Huckleby wrote:As far as the straw-man argument that libraries can't duplicate *anything*, you're extrapolating my argument to an extreme. Lame and dishonest debating trick.
Huckleby wrote:When the library duplicates readily available services, it is less effective.
Seems more or less like you're arguing against duplication of services. But anyway, you also wrote:
Huckleby wrote:Why aren't we providing porn through the libraries? I'm serious.
What about pay-per-view extreme fighting? We could set up a community-subsidized theater in the library for such events.
If that's not reductio ad absurdum, I don't know what is. You said you were serious. My response, on the other hand, was framed as sarcasm (pretty obviously, I thought, with the "gee"), not a serious extrapolation of your dumb idea.
TheBookPolice wrote:You argue for exclusiveness and the primary acquisition and provision of rare or expensive items, and have the temerity to claim you're a library supporter
Again, you've distorted my position, and then followed with personal insults.
I never argued for exclusiveness. My *actual* positions: I don't think porn or video games are a good use of resources. I think a dollar copay is a reasonable expectation for video rentals from people who can easily afford it.
So, means testing then. Great idea! (SARCASM) But what about all that ballet and symphony content you think the public library should focus on? That's not exclusiveness?
Huckleby wrote:As far as expensive items, you continue to miss the point: the library is uniquely able to make expensive items available to people of modest means. This is inclusive and practical, and just one of several criteria for decision making.
And necessarily limiting, considering the finite budget available to public libraries. But that's not exclusiveness, clearly. (MORE SARCASM)