Comments on: Rigor mortis http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/ K.G. Schneider's blog on librarianship, writing, and everything else Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:59:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: See Also… » Free Range Librarian » Blog Archive » Rigor mortis http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/comment-page-1/#comment-180424 See Also… » Free Range Librarian » Blog Archive » Rigor mortis Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:04:32 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/#comment-180424 [...] Free Range Librarian » Blog Archive » Rigor mortisKGS on Steven Bell’s recent bit about academic librarian blogs. She does a nice job of dissecting why this essay was so dissatisfying. My most cogent critique so far had been "bullshit"; Schneider takes a more reasoned approach. [...] [...] Free Range Librarian » Blog Archive » Rigor mortisKGS on Steven Bell’s recent bit about academic librarian blogs. She does a nice job of dissecting why this essay was so dissatisfying. My most cogent critique so far had been "bullshit"; Schneider takes a more reasoned approach. [...]

]]> By: Kathleen de la Pena McCook http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/comment-page-1/#comment-3468 Kathleen de la Pena McCook Wed, 02 May 2007 15:14:13 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/#comment-3468 I made several attempts to put Michael's work in context of a career. Yes, much of his work was pre-WWW, but it was impt. work for online catalogs. No one should be just one point in time. http://librarian.lishost.org/?p=382 --Kathleen I made several attempts to put Michael’s work in context of a career. Yes, much of his work was pre-WWW, but it was impt. work for online catalogs. No one should be just one point in time.
http://librarian.lishost.org/?p=382

–Kathleen

]]> By: kgs http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/comment-page-1/#comment-3429 kgs Tue, 01 May 2007 20:48:22 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/#comment-3429 I loathe the word "curmudgeon," largely because it is one of those male-domain words that irritate me. I think we are on the same page about discourse and rigor, but I'd like more concrete examples, not only of what is meant by that, but of the impact on the profession. I loathe the word “curmudgeon,” largely because it is one of those male-domain words that irritate me. I think we are on the same page about discourse and rigor, but I’d like more concrete examples, not only of what is meant by that, but of the impact on the profession.

]]> By: steven bell http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/comment-page-1/#comment-3428 steven bell Tue, 01 May 2007 20:39:28 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/#comment-3428 Well, at least the word curmudgeon is not used in this post. I consider that a positive indicator right off the bat. :) I think you make some good points, and I appreciate your comments on the piece. It was a tough article to write, and the editing may have left it reading in a way that seemed like it was jumping around or bouncing off to new ideas too soon. I acknowledge that librarians are going to have different perceptions about just how much discourse is taking place, what the tone of that discourse is and to what degree it is happening in a substantive way. My goal was to bring to light concerns that there is not sufficient rigor in our discourse (I think a case can be made for that - and that the commenting and exchanges at ACRLog are a postive indicator - take a look), and that it would benefit our profession and its practitioners to give more thought to sharing our ideas in a constructively critical way. I think there was a good mix of comments to the piece over at IHE - and I'm pleased with the reaction - in whatever form it took. I appreciate your thoughts as well. I will definitely keep them in mind as I continue to think about this issue. Regards, Steven Well, at least the word curmudgeon is not used in this post. I consider that a positive indicator right off the bat. :)

I think you make some good points, and I appreciate your comments on the piece. It was a tough article to write, and the editing may have left it reading in a way that seemed like it was jumping around or bouncing off to new ideas too soon. I acknowledge that librarians are going to have different perceptions about just how much discourse is taking place, what the tone of that discourse is and to what degree it is happening in a substantive way. My goal was to bring to light concerns that there is not sufficient rigor in our discourse (I think a case can be made for that – and that the commenting and exchanges at ACRLog are a postive indicator – take a look), and that it would benefit our profession and its practitioners to give more thought to sharing our ideas in a constructively critical way. I think there was a good mix of comments to the piece over at IHE – and I’m pleased with the reaction – in whatever form it took.

I appreciate your thoughts as well. I will definitely keep them in mind as I continue to think about this issue.

Regards,
Steven

]]> By: kgs http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/comment-page-1/#comment-3400 kgs Tue, 01 May 2007 12:27:35 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/#comment-3400 Thanks, Yorick. My guess is that sentence needed more attention--interrogatives are dangerous. Among other things I don't cite what Gorman *does* say, though I criticize others for this kind of sloppiness. Thanks, Yorick. My guess is that sentence needed more attention–interrogatives are dangerous. Among other things I don’t cite what Gorman *does* say, though I criticize others for this kind of sloppiness.

]]> By: Yorick http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/comment-page-1/#comment-3390 Yorick Tue, 01 May 2007 09:26:38 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/#comment-3390 This is, I suppose off topic, or at worst [seeming to] miss(ing) the point completely, but when you wrote, "when you tell people they are semi-literate fools, shouldn’t you be just a teensy bit surprised if they choose to disagree with you?)", I believe it would have been more in keeping with the implied gist of the meaning if you had written "when you tell people they are semi-literate fools, you shouldn’t be just a teensy bit surprised if they choose to disagree with you, now should you?)" This is, I suppose off topic, or at worst [seeming to] miss(ing) the point completely, but when you wrote, “when you tell people they are semi-literate fools, shouldn’t you be just a teensy bit surprised if they choose to disagree with you?)”,
I believe it would have been more in keeping with the implied gist of the meaning if you had written “when you tell people they are semi-literate fools, you shouldn’t be just a teensy bit surprised if they choose to disagree with you, now should you?)”

]]>