Question for Robert Campbell - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 7, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: Question for Robert Campbell

Date: Aug 7, 2004

This side said, "then you got a faculty member acting like an immature 18 yr old smashing his "no excellence in teaching award" on camera (berry?)."

I thought you were going to say "he was just like Jesus Christ throwing a temper tantrum in the temple and casting out the money changes."

But This side just didn't see the connection.

Date: Aug 7, 2004

Thanks Flash, Pretzel and JC. I hope you can take over while I go cut the grass. I will check back in an hour.

Read up This Side, we may have a quiz later.

Date: Aug 7, 2004

Do you think the Mader Machine has enough holes in the armor to actually be vulnerable. I'll bet she even has written directives, signed by the man himself.

Date: Aug 7, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Question for Robert Campbe

Date: Aug 7, 2004

RE: Question for Robert Campbell

Date: Aug 7, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: this side
stringer ...set the example that it is ok to break federal law and get away with it. several faculty offered their students extra credit to attend some kind of rally against thames. "

this side, I've heard that if you mentally repeat these arguments to yourself over and over, hold your hands over you ears and shout "La la la, I can't hear you!", you can actually convince yourself that they are true. I'm not sure that you can convince anyone else, though.

I can't imagine why someone would hold on so dearly to statements that have been refuted repeatedly, except that you simply want to believe that the faculty are in the wrong. It makes me wonder whether you have something to gain by being on the side of the administration. Maybe your conscience is motivating you to hold up these lame defenses so you won't feel bad about yourself for selling out?

By the way, who told you there was a federal law just for giving someone's ss# to another person? Sure, if you use it to fradulently buy things on their credit, but if there were a real law against what Dr. Stringer did, wouldn't there have been a criminal trial? Whatever.

Date: Aug 8, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"I do want to jump in here with an observation. Whoever "Online Prof" may be, he is probably not Seeker, unless he is a genius at changing styles. He is obviously more literate than Seeker. However, he is an elitist snob of the first order. How fortunate for him that he had the means/health/circumstances which enabled him to complete his PhD and thus be so superior to the rest of us grubby peasants. News break, son -- some of the smartest and worthiest people in Mississippi are driving tractors or trucks, stringing electrical wire, building roads, nursing the sick, driving police cars, or sweating out at Camp Shelby, and just generally making your ivory tower life possible. Oh, and paying your salary to boot."

LVN, All that I can say is AMEN! You hit the nail on the head. This online snob knows everything, and there is no other way to do it but his way, no matter the discipline, no matter the context or circumstance.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

Although this thread has lost its original intent I find it necessary to comment.

The poster "THIS SIDE" makes a point desrving of notice. Most of the talk about the GS/FG hearings is cr*ap. The truth of the matter is that the IHL gave strict orders to minimize public disclosure of ALL of the evidence in efforts to not tarnish the University's reputation to the extent beyond what the University was already subject to.

Unfortunately, I think they should have exposed ALL of the evidence and canned Glamser and Stringer, which is JUST what they deserved. Scholars-yeah,right!

The IHL acted like a prudent business would in assessing a lawsuit. They considered the cost of settlement as opposed to the cost the they University would have endured due to the impact on the students.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: THE JURY IS STILL OUT!
"I find it necessary to comment."

And so you have spoken, t.j.i.s.o. But the jury is not still out on you! That verdict seems clear.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

Didn't Dr. Thames have an extended period of time at the hearing to present his evidence before Judge Anderson intervened? Did he not lay out his entire case during that time? Was he holding back "the good stuff" for another day perhaps, or was what wes presented pretty much all there was? This recent spate of posters seem to forget that Dr. Stinger's "criminal" act of possessing or revealing AD's SSN was mirrored by LSM's equally "criminal" act of handing it to WDAM -TV. No other "criminal" action was ever alleged and certainly never proven. And has it ever been established that that is even against the law? In any case, as stated repeatedly on this board and elsewhere, Dr. Stringer's & Glamser's nefarious activities certainly didn't seem to bother TAMU or Tulane.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"Didn't Dr. Thames have an extended period of time at the hearing to present his evidence before Judge Anderson intervened? Did he not lay out his entire case during that time? Was he holding back "the good stuff" for another day perhaps, or was what wes presented pretty much all there was? This recent spate of posters seem to forget that Dr. Stinger's "criminal" act of possessing or revealing AD's SSN was mirrored by LSM's equally "criminal" act of handing it to WDAM -TV. No other "criminal" action was ever alleged and certainly never proven. And has it ever been established that that is even against the law? In any case, as stated repeatedly on this board and elsewhere, Dr. Stringer's & Glamser's nefarious activities certainly didn't seem to bother TAMU or Tulane."

LVN, you are a sagacious and valuable board member. Thank you for going where I have no stomach to go these days. I will just echo your well-chosen remarks--Stringer and Glamser are moving on to more "world class" pastures with no threat of any criminal charges. Case closed.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: THE JURY IS STILL OUT!
"Most of the talk about the GS/FG hearings is cr*ap. The truth of the matter is that the IHL gave strict orders to minimize public disclosure of ALL of the evidence in efforts to not tarnish the University's reputation to the extent beyond what the University was already subject to.
"

Some people don't know when to give up.

If the IHL Board were really trying to minimize damage to USM's reputation, it would have announced the settlement without allowing Shelby Thames to give one word of testimony.

Nearly everything Thames said during the hearing made USM look bad. His massive reliance on intercepted emails, including emails to and from a student, permanently damaged his relationship with the print media in Mississippi.

Have you actually listened to the hearings? I believe they're still available on WUSM's Web site....

Robert Campbell

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"LVN, you are a sagacious and valuable board member . . . I will just echo your well-chosen remarks--Stringer and Glamser are moving on to more "world class" pastures with no threat of any criminal charges. Case closed."

LVN and truth4usm/AH: Your posts were excellent!

The poster named "the jury is still out" is evidently ill informed. Perhaps he/she is a newbie. Or, perhaps, just one with an axe to grind. Whatever the basis for his/her lack of information, let me add this: All of the evidence was presented by the "prosecution" the first day of the hearing. Those present at the hearing heard it all, as did those who heard it on WUSM. Evidently "The jury is still out" was not there (or was not listening to WUSM). The settlement was reached after completion of the prosecution's testimony. The complete evidence packet of the university, as well as the evidence packet of the two faculty members are a matter public record. No evidence was suppressed. The reason "the jury is still out" might think there is more evidence of wrong doing by the two faculty members is that there is so little of it presented by the prosecution. I believe that the USM chapter of AAUP has both evidence packets and a transcript of the hearing. If "the jury is still out" would like to verify that all the evidence and all the charges were presented by the university attorneys, that is the place to go. Anyone who heard the president say over and over again to wait for the facts to come out knows those facts would have been presented if there were any.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lamont Cranston
" LVN and truth4usm/AH: Your posts were excellent! The poster named "the jury is still out" is evidently ill informed. Perhaps he/she is a newbie. Or, perhaps, just one with an axe to grind. Whatever the basis for his/her lack of information, let me add this: All of the evidence was presented by the "prosecution" the first day of the hearing. Those present at the hearing heard it all, as did those who heard it on WUSM. Evidently "The jury is still out" was not there (or was not listening to WUSM). The settlement was reached after completion of the prosecution's testimony. The complete evidence packet of the university, as well as the evidence packet of the two faculty members are a matter public record. No evidence was suppressed. The reason "the jury is still out" might think there is more evidence of wrong doing by the two faculty members is that there is so little of it presented by the prosecution. I believe that the USM chapter of AAUP has both evidence packets and a transcript of the hearing. If "the jury is still out" would like to verify that all the evidence and all the charges were presented by the university attorneys, that is the place to go. Anyone who heard the president say over and over again to wait for the facts to come out knows those facts would have been presented if there were any. "

Those of you who are going to cite non-existent evidence in order to defame Gary and Frank should have the balls to put your names to the accusation.

Sorry -- this is not free speech but character assassination.

I'll defend your right to say whatever you want but not from the cloak of anonymity against two private citizens. It is one thing to be afraid of the power of a boss -- remaining anonymous is only common sense -- especially if there is already evidence of retaliation. It is another thing to attack -- viciously -- private individuals who do not hold any authority over their critics.

Come on out from under the rock where you can be seen.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lamont Cranston
" LVN and truth4usm/AH: Your posts were excellent! The poster named "the jury is still out" is evidently ill informed. . . . Anyone who heard the president say over and over again to wait for the facts to come out knows those facts would have been presented if there were any. "

Lamont -- sorry to tag onto your last entry. Just want to make it clear my little tirade was in agreement with you vis a vis some of the earlier and now infamous posters.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

[edited due to personal attacks on board members]

Date: Aug 9, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Question for Robert Campbe

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" I thought this was fried & refried on the old FS board. THERE IS NO LAW PROHIBITING A PERSON FROM GIVING ANOTHER PERSON'S SSN TO A THIRD-PARTY IF THERE IS NO INTENT TO DEFRAUD. " . . ..Given the rapidity with which Reuben Anderson ended the hearing after Thames' testimony that morning, I believe that there really might have been federal charges filed had it been allowed to continue. But the defendant would not have been Gary Stringer or Frank Glamser. "

Hear Hear!

Incidently, if the last edited post in any way referred to me I'd love to have it forwarded to my email account -- but I guess it probably doesn't work that way eh webmaster?

Date: Aug 9, 2004

edited post

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Web Master
"
It did refer to you, but, no, it cannot be forwarded. "

Stephen, It was in my browser cache. Check your in-box. Ad hominem, yes. But dumbly so.

If I were a faculty member & thought seriously that these illiterate flamebaits were posted by alumni, students, or colleagues, I would hang my head in shame & figure that I'd not done my job at all.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Web Master
" It did refer to you, but, no, it cannot be forwarded. "

ah well . . . I suppose even the rude deserve the protection of anonymity . . .

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Web Master
" It did refer to you, but, no, it cannot be forwarded. "

ah well . . . I suppose even the rude deserve the protection of anonymity . . .

Date: Aug 9, 2004

RE: RE: Question for Robert Campbell

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Mississippian in Exile
" One has to wonder why this issue continues to surface when all persons central to the Stringer/Glamser case know the truth. The frequency of postings such as this is reminiscent of the "big lie" concept of repetition perfected by the Nazi Minister of Propaganda and Enlightenment, Joseph Goebbels: If you tell a lie often enough and long enough, eventually people will believe it. What, pray tell, could have been suppressed? My understanding is that the university's "evidence packet" was something on the order of 100 pages, including personal and professional emails to and from Gary Stringer going all the way back to January, 2003. Did the administration omit the "incriminating" ones? Not likely. There was even an email that was totally unrelated to the case (e.g., from the editor of the student paper to Myron Henry). The social security issue was laid to rest previously, and laid to rest again on this thread by some very knowledgable posters. No crime was committed. The bottom line is:There was no valid reason to attempt to terminate the two senior, tenured faculty members. We have ways of making you think: GOEBBELS "

Great post MIE. The evidence of packet from the administration is A JOKE -- there is nothing in it at all. These men were hounded from campus (fortunately, the university at least paid a great price in order to shut them up). Your assessment is correct -- the charges were a joke. The publicity put out by the administration surrounding the charges were LIES. That includes the LIE that (at one point) the administration might bring them up on criminal charges. There was nothing criminal about their acts.

The whole thing was designed to get rid of two percieved troublemakers and to intimidate the rest of us. Case closed.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

Reliable sources say that Thames had in mind getting rid of some tenured professors, and it was just a question of who he would go for. There are even tales that iTech was breaking into offices long before the Stringer-Glamser debacle to try and get dirt on certain profs so that he could fire them. I heard that someone who refused to do it was later fired. So if it hadn't been Stringer and Glamser, it would have been someone else. This makes Shelby's comment about being brought in to "clean house" even more ominous. He must have had some IHL backing (and not just Roy Klumb) to fire tenure professors.

So, if you think it can't happen to you . . . think again.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Arnold Schwarzgnome
"Reliable sources say that Thames had in mind getting rid of some tenured professors, and it was just a question of who he would go for . . . So if it hadn't been Stringer and Glamser, it would have been someone else. This makes Shelby's comment about being brought in to "clean house" even more ominous."

Arnie, what you say is one of the reasons I fail to understand why more USM faculty members do not join AAUP. As a former administrator at a major university elsewhere, I can tell you one thing: AAUP can be your friend. In some instances, a friend even greater than your lawyer. AAUP can also be a friend of the university administration. But it appears to me that your administration might be too myopic to grasp that.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Arnold Schwarzgnome
"Reliable sources say that Thames had in mind getting rid of some tenured professors, and it was just a question of who he would go for. There are even tales that iTech was breaking into offices long before the Stringer-Glamser debacle to try and get dirt on certain profs so that he could fire them. I heard that someone who refused to do it was later fired. So if it hadn't been Stringer and Glamser, it would have been someone else. This makes Shelby's comment about being brought in to "clean house" even more ominous. He must have had some IHL backing (and not just Roy Klumb) to fire tenure professors. So, if you think it can't happen to you . . . think again."

This post is not only irresponsible but an outright lie. There are a lot of great people that work in iTech and you are dishonoring them with this junk. No one from iTech has ever broken into an office to get "dirt" on a professor or anyone else. Why spread those lies?

Date: Aug 9, 2004

IP, every responsible person on this board sincerely, sincerely hopes you are right.

Date: Aug 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Idiot Patrol
"This post is not only irresponsible but an outright lie. There are a lot of great people that work in iTech and you are dishonoring them with this junk. No one from iTech has ever broken into an office to get "dirt" on a professor or anyone else. Why spread those lies?"

I have to agree. I have many friends that work for iTech and not one of them would break into an office. These people are not drone that would blindly follow any directive, they are the kind of people who like computers which generally mean they are kind of anti-authority (well at least my friends that work there are like that). The only ones in iTech that might be compelled to do SFT work is the higher brass, but my experience with them would indicate that 1) they would not want to get their hands dirty or 2) they wouldn't know how to get info off of a computer.

The regular employees from administrators down to desktop support are mostly good but all underpaid. They would have no problem coming forward if someone asked them to do something wrong. I realize that someone had to give the emails used in the "trial" (and I use that term very loosely), but I will submit that it is completely different to have a lawyer show up and ask you to pull some files from a server than to have some administrator ask you to break into an office and snoop on a computer.