Enter Your Email Address & Get Updates Via Email (Privacy Policy Example):
[ ]
Sounds like a good way to spend $19 to me.
So ersatz penises were OK but our flag was not.
Boulder is a cesspool if you ask me.
You are so full of shit it boggles the mind, whether you ask me or not.1: The flag Rowan wanted to fly was too large for the space he wanted it put in. Refusing to mount it was probably a reasonable restriction as to place or manner.2: The ceramic penises were part of a themed art display. They were stolen; a clear and present criminal act, nevermind the issues of oppressing free speech that theft engendered.3: Censorship is unAmerican and unpatriotic. Read the First Amendment and think about how it is supposed to be one of the underpinnings of American freedom.Your simple-mindedness and invinsible ignorance are offensive in the extreme. -- Save the easily offended: ban everything. [ Parent ]
1: The flag Rowan wanted to fly was too large for the space he wanted it put in. Refusing to mount it was probably a reasonable restriction as to place or manner.
2: The ceramic penises were part of a themed art display. They were stolen; a clear and present criminal act, nevermind the issues of oppressing free speech that theft engendered.
3: Censorship is unAmerican and unpatriotic. Read the First Amendment and think about how it is supposed to be one of the underpinnings of American freedom.
Your simple-mindedness and invinsible ignorance are offensive in the extreme.
Save the easily offended: ban everything.
2: The penises were part of a themed art display.
3: Rowan perpetrated a theft when he stole those penises, which is a crime, and he stole them for political reasons, not to make a buck off the theft; that makes it censorship.
4: Rowan wanted to use the flag as a political symbol, not in a work of art. Aside from which, given how the right-wing wants to sanctify the flag and make it holy, it would then be a religious symbol. Still not an artwork in and of itself.
5: If Rowan and the librarian don't like that the flags can't be mounted inside the museum/library/public space of their ire they are free to donate a flag pole appropriate to the size of the flag. If they can get approval and permits under those laws the right-wing also like to tout as holy.
Rowan hadn't wanted to mount a flag, he just got all pissy because the library wouldn't mount the flag Powers wanted mounted. The library had decided that it was too large at 150 sqft. A smaller flag was mounted.
I've got a commentary on the incident at my web site. Should have read it over first. I don't have a link to the source article.
That is not art, simply a visual manifestation of a mental illness.
And as much as your right-wing refuses to recognize the fact and hates to hear it, the American politico-socio-cultural entity is neither infallible or perfect. Spousal abuse is a part of the national mosaic. Which was, roughly, the theme of the art display.
I'm sorry that is art how?
Lets see...flag? Wang? Flag? Wang? Flag? Fake wang pretending to be art from some castrating feminist nutjob?
I'm going to have to go with flag.
--"Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." [ Parent ]
Kindly explain how it is that you interpret a statement against wife battering as an attack on all males. Or is that like the attitude that condemning Israel for its wanton killing of Palestinian civilians automatically makes you an anti-semite? Because there are real anti-semites you are forbidden to acknowledge the fact that what Israel is doing is wrong? And just because the almighty mdoneil isn't a rapist and wife beater it is equally wrong to admit the problem exists because you might offend his hypersensitivities?
Suck it up, wimp.
And here's another clue: Rational people know that there is room for both the flag and the art. We also know that everything has a place and everything in its place. We also know that people don't get it right all the time, and poor decisions happen as a result, along with all the snivelling by the losers who didn't get their way despite mistaking themselves for gods.
BTW your PM, is his head still attached?
Logically thinking we should dismiss their equivalent results, and the ignorance if not bias of selectors, and let the cherry-red lips of semantics trump all.
Everyone here know their collection development librarian?
It must be difficult for you to hear from someone that has purchased more books than I dare say you have physically put your eyes, much less mitts, on. Have seen collection development policies drafted and used to "un-select" material not in vogue with managerial tastes. Witnessed donations made by wrong wingers like the Birchers pooh poohed because everyone knows they are nut cases. Known of librarians that fully discriminate against entire trade publications, unable to bring their eyes to the catalog pages of Regnery, Free or Crossway presses. Seen entire topics institutionally dismissed from being collected i.e. abstinence education, reparative therapy, or anything remotely anti Darwin, Humanist, WTO, UN or environment. Or publications like Mankind Quarterly kiboshed for being racist. I've seen censorship by "un-selection" Fang. Now you can ignore what I've said here and continue your word play nonsense. Or you can embrace our discussion here as a teaching moment.
Like I asked before, "Do you know your collection development librarian?"
Keep putting on that lipstick, though. It'll stop your lips from getting chapped while you osculate that right-wing anus.
Make no mistake, there is a pecking order Fang. To comprehend this, you must first understand that published information is a commodity. An article of commerce with varying degrees of worth that libraries owe their very existence to. Unfortunately I doubt this revelation will register to those with cosmopolitan reading tastes ranging from AlterNet to Truthout.
But back to your skirting my contention that "un-selecting" is used to censor. You have zilch experience with professional librarianship. Your closest experience with an acquisitions department when making a wrong turn looking for the john. Pissing and moaning with pleonastic lair logic and wrong-winged book pullers, yet when given accounts of passive censorship only able to respond to what you admonish others of doing....ad hominem. Ignorance is a choice Fang, however this won't do for you anymore. Now your just a shill. A shill with a free encyclopedia that, given my explanation of information as a commodity, will undoubtedly remain that way.
Un-selection is censorship Fang. I've seen it.
You can't even type it.
When someone wants to discuss collection development, or library collections I'm going to have to defer to the librarians, no matter how compelling the other side might think they are.
-- 