|
Comments:
Eric * - 2004-11-17 10:18:01 For some reason, I was getting a "banned" message, so I presume others were too when commenting. I'm sorry about that. Overloaded my corner of Diaryland a bit with all those lovely graveyard pictures. At any rate, we're back in business.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-11-17 10:21:05 Even though he was pro-filter and wasn't elected, John Soukup had the best literature. Maybe he had the only literature. And aren't the residents of Ypsilanti and the township the ones make the area look like hicksville? They cast the votes. The day after the election the entire library staff wore black. They are pissed.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-11-17 10:30:26 That is interesting, Eric *--I am picturing the whole staff wearing black...between the raving Bible Church pastor Levon Yuille and his campaign against "them" and this library thing, we're really shakin' out to be a cool city that's really attractive to the young creative class, oh yes.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura again, crabby - 2004-11-17 10:34:17 "Cosmopolitan" is not the word that comes to mind...but maybe it's not Ypsi's role to be cosmopolitan. Well, why should it be--it's just a homey little blue-collar town in Godforsaken Michigan, after all. And I love it for that. The filter issue raises my hackles though--I know, "pick your battles"--I have a bad habit of picking them all.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-11-17 10:43:41 The city of Ypsilanti has always been progressive towards gays and voted no on Proposal Two 70-30. The city also voted for the non-filter people. You anger should be directed towards the township residents.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-11-17 10:50:25 I know. The city includes sexual orientation in its non-discrimination city code, does it not? Outside viewers are not going to make or understand the distinctions between city and township people I daresay. It's not "anger,"--that's too strong a word--more like extreme eye-rolling and a big sigh.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-11-17 11:09:38 At any rate, Eric *, I would be interested to know your perspective on this filters issue. My own perspective is that 1) filters are never as effective as you'd like 2) they're pricey 3) they're used by fogeys my age to try and outwit kids who've grown up with the technology--it's not gonna work. Summary: useless.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-11-17 11:23:06 Filters aren't 100% effective, but like all technology, they get better and better. My work filters the Michigan Theatre, but allows a lot of other stuff not appropriate to a business. Libraries shouldn't be in the business of policing people, but when someone is looking at some pretty hardcore stuff next to a child, it's hard fault the child or the child's parents. Therefore I don't have a problem with filters on the comptuers set aside for children as I doubt many 10 year-olds do a lot of searching for breast cancer and birth control. That may be the edge of the slippery slope, but I don't care too much. I agree with the pick and choose your battles approach. I've never used a public library computer to access the internet, so I don't care as much. Would I like to see the computers filterless? Absolutely, but whether they are or aren't won't have an impact on my life. Maybe that's not the best approach, but I'd like to reserve my energies for battles more important to me.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-11-17 11:28:12 That's odd--may I ask why would your work filter the inoffensive Michigan Theater? Yes, I think your approach is a sensible one. I pretty much feel the same way, except I know the filters are quite expensive and I hate to see the library waste money on questionable technology in order to protect the delicate sensibilities of someone's little kid who doubtless, in this day and age (but not in mine, thank goodness) is a bit more cosmopolitan than his parents suspect.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura (sotto voce) - 2004-11-17 11:30:55 (Eric * and I have having a civil conversation: if someone could please take a photo I'd be grateful. Actually, the commissioning of a plaque would not be out of order. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.)* * * * * * * * * * * * lynne - 2004-11-17 12:02:14 I am not especially happy about this whole filtering business at the library as I occasionally stop by there to do some web browsing when my computer or DSL is down. But you are right. Pick your battles. In the grand scheme of things, this may not be such a big deal and maybe after a while, the filters can be removed (perhaps after the next election?) * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-11-17 12:05:46 I agree with both of you; pick your battles (still bristling a bit though).* * * * * * * * * * * * lynne - 2004-11-17 12:58:43 Yeah, no damage has been done that can't be undone. It is more like the library got a bad hair cut as opposed to a tattoo. This can be fixed. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-11-17 12:59:49 I like your simile--nice. Yep, it can be fixed.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-11-17 18:45:33 I saw the petitions which preceded this campaign. Local churches circulated them. Many signatures were from persons outside the library district. Yet the churches mobilized their covens and got them to vote for selected candidates. One of the petitions had the honesty to say that the books and videos should also be reviewed to eliminate "inappropriate" material. I wonder how I can portray book-burning in a theatrical presentation? I'll work on that.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-11-17 20:20:42 Well, not to slam religion--God forbid--but the Bible itself is a pretty racy text. Wonder if it'd be considered "inappropriate." * * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-11-18 09:29:35 test* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-11-18 09:30:18 Whew, I guess my last one was just too long. I thought I'd finally driven Laura over the edge and had gotten myself banned.* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-11-18 09:31:25 I don't know the set-up of the Ypsi library, but wouldn't it be sufficient to post a rule saying, "no viewing of pornography on library computers" and then have the staff circulate around periodically? I can see why you wouldn't want some weirdo sitting there looking at porn in public, especially with kids around, but there are many things we don't want people to do -- that's why we have rules.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-11-18 09:48:48 Oh dear--I see that others were getting the "banned" message too--very sorry about that. It was because I piled on too many pictures at once--the whole blog was straining at the seams. We're back on track now, it seems. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-11-18 18:17:25 test* * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-11-19 09:44:30 i surely don't want any (filtered) (filtered) telling me I can't (filtered) some (filtered) if i want to, whether it's at (filtered) or the library. I think these (filtered) need to (filtered) (filtered) (filtered) themselves in the (filtered) (filtered). THINK OF THE (filtered) CHILDREN!* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-11-19 09:47:34Yay! Brett is back from vote-counting in Ohio! Which I'm dying to hear about. And a very funny comment; thanks Brett.* * * * * * * * * * * * add your comment: |