Okay, Greenie.  You don't want line by line argument to your statements.
 Fine.  I disagree with so many of your assumptions, I wouldn't know where to
start anyway.  And since Murphy clearly states that "Assumption is the mother
of all screw-ups", I will let the majority of your post alone, except this:
 
Taken from the text of the Globe article:
 
"Student government representatives drafted a resolution calling for the
university to fire Walsh, but the proposal met strong opposition from
the student body and was dropped."
 
Now, it seems you are a college grad, so I'll try to keep this simple.  That
paragraph means the student body (read:  MOST of the students) here at Maine
REJECTED the resolution to fire Walsh, and rejected it in no uncertain terms.
 The Globe reporter and you UNH/BU folks focus on the opinions of a small
group of students and consider it the general feeling on campus because that
fits your prejudice.  That would be like saying our distinguished
Representative from Bath represented the governing bodies of our great State.
 If hearsay is to be believed, both those resolutions came from personal
antipathy, not because they were truly representing the majority of their
constituents.  Also both have been exalted by some media seeking
sensationalism.
 
I also am impressed by your definition of "short", because one year away from
your life's breath and heart's desire seems a LONG time to me.  And Walsh was
found guilty of exactly what?  He had a valid argument re: Tory's situation.
 The school defined it's grades differently.  I still believe he was not
trying to cheat, just thought he saw something others hadn't yet.  If he had
been proved right, that would have been a real scoop, and we would have been
praising his insight.  What was he guilty of?  HUBRIS?  True.  He also did
not fully disclose the facts of the Tory case to his superiors.  Yeah, that
was dumb, but extenuating circumstances were in place in that relationship
already.  Not an excuse, just a reason.   Do you fire your most productive wor
ker because he screwed up once?  NO!  He took money from supporters during
his initial suspension, which he then returned.  I think he was guilty of
taking some BAD advice on that score.  He sometimes trusts and is loyal to
folks who don't fully grasp all the facets of situations.  For these three
things he was suspended a year.  Yes, he got a good job, but he worked for
the salary, developing a new program at that company.  He landed on his feet.
 Do we hate him for that?
 
Now, since Finagles Fourth law clearly states: "Once a job is fouled up,
anything done to improve it only makes it worse", I will let you UNH/BU folks
get on with your Umaine/Walsh bashing, and not confuse you with facts which
do not fit your prejudices.  I get enough of those kinds of arguments from my
dear mother.
 
Going "Home for the Holidays"!
 
Cathy Hart
Eating turkey beats eating crow....
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.