pro-SFT letter to HA today

Date: May 12, 2004

pro-SFT letter to HA today

Date: May 12, 2004

Is he not aware that a recording of the whole hearing has been posted on this board for weeks and critics of SFT have therefore had a chance to study the whole thing far more closely than any mere eye-witness could have done?

Date: May 12, 2004

Mr. Johnson:

If a professor "violated federal law," as you state, then why hasn't he been charged with a crime yet?

Hmmm....sounds like one of the more literate members of Eagle Talk here. This is *exactly* the kind of garbage that you will see over there.

Date: May 12, 2004

This is my favorite part:

"Fifth, Thames has never appeared on TV or in print acting immaturely or unprofessionally,..."

That part made me laugh. This letter is almost too ridiculous to even bother commenting on. But as discussed in another thread, it seems there is an absence of anti-Thames letters being printed lately and it doesn't seem like it is because they are not being sent in. I am not sure why these obviously uninformed people (note the SS# thing again!) are getting all the editorial space.

Date: May 12, 2004

It's particularly odd that all these pro-SFT letters are being published since the anti-SFT side consistently wins in the on-line polls by margins of at least 75%, and usually closer to (often over) 90%. If the editors were trying to publish letters that reflected demonstrated public opinion, they would publish 8 anti-SFT letters for every two pro-SFT letters.

Date: May 12, 2004

MR JOHNSON

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THAMES SUGGESTED TO THE LAWYERS THAT MY DAUGHTER, RACHEL QUINLIVAN, WAS OFFERED RECOMENDATIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR ANTI-THAMES STORIES(WHICH HAD YOU READ THE PRINTZ) YOU WOULD KNOW SHE DID NOT WRITE. HOW ELSE WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN PROMPTED TO ASK ABOUT THIS.

THE IMPLICATION IS CLEARLY THERE IN THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING.THAT RACHEL COULD BE BOUGHT.

THAMES THROUGH THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER PROCESS, EVEN IF AIMED AT DRS. GLAMSER AND STRINGER, DID ATTACK THE INTEGRITY OF MY DAUGHTER. YOU CAN SPIN IT ANY WAY YOU LIKE, BUT THAMES STOOPED TO A NEW LOW IN DRAGGING MY DAUGHTER INTO HIS RUTHLESS PURSUIT OF POWER.

YOU ARE CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS DISGRACED SHELL OF A MAN, BUT YOU SHOULD REALLY LOOK DEEPER INTO THIS TESTIMONY THAT YOU "WITNESSED". THINK ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD FEEL IF YOU HAD THE PRESIDENT OF YOUR CHILD'S UNIVERSITY IMPLY THAT YOUR CHILD LACKED INTEGRITY. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THINK OF HOW YOUR CHILD WOULD FEEL.

I HOPE IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN, THEY NEVER HAVE TO BE SUBJECTED TO ANYONE LIKE SHELBY THAMES.

RACHEL' MOM

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"It's particularly odd that all these pro-SFT letters are being published since the anti-SFT side consistently wins in the on-line polls by margins of at least 75%, and usually closer to (often over) 90%. If the editors were trying to publish letters that reflected demonstrated public opinion, they would publish 8 anti-SFT letters for every two pro-SFT letters."

To be fair to the HA, in today's online edition, there is an anti-SFT letter from Ellen Weinauer (the same one we saw in the SH, I believe) and a guest column from Noel Polk. I think that's a fair representation (if you count the guest column as an "anti-SFT" letter)--2 for 1.

Someone definitely needs to respond to the "federal offense" issue, though. Perhaps Amy Young?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: RACHEL'S MOM
"MR JOHNSON IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THAMES SUGGESTED TO THE LAWYERS THAT MY DAUGHTER, RACHEL QUINLIVAN, WAS OFFERED RECOMENDATIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR ANTI-THAMES STORIES(WHICH HAD YOU READ THE PRINTZ) YOU WOULD KNOW SHE DID NOT WRITE. HOW ELSE WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN PROMPTED TO ASK ABOUT THIS. THE IMPLICATION IS CLEARLY THERE IN THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING.THAT RACHEL COULD BE BOUGHT. THAMES THROUGH THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER PROCESS, EVEN IF AIMED AT DRS. GLAMSER AND STRINGER, DID ATTACK THE INTEGRITY OF MY DAUGHTER. YOU CAN SPIN IT ANY WAY YOU LIKE, BUT THAMES STOOPED TO A NEW LOW IN DRAGGING MY DAUGHTER INTO HIS RUTHLESS PURSUIT OF POWER. YOU ARE CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS DISGRACED SHELL OF A MAN, BUT YOU SHOULD REALLY LOOK DEEPER INTO THIS TESTIMONY THAT YOU "WITNESSED". THINK ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD FEEL IF YOU HAD THE PRESIDENT OF YOUR CHILD'S UNIVERSITY IMPLY THAT YOUR CHILD LACKED INTEGRITY. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THINK OF HOW YOUR CHILD WOULD FEEL. I HOPE IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN, THEY NEVER HAVE TO BE SUBJECTED TO ANYONE LIKE SHELBY THAMES. RACHEL' MOM "

Rachel's Mom,

On another thread I have posted info about an award for which Rachel would seem to be an ideal candidate. I hope you will urge her to apply.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally quoted by: texaseagle
"

[...] Fourth, the professors were in violation of USM's e-mail policy [...]"

WTF does that even mean?

(And kudos to Rachael’s Mom for the best use of caps lock I’ve ever witnessed.)

Date: May 12, 2004

This letter is sandwiched between two others--one by Noel Polk and one by me--that are strongly critical. I don't like the pro-SFT letter, of course, and agree that there has been an upsurge in the "bad, lazy, selfish faculty" stuff we read so much about last spring. Still, our perspective is getting out there (don't forget the powerful letter by Rachel Q's father a few days ago). Keep those letters coming!!

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" To be fair to the HA, in today's online edition, there is an anti-SFT letter from Ellen Weinauer (the same one we saw in the SH, I believe) and a guest column from Noel Polk. I think that's a fair representation (if you count the guest column as an "anti-SFT" letter)--2 for 1. Someone definitely needs to respond to the "federal offense" issue, though. Perhaps Amy Young?"

The chief burden of letter-writing seems to be borne by folks in the English department and in Liberal Arts. I think it would be helpful to the cause (especially from a PR point of view) if people in sciences and business could be more outspoken. Is there a reason they are not expressing themselves more freely?

Date: May 12, 2004

To Rachel's Mom --

Way To Go Mom!!!!

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: texaseagle
"Fourth, the professors were in violation of USM's e-mail policy, which is freely available for all to read on USM's tech Web page."

Of course, if William Johnson had read the e-mail policy, he would know that the professors violated no such policy. The policy was what Thames cited to justify his ability to surreptitiously monitor other people's personal correspondence without a court order. There is nothing, repeat nothing, in the policy that defines what "routine" circumstances are & there is certainly nothing defining the conditions under which secret monitoring of communications is permissible.

In other words, thanks to the "policy," faculty & staff know what the penalty is without knowing the offense.

Your local police would require a court order before doing what Shelby was able to do without asking anybody. Further, he never demonstrated in his testimony that the materials he cited were collected according to ordinary rules of evidence. Is Pileum recognized as qualified to do computer forensics work?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
""

I have many friends over in the CoEP that would like to speak out, but they are truly living in a Third World Country right now (the ones who I have talked to btw; however, others might disagree since there are people in Third World countries that enjoy certain perks!). If you disagree, just look at the current situation of many of my esteemed colleagues who have "spoken out" by refusing to be merely "yes" people to Deans Pierce and Thames (the true Dean although it would be terrifically unethical even for SFT right now to give her the outright title). There's a money chain and there's a lawsuit trail . . . follow that trail and you'll find the major pileup in the College of CoEP!!!

I'm glad my affiliation is not with CoEP, and by speaking out, if they are reading this - I'm sure they're happy that they did not have to work with me either.