I must agree with you about the undesirability of "flaming", particularly
by librarians. I have always felt that a simple, polite response about the
inappropriateness of the request is far more desirable, or alternatively,
no response whatsoever.
I must point out to you that the law-lib list does not exist for the
fulfillment of extraneous reference requests, many of which could be easily
resolved by the requestor with a little bit of research. Additionally, many
of the requests are generated by those seeking free legal assistance, and
the list does not exist for this purpose, either.
Sue
At 3:14 PM -0500 9/9/97, Perry, Joy wrote:
>As a subscriber I welcome your invitation to respond to your proposal,
>even though I am not a "Fellow law-libber", and to take a guess as to
>the "true purpose" of the list (whatever that may be!).
>
>I am sorry to hear that law-libbers engage in vicious flaming as well as
>water-cooler interaction. Perhaps they need the latter to offset the
>former. I subscribed hoping to gain a little internet/legal
>information. This is surely no more harmful than the quasi-legal desire
>of the author of "Snooping", who lists a law firm address.
>
>The true purpose of this list may well fall into the inconvenient
>electronic category of uncensored information sharing, as recently
>supported by some of the web powers that be. Surely librarians (even
>legal librarians) do not so seethe at the thought of assisting the
>public that they must close the library doors, especially when it's so
>easy to ignore the electronic knock.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:43 PST