Off the Mark

Thank you to everyone who has commented here in the past few days!  It does seem to be an interesting mix.  I am a bit surprised about which post actually created the most controversy, but so be it.

To those who think I was a bit harsh on Loriene Roy, I apologize.  I have re-read that post and I might have changed a word choice or two, but all in all, I still think it was relatively balanced.  I was making no moral judgement, nor was I trying to disparage Ms. Roy.  Nor was I trying to influence anyone’s vote.  Maybe my best bet would have been to repeat the "seems" or add an "as if" to the Old Guard comment, as that is what I was trying to say. 

Yes, there are good reasons not to enable comments for some people.  Angel, you and I need to be careful.  I, too, sometimes begin to think that people without comments only want to talk "at" me.  But some folks get a whole lot more comment spam than you or I will hopefully ever see.  I see absolutely no reason to doubt folks such as Karen Schneider (who does have comments) when they complain about huge quantities of comment or trackback spam.  The scum who do these things know how to figure out who get more links in the first place and I, assume, target the more influential.  "Here’s to not being influential."

Bill Drew and I have talked and I am certainly satisfied.  I can only assume that he is, too, as he has again complimented my writing and wished me well in my further educational endeavours.

For those who think I went too far, feel free to revel in the fact that either a bug, or perhaps karma, caught up with me and I am now really sick with a very painful cough.  Busting my rear to get all my homework done to standard, and particularly to my own standards, has just become a huge issue.  Ah well.

I do find interesting the reaction I got from some regarding my comments on the lack of easy communication venues on Prof. Roy’s blog compared to much of what has been said regarding our current ALA President.  It’s not that big a deal, and I don’t have time to do any research, but I don’t remember seeing too many people defendingMichael Gorman over the last year in the biblioblogosphere.  I just wonder if it has something to do with current president vs. someone still running for office, but I doubt that.  Or does it have to do with gender?  I certainly hope not.  Or is it because she has a blog she is now one of us?  Is it something else?  This is all rhetorical; feel free to respond if you  have an opinion, but I may well not be able to respond anytime soon.  And really, I don’t see it as a question that needs answered, just a very intruiging one.

I have read Rory Litwin’s "Blogging Pledge" at Library Juice, newly reconstituted as a blog.  I will try to do better at operating within Mr. Litwin’s guidelines, although I must say that I do not intentionally set out to violate them or even just casually forget them.  Criticism is a fine art, and one that I am desperately trying to get right.  But to get better one must practice, and practice implies a sour note once in a while.

Sometimes I, too, am not happy with my attempts.  But, I hope that I will not let fear of the consequences silence me.  I firmly believe in M.P. Baumgartner’s theory of moral minimalism.  I also firmly believe that the profession of librarianship suffers from this "disease" as much, and probably more, than almost any other.  We live (and serve) to avoid all conflict.  And that is simply ridiculous. 

It is easy to believe in today’s world that all conflict involves either suicide bombers or carpet bombing, depending on the level of technology that you have available.  That, though, is a complete and utter lack of imagination.  There are many historical and sociological examples of conflict resolution that don’t involve warfare of any kind, nor even yelling at each other.  Humans may be flawed, but we have discovered ways to resolve disagreements that fall far short of verbal or physical abuse.

Collegiality and professionalism are perfectly fine qualities.  But they also often stand in the way of real dialogue and progress.  That does not mean that they can be completely tossed aside.  That is not what I am advocating.  I am striving to find a way to be critical, as in offering critique, while remaining collegial and professional.  That is a difficult balancing act, and no matter how well one succeeds many will consider any attempt to do so an abject failure.  Mind you, I am not even claiming that I am succeeding, only that I am striving to get there.

Again, thank you to absolutely everyone who has commented in the last few days!  Please feel free to continue to disagree with me.  I am certainly wrong on occasion, or may have a failure of imagination in considering as many angles of something as I should, and so on.  To those who agreed with me, it is nice to know that I didn’t completely blow it.  That, of course, does not preclude others from having a valid viewpoint.

Now, unfortunately, I must virtually disapppear for a week or so.  I have far too many things to name and describe in assorted ways (indexing, abstracting, "typical" cataloging, and 3 different metadata schemas), all in the next few days.

Thank you all for helping me think!  As my good, but as yet unmet, friend Angel says, "Best, and keep on blogging."