OK, I guess we're talking about this thing openly now. I found this statement ludicrous:
"The flap also underscores what sources say are two distinct sects of thought at Patrick Henry. The first camp, a more ideological, fundamentalist-driven philosophy of thought is led by Farris. The second camp, the Patrick Henry junior said, emphasizes more 'freedom of desires,' and is more or less led by Root."
Stacey led by Root? Root has only been there a year. The fact that he has been more open (less discreet?) in his opposition hardly makes him the leading light of reason.
Bottom line: Don't call my professors sheeple, and don't imply that a classicist and a historian would take orders from an upstart government professor, you insignificant little undergraduate!!!
Calming down now...I will probably take this post down. I merely have immense respect for Drs. Culberson, Noe and Stacey, and their ability to think independently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What I really don't understand is what is supposed to be gained from being a disgruntled anonomyous source. Especially if you are going to be inaccurate...
We all have to carry TFC's name around with us for the rest of our lives. I don't get muddying it further for a political high.
You know, TCF always makes me think of something else those initials could mean.
And, yeah, come on guys, we're alums. Whatz Farris going to do to us?
TFC, rather.
It is a point well made, Michaela, and no need to take it down. That any student, past or present, would say Root is the ringleader when the other three professors are involved is ludicrous. I think the three cared more about preserving what unity was there for the sake of the college, since at least two of them had stakes from the beginning. The snowball of journalism has started, though. It's only a matter of time.
Post a Comment