Hi Everyone,
I am an infrequent poster to the list but find it provides me with a lot
of good information. I do mostly delete emails but there are so many
that it gets burdensome. I honestly feel that this list has been
"hijacked" and therefore I am going to unsubscribe. It's a shame
because it can be such a value to us law librarians.
Happy Holidays to All!
The views expressed in this email are mine alone.
Caren J. Biberman
Director of Library and Information Services
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
80 Pine Street
New York, NY 10005
Email: cbiberman@cahill.com
Phone: (212)701-3540
Fax: (212)269-5420
________________________________
From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu
[mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf Of Ronald Huttner
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 10:14 AM
To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
Subject: [LAW-LIB:57628] Fwd: RE: Purpose of Law-LIB
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ronald Huttner <rshutt@netspace.net.au>
Date: 23 December 2008 1:19:37 AM
To: Stephanie Huthmacher <shuthmacher@lglaw.com>
Subject: Re: [LAW-LIB:57624] RE: Purpose of Law-LIB
I am not causing, nor have caused, a single problem at
all by that response to Leslie's inane posting.
It was entirely correct and appropriate.
You are very tiresome yourself.
Ronald Huttner
On 23/12/2008, at 12:14 AM, Stephanie Huthmacher wrote:
Drop it already!! Why is it you always cause
such problems? You are tiresome...
________________________________
From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu
[mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf Of Ronald Huttner
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:48 PM
To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
Subject: [LAW-LIB:57611] RE: Purpose of Law-LIB
You are ignorant, as well as quite wrong as to
the reasons why I object to your (and "Sylvia Hagan") posting
anonymously.
In fact your complete and utter ignorance of
what your own Constitution's First Amendment actually says and does is
truly breathtaking.
It is a prohibition on your Federal Government
passing any law that inhibits free speech.
No more and no less.
The Law-Lib List is not the Federal Government
and is neither owned nor administered by the Federal Government.
I is simply a Listserv forum owned and run by
Judy Jones.
She, not the Federal Government, makes the rules
that operate on the List.
The First Amendment has absolutely nothing
whatsoever to say as to how a private Listserv should or should not be
run.
But if it keeps you happy, do by all means
continue your World Wide Solo Practicing.
There's always the possibility, albeit remote,
that practice might one day make perfect.
Ron Huttner LL.B (Hons)
(Retired) Barrister and Solicitor, Law Lecturer
and Legal Researcher
Melbourne
Victoria
Australia
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.
On 21/12/2008, at 9:16 AM, Leslie Germaine
wrote:
There are only two possible (and connected)
reasons for Ronnie objecting so strongly to anonymity on this listserv:
1) he wants to stifle posters, and,
2) he wants to stifle them by implicitly
threatening to "report" them to whoever he might deem appropriate.
Sorry Ronnie, this ain't Australia, and there IS
a 1st Amendment that governs.
--
Leslie Germaine
Solo Practitioner
Practicing Worldwide
________
"Now, I'm not suggesting Obama intends to
transform this nation into 1950s-era Soviet tyranny or that he will
possess the power to do so. I'm suggesting Obama is praising and
mainstreaming an economic philosophy that has failed to produce a
scintilla of fairness or prosperity anywhere on Earth. Ever."
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Butterfield,
George <GeorgeButterfield@creighton.edu> wrote:
Ron,
I do not see how knowing who the person is or
how to contact them has any bearing on the weight of what they write. I
also do not see why wanting to be anonymous is a bad thing. Folks may
have their reasons for it and I do not believe it appropriate for me to
judge their motives. So what if they want to be anonymous? We can read
what a person writes and conclude that old anonymous had something
relevant to say or not.
As to changing the FAQs, I don't really have an
opinion on that. Thanks for your comments.
George Butterfield
Legal Reference Librarian
Creighton Univ. School of Law Library
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
Office phone: 402-280-2243
Fax: 402-280-2244
email: GeorgeButterfield@creighton.edu
From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu
[mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf Of Ronald Huttner
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:53 AM
To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
Subject: [LAW-LIB:57608] RE: Purpose of Law-LIB
I agree with a lot of what you say, George.
By all means evaluate each and every posting to
the List on its contents and its merits or lack thereof.
However, the fact you may not happen to know a
particular person on the List who is nevertheless accurately and fully
identifying himself/herself in all of his/her postings, in no way
justifies your statement that that person "might as well be anonymous".
There is a vast and fundamental difference between being a person who
happens to be not known by another person, but is perfectly capable of
being known, contacted etc, and being a person who quite deliberately
chooses to makes it impossible for another person to ever know or
contact them, because he/she is hiding under a cloak of anonymity.
It is also worth noting what is stated in the
Law-Lib FAQs. See item 6 under the heading "Suggestions For The
Effective Use Of Law-Lib" at http://home.olemiss.edu/~noe/llfaq.html
<http://home.olemiss.edu/%7Enoe/llfaq.html%29>
If anonymous postings to the List are in fact
not prohibited and there is no policy on them, as now clearly stated by
Judy, then should there not now be some amendments made to those FAQs ?
Ron Huttner LL.B (Hons)
(Retired) Barrister and Solicitor, Law Lecturer
and Legal Researcher
Melbourne
Victoria
Australia
On 21/12/2008, at 3:19 AM, Butterfield, George
wrote:
Judy,
I believe that this list is fulfilling its
purpose. Who has the time to check out the identity of every person who
posts? Who cares? We teach our students about the weight of authority.
The same thing is true of the posts on this list. I weigh them and make
my own judgment. Whether it is by an anonymous poster or someone that I
don't know who may as well be anonymous, I consider what is written and
decide the value of it. Having an address doesn't make the post more
weighty. Knowing where the person works doesn't make the post valuable.
In fact, those things can skew a person's vision. Nonsense is just that
no matter where the person works. We have to judge for ourselves based
on the content of the post.
I believe that this list is set up as it should
be. I wouldn't change a thing. Keep up the good work.
George Butterfield
Legal Reference Librarian
Creighton Univ. School of Law Library
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
Office phone: 402-280-2243
Fax: 402-280-2244
email: GeorgeButterfield@creighton.edu
From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu
[mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf Of Janes, Judy
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:55 AM
To: David Clark; law-lib List
Subject: [LAW-LIB:57597] Purpose of Law-LIB
Dear Dave and Other Law-libbers: First of all,
Dave, thank you for your comments as well as everyone else's. I do want
to make clear that law-lib is an un-moderated list. There is no rule or
policy that "anonymous posters are not allowed". We all certainly hope
that people will identify themselves when they post, but there is no one
checking to make sure posts are signed or for that matter that
signatures are authentic. We rely on everyone's professional judgment
and goodwill to use respect when addressing the more than 3000
subscribers all over the world. Perhaps some of you would like to
branch off and start another list with the rules and forum you are
suggesting. For the majority of law-libbers the list serves its
original purpose, that is, to provide a forum for law librarians to
discuss library and library-related issues. I hope we can get back to
business.
All the best, Judy
*******************************
Judy Janes, Interim Director
UC Davis Mabie Law Library
400 Mrak Hall Dr.
Davis, Ca 95616
Phone 530 752-3328
FAX 530 752-8766
jcjanes@ucdavis.edu
*******************************
UC Davis School of Law - 40 Years of Excellence,
Leadership, and Community
From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu
[mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf Of David Clark
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 9:11 AM
To: Law-Lib
Subject: [LAW-LIB:57594] Re: Anonymous Posters
on Lawlib
Although I have never met Ron Huttner (I'd like
to visit Australia some day, but I don't know if I'll ever get there), I
like him and consider him to be a friend (albeit a long-distance one).
I am not an apologist for Ron; you may judge him
as you like, but at least you know who he is and how to reach him. He
does not cloak his identity with on-line anonymity.
I do not take anything said on this list (or in
life, for that matter) personally, but when anonymous posters taunt and
jeer and perpetrate all manner of silliness; then that leads me to
believe (as I believe it would lead any reasonable and prudent person)
that their intent is merely to disrupt the list for their own
titillation, without having to answer to anyone for it.
I am given to understand that anonymous posters
to this list are not allowed. I believe that's a good policy.
Thanks! and Happy Chanukah, Merry Christmas, and
Happy Kwanzaa to all...
Dave C.
David C. Clark, JD, MLIS
Law Librarian
Lightfoot, Franklin, & White, L.L.C.
The Clark Building, 400 20th St. N.
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
205-581-0768 / 205-380-9368 FAX
(Any opinions expressed herein are solely my
own.)
The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual and/or entity identified in the alias address of this message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby requested not to distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original message from your system. Thank you.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 22 2008 - 07:32:29 PST