MSU Ferguson: "There's so many things going on at the Univ than this Nassar thing."

Everyone knows that Lou Anna Simon is really Orville Redenbacker

in which he thought it important enough to call out the funding of Breslin.  That he mentioned a stupid sports arena instead of a sciences building or whatever else they're doing, says a lot about their priorities.  But I fully agree that it's money in general that they like about her.

I did make the point that I think the University is overly attributing their fundraising success to her, or at least is probably underestimating their ability to find someone else that could do it just as well.

Most public institutions are raising a lot more money than ever before (link) for several reasons. Two amongst them:

1) They are all emphasizing it now because they're getting less public funding (which also provides a nice story when asking for the money).

2) Wealthy potential donors have a crap ton of money recently (asset classes of every kind are skyrocketing in the past 10 years).

MSU is also no doubt raising more money because of the success of the athletic programs in the past ten years.  Raise your hand if you were more likely to donate to Ace's fundraiser in the euphoria that followed the bball win over MSU. It matters.

None of those things have to do with LAS, specifically.  A lot of university presidents are coming from a development background these days or are almost exclusively focused on it (see the first point), so it's not as difficult to find an experienced replacement as it would have been 15 years ago, which is the context that Ferguson is basing his support on.  I don't know all her background and all the details of their fundraising, but if you compared it to other public institutions in the past 10 years rather than MSU 20 years ago, she would probably look a lot less impressive in regards to fundraising.

You look like a crazy person with all of your posts towards the hillbilly.  Just let it go.

That's entirely changing the context of what I said. Judging the spelling, grammar, and punctuation of written communication is fine, especially in formal writing. Expecting somebody to speak---as in spoken language---the Queen's English impeccably is prescriptivism at its worst. If you understand what someone means when they say "there's" instead of "there are" then it's correct even if it would be incorrect in formal writing. Prescriptivism in spoken language is rampant pedantic bullshit and I do my part to spread the word, soda speak.

Edit: In fact, I hadn't truly grasped your comment until I'd already replied, and I disagree even more now that I have. You're saying you discount somebody's opinion because they're uneducated or at least they show poor grammatical skills? So somebody with perfect spelling, punctuation, and grammar automatically has a more valid argument, okay, got it. That's absolutely ridiculous.