[Alumni-chat] Why we should be rejoicing...

[Jason Fregeau '81 (jasonrissa at comcast.net)]

I very much appreciate the less ascerbic tone of your message, Travis, though in response to a different post you couldn't resist the a tweek:
"Well sure Jason now that I know that my problem is that my ass is where my head should be, let me give you a big fat check. I do hope in whatever life you lead outside this effort you are not so insufferable."

Just to set the record straight, my comment about rectal-cranial inversion (BTW, the person has shit for brains, not an ass for a head) was in response to Alan Bernard's accusation that I have "new found friends" in the University, perhaps found during an orgy in the new McGregor president's office. Actually, the alleged orgy took place in the traditional fourth floor shower of North Hall. Of course, nothing that occurred during said alleged orgy will sway my expert legal opinion about Toni (she likes to be called "The Tiger") or the University. Just so you know.

Likewise, the offer to discuss offline was directed toward Alan (as was the statement about Horace Mann). He responded on the Committee board (totally inappropriate IMHO), stating he would not be abused by me privately, and stating my "defensiveness" was "telling." Beats me what he meant; I think he was just putting words together he'd seen elsewhere without really knowing their application.

As for my being insufferable in real life, you betcher ass I am, bub. I'm 48, retired, and I don't owe crap to noboby, especially someone who I feel (1) doesn't read what's written, and (2) makes statements that are ascerbic, unsupported, and couched in a negativity that only invites long-winded, useless discussions. The responses to Rowan's and my postings about the Thursday meetings brought nothing of value to the discussion and made only argumentative put-downs -- that's my opinion, and just as you get to stick with yours, I'm sticking with mine. I WILL be intollerant of those who couch discussion in terms that mock, belittle, and offer no positive solutions. I WILL respond in kind. To reply to an Alan Bernard message posted elsewhere, yes, I will continue to police the tone of posts, at least those with which I am associated.

(On a side note, I find Alan's "best wishes" to my bowels to be just a tad, well... creepy. God, I hope he's not thinking about  sending them flowers!)

Putting all the above aside, I am ecstatic that you have contributed so much to Antioch, which I state sincerely and without any hint of sarcasm or condescension. I hope that others take a lesson in your great generosity. Also, I am heartened by the conciliatory tone at the end of your post, and I extend the same wish for temperance. Can we start fresh? Is there a question I can try to answer? I'm not really into debating whether short term cash is better than long term contributions, except to say that *some* amount of short term cash is needed and will be quantified in the Business Plan. $2 million is needed in the College general fund to support the brave students and beliegured faculty. Thoughts? -- Jason
p.s. Let's start a new thread -- new tone, new thread -- especially since we seem to be mixing in comments from and about Alan.

>>And my bowels were moved by those who began their own craptastic comments. If you're upset or confused by an "official" statement or position, then I respectfully suggest the best course of action is to say, "Hey, I feel confused by [insert point here], instead of saying provocative things like: "I trust your approach to this -- 'send lots of money and let us sort it out' -- as little as I trust it when I hear it from Art Zucker." Garbage in, garbage out. Fling shit like a monkey, and I'll fling it right back. Can't take it? Get out of the monkey house -- or stop throwing shit.
>Actually Jason your message was almost an exact paraphrase of Art Zuckers. Alan and I are not alone in feeling confused and unsure of the tone and specific plans that emerge over night (at least from the perspective of most people) and are then posted as though the law.
>
>>As I've stated, I'm more than happy to have a constructive,  tollerant conversation about points. You have, of course, refused, claiming that I intend to abuse you. Whatever. Your choice. -- Jason
>Umm... ditto Jason. You also have the discretion to respond to the policy or procedure or transparaency issues that are raised, often in a wrapper of irony or satire, but instead you start the troll thing.
>
>>BTW: I'm sure you've done fantastic things and that the compliments given to you by others are well deserved. Yet I don't care if you're the reincarnation of Horace Mann himself, here to give us the paradigm of 21st Century Education. If Horace used innuendo, provacative snipes, and long-winded, ill-thought out e-mails, I'd call him a troll too.
>I guess you are talking about me again, since I have tried to resolve your attacks off-line without response this implies you want or need a public battle. To what end? A lot of posts on Alumni Chat? Your google score goes up?
>
>>Of course, now the cry will arise "he's squelching our speach." Feh. We should be so lucky. Travis and Alan will continue to troll this and other boards, baiting individuals with their upsetting comments and inability to read what others have posted. You see, I'm not smarter than Travis and Allan, just a lot less creepy and a lot more willing to listen. Oh, and a whole lot less tollerant of bullies and trolls, no matter who they are or how much they intend to donate. There's no class of citizen that gets to mock others without an occassional smackdown. Constructive criticism is one thing and wholly acceptable; destrictive nit-picks is another and should be given a "short, sharp, shot."
>To be clear Jason, in my case it is what I have donated and what I have pledged to dontate. Is a public roll out of our bona fides needed to allow us to be critical of your posts? I have never been a baiter, I have too often been a fish swallowing the bait (like now) and yes, getting into some smackdowns.
>
>Inability to read what others have posted? I think not. Skepticism and point on point refutation has been the tone of my posts, except when exasperated by the arrogance that seeps through. I read, reread, find previous comments related to a post and then do some research, then I respond. You have confalted two of my posts, one which was an emotional appeal to the AB to avoid the mistakes that have lead to the mistrust many feel of the University. The other was in response to one of your posts about the money issue and development's view of what can be raised. That is the post where I said Risa for Senate, President, etc. And this is where I have to admit failure as a writer if you could not tell that my point was no matter how great Risa is, $100MM is an almost absurd amount of CASH to raise in one year, and that much money upfront is not required to keep the college open and revitalize it. I have met with representatives of the development office and I would not for a second
>question their integrity, skill or dedication and in fact have not. I believe it is important to know the difference between what is needed now to stop the bleeding, how much is needed in the next five years to reverse the atrophy, and how much is needed in the endowment to grow and prosper. No one is laying these numbers out with documentation to support them (including me cause the U won't let it out to the public). I believe that $50MM or a $100MM are figures that first came up from an off hand remark Dan Fallon made, not upon a SWOT analysis of the college's options, not upon a hard survey on infrastructure costs etc. These large sums could also be a goal to high that were uttered aloud so that if the money does not roll in by late October the BOT can say no dice.
>
>I hope I have said nothing to attack you personally Jason, as I would hate for this to take up more space. But this alumni chat so nasty is the mood anyway. As I have said repeatedly I appreciate your efforts and the efforts of every one who has given their time, or money, or brain power to resolving this crisis. Let us all be temperate in our posting and more tolerant of the means of expression.