Scientific Study Of This Board - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 13, 2004

Scientific Study Of This Board

Date: Aug 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: psizxxi
"After using both qualitative and quantitative research to study this board."

Ah, my friend, you have access to only anecdotal evidence. A very poor source of data for scientists. Only a non-refereed journal would publish your speculations. Moreoer, you appear to be too close to the subject matter to maintain objectivity. Has your research been approved by the USM human subjects protection committee?

Date: Aug 13, 2004

I'm fascinated with #4 -- the poster has some method of determining who the others on the board are? Most of the ones I know, myself included, do not fit into any of the listed categories. I would daresay that a good many of the "former faculty" did in fact have tenure. You must not have been reading Bab's lists. And there are WAY more than two current faculty on here. As for #5, I can't wait to see how one retaliates with "possible means" -- that's a new one.

Date: Aug 13, 2004

LVN:

I am so glad you did not get your advanced degree in polymers, otherwise you would not have been able to reach the scientific conclusion that you did.

Congrats LVN keep up the good work.

One often wonders if the Dome BUTTERBALL reads this site?

Date: Aug 13, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: psizxxi
" I have reached the following conclusions:

1) This board has nothing to do with the AAUP.

psi zi xxi, It has everything to do with AAUP: Academic freedom and the deprivation thereof. Errosion of academic tenure. Inappropriate attempt to fire two faculty members. Violation of due process. Other.

2) There are only two true professor posting here regularly.

Wrong again, psi si xxi, I know that for a fact.

3) This board is only about removing a university president who was appointed because it was known that he would take a hands-on-approach and reform a system that was in dire need of reform.

That's not my goal, frat boy (psi xi xxi). I really don't really care who's in charge at the "top." What's happened to the unfortunate souls at the "bottm" is what alarms me.

4) The majority of the posters on this board are housewives, former faculty who could not get tenure, and former students who are incapable of thinking for themselves or who were misled by a few unethical faculty.

I am in none of those categories.

5) The majority of the posters on this board feel as though the university system owed them something; they did not get it."

You bet the university owes the faculty something (even the two you erroneously numbered among those posting on this board): It owes them dignity, academic freedom, protrection from retaliation, and a healthy working environment conducive to teaching, research, and service in the manner that exists at other major universities.

You should be the recipient of the Mr. Nasty Award for posting the largest number of errors ever recorded on one single thread.

Date: Aug 13, 2004

Troll-o-meter:

9 for spelling & grammar

1 for truthfulness

3 or attempt at humor

0 for artistic merit

Date: Aug 13, 2004

A 9 for spelling & grammar? Where is the low standard of standardness? I though we were supposed to deduct points for correctly spelled words!

I must re-read the Troll-O-Meter Manual & the USATJC* Code of Points.

-----
* United States Academic Troll Judging Commission

Date: Aug 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"A 9 for spelling & grammar? Where is the low standard of standardness? I though we were supposed to deduct points for correctly spelled words! I must re-read the Troll-O-Meter Manual & the USATJC* Code of Points. ----- * United States Academic Troll Judging Commission"

Maybe I didn't read the manual properly...perhaps we need more standard standardization.