I also share the views of Michael Chiorazzi and Karen Mahnk. And I note
that when Michael Bryant tried to make an opposing "Leslie Germain"
tried to make an opposing suggestion, he was also baited and attacked by
"Leslie."
Like Karen, I no longer work in a law library setting. However, I still
derive a great deal of information from this list. I find it interesting
that Karen may have been able to track the actual email account being
used by "Leslie." If she is correct, the person is neither a lawyer nor
a librarian, simply a person who likes to bait and start fights.
I believe that anonymous postings should only be undertaken if there is
a genuine privacy issue. For example, if I were trying to ask for advice
about an employment situation, I might want to remain anonymous.
However, in this instance, I would send a message to the list owner and
ask her to post the message for me anonymously. That is how many lists
operate, and I believe it is how Law-Lib should as well.
Bryan
Michael Bryant wrote:
> Leslie,
>
>
> If this were the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or Fidel's Cuba I would
> most assuredly defend your decision to post anonymously. Similarly if
> you were a whistleblower. However I hold to the view that in a
> democratic political polity, one should be resolute and fearless in
> expressing one's opinions. One should also express ideas that are cogent
> and pertinent to the matter at hand.
>
> While debating with the Left is in fact all too often futile, that fact
> does not absolve the rest of us from attempting to do so. Abandoning the
> public square to the Left is a recipe for disaster for society I
> consider myself to be an 18^th Century small l liberal and a Christian.
> Over the years, in my long academic career, and as a librarian I have
> recurring encountered formal opposition to what are commonly styled
> conservative political and social worldview. Thus I find your reason to
> cloak your identity, while understandable, to be without justification
> in this instance
>
> However the issue in dispute is courteousness and professionalism on the
> Law-Lib (and one presumes our other working communications). In this
> regard my position is that both parties (for the moment Ron has
> prudently chosen to depart Law-Lib) to this senseless and childish
> tussle should foreswear from further unprofessional communications.
> Finally it would have been highly desirable if the rest of us had chosen
> to ignore the ill-mannered quarrel between the two of you and therefore,
> by not taking a side, not greatly worsen this situation.
>
>
>
> Michael Bryant
>
> Library of Congress
>
> 202 707-2165
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On *Fri, 2/13/09, Leslie Germaine /<lgermaine43@gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
> From: Leslie Germaine <lgermaine43@gmail.com>
> Subject: [LAW-LIB:58213] Re: professionism, civility, morality and
> law -lib
> To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
> Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 8:45 AM
>
> Michael, you're engaging in the equivalent of arguing the Earth is
> round with Flat-Earthers. Interesting to watch, but ultimately
> fruitless.
>
> Meredith cannot discern a difference between my post on the Herald
> Sun and Ron's reply, because the tone of Ron's reply does not fall
> outside the accepted tone of debate within the Liberal-Left. That
> tone is in the instant case acceptable /not/ because of what I said,
> but who I am: an anonymous poster with signatures that are not in
> line with acceptable thought as prescribed by the Left.
>
> --
> Leslie Germaine
> Solo Practitioner
> Practicing Worldwide
> ________
> "/Here's an idea: why don't we distribute wealth based on how much
> each person did to earn it?/"
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Michael Bryant
> <mbryantlaw@yahoo.com <mailto:mbryantlaw@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> Meredith,
>
> Lets gets get serious. What Leslie wrote could be construed as
> having a bard attached to it. However, her statement is her
> opinion, and not an unreasonable one. The meaning of
> professional communication does not exclude robust and
> passionate debate provided the parties behave themselves.
>
> Ron's reply included the following vulgar riposte:
>
> You are the VILEST, NASTIEST, SICKEST, MOST COWARDLY AND EMETIC
> excuse
> for a human being that has EVER entered Law-Lib.
> You have contributed NOTHING WHATSOEVER OF ANY USE AT ALL TO
> ANYONE,
> AT ANY TIME.
> NOTHING.
> All you have EVER done is PROVOKE, IRRITATE, STIR, AND BEHAVE
> LIKE THE
> UTTERLY DISGUSTING CREEPY ANONYMOUS COWARD THAT YOU ARE.
>
> Therefore, how does any rationally minded human, in any manner,
> justify or simply excuse Ron's language ? Again, lets agree to
> civilly communicate with another.
>
> Michael Bryant
> Library of Congress
> 202 707-2165
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On *Fri, 2/13/09, Meredith.Mulligan@weil.com
> <mailto:Meredith.Mulligan@weil.com> /<Meredith.Mulligan@weil.com
> <mailto:Meredith.Mulligan@weil.com>>/* wrote:
>
> From: Meredith.Mulligan@weil.com
> <mailto:Meredith.Mulligan@weil.com>
> <Meredith.Mulligan@weil.com <mailto:Meredith.Mulligan@weil.com>>
> Subject: Re: [LAW-LIB:58204] Re: professionism, civility,
> morality and law -lib
> To: mbryantlaw@yahoo.com <mailto:mbryantlaw@yahoo.com>
> Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 7:03 AM
>
>
> Michael,
>
> Leslie said "Most serious followers of Australian affairs
> prefer, not surprisingly, the Herald Sun." How can you
> argue that she wasn't trying to put him down in some way?
> The implication is that Ron is either not a serious
> follower of Australian affairs, or that he doesn't know
> which sources are considered trustworthy. Why would she
> post such a comment if not trying to insult the man?
>
>
> Meredith Mulligan
> Technical Services Librarian
> Weil, Gotshal & Manges
> 767 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10153
>
> Tel: +1 212 735 4920
> email: meredith.mulligan@weil.com
> <mailto:meredith.mulligan@weil.com>
>
>
>
> *Michael Bryant <mbryantlaw@yahoo.com
> <mailto:mbryantlaw@yahoo.com>>*
> Sent by: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu
> <mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu>
> 02/12/2009 08:21 PM
> Please respond to
> mbryantlaw@yahoo.com <mailto:mbryantlaw@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
> To
> Law Librarians List <law-lib@ucdavis.edu
> <mailto:law-lib@ucdavis.edu>>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [LAW-LIB:58204] Re: professionism, civility, morality and
> law -lib
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael wrote the following:
>
> The final email, something to the effect that "I */just/*
> suggested another newspaper" is not just ingenious or
> dishonest – it is sadist and evil
>
> How can one rationally make such a statement? The Leslie-
> Ron battle was and remains childish idiocy which sucked in
> far too of us to take sides in this inane bickering.
>
> Please. Ron's reply was utterly irrational. Nothing Leslie
> stated in her very brief reply message warranted Ron's
> venomous reply. This observation is based upon the evidence
> at hand and not your psychological guesswork. If one wants
> to untether one's self completely from reality, why not
> suggest that Leslie and Ron is in fact one and the same
> person. At least that would be interesting unlike the silly
> and pointless debate on whether to ban or not (which as
> librarians we are suppose to support freedom of speech now
> aren't we?) or which of the combatants is more brutish or
> now, more evil than the next.
>
> Simply suggesting, as a professional librarian, ANY other
> information source on any topic is not, in a rational,
> professional world a legitimate basis for anyone to unleash
> a stream of coarse personal attacks at a second party.
>
> Moreover, while I am a conservative, in this matter, the
> political and social beliefs of either side in this conflict
> are utterly irrelevant. What is at issue is profession
> discourse and elementary civility. Had the rest of us
> previously chose to simply stay above the fray and not in
> turn lower ourselves to partisan bickering, then it is
> highly likely that one or both of them, not eliciting the
> emotional reaction they were gunning for, would have done us
> all a colossal favor and shut themselves up.
>
> As for your comparison between the most recent and
> catastrophic Australian brush fires and 9/11 that is wholly
> inaccurate. 9/11 was a volitional, and in a moral sense,
> thoroughly evil, act. The Australian equivalent would
> therefore be the 2002 Bail bombings.
>
> Natural disasters are natural phenomena and thus neither
> good nor evil. The better analogy would be Katrina.
>
> Returning to the primary issue you raised, who is at fault,
> if in fact one or both parties are, and in turn who is a
> coward and evil, by taking Ron's side, Michael, you
> completely validate my point. That is by choosing a side in
> this petty, and yes ugly squabble, when clearly, both Ron
> and Leslie, have commutatively demonstrated their glaring
> dearth of professionalism, and thus becoming yourself
> partisan you have lowered yourself to their level.
>
> Michael Bryant
> Library of Congress
> 202-707-2165
>
> p.s. I am not an imaginary being or a fraud
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 2/12/09, Michael Chiorazzi
> /<michael.chiorazzi@law.arizona.edu
> <mailto:michael.chiorazzi@law.arizona.edu>>/* wrote:
> From: Michael Chiorazzi <michael.chiorazzi@law.arizona.edu
> <mailto:michael.chiorazzi@law.arizona.edu>>
> Subject: [LAW-LIB:58203] professionism, civility, morality
> and law -lib
> To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu <mailto:law-lib@ucdavis.edu>
> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 4:03 PM
> I apologize in advance for the long email. I waited a few
> days for the latest law-lib flair up to die down in the hope
> that perhaps someone might read this. I have been on
> law-lib since its infancy and spend many an hour – literally
> countless hours – wondering about its role in our
> profession. I had great hopes for it early on. A place for
> discussion of the issues affecting our profession, to renew
> acquaintances met at AALL, follow the latest trends, etc.
> It never became that, and I am OK with that.
>
> It has become a very utilitarian tool to help us do our
> work: an ILL and reference bulletin board and a place for
> job ads. Long ago I stopped getting annoyed at the "I did X
> and didn't find anything, help…" It always struck me as a
> little lazy. But to my never-ending amazement, many of you
> would jump to help. I have come to appreciate the
> efficiency of this approach and now see it as a natural
> progression of the list. Your willingness to help fellow
> professionals makes me proud on a daily basis.
>
> While this function doesn't serve me personal professional
> needs, I continue to subscribe because as editor of LRSQ I
> hope to get an idea for the next great article or writer out
> there (especially from the law firm librarians, who aren't
> paid to write, like many academics are, but might do it
> because they enjoy research and writing).
>
> But the last few days have greatly disturbed me. On my
> daily run I have been thinking of little else. I care not
> so much about the decision whether or not to unsubscribe
> someone, but rather something much more primal. The Ron vs.
> Leslie wars started on purely political grounds. Ron, an
> apparent liberal, would ask a "what's up with you Americans
> question." Leslie would express outrage. A fairly typical
> flame war. And so it began. Leslie, the avatar, the
> alter-ego, appeared primarily to goad Ron or any other
> liberal on the list. I'm OK with political disagreements
> and while I don't care for it on this list, if people want
> to go at it, fine by me.
>
> But this because much more than that. Leslie has reared
> "its" ugly head on law-lib primarily to antagonize Ron (and
> a few other liberals). I don't know Ron, but wish I could
> meet him to better understand him. I don't understand his
> need to react they way he does to some rather juvenile
> taunts, but wish he tempered his responses. He inflamed the
> situation. Perhaps he enjoyed that. I don't know. I do
> know he wanted to be helpful and clearly takes pride in
> helping people.
>
> But Leslie, who clearly believes Ron is unstable, and has
> said as much in "its" emails, continues to goad him. The
> final email, something to the effect that "I */just/*
> suggested another newspaper" is not just ingenious or
> dishonest – it is sadist and evil. I'm sure Leslie
> suggested a conservative paper to Ron's liberal – at a time
> when a country was experiencing something as painful as our
> 9/11. "It" knew Ron would reply as he did. Heartless and
> cowardly doesn't even begin to describe it. It was yet
> another attempt to push Ron over the edge.
>
> I pray Leslie is not a member of our profession. Or a
> lawyer. "It" is clearly less than a human being. It
> bothers me that I might know this person.
>
> I bring this up because I am reasonably certain, the creator
> of Leslie is still on this list. Gloating. I want you to
> know that while I, and I am sure many others on this list,
> do not know you, we know what you are. Ron may have lacked
> civility as most of us might define it, but was ultimately
> harmless and pathetic. You, Leslie, scare me. I hope you
> are in a cave somewhere enjoying your success. Ron is gone.
> You won.
>
> Just rewards. Karma. One can only hope…
>
> Mike, who hopes he can now think of something else on his
> run tonight
>
> Michael Chiorazzi
> Associate Dean for Information Services
> Professor of Law and Information Resources & Library Science
> Daniel Cracchiolo Law Library
> University of Arizona Rogers College of Law
> Tucson , AZ 85718
> (520) 621-5477 (w) (520) 621-3138 (fax) (520) 269-2871 (c)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in this email message is intended
> only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
> reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
> employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in
> error, please immediately notify us by email
> (postmaster@weil.com <mailto:postmaster@weil.com>), and
> destroy the original message. Thank you
>
>
>
>
-- Bryan M. Carson Ed.D Student, Higher Ed. Leadership & Policy Peabody College, Vanderbilt UniversityAssociate Professor/Coordinator of Reference & Instructional Services Western Kentucky University Libraries, Bowling Green, Kentucky Author, "The Law of Libraries and Archives" (Scarecrow Press)
Phone: 270-745-5007; Fax: 270-745-2275 bryan.carson@wku.edu
All original content copyright 2008 Bryan M. Carson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 13 2009 - 09:58:28 PST