I should apologize for the delay in my Olla postings, but I won't. I went alooking for a reference in the Exlibris archives, and had fun trying to understand the rules. This was prompted by Andrew Maine's complaint about discussions of government theft of documents (aka "replevin"), threats of imprisonment, criminal prosecution, lies by such agents to cover up their ignorance, &c; he thought such discussions were off-limits and unkindly snarled about it.
I wanted to check this against the posting about the failure of complainants to do something about the destruction of books &c in Iraq. It seemed to me that the topic is (nearly) the same.
There is a statement in the archives following many postings:
"Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy, this message was reduced to a single part, and from there to a single text message".
I have a horrid feeling that if I say that I don't understand this, I will be told a. that I am merely an elitist looking for words to have (more or less) fixed meanings and b. that in any case "you know what I mean". When I asked if there was some gentle way to maintain the (useful) distinction between exhibit and exhibition, Steven Saxe made a perfect suggestion. To those who misuse the two, reverse the meanings: an exhibit of exhibitions. This will obviate the necessity of replying "No, I don't know what you mean". But yet, I have a feeling that there is a meaning somewhere in the statement.
I supposed that "content types" might mean "type-face". It doesn't make much sense, but it makes more sense (I guess) than "a policy that is due to exclusion by deletion". I've tried arranging the words in a different order: no luck. For example: a 30 March posting which treated of "library book replacement issues" was reduced to &c &c. I begin to suspect that the policy was established by a bored student who had no difficulty with the posting of 17 March 2003 from Lisa Jones recommending "cutetravelmate.com. as a place to find ...". It continues to include a "drop-down" (is that what they're called?) of a pretty young person (sniffing a rose) and something about Dating Exchange Network.
We are told that one must not touch sensitive issues, as when a question was raised about the use of the word "looting". Similarly, One Must Never Never question the reliability of newspapers (which Goethe assures us were more immoral than Byron). It puzzles me why librarians and other bookpeople (readers) allow themselves to be shouted at and down and bullied by people acting dishonestly. Those who all-evidence-to-the-contrary continue to believe that Newspapers [nowadays the Media] are reliable should be avoided.
Consider such silly statements as that in the (25 April) account of the theft from the Kenyon College Library: "Kenyon has revamped library procedures and physical security systems from top to bottom" said [Christopher] Barth [director of Information Resources]. "It seems safe to say this particular event could not happen here again".
Thus also I should hesitate (I but don't) to ask what precisely is meant by "the library at Baghdad was burned to the ground". Does this refer to the building? (Most library buildings are fairly ugly structures but most are also made of stone or brick. The Tuileries Palace was burnt in the 1870s, but had to be deliberately pulled down later to be destroyed). Or to the books? Somewhere in the discussion there was reference to the bombing of Monte Cassino and the great losses of books. Having seen the library in 1962, I was puzzled by the comment. The building was damaged, but the books escaped. (Underlying the comments in both and in other cases is a tone of "untrustworthy Yanks", and an under-undertone of "those Israeli"). Alberto Giacometti when asked, if his studio caught fire, what he would attempt to save, answered "my cat, of course". The answer shocked a museum curator.
I am shocked-shocked that Jack Kessler apologizes for what he calls a bit of humor about the "looting" of vases. I believe the word is satire, and no more requires an apology than one of Dean Swift's. Poor Mr. Rumfeld does not recognize his resemblance to (say) Mr. McNamara, who in later years did indeed apologize for his pro-active promotion of the military adventure in Vietnam.
Kathy Whalen - an American living in Manchester England - thinks giving data about oneself is a small price to pay for access to so unreliable & generally untrustworthy Information Resources as newspapers. She fears that the newspaper will go out of business without such Personalized Data. Unfortunately, unlikely. But if they did, it would ease the problem which so vexes Nick Baker.
This leads me to wonder if Peter G's offer of a copy of the NUC Pre-56 Catalog, all hundreds of volumes &c... has passed muster with Nick Baker who loves catalogues as well.
Joshua Lipton's heading "Test, Do Not Read" I suppose led others (not me, Of Course) to having a peek. ("Wet Paint - Do Not Touch").
Gabriel Austin
*********************************************************************
Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy,
this multipart message was reduced to a single part, and from there
to a plain text message.
*********************************************************************