LISNews: Librarian News

<shrug> What else would you expect from the kind of people who won't recognize lenders of book collections as librarians because those people do not have permission from their government to call themselves, and act like, librarians? Or that the courts of said government ordered no less than six of those collections to the ovens?

Jeeze, I dont post here very much, rarely read it anymore because of guys like you, but I advise you just take a ride to Las Vegas, hire a hooker and just lighten up Greg.

Greg, I may not always agree with you (though I have on occasion), but that does suck. If they're going to send a post card listing SRRT members running, then for the love of jessup, they should do it across the board. Don't "pre-vote" for me. I can make up my own mind, thanks.

That being said, I was a member of SRRT for about 20 seconds. It sounded like a good organization, "Social Responsibilities." Then it turned out to be... Well, what SRRT is. A bunch of very strong minded people with an agenda I don't necessarily agree with (or that has anything to do with libraries), who have a real problem with dissenting voices.

Personally, as I said, I don't always agree with you, but I think it's f'ing awesome you are a member of SRRT, because honestly, they need someone with a real strong dissenting voice, not only to play devil's advocate, but to stop what I sometimes fear is the "sheeple factor" (oh, I'm going to get heat for this one) going on, not only in SRRT, or ALA, but professional organizations as a whole.

But I read this, and thought, "Damn, if I were still a member of ALA, I'd vote for Greg. Two or three times." (Yeah, we won't talk about the fact that last year I wasn't a member and still got not one but two ballots.)

Chuck, you are kidding, right? You don't really find it acceptable that his name was deliberately left off the ballot, do you? All kidding aside, please, give me your truthful answer.

What a childish response Chuck.

If the SRRT was going to promulgate a list of SRRT members standing for election they had a duty to ensure the list was complete. An inadvertent omission would have been bad enough; purposefully omitting Greg McClay because of his views is egregious.

This is the American Library Association, you know...paragon of freedom of thought.

Your comment unfortunately makes me think less of you.

You've tried change (ALA) from within Greg. And for that you should be recognized. However stunts such as this with SRRT are most likely the norm, rather than exception. Hence ALA will never see a dime of mine.

Thanks for sharing.