Perhaps you should nominate Dan to one of those “Intervention” shows? I would, except I still find his obssession amusing.

Thanks for having such a great library blog!

I did this based on my conversation with a Seattle victim’s mother where the victim was exposed to harm so significant that Children’s Internet Protection Act author Ernest Istook wrote, “Sadly, Seattle is following a strategy promoted by the American Library Association, which regards pornography as just a routine aspect of protecting the First Amendment. …. Nobody should have the Seattle experience of shocking their children, nor of having librarians who are indifferent to the problem.”

From this I made the comment that I disagreed with the AL’s conclusion. I said this based on solid evidence from reliable sources, and I did this as a direct response to the AL’s conclusions regarding librarians checking political facts. If Seattle “regards pornography as just a routine aspect of protecting the First Amendment,” and that is legally false, since 2003, no less, then Seattle is not likely to be unbiased in separating fact from fiction in political statements.

I am on solid ground here with a legitimate point based on legitimate sources directly from the very community being addressed by the AL, namely, Seattle. By contrast, you continue your relentless ad hominem attacks, such as saying I need psychological treatment, and you do not address the issues, all the while hiding behind a pseudonym. I am contributing to the conversation started by the AL, thanks to the LJ, and I’ll continue to do so, and continue to rely on reliable sources, like the CIPA author or the people victimized by others enabled by ALA’s law-evading policy applied locally.

I present the CIPA author saying “Nobody should have the Seattle experience of … having librarians who are indifferent to the problem [of shocking their children with unfiltered porn].” The AL concludes regarding those very same Seattle librarians, “Bravo for librarians who try to wade into the sea of lies known as politics….” I am making the legitimate and even compelling point that the AL’s conclusion is mistaken. If you’re indifferent to the harm done to children by porn that could be legally blocked but you refuse to do so, you’re not going to provide unbiased answers as to the veracity of political statements.