Any Word? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 23, 2006

Any Word?

Date: Jun 23, 2006

Why don't you just call one of them on the phone and ASK?
We've been down this road numerous times on this board, do we have to start that again?

Date: Jun 23, 2006

Why do you seem to think that this is not a legit question to ask -- regardless of how many times the question of whether or not they should talk has been debated on this board? I for one do not know if they have said anything -- so it is indeed a legit and straightforward question to ask. On the "loaded question" side of things; well they very publically asked me for thier support (which they received). Why is it not proper for me to ask the same in return when they have nothing to risk and we had everything?

Date: Jun 23, 2006

And by the way not this again, I just looked at the topic lines at the heads of the discussions since the date that G and S could talk. This has not come up since then - so how could this be a "not this again" kind of deal? Seems that it has not been discussed at all since it has been of any meaning. The G+S affair was the biggest thing to hit this campus maybe ever. Now the two leading characters can shed light on that event. Is it not proper to wonder if they have anything at all to say? We have had nothing but rumor since then on a campus sadly now dominated by rumor. One of the main source of the rumors can officially be put to bed after two years of waiting. So it is time to ask this question rather than say, "not this again."

Date: Jun 23, 2006

While I know neither of these gentlemen except for what I have read on this and the old Fire Shelby board; I would imagine that they are not going to say much of anything. They are professionals and unless asked directly will continue to keep their opinions to themselves.

What would either of them have to gain by talking? It would make them look bad, and unprofessional. Yes, it would be nice to know the "truth" of the matter as there are always two sides to every story, but at this point, Shelby will get his sooner or later. What goes around comes around.

Date: Jun 23, 2006

They have nothing at all to gain by talking. They had nothing to gain then other than the defense of a university that they loved by taking the lead in the actions of the time. I presume that their devotion to USM and academic freedom remains intact. If they fought for those beliefs until the end, why not let us know and pursue the same laudable goal now? Again with nothing to gain.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

Gary don't work here no more. Why should he have any "devotion" to USM, considering the way he AND his wife were treated.

Frank's in the phone book.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

Boyo wrote:

Any word from G or S now that the muzzles are off? I for one would like to know why they settled and we still have SFT.

Don't know much of anything but I do know this---made no difference whether they settled, were reinstated, or that the firings were upheld by the board. That board was going to stand by SFT no matter what. They gave him to us, and they had to back him. This may have been the biggest thing, but there were dozens of reasons before and after to let him go. Don't blame their settlement for Thames still being around.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

First off to not again -- no reason to attempt to talk down to me. I realize that Gary and his wife are gone and that Frank is in the phone book. I also realize that they had very rough treatment. However, that treatment was NOT by USM. Much of what I consider to be USM rallied to their support. It is to USM the people and the students that they were devoted for so long NOT the administration. That devotion might just remain, no?

To retiree 3 -- you read a little too much into my initial question. The board etc. are of course eventually to blame. However, I was there for the whole thing, including the hearing. It was my opinion at the time that SFT seemed to be on the ropes. We all thought that when the settlement came that it included something about him "getting sick" or something and making a quick exit. It obviously did not. I would like to know why the settlement was reached. I know that there are several going theories -- in my mind the most obvious being that G + S had been through a lot and were warned that they would more than likely have to go through a lot more if they did not settle then. If the truth is that simple and human I would just like to know. We made incorrect assumptions about this then and more than likely are now as well.

Again the question of wanting to know might well be born of frustration. It seemed that SFT had been pushed to the edge, and instead of being finished was allowed back up. Especially considering what has happened to USM since then I would very much like to know whether that interpretation is incorrect and why.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

Boyo,

You know who I am, but I don't know who you are. Give me a call and we can meet for coffee. I can probably answer your questions. I remain very interested the the future welfare of USM.

Frank Glamser

Date: Jun 24, 2006

Frank,

Will do and thanks.