habitually probing generalist

…and if you are going to call me names, please don’t leave out “Enabler of Vices” or “Corrupter of Youth.”

[Background reading: Keeping it real Charitable reading Who your writing represents. (All at Information Wants to be Free) This post is primarily in response to the last post and a comment made on it, partly in reply to a comment I made there.]

While I think ‘interloper’ is a perfectly fine word, it is not what I am in this case. My intent was to ask questions—possibly difficult questions, true—but with the intent of having a dialogue or conversation. That makes me an interlocutor, not an interloper.

And I heartily disagree about which or how many holes are in my argument. First off, the ‘argument’ was structured to ask questions and not to make some definitive claim. Secondly, your ‘counter-argument,’ while a reasonable first response, is really just grasping at straws. They may be real enough ‘straws,’ but they are those silly little ones you might get in a coffee shop that really serve no purpose but to stir things up. It is also very interesting in how you never even attempt to address this, or any of the previous questions.

I will not even begin to address Steven Cohen and his relationship with ITI. They do not concern me, nor do they truly concern this discussion. As for Meredith’s book blog linking her to American Libraries, yes, she states in her author bio:

Meredith is the author of the monthly column “Technology in Practice” for American Libraries. She also is the author of the blog of the blog Information Wants to Be Free and contributes to the collaborative blog TechEssence.

Is there some factual error in that statement? Because if we want to talk about holes in arguments, Miss Levine, yours is so big I can hardly even notice it is there.

Yes, Meredith does have a column in American Libraries. I even assume she gets paid for it. But that does not make her a paid employee of ALA in the same way as you are. By the way, I never claimed that every word you wrote anywhere did—or even should—reflect on your employer. I do not believe that. Many others have—or have had—columns in AL without being true employees of ALA.

As for Meredith’s article in AL noting her blog, yes, it does. In a paragraph about blogging she mentions that she writes about the issues she is discussing in the article on her blog. To then not mention the location of that resource would be silly. There is also a small text box on the bottom of p. 44 that says “To read Meredith’s blog go to meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/”. I doubt Meredith had anything to do with that. At all. She also asked for suggestions for topics for her column in the post you cite. OK. As I said in my comment, “All I can say is isn’t as simple as you [Meredith] have graciously tried to make it.”

Maybe Meredith is uncomfortable with much of this also. I know I would be. And, I think it is pretty clear that I am not trying to defend Meredith. If I am in some small part without really intending to, it is because she is attempting to have a conversation. She is asking hard questions and allowing them to be asked in her “home.” That is something worth defending. In fact, it is worth defending to the death, Miss Levine. Having spent over 20 years in the Army and, in fact, still being at their beck and call for the next 17 plus years if they so choose, I know wherefore of what I speak on that one.

So while I do agree that the things you bring up are certainly a part of the “muddying of the waters,” Miss Levine, I believe that—while they ought to be part of the conversation—they are somewhat closer to the norm than the item I quoted. Maybe I am splitting hairs a bit too finely for you, and perhaps for others, too. That is exactly why I even posted what I did in the first place. I wanted to give others a chance to weigh in and help us all figure out if there is a line, and, if so, where we can place it for the moment. Of course, one must keep in mind that there can be no “one line to delineate them all,” but that we will all have our own lines to draw, and that they will move.

The really sad part of this, Miss Levine, is that you seem to have a real issue with honest critique of anything you do or are involved in. I think it was pretty clear that I was questioning. I did, in fact, state that some line had been crossed. That I believe. Exactly what line that is, I do not know. And despite your view of me as an interloper, I was attempting to ask a relevant question. I was asking for help from others in figuring out what line it was, and if it is an important line, and, in fact, if—in this seemingly new age we are in—it is even able to be avoided. I am not convinced that it is. And that is what I wanted to discuss.

So while it was very subtle, and perhaps only implicit, I was also critiquing Meredith’s post as being a bit too easy an out. I wish it was as easy as she graciously tried to make it, but it’s not. I am still trying to grow and one of the things I am actively working on is to not make the people who are willing to discuss difficult issues with me uncomfortable. There is enough of a level of uncomfortableness in some of the discussions already without me (or you) or anyone else actively working to make others uncomfortable as a rhetorical strategy. That does not begin to facilitate conversation.

I assume that by calling me an interlocutor you are implying that I made that comment just to stir up crap or even to give others a bad impression of you. If I am wrong in that assumption, please correct me. And, yes, I am well aware that you were referring to others since you used the plural. They can certainly stand up for themselves—I have no doubt of that—but your comments about the holes in an argument were directed at me.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of me, but if that was your implication then you might want to take some of your own “advice” that you’ve been tossing around the last week or two and ask first. I thought long and hard before I posted that comment; especially since Meredith seemed to be trying to graciously draw the whole sordid affair to a close. I doubt you will believe it, but I truly felt bad posting that comment on Meredith’s conciliatory post. My point, questioning as it was, is that things are not so simple. Your response could have gone a long way to helping define that for—and with—us all. Instead you chose to (only) point at others and never truly addressed the issue.

For all of this 2.0 world which you seem to want, Miss Levine, until you learn to take and address critique you will not reach it, nor truly be a part of it. For that—accepting and dealing with honest critique [to me anyway]—is the true essence of whatever it is that Web/Library/World 2.0 is.