Comments on: The ALA Guides My Ethical Decision Making

By: Vegans For Meat

Vegans For Meat — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:29:38 +0000

Dan, what else are you interested in? You are not even a librarian. Yet, you haunt each and every library related blog to lobby your sole obsessive issue. I’m simply curious, why? What is it about libraries, the purportedly terminally critical problem of p0rn in public libraries, and the ALA’s near Satanic presence in American society? Do you have any hobbies, besides?

By: Whatever

Whatever — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:15:37 +0000

I wasn’t even aware that you put much importance in generating a dialog. Live and learn.

By: Mr. Kat

Mr. Kat — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:47:24 +0000

I’d say Dan is doing a heck of a lot more towards generating a dialog then the rest of ya…so he’s hijacking a blog for the discussion of library issues…by bringing up legitimate library issues???

By: Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries.org

Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries.org — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:40:15 +0000

AL, is this similar matter, from Canada? “Library Workplace Speech, a Modern Irony!” at concernedlibrarians.blogspot.com/2009/02/library-workplace-speech.html

By: batya

batya — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:23:50 +0000

More power to you, Dan!

By: LD

LD — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:19:37 +0000

RL is right about the hijacking issue. Dan, hijacking a thread with an unrelated comment or very loosely related comment is bad form. Maybe ALA should add that to the ethical standards.

By: RL

RL — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:18:02 +0000

I never told you to shut up Dan. At any point. Get over yourself. Feel free, although I doubt you need my permission, to babble on.

Are there any new EEOC filings that are similar to the Minneapolis case? If not, what is the continuing significance of that issue 8 years after the fact. That is what I was trying to get at. Why is it still relevant? Believe it or not, events can lose relevance with time. Shocking, I know.

What on earth does AL's posting about workplace relationships, the ALA, and the Hartford library have to do with each other? Is the ALA responsible for the conditions that existed at Hartford? Were council members firing up crack pipes in the bathroom?

Thanks for "protecting" my identity. I feel sufficiently chastised and threatened.

By: Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries.org

Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries.org — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:38:41 +0000

“Vegans For Meat” (thanks funny, by the way), you are incorrect. I also praise the ALA when appropriate. See “ALA Uses Common Sense on CPSIA Child Safety Issue; Congratulations to Emily Sheketoff and the ALA Washington Office” at safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/01/ala-uses-common-sense-on-cpsia-child.html

If the ALA’s OIF consistently opposes local control over public libraries and I point out where that is occurring, etc., does that mean I’m “bashing the ALA”?

By: Vegans For Meat

Vegans For Meat — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:12:37 +0000

Dan, RL is right. You ONLY leave comments when you have an in to bash the ALA. You don’t participate in any other topics the AL brings up not directly related to your obsessive, anti-ALA cause. Most of us on this blog agree that the ALA has shortcomings and is in bad need of improving, but somehow I suspect that you go FAR BEYOND anyone on this blog in your hatred for the ALA and field of librarianship.

By: Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries.org

Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries.org — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:45:31 +0000

So RL's argument boils down to:

1) the past is no longer relevant (so ignore it),
2) it doesn't happen much anyway (so allow it the few times it occurs),
3) I should shut up (so much for free speech),
4) there will always be problems (so why waste effort trying to stop them),
5) bad luck,
6) libraries are not the only victims (so why focus on them),
7) I'm irrelevant (so my observations regarding a lack of ethics should be discounted out of hand), and
8) I'm abusive for "hijacking" the blog post (so everyone should ignore what I said and just move along, and my comments regarding library management following ALA policy in a way that violates ethics and the rights of library personnel supposedly has nothing to do with the AL talking about, as RL says, "interpersonal relationships between library employees").

Those of us in the know know who RL is. I'll not disclose the identity to respect his/her privacy, but one wonders why use only initials.

This is typical argument for RL, namely, attack the messenger so the underlying issues will not be noticed. Notice, no talk of the substantive issues. Notice, attack the messenger is the RL's overarching activity--the AL herself is the next target of RL's ad hominem argument. Hey, AL, don't be so "lazy" when you "have nothing much to say"! Otherwise RL will award you with "4 zzzz's."

RL, thank you for the complement of lumping me together with the AL in the same comment, telling everyone to move along, nothing to see here from either me or the AL. Obviously we are on to something that you are attempting to cover up.