Comments on: I Can Honestly Say, “It was… interesting.”

By: elizabeth

elizabeth — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:35:13 +0000

I really wanted to attend this program but had a conflict so I decided to attend the last half. Imagine my surprise when I arrived at 3:30 just as the entire audience was leaving. When I inquired about the stated time, I was told that time included a reception. Why wasn’t that made clear in the ALA planner? Sounds like I didn’t miss a thing though!

By: Megan

Megan — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:43:02 +0000

I was at the debate – and managed to videotape the “interludes”. If you want to poke your eyeballs out, I posted 3 of them to YouTube. The last one was the absolute worst – yes, worse than the cheerleaders.

http://www.librarygrrrl.net/2006/06/29/267/

By: Samantha

Samantha — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:52:55 +0000

I agree with Alane above–I went to this program in Toronto and it was excellent. This one in New Orleans was dull, lacked any sort of evidence or logic, and seemed pretty hokey. Not at all what I was expecting. Glad to hear I wasn’t the only one.

By: Alane

Alane — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:19:35 +0000

There is a possibility that this program was modelled on one that has been a rip-snorting success at the Canadian Library Association conferences. 2006 was the eighth year the debate was staged. Sounds like this one failed to capture the spirit of the Canadian version which does have a timekeeper (speakers get 3 minutes), and debaters have been known to show up in costumes.
Here’s a bit from the write-up of the 2003 event debating the value of the library as place (which was the combined ALA/CLA in Toronto):

Over 400 audience members cheered on the debaters and enthusiastically participated in the debate as well. Ernie Ingles (University of Alberta) and Jim Neal (Columbia University) had the more challenging affirmative side of the debate question, but they gamely engaged Gillian McCombs (Southern Methodist University) and Madeleine Lefebvre (St. Maryâ€™s University) in what, occasionally, became an hysterical battle of the sexes…McCombs and Lefebvre drew first blood when they waltzed into the ballroom and onto the platform dressed in full Canadian jurist attire (powdered wigs and all), vowing to put â€œthe library itself on the stand to defend itself.â€

Sounds more fun than this one!

By: Jane

Jane — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:35:00 +0000

And “older” really was targeted at the “humor.” I do not think age should ever/always be the indicator of how we will act or what we will know. That is a generalization that does not ususally apply. I just could not think of a better way to delineate what I was witnessing.

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:47:06 +0000

About a decade ago when I was doing a lot of talking about Internet filtering, I reached the point where I began turning down panel discussions. Invite me to give a talk presenting my conclusions, but don’t ask me to be half or a third of a point-counterpoint “debate.”

I think for the program you presented, someone wanted to make a point about user education, but instead of doing that, presented a “balanced” program that was anything but. Happens a twee too often in LibraryLand…

I do wince a little when I hear about the “older librarians,” of which I am one, but I understand the point made.

By: Steve Lawson

Steve Lawson — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:56:50 +0000

>[I decide I am tired of sitting on the floor with legs falling asleep for a program whose â€œinterludesâ€ make me want to find a sharp stick and poke out my eyes....]

>Later: I am not sure that the gimmick of the debate worked.

I should say not, unless fantasies of self-blinding were what they were after!

By: danielle

danielle — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:40:51 +0000

zzzzzz…..How disappointing, boring and just silly. I think your comment (“there is a huge disconnect in ACRL between the NextGens and the older librarians”), summarizes quite nicely.

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:49:11 +0000

They did have time limits like in a debate, but it was not “on the fly” as most debates are.

By: ranger

ranger — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:45:02 +0000

Oh my. I’m not sure what else to say except that I found your comments about the people sitting around you more interesting than the idea of this debate. It would have been more fun if they’d followed debating format more closely and had cards and a timer and all of that (or did they? you didn’t mention it either way).

My new response to anyone who is opposed or disinterested in what I do: Math is washed up. Perhaps the puzzle of what I’ve said will allow me to slip away quietly.