Very Ambiguous final remarks. . however, I would still suggest that IF if was necessary for the professors to disprove the evidence presented against them in the testimony of SFT, they would have been given the opportunity to do so. This obviously would include the cross-examination of Thames himself. What their own testimony seems to have done was "fill in the gaps" and resolve some of the issues raised by this morning's testimony -- I don't think it was ONLY in the interest of their own academic integrity as Yippee would suggest (though like others have said, he is entited to his own opinion).
McD: Did you think you were going to get fired for expressing your opinion?
GS: no.
Reuben Anderson: There will be a recommendation made today to the IHL. The contents will not be made public until the IHL accepts the recommendation. The bottom line is that no one will make any statements to the media.
I can't believe they tried to make an issue of Stringer's comment about the student. I did understand correctly that this was in a private email, didn't I? He revealed no confidential information. And if it is illegal for professors to mock students in private and/or for students to mock professors in private, God help us all.
If you do know what was agreed upon (which I doubt), you or whoever gave you the information must be in violation of both the Judge's order not to comment publically and probably an express obligation under the settlement agreement to not disclose the result. So either you are lying or you in violation of some obligation to maintain the confidential nature of the information. This seems to make you just as reprehensible as you claim the professors have been.
quote: Originally posted by: StormyMS "I believe there was an affidavit from Pamela Standridge at WDAM that Dvorak's social security number was plainly printed on information given to her by Lisa Mader, USM PR person."