According to footballscoop, it's Jesse Williams from New Mexico State. 

Here's his bio:
http://www.nmstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=1...
 

Apparently, he was let go after last season.

http://crucessports.blogspot.com/2011/12/lindsey-williams-gone.html

NMSU had a HUGE O-line last year...but they weren't very good.

I'd trust Frank to hire Pee Wee Herman.  Although I think he's a better hire for Penn St.

We're all anxiously awaiting the middle of April when you make your tax-returns public as well... 

I think the issue most have is that you're pointing out low-paid administrators or coaches. It's one thing to talk about Solich or Schaus making $200,000+....it's another to talk about our play-by-play guy making $30,000.

As mentioned, Williams' salary was reported in The Post. Have you sent them a derogatory e-mail for reporting factual news? I just added Germano's figure, which should have been in their article anyway.

As for reporting what others make, what's the big deal? I was proving my point that Eisenstein and Shaw earn money to do stuff, a point made in response to people who act as though they constantly go above and beyond their duties while exceeding all expectations and achieving immunity from any criticism. Personally, I thought Russ would be making more at Ohio, and I certainly never said he was overpaid or anything like that.

 ... Pausing here to meditate and be semi-astounded about how many people don't give careful reads to things and throw around terms like "hater" ...

In the end, this isn't the private sector. Plan accordingly. Would it have been ridiculous to have had more public scrutiny over lower-level employees in the months or years prior to Rob Andrey embezzling money from the department?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Both of those sound like pretty short money to me, especially considering the tenures and experience of both men.

And the money for Russ and Evan is a REALLY short money.

 









My statement about Rob Andrey would only have been a red herring if it had been irrelevant to bobcat72's statement, quoted above. He offered no reason why disseminating any salary information was bad, but he implied that people in the department who make $200,000 and up are fair objects of such scrutiny, while people making $30,000 are not. Rejection without reasoning is known as an argument of dismissal. Arguing that "most" people have an "issue" with something constitutes an appeal to widespread belief. Both are fallacies. I raised the Andrey case as an example of why the public paying attention to who earns what to do what at the sub-$200,000 level could be beneficial. It's not a perfect example, but it's not irrelevant, especially given my longstanding position that sunshine discourages mold, figuratively speaking.

Athens Block's first statement, quoted above - the one about me posting my tax returns - was ad hominem needling, because it insulted the messenger instead of contesting the message. 

Him accusing me of making a red herring argument, by cherry-picking my statement about Andrey while ignoring the bulk of that post, was argument by selective reading.

His combination of attacks, ridicule and lack of any assertion about his own position is known as failure to state.

So, in conclusion, here's the tally of logical fallacies:

Athens Block - 3 (ad hominem needling, argument by selective reading, failure to state)

bobcat72 - 2 (argument of dismissal, appeal to widespread belief)

PutnamField - 0