Whether you are or you aren't misusing campus resources, you aren't doing your department any favors in the professionalism arena, and your dean may take a dim view of his faculty putting their credentials and the school's reputation to poor use.
How so, since I never quoted my colleagues and never used the school's name in any argument?
Doesn't matter. You're a member of Penn State's faculty making very public accusations of fraud against another individual without benefit of evidence, and despite documented and posted evidence to the contrary. I'm sure your dean knows who you are, and you're easily identifiable thanks to your book reviews. Just the fact that you're engaging in this sort of behavior has the potential to reflect badly on your department. I'm sure your dean would frown on it. The dean of the History department might also take a dim view of you implicating unnamed members of his faculty as well.
[Tim, since you are now in near-histrionics accusing me of libel, show me just one example. You will note that all I have ever done is quote your own words
, and occasionally comment on your
words and give my opinion
as to your credibility. I have been very careful about this.
Histrionics? On the contrary, I'm grinning from ear to ear! And no, you haven't been that careful; but it isn't up to me to point out where you slipped. And don't try to be clever by going back and deleting all your posts, I saved screen shots.
In fact, if you review the last few pages, you will see your "buddy" Roger has come closest to actual libel.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
I don't have any problem with Roger, why are you comparing yourself to him?