None of which is to say that you are wrong to criticize the profession for a myopically positive-thinking acquiescence to the occasional silly trend. But you also should come to expect that dishing it out publicly gives your targets a right to get their feelings hurt and react to it all. That’s only fair.

Surely using broader societal phenomena as jumping-off points for the discussion would not only lead to fewer bruised egos, but would also incorporate trends that are more pervasive and therefore more relevant on a large scale?

And for someone as apparently bright as you are, claiming that you were protecting her identity from the evil Google crawlers is not true. You linked to her blog and then all of your commenters were free to loose the woman’s name to the four winds. Then, realizing that you had inadvertently exposed her to a public viewing etched for all eternity in Internet posterity, you warned us that anonymity is a valuable thing in a climate like today’s, where privacy no longer exists and our job prospects hang on whether or not we share the same surname as some kook.

Also, I would point out that there certainly must be some librarians who are enamored of youth and hipness, because there’s no other way I can explain why older librarians are impressed by applicants who can use Facebook and Twitter — technologies and modes of communication that anyone can use. And there’s also a lot to be said for the notion that being friendly, energetic and approachable are professional traits every bit as relevant in this field as cataloging know-how or mad database skillz are. She should be able to play up her possession of such traits, don’t you think?

Now, look…I’ll admit that when I see a logical fallacy, I usually discount everything that the writer did before and after. If you resort to a fallacy, you fail. I think we all need to do a better job of calling out fallacies. Shout “OBJECTION!” like the lawyers do on TV (or…and I shouldn’t say this, because AL won’t like it…video games!) and point out the fallacy and then it gets “overruled.” And that’s it.

That said, I, too, read back over AL’s blog entry in question – and no, there was not a single ad hominem in there. Not one. If I’d been around for the fun, I would’ve pointed that out sooner…not that anyone would listen. It’s so much easier to lob around crap than try to think your way to victory in an argument…or worse, deal with the possibility that you might actually be wrong.

“…and not very intelligent breath.”

Awesome.

I’m not saying that it’s not important to keep up with current trends, particularly in technology, and culture, but that’s not the same thing as style ruling over all.

Kim – That’s my point entirely, but you’re delivery was much better – Substance over Style. :)