Comments on: Charitable reading

By: explodedlibrary bunker

explodedlibrary bunker — Sun, 27 May 2007 04:27:24 +0000

a small collection of charitable reading links…

I remember first reading about charitable reading in Information wants to be free. The term was mentioned in an email which Meredith quoted from Josh Neff. Shortly afterwards, Josh Neff wrote about where he found the term: from an RPG-related…

By: Steve Lawson

Steve Lawson — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:29:23 +0000

*runs out, gets “carping nerdboy” tattoo*

Meredith, all is forgiven. (I drink/heal fast.) XOXO.

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:45:42 +0000

My recc would be to do what I had to do a year or so ago: decide to stay out of the vortex. You said X, someone said Y, then X, then Y… you know what? Let go. I said my piece about your piece on my blog and have moved on… too damn busy to do anything else.

You know what the vortex is. Avoid it. Life’s too short. We’re all too busy.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:16:37 +0000

Man, I was just linking through the April Fool’s Joke. I can’t believe I missed out on such an important movement in the library world. I couldn’t stop clicking!

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:56:59 +0000

(In response to one of Meredith’s postings)

Speaking from experience, being “100% rhetorically consistent” is virtually impossible. I have quite a few contradictory feelings and impulses myself, and I try to figure out ways of reconciling them. Sometimes, just writing and conversing with someone who has goodwill towards you is a way to do so.

Perhaps if one is a machine, such solid logic might be more feasible, with inconsistencies neatly ironed out. But then, look what happened to poor HAL (and the crew of the Discovery) in 2001.

By: walt crawford

walt crawford — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:31:39 +0000

Now how did I miss the April 1 item? I just explored it, jaw dropping more and more…(and just this weekend submitted “Ghosts in the Social Networks” as my May 2007 “disContent” column…I’m thinking about the number of one-post wonders created!) Geez, what ingenuity.

Between this post and Dorothea’s post, I see some excellent lemonade being made. Maybe even Meyer-grade lemonade. Good for both of you. (And the rest of us who’ve been involved in the email flurry.) I may just add a post about infinite possibilities and the payback for encouraging new voices, if I can come up with anything cogent to add. (Not that that’s ever stopped me in the past.)

I managed to avoid Usenet, by and large, but you need only look at /. and some high-profile tech sites with unmoderated comment lists to see that, well, it could be a whole lot worse even today. Not that I would actually suggest anyone go to /.

By: Ross

Ross — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:35:18 +0000

Going through the comment thread makes me happy that my feed reader didn't pick any of that nonsense up. The reason why that April fools joke from last year was funny was because your initial post was completely on the mark.

By: Meredith Farkas

Meredith Farkas — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:05:29 +0000

While I was sleeping, I received five more very kind and supportive e-mails from friends and readers of my blog. I am truly touched by their support and I think it just shows that while the blogosphere can be a “pointlessly nasty place” you can also see the absolute best in people. Thanks to everyone who contacted me over the past few days for your incredible generosity of spirit.

By: Meredith Farkas

Meredith Farkas — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:57:27 +0000

lol! Sorry ’bout that Steve (it’s fixed). I hope you can one day forgive me… perhaps after years of intensive therapy and drinking.

By: Dorothea

Dorothea — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:25:54 +0000

And it’s Jessamyn for the win!

More seriously… yes, the blogosphere can be a pointlessly nasty place. Been there, done that, even WITHOUT comments on my site. We all find ways to cope — the point being that there *are* ways to cope. I hope Meredith’s friend will reconsider her decision not to join us. We’re not *all* bad.