Discussion:
An axe to the root of our culture
(too old to reply)
Dan Scorpio
2003-09-11 13:01:37 UTC
Permalink
The Spectator.co.uk
An axe to the root of our culture
Julia Lewis reveals how the government is forcing libraries to sell - and
sometimes pulp - great works of literature in the name of vibrancy and
multiculturalism
Are you sure you really want to sell these?' I asked the librarian, having
picked out The Darling Buds of May, a George Eliot and two Oxford
University
Press Dickens novels, all in immaculate order, which I was about to buy
for
less than 50p each. It seemed odd that a library should be almost giving
away good-quality books, especially as Merton, like other London boroughs,
was desperately short of cash.
That tiny sale was nothing to what followed. At Raynes Park and Wimbledon
libraries, rooms have been set aside for tables stacked high with hundreds
of books of every description, and underneath are yet more volumes crammed
into boxes. Art books, children's encyclopaedias, botanical books, science
books, countless classics and modern works of fiction, most in excellent
condition and all at ludicrously low prices.
People have come away from sales laden with bagfuls of books, and there
are
more sales to come. Every local authority is at it. Wandsworth admits it
is
pulping books it cannot sell. The shelves must be cleared to make way for
new, different titles, and it's all because of the government's Public
Library Standards, issued earlier this year, which require that libraries
'meet the needs'
On that 'basis', the libraries would be making available copies
of the Sun, Daily Mail and Mirror to the public everyday -
the rest would be going to the pulper (that would 'improve' our
culture no end, eh?)
of the communities they serve and that book stocks be 'up
to date and attractive'.
Does 'communities they serve' mean people who actually use
the library, or has it got a more sinister, PC connotation?
Each local authority has been given 8.5 years in which to replenish its
entire stock. Councils have to submit a 'library plan' to the Department
of
Culture, Media and Sport
For which read: 'Ministry of Truth': note how this government
continue to promote centralised 'plans' for everything ranging
from library books through NHS 'targets' through to policing.
Big Brother is quietly shafting you.
each year, outlining their objectives and the
'services' they intend to deliver. There is even to be a 'Best Value'
inspection every year
By whom?
to ensure each authority meets local 'targets'
Set by whom?
for
services to children, the socially excluded, ethnic-minority communities
and
people with disabilities.
How about the people who are 'readers'/ those who actually borrow books
from libraries?
'The targets are to make sure that libraries are vibrant and attract
people
to them. We want authorities to provide choice in books and to meet the
needs of users,'
Those objectives might be mutually exclusive of course...


a Department of Culture, Media and Sport spokeswoman told
me.
David Blunkett has just called for immigrants to learn English and make an
effort to integrate themselves into the life and customs of this country.
If
he wants them to get to know our culture and if he wants English to become
a
unifying force, he should perhaps take a look at his government's library
policy. It is dividing the population, rather than uniting us, because its
emphasis is on buying in books in other languages
By 2050, they'll all be written in Newspeak if this lot has its way.


and supplying each
community with its own selection. The government is taking an axe to the
roots of our culture.
Among the books being thrown out are those that represent the best of
English and American writing, as well as translations of European classics
and works by contemporary authors. By the end of the year, Merton council
says it will have got rid of around 30,000 books to make space on the
shelves for the new titles that it is now required to buy. To meet the
government's deadline, it must continue to sell off books at an even
greater
rate.
Most of what is worth reading has disappeared from the shelves of my local
library, and the choice has been diminished, not enhanced. It's
heartbreaking. Obviously a certain amount needs to be thrown out each year
and new stock bought, but in these days of shrinking budgets and a looming
recession such a large-scale purge seems appallingly wasteful.
One of the criteria being used to decide whether to 'withdraw' a book is
how
often it is borrowed.
See remarkls above wrt Sun etc.


The quality of the book doesn't enter into it.

Is there any PC or political bias involved in this?
(I'll wager Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn make it to the
pulpers on the first pass...)
The
Library Association told me it was a 'commercial decision', similar to
those
made by Waterstone's or Blockbusters.
Ah, so the purpose of libraries is now redefined as to be
commercial organisations? Will Nulav privatise them?
Certainly bodes ill for standards of literacy and breadth
of learning.
It is also up to each local authority to keep the kind of books it
believes

Tricky word that 'believes', esp when you leave it to 'local authorities'
(much better left to the librarians)?
each community needs, which may explain why I can no longer find anything
I
want to read at my local library. Colliers Wood is considered a 'deprived'
area, unlike predominantly middle-class Wimbledon, which is why it has
been
designated a 'different' selection of books.
I went to Merton council to meet Labour councillor Karl Carter and John
Pateman, head of libraries, who informed me that my library was one of
their
success stories, now that a new manager had 'changed' the stock. Mr
Pateman,
who spoke of 'moving away from the classics' and of not wanting to 'lose'
black
Why, are they great readers/users of the library services?


or working-class people, stressed the difficulty of trying to cater
for such a wide range of tastes, adding, 'We try to get it right as often
as
we can, for as many people as we can.' They assured me that a copy of any
book could always be obtained through the library computers.
You could even get them through Amazon - assuming you were
fairly well off (oh, and not paying council tax/income tax/VAT/
road taqx, etc, etc. such as to fund a decent library service)

But this
assumes that you know what you are looking for in the first place.
You maybe touch the point.
We already have lowest common denominator TV, radio and press;
this seems like a move into LCD library services as well. No doubt next
we'll have sponsorship; how does the 'Merton Sun Library' sound to you?
It is a long way from the idealism that lay behind the desire of Victorian
philanthropists such as Andrew Carnegie, who aimed to help poorer people
educate themselves by supplying them with a library full of good books -
not
a dumbed-down selection.
It's about as far away as Teflon Tony Blair is from Kier Hardy.
Sad and predictable.
Concerned about what was actually left, I decided to do a survey at my
library, the Donald Hope, with the help of a book bought at one of the
library sales - 100 Great Books: Masterpieces of All Time. The library
computer revealed just seven of these books. It registered a zero when I
typed in Aristotle's Ethics or Malthus's Essay on the Principle of
Population - hardly surprising. But no Pride and Prejudice, Robinson
Crusoe,
Madame Bovary, Brave New World or War and Peace?
It's called 'Dumbing Down' dear chap. An ignorant, semi-literate
and ill-informed public tends to be docile.
(Was 1984 there btw? <g>)
The library itself contained a range of videos, including recent feature
films and some popular television dramas.
Only Fools and Horses?
(1,000,000 to 1 says they didn't stock: 'A Very British Coup')
There was also a small assortment
of 'Indic' and Chinese videos. On the main counter stood a revolving
stand,
with 'ReadySpex' reading glasses for sale. The shelves containing books in
English were packed with light fiction, with the odd classic or more
demanding work dotted about here and there. There were several stands of
paperbacks, one filled with Mills & Boon novels, but hardly a worthwhile
modern writer to be seen among them. The non-fiction sections contained
countless health books but almost nothing on history, science and maths.
The
'English Literature' stock was a mere handful of volumes.
My heart sank at a display of recently acquired stock, which included a
book
on gluten-free cooking, one on beauty and make-up, guides to Lisbon and
Brittany, the latest Danielle Steel and something called The Livewire Book
of British Women Achievers.
Since 20 per cent of Merton's population is made up of ethnic minorities,
that percentage of its library budget is spent catering for those
communities;
But how many of them actually 'read', either seriously
or as a hobby?
Bengali, Punjabi, Urdu and Tamil, and the black section.
Blunkett sez them all gotta red Inglish (but i seems the way
this exercise is panning out that all of us will be reduced
to dimbo monosyllabic half literates).
Lewisham council predicts that by the year 2011 its black and minority
ethnic communities are likely to form almost the majority of its
population.
It says pupils in its schools speak 141 languages, with 40 languages being
spoken by 'sizable communities' in the borough. Don't these figures
present
a compelling enough reason for libraries to encourage the use of English
and
unify our fragmented population, rather than trying to cater for so many
different groups? And why is there the extraordinary assumption that
people
only want to read authors from their own ethnic or social background?
Just how many authors exist in their own ethnic backgrounds?
Was I looking at things from too white and middle-aged a standpoint?
No: but then who am I to judge.
Certainly in my experince of using libraries the readership
is overwhelmiongly white and middle class - not because of
any exclusion, but because these are the serious and well
educated people who realise the benefits of significant books
and thus form (virtually by definition) the library users.
You will no more find a gangsta rapper in a public library
than you would find a white, middle class headmistress in
a crack house.
My
younger, black friend, Novelette Stewart, didn't think so. She was happy
to
hear that the black writer Zora Neale Hurston came up on the computer, but
saddened that only one book by William Saroyan appeared and that was in
Urdu. Her other favourite classics, such as Aristophanes' The Birds and
Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, just weren't there.
'It is incredibly patronising. A person's socio-economic condition does
not
in any way dictate what their interests will be with regard to literature.
It is terrible to get rid of books, and once they have gone you can never
get them back. The question is: is an author worthwhile? Should it not be
the quality of the work rather than the demand?'
While Ms Stewart sees a need for black sections, she believes every
library
should stock as wide a selection of books as possible in English -
classics,
modern classics, contemporary writers, light fiction, history, science and
maths books. Good writing, she believes, has a universal appeal.
'There is a point to be made about cultural heritage, too. If you are in
England, the dominant culture has to be English.
Absolutely.
There are a lot of double
standards here.'
Ms Stewart added that Sygy, her ten-year-old daughter, whose favourite
poems
are The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and The Lady of Shalott, has given up
on
her local library in Clapham because she no longer finds 'anything
interesting' there.
The government's policy is well-meaning but misguided. Publishers must be
rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of all those library
bookshelves waiting to be filled.
Yes, just think about that a little more will you (they've just refilled
most of the shelves in schools with 'approved' lieterature)
Meanwhile, lovers of English literature may do better on the other side of
the Channel. In a recent edition of the Oldie, Wilfred De'ath writes of
his
delight at finding a complete set of the novels of Elizabeth Bowen in a
French provincial library. Would it still be possible to find such a thing
in the English equivalent?
The Spectator.co.uk
Excellent article: thanks for posting it.
Dave Fawthrop
2003-09-11 13:39:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:01:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Scorpio"
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

|
| "JA**" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:bjpgbt$m4i2q$***@ID-122050.news.uni-berlin.de...
| >
| > The Spectator.co.uk
| >
| > An axe to the root of our culture
| > Julia Lewis reveals how the government is forcing libraries to sell - and
| > sometimes pulp - great works of literature in the name of vibrancy and
| > multiculturalism


Libraries are *very* careful not to dispose of the last few copies of
works. Your local library has the works of local authors/poets, since
printing was invented.

British Library has everything published in the UK, which you can borrow
via your local library.

E-copies of all the great pre-1923 books, plus a lot of not too great books
are available from http://www.gutenberg.net. Project Gutenberg will
shortly have 10,000 ebooks freely available. This is due to the efforts
of thousands of unpayed volunteers, who almost all pay their own expences.


Dave Fawthrop <***@hyphenologist.co.uk> Killfile and Anti Troll FAQs
at http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile.
Agent Korean Spam filter From: {å|¿|¾|®|¥|Â|À|ç|¤|¶|§|±|ª|º}
or Subject: {å|¿|¾|®|¥|Â|À|ç|¤|¶|§|±|ª|º}
Richard Caley
2003-09-11 13:42:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <bjprne$ctf$***@hercules.btinternet.com>, Dan Scorpio (ds) writes:

ds> Does 'communities they serve' mean people who actually use
ds> the library, or has it got a more sinister, PC connotation?

Since it says that oneof the criteria is how often things are
borrowed, it clearly means the people who actually use the library.

ds> The quality of the book doesn't enter into it.

You want the government assessing the quality of books and letting you
have access to the ones they think are best?

ds> You could even get them through Amazon - assuming you were
ds> fairly well off

If the problem is a lack of classics, then you'd hardly need to be
well off, classics are out of copyright and dirt cheap (a quick poke
at Amazon give 1.50 for things like Dickens and Austin).
My heart sank at a display of recently acquired stock, which included a book
on gluten-free cooking
God knows it's evil of a library to provide books to help people with
serious nmedical conditions. What next? Wheelchairs to let the
cripples get into the building? It's the end of civilisation as we
know it!

ds> Certainly in my experince of using libraries the readership
ds> is overwhelmiongly white and middle class - not because of
ds> any exclusion, but because these are the serious and well
ds> educated people who realise the benefits of significant books

Or perhaps because these are the people whose tastes are catered for
and who, dispite having money to burn, are too bloody tight to buy
their own books.
--
Mail me as ***@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
Dan Scorpio
2003-09-11 15:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Caley
ds> Does 'communities they serve' mean people who actually use
ds> the library, or has it got a more sinister, PC connotation?
Since it says that oneof the criteria is how often things are
borrowed, it clearly means the people who actually use the library.
No it does not. Here again the original post, (and comment) which
you neatly eliminated with your huge, specious snips:

">> >It is also up to each local authority to keep the kind of books it
believes
Post by Richard Caley
Post by Dan Scorpio
Tricky word that 'believes', esp when you leave it to 'local authorities'
(much better left to the librarians)?
each community needs, which may explain why I can no longer find anything
I want to read at my local library. Colliers Wood is considered a
'deprived'
Post by Richard Caley
Post by Dan Scorpio
area, unlike predominantly middle-class Wimbledon, which is why it has
been
designated a 'different' selection of books."
ds> The quality of the book doesn't enter into it.
You want the government assessing the quality of books and letting you
have access to the ones they think are best?
I didn't write that: read the posts properly.
When you do, you will also see that I wrote these remarks:

"By 2050, they'll all be written in Newspeak if this lot has its way.

Ah, so the purpose of libraries is now redefined as to be
commercial organisations? Will Nulav privatise them?
Certainly bodes ill for standards of literacy and breadth
of learning.

Is there any PC or political bias involved in this?
(I'll wager Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn make it to the
pulpers on the first pass...)"
Post by Richard Caley
ds> You could even get them through Amazon - assuming you were
ds> fairly well off
If the problem is a lack of classics,
Not only: how about Kreysig's 'Advanced Engineering Mathematics'?
Oxford Book of Verse, Swan's Practical English Usage, 20th C novels
still in print, etc, etc?
Post by Richard Caley
then you'd hardly need to be
well off, classics are out of copyright and dirt cheap (a quick poke
A quick poke is very nice: take your time
Saturday night/Sunday morning though.
Post by Richard Caley
at Amazon give 1.50 for things like Dickens and Austin).
I could also find same on boot sales for 10p: not the point.
Post by Richard Caley
Post by Dan Scorpio
My heart sank at a display of recently acquired stock, which included a book
on gluten-free cooking
God knows it's evil of a library to provide books to help people with
serious nmedical conditions.
He didn't say that - he made the point wrt general dumbing down.
(but I'm sure he can defend himself...)
Post by Richard Caley
ds> Certainly in my experince of using libraries the readership
ds> is overwhelmiongly white and middle class - not because of
ds> any exclusion, but because these are the serious and well
ds> educated people who realise the benefits of significant books
Or perhaps because these are the people whose tastes are catered for
if you mean they are literate, yes. People with high standards of education
and literacy use libraries (those are the places where they have books you
know...)
Post by Richard Caley
and who, dispite having money to burn,
Who has money to burn?
You erroneously equate literacy and education
with some peculiar notion of: 'having money to burn'.
Post by Richard Caley
are too bloody tight
Again you erroneously assume that of educated people/
They pay their taxes same as anyone else: maybe we should flatten
the sports and community centres that have sprouted up across
the country because the users are 'too bloody tight' to pay for their
own?
Post by Richard Caley
to buy
their own books.
Some people:
a) cannot afford to
b) don't want a house full of books
c) support the idea of a public library system available to all
Post by Richard Caley
of the communities they serve and that book stocks be 'up
to date and attractive'.
Does 'communities they serve' mean people who actually use
the library, or has it got a more sinister, PC connotation?
Post by Richard Caley
Each local authority has been given 8.5 years in which to replenish its
entire stock. Councils have to submit a 'library plan' to the Department
of
Post by Richard Caley
Culture, Media and Sport
For which read: 'Ministry of Truth': note how this government
continue to promote centralised 'plans' for everything ranging
from library books through NHS 'targets' through to policing.
Big Brother is quietly shafting you.
Richard Caley
2003-09-11 16:01:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <bjq2n4$jh9$***@sparta.btinternet.com>, Dan Scorpio (ds)
writes:

You really need tpo learn to edit.
Since it says that one of the criteria is how often things are
borrowed, it clearly means the people who actually use the library.
ds> No it does not.

Yes it does:

original> One of the criteria being used to decide whether to
original> 'withdraw' a book is how often it is borrowed.

ds> The quality of the book doesn't enter into it.
You want the government assessing the quality of books and letting you
have access to the ones they think are best?
ds> I didn't write that

I never said you did, I asked a question.

Now then do you?
then you'd hardly need to be well off, classics are out of
copyright and dirt cheap (a quick poke at Amazon give 1.50 for
things like Dickens and Austin).
ds> I could also find same on boot sales for 10p: not the point.

It is exactly the point if you want to claim that removing classics
from the library means only those who are well of will have access to
them. Classics are the type of book least in need of library space if
your criterion is making things available to people on limited means.

Something which costs the samea s a pint of beer is clearly not
limited to the well off.
God knows it's evil of a library to provide books to help people with
serious medical conditions.
ds> He didn't say that - he made the point wrt general dumbing down.

How is supplying a book providing information for someone with a
serious medical condition `dumbing down'? Supplying such information
is perhaps the _most_ important job of a library system.
and who, dispite having money to burn,
ds> Who has money to burn?

The middle classes, more or less by definition.

ds> You erroneously equate literacy and education
ds> with some peculiar notion of: 'having money to burn'.

No, you erroniously equate litteracy and education with the middle
classes.
are too bloody tight
ds> Again you erroneously assume that of educated people

No, I assume it of people who have the money to buy books but instead
want me to pay for them to be able to borrow them. Especially if they
rant on in newsgroups about the evils of libraries providing books to
others.
to buy their own books.
ds> Some people:
ds> a) cannot afford to

Then they are not in your selected group of library users.

ds> b) don't want a house full of books

Then they can buy them, read them and recycle them, or sell them on.

Mind you `doesn't want a house full of books' equates with `weirdo' to
me.

ds> c) support the idea of a public library system available to all

Then they would support it containing the books that `all' want/need
to access.

Hell, why not include some reference books for people who are ill!
--
Mail me as ***@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
a3xter
2003-09-11 16:12:17 UTC
Permalink
You, conspiracy brother, should have posted all that in the jokes
newsgroups as well....

its funny...
Post by Richard Caley
You really need tpo learn to edit.
Since it says that one of the criteria is how often things are
borrowed, it clearly means the people who actually use the library.
ds> No it does not.
original> One of the criteria being used to decide whether to
original> 'withdraw' a book is how often it is borrowed.
ds> The quality of the book doesn't enter into it.
You want the government assessing the quality of books and letting you
have access to the ones they think are best?
ds> I didn't write that
I never said you did, I asked a question.
Now then do you?
then you'd hardly need to be well off, classics are out of
copyright and dirt cheap (a quick poke at Amazon give 1.50 for
things like Dickens and Austin).
ds> I could also find same on boot sales for 10p: not the point.
It is exactly the point if you want to claim that removing classics
from the library means only those who are well of will have access to
them. Classics are the type of book least in need of library space if
your criterion is making things available to people on limited means.
Something which costs the samea s a pint of beer is clearly not
limited to the well off.
God knows it's evil of a library to provide books to help people with
serious medical conditions.
ds> He didn't say that - he made the point wrt general dumbing down.
How is supplying a book providing information for someone with a
serious medical condition `dumbing down'? Supplying such information
is perhaps the _most_ important job of a library system.
and who, dispite having money to burn,
ds> Who has money to burn?
The middle classes, more or less by definition.
ds> You erroneously equate literacy and education
ds> with some peculiar notion of: 'having money to burn'.
No, you erroniously equate litteracy and education with the middle
classes.
are too bloody tight
ds> Again you erroneously assume that of educated people
No, I assume it of people who have the money to buy books but instead
want me to pay for them to be able to borrow them. Especially if they
rant on in newsgroups about the evils of libraries providing books to
others.
to buy their own books.
ds> a) cannot afford to
Then they are not in your selected group of library users.
ds> b) don't want a house full of books
Then they can buy them, read them and recycle them, or sell them on.
Mind you `doesn't want a house full of books' equates with `weirdo' to
me.
ds> c) support the idea of a public library system available to all
Then they would support it containing the books that `all' want/need
to access.
Hell, why not include some reference books for people who are ill!
Dan Scorpio
2003-09-11 16:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Caley
You really need tpo learn to edit.
Really?
You need to take a course on irony.
Post by Richard Caley
Since it says that is how often things are
borrowed, it clearly means the people who actually use the library.
ds> No it does not.
'one of the criteria'

ONE
Post by Richard Caley
ds> The quality of the book doesn't enter into it.
You want the government assessing the quality of books and letting you
have access to the ones they think are best?
ds> I didn't write that
I never said you did, I asked a question
You really need to learn to read and be sure of what you type
in your haphazard 'editing': it says says "ds>" against the comment.
Post by Richard Caley
Now then do you?
Do I what?

You need to be careful what you snip then you'll see the question
you put (in regard to a remark I didn't make but which you twice
erroneously attribute to me) got an answer.
Post by Richard Caley
then you'd hardly need to be well off, classics are out of
copyright and dirt cheap (a quick poke at Amazon give 1.50 for
things like Dickens and Austin).
ds> I could also find same on boot sales for 10p: not the point.
It is exactly the point
No it isn't, precisely for the reasons you've snipped.
Post by Richard Caley
you want to claim that removing classics
from the library means only those who are well of will have access to
them.
No I don't and no I didn't.
Post by Richard Caley
God knows it's evil of a library to provide books to help people with
serious medical conditions.
ds> He didn't say that - .
How is supplying a book providing information for someone with a
serious medical condition `dumbing down'?
"he made the point wrt general dumbing down"
It appears you have ongoing problems with comprehension
as well as false attribution and excessive snipping: the latter
may cause the former.
Post by Richard Caley
and who, dispite having money to burn,
ds> Who has money to burn?
The middle classes, more or less by definition.
No they don't, that's wrong.
Check out a clerk's pay, a teacher's pay,
pensioners, people with large families.
Post by Richard Caley
ds> You erroneously equate literacy and education
ds> with some peculiar notion of: 'having money to burn'.
No, you erroniously equate litteracy and education with the middle
classes.
Wrong. I'm accurate: litteracy (sic) and education are what
makes the middle classes middle class.
Post by Richard Caley
are too bloody tight
ds> Again you erroneously assume that of educated people
No, I assume it of people who have the money to buy books
As said above, many of them don't: you attempt to build a crooked
house due to crooked foundations.
We all pay for public services and libraries are one of them
(or would you burn them down?)
Post by Richard Caley
ds> a) cannot afford to
Then they are not in your selected group of library users.
Wrong.
Observation is not selection: they probably have a dictionary in your
local library, I suggest you consult it..
Post by Richard Caley
ds> b) don't want a house full of books
Then they can buy them, read them and recycle them, or sell them on.
Waste: why buy a book when you can join a library?
Post by Richard Caley
Mind you `doesn't want a house full of books' equates with `weirdo' to
me.
I suppose you would know.
Post by Richard Caley
ds> c) support the idea of a public library system available to all
Then they would support it containing the books that `all' want/need
to access.
That's right, and that's what the original poster is saying.
Post by Richard Caley
Hell, why not include some reference books for people who are ill!
That's what we provide a health service for
(Or do you object to paying for that as well?).
[Or maybe ill people could take up your suggestion and
buy their specialist medical books from Amazon?]
Richard Caley
2003-09-11 17:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Since it says that [one of the criteria] is how often things are
borrowed, it clearly means the people who actually use the
library.
Very `clever'. You need to learn how to missquote people more subtly.

ds> No it does not.
ds> 'one of the criteria'

ds> ONE

Exactly as I said.

ds> You need to be careful what you snip then you'll see the question
ds> you put (in regard to a remark I didn't make but which you twice
ds> erroneously attribute to me)

Literal text from your posting <bjprne$ctf$***@hercules.btinternet.com>
indented one tab and otherwise untouched,

The quality of the book doesn't enter into it.

Not attributed to anyone else and so presumably you. Unless you are
copying text from someone. if you can't remember what you write, you
should go back and re-read it before makeing a fool of yourself.

ds> got an answer.

No it didn't, you just quoted some gumph which did not directly
address the question, clearly trying to avoid answering.

So, do you believe the governemnt should be judging the worth of books
and decising if people have access to them based on their evaluation?
Yes or no.
[If] you want to claim that removing classics from the library means
only those who are well of will have access to them.
ds> No I don't and no I didn't.

Again you are pathetic in your inability to missquote subtly enough to
get the effect you want. hence your response above is incoherent,
since I never made a claim to which `no I don't' is a sane
responce. if you want to stop dribbling nonsense and make a coherent
response, feel free.
How is supplying a book providing information for someone with a
serious medical condition `dumbing down'?
ds> "he made the point wrt general dumbing down"

How is supplying a book providing information for someone with a
serious medical condition `dumbing down'?

ds> Who has money to burn?
The middle classes, more or less by definition.
ds> No they don't, that's wrong.
ds> Check out a clerk's pay, a teacher's pay,
ds> pensioners, people with large families.

Clerks are workers, teachers used to be middle class and got moved
down by sucessive governments who don't value education until now it
is more or less a basic service job. Middle class pensioners should
have enough income from the savings they made as middle class earners,
middle class people with large families have money to burn and then
choose to burn it by having a large family.

ds> Wrong. I'm accurate: litteracy (sic) and education are what
ds> makes the middle classes middle class.

Bollocks. Taking a street sweeper and giing him education and letting
him read whatever you consider is required for the label `literate',
does not produce a middle class street sweeper. It produces an
educated, literate working man or woman.

Conversely, the children of the chairman of a bank will be middle
class, even if they sleep through school and never read anything more
demanding than the label on a bottle of Bollinger.

ds> Waste: why buy a book when you can join a library?

Becauase books are nice, and a book you own is there to be re-read and
enjoyed and refered to, so you neverhave to wait for whoever has it
out to return it. Also they make useful paperweights and ways to level
wobbly furnature, provide good insulation and are an antidote to
global warming.
Mind you `doesn't want a house full of books' equates with `weirdo' to
me.
ds> I suppose you would know.

Well, thank god you finally acknowledge others know more than you.

ds> c) support the idea of a public library system available to all
Then they would support it containing the books that `all' want/need
to access.
ds> That's right, and that's what the original poster is saying.

No, the original pirated article was complaining about a policy which
was removing books he or she wanted to see in libraries in favour of
ones which other people needed or wanted.

An ideal public library has all books and as many copies of each as
there are people elligable to join. Clearly this can't happen. The
best compromise is therefore a library with books in proportion to
demand, with fallback to larger central libraries for things for which
demand is too low to justify a local copy and inter-library loan for
the very obscure stuff.

However, in a time when libraries are under threat, then gtting rid of
books which are in some demand but are easily and cheaply available to
everyone might be a least-worst option.

Eg, if they have to choose, a few copies of The Mill On The Floss are
less important than a book which will improve the life of some local
people with a serious medical condition.
Hell, why not include some reference books for people who are ill!
ds> That's what we provide a health service for

Er, no, the health service doesn't provide cookbooks on
prescription. What planet are you on?
--
Mail me as ***@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
Dan Scorpio
2003-09-12 17:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Caley
Since it says that [one of the criteria] is how often things are
borrowed, it clearly means the people who actually use the library.
Very `clever'.
Either it does or it doesn't, and it does.
Post by Richard Caley
You need to learn how to missquote people more subtly.
The misquotations, quotes out of context, inaccuracies, huge
misleading/stifling snips and movements into meta-dialogue
are yours.
Post by Richard Caley
ds> No it does not.
ds> 'one of the criteria'
ds> ONE
Exactly as I said.
ds> You need to be careful what you snip then you'll see the question
ds> you put (in regard to a remark I didn't make but which you twice
ds> erroneously attribute to me)
So, do you believe the governemnt should be judging the worth of books
and decising if people have access to them based on their evaluation?
Yes or no.
[If] you want to claim that removing classics from the library means
only those who are well of will have access to them.
ds> No I don't and no I didn't.
Again you are pathetic
The pathos is on your side, dear chap. If you want to debate the issues
then do so in a civilised and orderly manner; if you want to flame
then go right ahead and you'll get it back in spades.

Here, for the record is what I said (in full) about the government
Post by Richard Caley
People have come away from sales laden with bagfuls of books, and there
are
Post by Richard Caley
more sales to come. Every local authority is at it. Wandsworth admits it
is
Post by Richard Caley
pulping books it cannot sell. The shelves must be cleared to make way for
new, different titles, and it's all because of the government's Public
Library Standards, issued earlier this year, which require that libraries
'meet the needs'
On that 'basis', the libraries would be making available copies
of the Sun, Daily Mail and Mirror to the public everyday -
the rest would be going to the pulper (that would 'improve' our
culture no end, eh?)
Post by Richard Caley
of the communities they serve and that book stocks be 'up
to date and attractive'.
Does 'communities they serve' mean people who actually use
the library, or has it got a more sinister, PC connotation?
Post by Richard Caley
Each local authority has been given 8.5 years in which to replenish its
entire stock. Councils have to submit a 'library plan' to the Department
of
Post by Richard Caley
Culture, Media and Sport
For which read: 'Ministry of Truth': note how this government
continue to promote centralised 'plans' for everything ranging
from library books through NHS 'targets' through to policing.
Big Brother is quietly shafting you.
Post by Richard Caley
each year, outlining their objectives and the
'services' they intend to deliver. There is even to be a 'Best Value'
inspection every year
By whom?
Post by Richard Caley
to ensure each authority meets local 'targets'
Set by whom?
Post by Richard Caley
for
services to children, the socially excluded, ethnic-minority communities
and
Post by Richard Caley
people with disabilities.
How about the people who are 'readers'/ those who actually borrow books
from libraries?
Post by Richard Caley
'The targets are to make sure that libraries are vibrant and attract
people
Post by Richard Caley
to them. We want authorities to provide choice in books and to meet the
needs of users,'
Those objectives might be mutually exclusive of course...


a Department of Culture, Media and Sport spokeswoman told
Post by Richard Caley
me.
David Blunkett has just called for immigrants to learn English and make an
effort to integrate themselves into the life and customs of this country.
If
Post by Richard Caley
he wants them to get to know our culture and if he wants English to become
a
Post by Richard Caley
unifying force, he should perhaps take a look at his government's library
policy. It is dividing the population, rather than uniting us, because its
emphasis is on buying in books in other languages
By 2050, they'll all be written in Newspeak if this lot has its way.


and supplying each
Post by Richard Caley
community with its own selection. The government is taking an axe to the
roots of our culture.
Among the books being thrown out are those that represent the best of
English and American writing, as well as translations of European classics
and works by contemporary authors. By the end of the year, Merton council
says it will have got rid of around 30,000 books to make space on the
shelves for the new titles that it is now required to buy. To meet the
government's deadline, it must continue to sell off books at an even
greater
Post by Richard Caley
rate.
Most of what is worth reading has disappeared from the shelves of my local
library, and the choice has been diminished, not enhanced. It's
heartbreaking. Obviously a certain amount needs to be thrown out each year
and new stock bought, but in these days of shrinking budgets and a looming
recession such a large-scale purge seems appallingly wasteful.
One of the criteria being used to decide whether to 'withdraw' a book is
how
Post by Richard Caley
often it is borrowed.
See remarkls above wrt Sun etc.
Post by Richard Caley
The quality of the book doesn't enter into it.
Is there any PC or political bias involved in this?
(I'll wager Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn make it to the
pulpers on the first pass...)
Post by Richard Caley
The
Library Association told me it was a 'commercial decision', similar to
those
Post by Richard Caley
made by Waterstone's or Blockbusters.
Ah, so the purpose of libraries is now redefined as to be
commercial organisations? Will Nulav privatise them?
Certainly bodes ill for standards of literacy and breadth
of learning.
Post by Richard Caley
It is also up to each local authority to keep the kind of books it
believes

Tricky word that 'believes', esp when you leave it to 'local authorities'
(much better left to the librarians)?
Post by Richard Caley
each community needs, which may explain why I can no longer find anything
I
Post by Richard Caley
want to read at my local library. Colliers Wood is considered a 'deprived'
area, unlike predominantly middle-class Wimbledon, which is why it has
been
Post by Richard Caley
designated a 'different' selection of books.
I went to Merton council to meet Labour councillor Karl Carter and John
Pateman, head of libraries, who informed me that my library was one of
their
Post by Richard Caley
success stories, now that a new manager had 'changed' the stock. Mr
Pateman,
Post by Richard Caley
who spoke of 'moving away from the classics' and of not wanting to 'lose'
black
Why, are they great readers/users of the library services?


or working-class people, stressed the difficulty of trying to cater
Post by Richard Caley
for such a wide range of tastes, adding, 'We try to get it right as often
as
Post by Richard Caley
we can, for as many people as we can.' They assured me that a copy of any
book could always be obtained through the library computers.
You could even get them through Amazon - assuming you were
fairly well off (oh, and not paying council tax/income tax/VAT/
road taqx, etc, etc. such as to fund a decent library service)

But this
Post by Richard Caley
assumes that you know what you are looking for in the first place.
You maybe touch the point.
We already have lowest common denominator TV, radio and press;
this seems like a move into LCD library services as well. No doubt next
we'll have sponsorship; how does the 'Merton Sun Library' sound to you?
Post by Richard Caley
It is a long way from the idealism that lay behind the desire of Victorian
philanthropists such as Andrew Carnegie, who aimed to help poorer people
educate themselves by supplying them with a library full of good books -
not
Post by Richard Caley
a dumbed-down selection.
It's about as far away as Teflon Tony Blair is from Kier Hardy.
Sad and predictable.
Post by Richard Caley
Concerned about what was actually left, I decided to do a survey at my
library, the Donald Hope, with the help of a book bought at one of the
library sales - 100 Great Books: Masterpieces of All Time. The library
computer revealed just seven of these books. It registered a zero when I
typed in Aristotle's Ethics or Malthus's Essay on the Principle of
Population - hardly surprising. But no Pride and Prejudice, Robinson
Crusoe,
Post by Richard Caley
Madame Bovary, Brave New World or War and Peace?
It's called 'Dumbing Down' dear chap. An ignorant, semi-literate
and ill-informed public tends to be docile.
(Was 1984 there btw? <g>)
Post by Richard Caley
The library itself contained a range of videos, including recent feature
films and some popular television dramas.
Only Fools and Horses?
(1,000,000 to 1 says they didn't stock: 'A Very British Coup')
Post by Richard Caley
There was also a small assortment
of 'Indic' and Chinese videos. On the main counter stood a revolving
stand,
Post by Richard Caley
with 'ReadySpex' reading glasses for sale. The shelves containing books in
English were packed with light fiction, with the odd classic or more
demanding work dotted about here and there. There were several stands of
paperbacks, one filled with Mills & Boon novels, but hardly a worthwhile
modern writer to be seen among them. The non-fiction sections contained
countless health books but almost nothing on history, science and maths.
The
Post by Richard Caley
'English Literature' stock was a mere handful of volumes.
My heart sank at a display of recently acquired stock, which included a book
on gluten-free cooking, one on beauty and make-up, guides to Lisbon and
Brittany, the latest Danielle Steel and something called The Livewire Book
of British Women Achievers.
Since 20 per cent of Merton's population is made up of ethnic minorities,
that percentage of its library budget is spent catering for those
communities;
But how many of them actually 'read', either seriously
or as a hobby?
Post by Richard Caley
Bengali, Punjabi, Urdu and Tamil, and the black section.
Blunkett sez them all gotta red Inglish (but i seems the way
this exercise is panning out that all of us will be reduced
to dimbo monosyllabic half literates).
Post by Richard Caley
Lewisham council predicts that by the year 2011 its black and minority
ethnic communities are likely to form almost the majority of its
population.
Post by Richard Caley
It says pupils in its schools speak 141 languages, with 40 languages being
spoken by 'sizable communities' in the borough. Don't these figures
present
Post by Richard Caley
a compelling enough reason for libraries to encourage the use of English
and
Post by Richard Caley
unify our fragmented population, rather than trying to cater for so many
different groups? And why is there the extraordinary assumption that
people
Post by Richard Caley
only want to read authors from their own ethnic or social background?
Just how many authors exist in their own ethnic backgrounds?
Post by Richard Caley
Was I looking at things from too white and middle-aged a standpoint?
No: but then who am I to judge.
Certainly in my experince of using libraries the readership
is overwhelmiongly white and middle class - not because of
any exclusion, but because these are the serious and well
educated people who realise the benefits of significant books
and thus form (virtually by definition) the library users.
You will no more find a gangsta rapper in a public library
than you would find a white, middle class headmistress in
a crack house.
Post by Richard Caley
My
younger, black friend, Novelette Stewart, didn't think so. She was happy
to
Post by Richard Caley
hear that the black writer Zora Neale Hurston came up on the computer, but
saddened that only one book by William Saroyan appeared and that was in
Urdu. Her other favourite classics, such as Aristophanes' The Birds and
Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, just weren't there.
'It is incredibly patronising. A person's socio-economic condition does
not
Post by Richard Caley
in any way dictate what their interests will be with regard to literature.
It is terrible to get rid of books, and once they have gone you can never
get them back. The question is: is an author worthwhile? Should it not be
the quality of the work rather than the demand?'
While Ms Stewart sees a need for black sections, she believes every
library
Post by Richard Caley
should stock as wide a selection of books as possible in English -
classics,
Post by Richard Caley
modern classics, contemporary writers, light fiction, history, science and
maths books. Good writing, she believes, has a universal appeal.
'There is a point to be made about cultural heritage, too. If you are in
England, the dominant culture has to be English.
Absolutely.
Post by Richard Caley
There are a lot of double
standards here.'
Ms Stewart added that Sygy, her ten-year-old daughter, whose favourite
poems
Post by Richard Caley
are The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and The Lady of Shalott, has given up
on
Post by Richard Caley
her local library in Clapham because she no longer finds 'anything
interesting' there.
The government's policy is well-meaning but misguided. Publishers must be
rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of all those library
bookshelves waiting to be filled.
Yes, just think about that a little more will you (they've just refilled
most of the shelves in schools with 'approved' lieterature)
Post by Richard Caley
Meanwhile, lovers of English literature may do better on the other side of
the Channel. In a recent edition of the Oldie, Wilfred De'ath writes of
his
Post by Richard Caley
delight at finding a complete set of the novels of Elizabeth Bowen in a
French provincial library. Would it still be possible to find such a thing
in the English equivalent?
The Spectator.co.uk
Excellent article: thanks for posting it.
Post by Richard Caley
in your inability to missquote
No misquotes above, Snipper.
Post by Richard Caley
How is supplying a book providing information for someone with a
serious medical condition `dumbing down'?
ds> "he made the point wrt general dumbing down"
How is supplying a book providing information for someone with a
serious medical condition `dumbing down'?
Look up the word 'general' in the dictionary.
You'll find it somewhere between 'dickhead' and 'ignorant'.
Post by Richard Caley
ds> Who has money to burn?
The middle classes, more or less by definition.
ds> No they don't, that's wrong.
ds> Check out a clerk's pay, a teacher's pay,
ds> pensioners, people with large families.
Clerks are workers, teachers used to be middle class and got moved
down by sucessive governments who don't value education until now it
is more or less a basic service job. Middle class pensioners should
have enough income from the savings they made as middle class earners,
middle class people with large families have money to burn and then
choose to burn it by having a large family.
Rubbish. Libraries are a public service like any other,
they are financed by the public and are available to all
who might want to use them.
Post by Richard Caley
ds> Waste: why buy a book when you can join a library?
Becauase books are nice, and a book you own is there to be re-read and
enjoyed and refered to, so you neverhave to wait for whoever has it
out to return it. Also they make useful paperweights and ways to level
wobbly furnature, provide good insulation and are an antidote to
global warming.
Mind you `doesn't want a house full of books' equates with `weirdo' to
me.
ds> I suppose you would know.
Well, thank god you finally acknowledge others know more than you.
ds> c) support the idea of a public library system available to all
Then they would support it containing the books that `all' want/need
to access.
ds> That's right, and that's what the original poster is saying.
No, the original pirated article was complaining about a policy which
was removing books he or she wanted to see in libraries in favour of
ones which other people needed or wanted.
No he isn't, he's mainly complaining about dumbing down
(by removing items that are already there) and the big brother
aspects.
I reinstate the post above (since you snipped it wholesale
and thus caused chaos in the thread).
Post by Richard Caley
An ideal public library has all books and as many copies of each as
there are people elligable to join. Clearly this can't happen. The
best compromise is therefore a library with books in proportion to
demand, with fallback to larger central libraries for things for which
demand is too low to justify a local copy and inter-library loan for
the very obscure stuff.
What, like the '100 Great Books: Masterpieces of All Time'
(see elsewhere in thread wrt seven available after 'rationalisation')

Your schemne is a recipe for centralisation and censorship; librarians
should have autonomy, not state control. The free access to decent
books, radical books, books of all descriptions, is a cornerstone of
the freedom of thought and expression. There exist four ways to climb
out of the working classes, and by far the largest of these in terms of
availability is education: for a decent and well rounded education, you
need access to decent, uncensored and well stocked libraries, not
the Orwellian control that seems to come as second nature to this
administration. I hope we can agree on that and not let personal
bickering stand between us on it.
Post by Richard Caley
However, in a time when libraries are under threat, then gtting rid of
books
Why should they get rid of anything?
Who is rewriting the stock lists, and on the basis of what agenda?

which are in some demand but are easily and cheaply available to
Post by Richard Caley
everyone might be a least-worst option.
Eg, if they have to choose, a few copies of The Mill On The Floss are
less important than a book which will improve the life of some local
people with a serious medical condition.
People with serious medical conditions shouldn't be
farting around with do it yourself colostomies or such,
(books on serious medical conditions are 'specialist' anyhow)
they should be speaking to their doctors.
Post by Richard Caley
Hell, why not include some reference books for people who are ill!
ds> That's what we provide a health service for
Er, no, the health service doesn't provide cookbooks on
prescription.
Cook books?
Prescription?
Eh?

Do you mean: 'Kitchen Table Surgery for Beginners'
or the like? I really do think you need to see a doctor,
urgently.
Post by Richard Caley
What planet are you on?
Eh?
Well, you don't have much interesting to say - just as
well you don't say anything else.
Richard Caley
2003-09-13 06:22:01 UTC
Permalink
In article <bjt1fm$cp4$***@titan.btinternet.com>, Dan Scorpio (ds) writes:

ds> The misquotations, quotes out of context, inaccuracies, huge
ds> misleading/stifling snips and movements into meta-dialogue
ds> are yours.

You can provide no example of that, whereas I highlighted three example
of your dishonesty in the previous post.

There are more in this one of course. Your fear of supporting your
position makes me wonder why you ever pretended to hold it.

And reposting the entire thread as a smokescreen is even less
convincing.

[smokescreen deleted]

ds> "he made the point wrt general dumbing down"
Post by Richard Caley
How is supplying a book providing information for someone with a
serious medical condition `dumbing down'?
Look up the word 'general' in the dictionary.

He made a specific point about specific books, including a book for
people with Celiac disease.

ds> Libraries are a public service like any other, they are financed
ds> by the public and are available to all who might want to use them.

Yet you decided they should be only for the middle classes.

ds> Your schemne is a recipe for centralisation and censorship

Because I said libraries should supply all the books people want to
refer to or borrow? Shock! What a horrible idea! I'm clearly David
Blunkett in disguise.
Post by Richard Caley
However, in a time when libraries are under threat, then gtting rid of
books
ds> Why should they get rid of anything?

Because resources are finite, politicians are anti-library and times
change are three obvious causes. The first and third are always true,
but are made worse by the second.

To complain that a library is getting rid of books in what looks like
a least-damage way as the article did is stupid. The complaint should
be about the central government policies which are forcing the library
systems to operate on a shoestring.
Post by Richard Caley
Eg, if they have to choose, a few copies of The Mill On The Floss are
less important than a book which will improve the life of some local
people with a serious medical condition.
ds> People with serious medical conditions shouldn't be farting around
ds> with do it yourself colostomies or such,

The book the original article objected to was a cookbook. Do you think
people with serious medical conditions shouldn't eat? Do you think GPs
should be spending their times giving cooking demonstrations? What is
your alternative to making information on how to live with the
condition available through libraries?
--
Mail me as ***@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
david
2003-09-14 21:41:19 UTC
Permalink
i take it these library books are much easier to
read then this bloody conversation
why peolple insist on including replies is beyond me


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003
Dan Scorpio
2003-09-15 13:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Me too, but I'm only just learning how to edit...
Salmon
2003-09-16 00:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Scorpio
The Spectator.co.uk
An axe to the root of our culture
Julia Lewis reveals how the government is forcing libraries to sell - and
sometimes pulp - great works of literature in the name of vibrancy and
multiculturalism
Are you sure you really want to sell these?' I asked the librarian, having
picked out The Darling Buds of May, a George Eliot and two Oxford
University
Press Dickens novels, all in immaculate order, which I was about to buy
for
less than 50p each. It seemed
SNIPPED (with apologies of course) BUT:
One man's loss is another's gain. I noticed some time ago that books from my
local library, some of them classics, were being removed from the shelves
and sold for a pittance because "....they haven't moved in twelve months"
etc. I've bought "I Claudius", "Claudius the God", "Decline And Fall",
"Orlando", "To The Lighthouse" and a host of others. Every writer worth
reading from Norman Mailer to Gore Vidal via Thomas Hardy.
I asked one of the librarians why they were selling them off instead of
pressing subscribers to the library service to read them and got back only a
blank stare.
The dewey-decimal system is gone; in it's place are sections labelled
"Adventure", "Gardening" and a shelf of videotapes. Jules Verne isn't there,
but you can count on it that if Arnold Schwartzenegger writes a diet book
it'll be featured in a prominent position and standing up.
I still find old and deep bookshops now and then, but they are becoming
rarer and rarer.
If anybody is actually running this country would they please stand up and
identify themselves?
DeUnicorn
2003-10-15 08:24:12 UTC
Permalink
As one of those dammed rebels from across the ocean , I see here in your
article a dark and worrisome path towards an end to free thought . It is
simply now a matter of unifying the multitude of languages into sort of a
gutter speak and soon you have a good variation of news speak . I thank you
for making that point , though most worrisome of all to me BTW. .
Here in the US they (the government) are trying for a "Multi
Culturalism" well to me I think your government may have found the way and
it worries me greatly Our too will soon follow. For the multicultural
approach to take hold all that need happen no is a Liberal President and I
fear with all the mistakes this President is making come next election We
too will be sending Books and Ideas to the pulpier or the bonfire...

Thanks for letting me rant on
Shaun M
The Lost Unicorn Poet

Scenes from a Bar



The room fills

One by one, Two by two

Friends old,

Friends new

The stronger wills, also do

Perfumed air, hung with lights

Cigarettes and beer and other delights

Music permeates every space

A stranger

A friend

Just another face

To dance a while

A bit out of time

To enjoy a smile

To laugh at the words

A bit out of line

Then smile again

Share a drink

Of each others souls

Satin sheets

And not be alone

The question asked

A smile in return

Who is coming with me

When can we leave

Just to be asked

Just to perceive

I am for you

And your for me

As real a love

As we wish to be.
Post by Dan Scorpio
The Spectator.co.uk
An axe to the root of our culture
Julia Lewis reveals how the government is forcing libraries to sell - and
sometimes pulp - great works of literature in the name of vibrancy and
SNIP>>>>>>>>
De'ath writes of
Post by Dan Scorpio
his
delight at finding a complete set of the novels of Elizabeth Bowen in a
French provincial library. Would it still be possible to find such a thing
in the English equivalent?
The Spectator.co.uk
Excellent article: thanks for posting it.
SNIP>>>>>>>
Richard Collier
2003-10-15 23:40:28 UTC
Permalink
There might vaguely be some small kernel of fact about there being
some sort of UK culture that is being destroyed by multiculturism -
personally I rejoice in learning from and absorbing other cultures.

But for some damn yankee to moan about multiculturism is the bizaarist
of the bizaare - you whole society is multicultural and has been since
the inception of the USofA - unless of course you a native american
complaining about european and asian influnces? Or could it be you
are just some racist w**ker? Ummm a bit of a no brainer that one!
Post by DeUnicorn
As one of those dammed rebels from across the ocean , I see here in your
article a dark and worrisome path towards an end to free thought . It is
simply now a matter of unifying the multitude of languages into sort of a
gutter speak and soon you have a good variation of news speak . I thank you
for making that point , though most worrisome of all to me BTW. .
Here in the US they (the government) are trying for a "Multi
Culturalism" well to me I think your government may have found the way and
it worries me greatly Our too will soon follow. For the
multicultural
Post by DeUnicorn
approach to take hold all that need happen no is a Liberal
President and I
Post by DeUnicorn
fear with all the mistakes this President is making come next
election We
Post by DeUnicorn
too will be sending Books and Ideas to the pulpier or the bonfire...
Thanks for letting me rant on
Shaun M
The Lost Unicorn Poet
Scenes from a Bar
The room fills
One by one, Two by two
Friends old,
Friends new
The stronger wills, also do
Perfumed air, hung with lights
Cigarettes and beer and other delights
Music permeates every space
A stranger
A friend
Just another face
To dance a while
A bit out of time
To enjoy a smile
To laugh at the words
A bit out of line
Then smile again
Share a drink
Of each others souls
Satin sheets
And not be alone
The question asked
A smile in return
Who is coming with me
When can we leave
Just to be asked
Just to perceive
I am for you
And your for me
As real a love
As we wish to be.
Post by Dan Scorpio
The Spectator.co.uk
An axe to the root of our culture
Julia Lewis reveals how the government is forcing libraries to
sell -
Post by DeUnicorn
and
Post by Dan Scorpio
sometimes pulp - great works of literature in the name of
vibrancy and
Post by DeUnicorn
Post by Dan Scorpio
SNIP>>>>>>>>
De'ath writes of
Post by Dan Scorpio
his
delight at finding a complete set of the novels of Elizabeth Bowen in a
French provincial library. Would it still be possible to find
such a
Post by DeUnicorn
thing
Post by Dan Scorpio
in the English equivalent?
The Spectator.co.uk
Excellent article: thanks for posting it.
SNIP>>>>>>>
Molly
2003-10-17 23:27:11 UTC
Permalink
In article <bmklv6$d8t$1$***@news.demon.co.uk> at 00:40:28 on Thu,
16 Oct 2003, Richard Collier <rcollier-***@sm13pz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

(snip)

Top-posted.
Non-snipped.
Cross-posted to $deity knows how many newsgroups.
FU set.
--
Molly
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person
who doesn't get it.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.
Anonymous
2003-10-15 11:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Who, whom said Lenin - or who is doing what to whom and why.
Cherchez l'agenda [ Frog innit? ].
Find out who owns the media which pretty much a matter of fact
and who controls it which is not always so clear. Then wonder
why they promote feminism, multi-culturalism, illegal
immigrantism etc except in their land.

For answers go to http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-
CaseJews.html
Sources are given too. Check for yourself then you will KNOW.

-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'An axe to the root of our culture' (newsgroups and mailing lists)
15
replies
An axe to the root of our culture
started 2003-09-11 18:01:37 UTC
uk.culture.language.english
16
replies
An axe to the root of our culture
started 2003-09-11 18:01:37 UTC
uk.gov.local
15
replies
An axe to the root of our culture
started 2003-09-11 18:01:37 UTC
rec.arts.books
15
replies
An axe to the root of our culture
started 2003-09-11 18:01:37 UTC
alt.books
15
replies
The Myth Of The Barbarous Middle Ages Is Part Of The Ignorance Of Our Age
started 2006-10-24 20:41:06 UTC
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Loading...