One of Law-Lib's rare flame wars and it dies out just as it was getting
interesting. Since Joe Cross has apologized, someone else will have to
shoulder the burden of curmudgeonly intolerance.
Okay:
(1) An attorney wanting information from a New York Times article
can pay for a NEXIS search. Our Mead contract says we can't use it for
attorneys and doesn't differentiate between legal and nonlegal research.
The distinction is that barbecue research cost probably can't be passed
on to some hapless client.
(2) A Law-Lib query may send dozens of librarians scurrying. Some only
scurry, though, if it's clear that the asker has given it a good try and
not found anything. Why should somebody else do your work if you haven't
bothered to?
[As for unsigned messages, blame the difference in mail systems. Some
people who can see senders' names and addresses in headers don't realize
that not everyone can, and so they don't understand the importance of a
signature in the message.]
I agree, though, that the subject range of Law-Lib messages should not
be limited. As Neil Young might have written, "I could be happy the
rest of my life with a Cinnamon Bear . . ."
___
K.C. Olson
UVA
Rainy day
No more to say
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/07/00 PST