Why Wa would want to risk ruining his/her/its/their professional reputation(s) escapes me. This might be of interest. [Version II]

Begin forwarded message:

From: LOUIS J SHEEHAN <lousheehan@me.com>
Subject: Why Wa would want to risk ruining his/her/its/their professional reputation(s) escapes me. This might be of interest. [Version II]
Date: December 11, 2011 3:26:09 AM EST
To: sbarrows@HarrisburgU.edu, Samuel Benigni <sbenigni@harrisburgu.edu>, jcannon@HarrisburgU.edu, cdryden@HarrisburgU.edu, Robert Furey <rfurey@HarrisburgU.edu>, “Rene D. Massengale” <rmassengale@harrisburgu.edu>, pmeek@HarrisburgU.edu, mnoorbaksh@HarrisburgU.edu, cpalmer@HarrisburgU.edu, lparis@HarrisburgU.edu, lpattarkine@HarrisburgU.edu, Albert Sarvis <asarvis@HarrisburgU.edu>, Amjad Umar <aumar@HarrisburgU.edu>, Laura Dimino <ldimino@Harrisburgu.edu>, Vicki Villone <vvillone@HarrisburgU.edu>, Andy Petroski <apetroski@HarrisburgU.edu>

Sorry for the typos (cleaned up below).  I need to slow down; just too darn busy!

“Wa” = Watching HU.

The basic point is that I would think — particularly with so many postings — Wa is naive to assume a jury couldn’t be convinced either “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “by a preponderance of evidence” via forensic linguistic evidence as to his/her/its/their identity.  Perhaps — perhaps — if Wa takes FOW’s advice, we’ll never know.  Heck, even the identification of the suspect(s) via a “security investigation” or merely an “investigation” could have horrible consequences for Wa’s family, friends, etc. BUT, if that is what WA wants, so be it.

There are other methods available for use to improve HU’s product including, but not limited to, simple hard and quality (and even creative) work performed in a decent, equitable and respectful environment.


[SEE THE DISCLAIMER BELOW.]  Curiously, while Wa appears to have come to some legal conclusions about the ramifications of the Blog, (i) I am skeptical he/she/it/they consulted a  lawyer and (ii) given my experience with Pennsylvania law, I am far from convinced that the simplistic straight-forward interpretations proffered by Wa are mirrored by Pennsylvania’s Courts; anything but.  As such, one might or might not care to check out the example below of STEM in action.


An excerpt from the above example-link:

“But some forms of linguistic evidence are not so well-known, and the crimes or civil actions to which they attach are likewise not so obvious. Blog posts, dating website profiles, handwritten codicils and wills, business emails and memoranda, personal emails within a family or corporation, graffiti sprayed on a shop’s wall –these kinds of linguistic evidence can occur in many different kinds of crimes or civil and security investigations.

Often the crucial investigative issues are:

1. author/speaker identification: Who authored this document? Who spoke this voicemail message?

2. intertextuality: Are these texts or screen names related to each other? Are these trademarks too similar?

3. text typing: Is this document really what it purports to be — is it a real suicide note, a real threat letter, a real confession, a real predatory chat, etc?

4. linguistic profiling: What can be determined about the author’s background from this text?”


[Wouldn’t a project along THESE lines be an interesting student project?]


While I can’t say I agree with everything the FOW has written (although I disagree with some of Wa’s premises, I certainly see the intended logic ((albeit, in my opinion, actually unsympathetically and dysfunctionally muddled and muddied by the sub-infantile intended seeming-insults)) and desired — often very specific, including suggested ‘”culling” of certain administrators, faculty, staff and programs with the money to be reallocated to what may be thought of as core science programs  — outcomes of the effort), FOW’s advice seems sound on many levels.

ALSO: MY POSTINGS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN DOWN!  🙂 (A) Knock off the favoritism and (B)  appreciably increase the communication of information at all levels.  Let students compete and succeed or fail on a/several level playing field(s).

RFK developed his profound empathy AFTER his brother’s assassination.  Paradoxically, I hope upcoming events relating to Wa don’t also engender that (i.e., RFK’s) degree of empathy in Wa’s very small base of supporters; and, Wa, it IS VERY SMALL.

Have Great Holidays.

— Lou


All characters  — apparent or implied or assumed –  appearing in this e-mail are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons — living or dead — or to any current or past entity or to any rational idea is purely coincidental. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for entertainment purposes only, and may not appeal to your sense of humor or apply to your situation. The author, publisher, distributor and provider provide no warranty about the accuracy or truthfulness of content enclosed. All communication herein provided is subjective opinion. None of the author, publisher, distributor or provider shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial or any other  damages whatsoever in any form whatsoever resulting from any use of this e-mail.  NONE OF THE CONTENT OF THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED TO BE OR IS LEGAL ADVICE OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER IN ANY JURISDICTION WHATSOEVER.  All links, if any, are for information purposes only and are not warranted for content, accuracy, or any other implied or explicit purpose. Nanny nanny boo boo!


About masterkan

Louis Sheehan
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s