Rejected?

I submitted the Teresa article for listing a little while ago and now see it was rejected. Yes, I know, there could be any number of reasons why it wasn't listed. I just found it funny that we could have two listings for articles dealing with Laura's genitalia but none for Teresa's trashing Librarians.

Comments

And your point is what?

I never said, in this thread, that there shouldn't have been an article posted about this topic, so I don't know why you're quoting that particular line.

Nothing I said in this thread contradicts my previous statement.

I was giving my opinion on why our trusted writers might not have posted the story when it was submitted, never said it shouldn't've been. This is all moot now as an article WAS posted about it.

s/

Big Surprise...

...Actually, not surprising at all...[sigh]...

Re:Big Surprise...

Kind of oranges and apples there GregS.

yeah, but...

The piece on Laura was interesting. This was just Mrs. Kerry dissing Mrs. Bush. I didn't see it as directed at Librarians. But I guess some people just have to grab the negative wherever they see it.

And Mrs. Kerry did modify her comments.

s/

Re:Big Surprise...

Really? i seem to recall one of the defenses for the previous articles being basically that 'it was about Laura, she's a librarian, so it goes.'

Well? This wasn't about Laura?

Re:yeah, but...

The previous articles were not directed at librarians. They were directed at the White House.

And yes, Kerry has since modify her comments, now she's just trashing mothers.

Re:yeah, but...

>now she's just trashing mothersDon't exaggerate. It may create shock value, but in the end it weakens your position. If you would have said "now she's just trashing stay-at-home mothers" your point would've been stronger.As for the story rejection, I didn't see it, and I almost wrote it up myself, but didn't. This is one of the many sections of the Slashdot FAQ that applies here. We have a lot of different editors at LISNews.com. Some post pretty much anything, while others chainsaw anything that isn't broadly-appealing "library and information science news." I delete a lot of esoteric and irrelevant submissions (and we get a lot, some just submitted for SEO links) and wish most others were better formatted.Anyway, the story is interesting. Theresa is mouthing off more and more (shove it, etc.) and starting to look like Hilary. I guess when you're an heiress you learn it's okay to speak your mind, but politics in general is getting a lot more Jerry Springer-ish (cf. Cheney's "go fuck yourself"; Bush's "major league asshole" and Kerry's "Bush fucked it up," "son of a bitch cut me off," etc.) and negative (almost all commercials now are mudslinging).I wish there were greater eloquence in an electronic age. But there's an appeal to make straw man arguments like the one above and "idiot lists" of people who disagree with you.

Re:yeah, but...

I'm confused. I didn't see anything directed at librarians in the interview, just a specific former teacher librarian, whose teacher librarianess was only brought up in later comments and positively. Running down one member of profession does not run down all of them.

I also didn't see anything really negative about mothers, either--stay at home ones or otherwise. What I saw were less than polite comments directed at ONE person. Laura Bush.

s/

Re:yeah, but...

A direct quote from the previous thread concerning the play:

slashgirl:
"This is a library news site and she was a Librarian."

Re:yeah, but...

"Don't exaggerate. It may create shock value, but in the end it weakens your position. If you would have said "now she's just trashing stay-at-home mothers" your point would've been stronger."

I considered that before I posted and decided it shoudn't matter. You don't discount parenthood.

"I wish there were greater eloquence in an electronic age. But there's an appeal to make straw man arguments like the one above and "idiot lists" of people who disagree with you."

I don't know if this is a reference to my "Twit List" or not but while I'm willing to debate a lot of issues there are somethings that are just a given and I shouldn't have to waste time explaining the obvious. I think some people see electronic correspondence as the same as letter writing, some see it as banter and conversation. In general I see it as the latter.

Re:And your point is what?

"I'm confused. I didn't see anything directed at librarians in the interview, just a specific former teacher librarian, whose teacher librarianess was only brought up in later comments and positively. Running down one member of profession does not run down all of them.

I also didn't see anything really negative about mothers, either--stay at home ones or otherwise. What I saw were less than polite comments directed at ONE person. Laura Bush."

And where in that statement do you mention 'trusted writers'? You're two-steppin slash.

Re:And your point is what?

To quote the kids at work: "Whatever."

I didn't say the article shouldn't be posted.

In defending that position, I explained why I said what I did. I do not see that as so-called "two-stepping" (besides, I'm a really lousy dancer). It's what was in my poor rattling brain when I posted those comments. I realise I can't prove it and you'll believe me or you won't. That's fine.

s/

Syndicate content