the right, and that you do as well. But, they went about it the wrong way. They were fully within their rights until two things happened: 1) use of Dvorak's SS#, and 2) misrepresentation of what they were doing. Had they not used Dvorak's SS# they would have been fully reinstated and Thames would have been gone already. Their carelessness caused you guys a huge set-back. They had every right to do what they did, but the method is where they errored. That is the last I have to say on the issue, becaue I know you will all tell me how wrong I am.

As for my GPA if you want to bash that feel free, I could care less. It's not like I would ask any of you for a recomendation anyway. If I am ever to gain a measure of success in my life it will be because I earn it, not because of special favors.

If you guys haven't noticed, I have no friends on these issues. I blame both sides, and the studets for being puppets. The public is unaware of what is happening, but they are much smarter than you give them credit for being.

One thing I really wonder is why you guys don't worry more about the Robin Robertson as the USM Rep for the College Board, when she's nothing more than a pawn for the Miss State Alumni that she works for.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Does it matter
"Is Seeker any less entitled to speak his mind than others who post here?

Seeker did speak his mind. The fact that some of the posters on this board, including myself, take issue with Seeker in no way implies that Seeker is not entitled to speak his mind." Seeker did speak his mind, and in a rather dasterdly manner:

"Seeker thinks that Glamser and Stringer are dregs."

I've got no problem with anyone taking issue with that!

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"
...As for Glamser and Stringer, I understand their side of the story. They were on a noble quest to insure academic freedom and accuracy. I have no doubt they fully believed they were in the right, and that you do as well. But, they went about it the wrong way. They were fully within their rights until two things happened: 1) use of Dvorak's SS#, and 2) misrepresentation of what they were doing. Had they not used Dvorak's SS# they would have been fully reinstated and Thames would have been gone already. Their carelessness caused you guys a huge set-back. They had every right to do what they did, but the method is where they errored. ..."

Seeker, your above statement about Glamser and Stringer is far different from your earlier statement

"Seeker thinks that Glamser and Stringer are dregs and that Thames isn't much better."

G&S were just doing what the director of human resources would be doing at other institutions, checking credentials of employees. However, USM had a conflict of interest in that MD is the spouse of AD.

I still do not understand your negative "feelings' concerning the faculty. Have you attended any other 4-year universities to provide a comparison?

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
"

Seeker can't or won't give any reasons for his negative statements of the faculty. He just makes assertions; as if that means something other than he isn't mature enough to reason.
"

Otherside

This is why I say the faculty is weak. Because they could have fell Thames long ago, but they do not have the connections within the community or alumni to make that happen. The faculty could have fell Thames with help from key alumni, but you don't have faculty leadership with the relationships to make that happen. Remember Fleming? You guys didn't like him much better than Thames. You would have liked to have gotten rid of him then, but it wasen't the faculty that got rid of him, it was the alumni, mainly the big money athletic boosters. I mentioned this on the FS board and you didn't listen.

Thames is trying to fire Jeff Bower right now. If you want pressure put on Thames you have to find the big alumni boosters that support and back Bower. But, sadly your leadership dosen't have enough relationships in the community to know who they are.

Many of you could care less about athletics and the boosters, but they are your only chance to speed up Thames departure. Had you gone in this direction, you could have ousted him over a year ago. But, you didn't even know where his soft underbelly was - until now.

I've given you the road-map, what else do you want.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

I forgot to add that G&S DID NOT misuse AD SS#. That is spin from SFT. Check with an attorney. Also they DID NOT MISREPRESENT THEMSELVES. More SFT spin. None of this was established at the hearing. These are the assertions made by SFT BEFORE the hearings.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
"

Seeker,
The very nature of a profession is that its practitioners place proper performance of their duties above the immediate desires of their present employer. The idea is that if you follow the ethical demands of your profession, you are best serving your clients and your employer. Thus, the physicians at Hattiesburg Clinic have a responsibility to practice good medicine which takes precedence over the bottom line at the Clinic. The accountants at Arthur Anderson working for Enron violated this principle and ultimately destroyed their company.

Your professors are trying to teach and pursue knowledge in a professional manner. If they are successful, the university prospers and the students benefit. If they believe the university leadership is behaving in ways which endanger the quality of their work, they have an ethical responsibility to be critical in a constructive manner. As a general rule, the better the university, the more heavily involved the faculty is in decision making. And yes, they are also more critical. The most talented and productive faculty members are drawn to such institutions. As a student, your best interest lies in having a professional faculty whose allegiance is to the ethical demands of their profession, not to a particular university.

"

Thank you very much for this, Flash Gordon. Very well put.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Seeker
" . . . . Remember Fleming? You guys didn't like him much better than Thames. You would have liked to have gotten rid of him then, but it wasen't the faculty that got rid of him, it was the alumni, mainly the big money athletic boosters. . ."

If big money athletic boosters had the power to get rid of an honorable man like Horace Fleming, then your university is in a much sorrier mess than I thought it was.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"

Otherside

This is why I say the faculty is weak. Because they could have fell Thames long ago, but they do not have the connections within the community or alumni to make that happen. The faculty could have fell Thames with help from key alumni, but you don't have faculty leadership with the relationships to make that happen. ...."

Thanks Seeker. This clears things up for me. We weren't communicating.

I wouldn't describe the faculty leadership as "weak" but rather not as politically connected as SFT, a home town boy. Using the word "Weak" made me think of you were thinking of an intrinsic flaw in the faculty, as individuals.

You do realize that the faculty's role is not to be politically conected in the community, although some are, but rather to be scholars and teachers, which often isolates them from the public.

Since this is SFT's home town, the playing field is not level. I agree he sure has home field advanage, but I wouln't use that fact to make negative comments about the faculty.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

Well Delta it happened, and it's not that uncommon. The same thing has happened at Auburn resently. Big money athletic boosters are also generally donars to other University programs as well. Many give millions to the Universities, to athletic and academic programs. Universities can't afford to lose them.

I liked Dr Fleming very much. He was not a prefect man, but he was and is a good man.

Dr. Fleming's problem was he didn't have any friends at Southern Miss who would stand up for him. The faculty didn't much care for him, he was much different that Lucas. They didn't have any reason to raise too much of a stink. The athletic boosters didn't like him at all. He had long term goals of taking USM back to Division 2 or something like that.

When the boosters decided that wasen't something they were willing to let happen, after pouring millions into the programs on a yearly basis, they pushed the buttons needed to make it happen. The faculty didn't much care for him so they just kind of waved good bye to him. I am sure he had some level of support from the faculty, but not enough to register on anyone radar. Had they gotten behind Fleiming, they may not have gotten Thames.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
"

Thanks Seeker. This clears things up for me. We weren't communicating.

I wouldn't describe the faculty leadership as "weak" but rather not as politically connected as SFT, a home town boy. Using the word "Weak" made me think of you were thinking of an intrinsic flaw in the faculty, as individuals.

You do realize that the faculty's role is not to be politically conected in the community, although some are, but rather to be scholars and teachers, which often isolates them from the public.

Since this is SFT's home town, the playing field is not level. I agree he sure has home field advanage, but I wouln't use that fact to make negative comments about the faculty. "

The key part of this post is what I put in italics. I agree that it's not individual faculty member's responsibility to be politically connected in the community. But, at some point the individuals you elect to the faculty senate have to be. How else will you know who to go to when you have problems of this kind, or need a grant or donation for a big project?

The faculty has to become more connected with the community. Don't you guys realize that? Don't you understand the kind of support you would have if you had these relationships, if you have community leaders going to bat for you? The Ukrainian Chemistry Proff (his name escapes me) and Joe Parker did you guys more harm with those letters than you could imagine. Someone in faculty leadership positions has to be there to see if you can keep stuff like that out of the papers. That hurts your cause. Noel Polk (who I don't care for) should be about the only person you guys let write letters to the editor. He explains his views, doesn’t resort to name calling to either Thames or the public and gets his message across. I disagree with about 70% of anything Polk has to say, but he at least gets his points across in a sensible manner.

This is where you guys need better leadership. You could do so much if you had better community relations, and were rid of about 15 malcontents. You and I will just have to disagree about the SS#, because neither will change our view on the subject.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"

I agree that it's not individual faculty member's responsibility to be politically connected in the community. But, at some point the individuals you elect to the faculty senate have to be. How else will you know who to go to when you have problems of this kind, or need a grant or donation for a big project?
"

If the university were running well (which is isn't under Thames), then there wouldn't be a need to be "politically connected in the community." At at state school, there would be a need to be politically connected at the state level, and have good relations locally. But faculty senators are representatives of the faculty--they are supposed to be dealing with the internal workings of the university. Most schools do not "have problems of this kind,"--the upheavals that Thames has wrought are not standard fare in academia--and "grants" tend to come from large organizations. As for "donations for a big project," that is the job of the president and the development staff, not the faculty senate.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
" . . .Dr Fleming had long term goals of taking USM back to Division 2 or something like that. . .

What you say about Dr. Fleming's goals for USM athletics may or may not be the case, Seeker. I do follow major college athletics on the national level, but I wouldn't know about the local matters of which you speak. Nonetheless, a university can not afford to let itself be run by any 'special interest' group, including but not limited to what you describe as 'big money athletic boosters.' It sometimes takes a courageous president to protect the academic integrity of the university. You may recall that some years ago the Tulane University president totally dropped its basketball program following an athletic scandal there. The program was resurrected after the athletic program was rehabilitated, but it did take a courageous president to take care of Tulane's academic integrity even in the face of 'special interest' groups. Similarly, Vanderbilt University (the school that truth4USM, no doubt, calls 'the Harvard of the South') integrated their athletic department into the central administration by eliminating the position of Athletic Director in a major overhaul, all in the face of 'special interest' opposition. It took a courageous president to do that. Both Tulane and Vanderbilt are even stronger following the courageous stand their respective presidents took regarding their athletic programs, even in the face of 'special interest' groups. I could give numerous other examples, but I'm getting very sleepy.

Date: Jun 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"Well Delta it happened, and it's not that uncommon. The same thing has happened at Auburn resently. Big money athletic boosters are also generally donars to other University programs as well. Many give millions to the Universities, to athletic and academic programs. Universities can't afford to lose them."

Actually, this is a long-standing problem at USM. The "big money" athletic donors aren't generally contributing to other programs on the same scale. And if you check the really big money donors at, say, Alabama, you start finding people who have no connection whatsoever to the academic programs at the university. They aren't graduates & a great many didn't attend the university at all.

I have no issue with a person donating money to athletics. I have done so myself in the past. What I have an issue with is a guy donating money to athletics in order to buy influence in administrative & academic areas. This is precisely what Shelby's car salesman buddy has done.

As far as Fleming wanting to bump USM to Division 2, you probably mean Div. I-AA. And that wasn't Fleming's goal. What he did that was so godawful bad was take "auxiliary budget" (e.g., concessions) from athletics & put it in the general fund.

Date: Jun 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"

The key part of this post is what I put in italics. I agree that it's not individual faculty member's responsibility to be politically connected in the community. But, at some point the individuals you elect to the faculty senate have to be. How else will you know who to go to when you have problems of this kind, or need a grant or donation for a big project?

The faculty has to become more connected with the community. Don't you guys realize that? Don't you understand the kind of support you would have if you had these relationships, if you have community leaders going to bat for you? The Ukrainian Chemistry Proff (his name escapes me) and Joe Parker did you guys more harm with those letters than you could imagine. Someone in faculty leadership positions has to be there to see if you can keep stuff like that out of the papers. That hurts your cause. Noel Polk (who I don't care for) should be about the only person you guys let write letters to the editor. He explains his views, doesn’t resort to name calling to either Thames or the public and gets his message across. I disagree with about 70% of anything Polk has to say, but he at least gets his points across in a sensible manner.

This is where you guys need better leadership. You could do so much if you had better community relations, and were rid of about 15 malcontents. You and I will just have to disagree about the SS#, because neither will change our view on the subject.
"

Seeker,
All you have to do to see your error in logic here is change USM to Forrest General Hospital (FGH). Does the public think they know how to run FGH? Do they write letters to the media bashing the doctors?

Where do you get the idea that professors must not DO WHAT IS A DUTY TO THEIR PROFESSION "because it won't sound good to the public? All of the USM problems should have been handled internally using the principle of shared governance. SFT would not do so and forced the issue onto the public arena where he has "home feel advantage".

Please realize the faculty have been trained and are dedicated to seeking the truth. They are at a disadvantage at "deceiving" the public by stating half-truths and holding back information because "it will cause harm to the cause among the people who have no credentials concerning higher education."

You have fallen hook, line and sinker for SFT's game plan and contribute to the faculty’s problems.

Now I must say that politically speaking you are correct. But if the faculty used those tactics they would not be worthy of the profession and USM would still be the loser. Academic freedom is all about having faculty speak the truth rather than what is politically correct.

So tell us now, what are your views or running FGH?

Date: Jun 20, 2004

Seeker:
..."You and I will just have to disagree about the SS#, because neither will change our view on the subject."

Speak for yourself Seeker. I will change my view IF you would provide REASONS or EVIDENCE for your view. I told you to consult an attorney about the SS# because I'm not one and so you should not believe me just because I say so. I can't make you do this.

But why BELIEVE something said by SFT (or anyone ) without evidence? Even if I believed something is true, I would never become an advocate of it before checking ther evidence.

Date: Jun 20, 2004

Otherside, you are hereby nominated for one of Mr. Wonderful's prestigious quote du jour awards:

Originally posted by: Otherside
"Seeker . . . With the grade inflation at USM, if you graduate with a 3.0 you are in the bottom half of your class. . . ."

Date: Jun 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"For those who are becoming aware of me for the first time let me introduce myself. Seeker is a straight, white, conservative, Christian, Fraternity man at Southern Miss. That means that 75% of you already hate him. He is a third generation Southern Miss student. He makes good, not great grades in school (3.12 cum.) and is involved in many on-campus activities. He had at least one regular poster on this and the FS board for a class last semester. He knows the hatred for the admin that is preached from the lecterns at Southern Miss. After he graduates he will reveal who he is, but until then he believes that it would be better if he didn't disclose that information. Just as you fear retribution from the dome, he somewhat fears retribution from faculty members regarding his transcript. He knows that he won't be receiving the plaques, letter of recommendation and such that you will all give Rachel Q. He doesn’t need them nor wish to have any of them. Seeker has a deep love for Southern Miss, and is ****ed off at Thames, the faculty leadership and the local media for their parts in the mess that is Southern Miss as we speak. Seeker thinks that Glamser and Stringer are dregs and that Thames isn't much better. He thinks that the Dvorks, Mader and about 10 more in the admin need to be booted. But, he also thinks that about 15 or so of the most radical malcontent faculty members on campus need to be booted as well (not included on that list, Scarborough, Joe Parker and Myron Henry). He thinks that overall the faculty leadership is weak and self-serving. He thinks that a very large number of the faculty have no concern for the well being of Southern Miss, and are far too self-absorbed to be real educators and mentors. Some are even education well beyond what there intellect is capable of handling. It's not to late for the younger faculty members, but many are lost causes in Seeker's opinion and are nothing more than a drain on University resources. Unlike most students at Southern Miss who are either pawns to the faculty (Rachel Q) or pawns to the admin (Walt C), Seeker can think for himself. You probably don't agree with what he thinks, and many of you dislike him for it, but it's an attribute that is being lost on this campus. University is where you are supposed to lean how to think for yourself, but Seeker sees most of the people around him becoming carbon copies of other people. There are so few individuals at Southern Miss it's freighting. Want to see walking stereotypes, come to Southern Miss. Well that pretty much sums up what you need to know about me. Now tell me about yourselves. I gave enough information in this post for the individual who taught me last semester to know who I really am. Well, if that individual is as smart as they think they are anyways. "

Who is Seeker? I think the more appropriate question is who cares.

Date: Jun 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Mr. Wonderful
""

Why, thank you Mr. Wonderful. I got that bit of information from a study done by an Academic Council committee a couple of years ago.

Did you know that only two schools in the southeast have better graduation rates for their athletes, Vanderbilt and Tulane? Couple that with the grade inflation facts and USM could have the worst grade inflation than all of the schools in CUSA and the SEC.

Of course Seeker is unaware of this negative information about USM. In this case, the faculty followed Seekers logic and kept the negative information from the public. Seeker and his family can continue to support USM for another generation in bliss, without those nasty, lazy, weak, “liberal”, whiney faculty making them think.

Date: Jun 20, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Otherside
" Why, thank you Mr. Wonderful. I got that bit of information from a study done by an Academic Council committee a couple of years ago. . . . USM could have the worst grade inflation than all of the schools in CUSA and the SEC."

No, I did not know it was quite that embarrassing, Otherside. I do know, however, that Professor Glamser was one of those at the forefront at USM in fighting the rampant grade inflation which exists there.

Date: Jun 20, 2004

I think Glamser actually chaired the committee looking at grade inflation. And the committee found it is much more prevalent and worse than anyone thought.