You take yourself as a librarian far too seriously.

I dare you to say that to anyone else here about their work. You wouldn't, would you? Because you don't have any respect for my work. You jackass.

Here, let me read a book about geology and go drive a stick into the ground and call myself a wildcatter. It can't be that hard, can it?

You confuse a professional organization with your work.

My professional organization is composed of people who are engaged in my work, and who set standards of scholarship in my profession. I don't always agree with positions taken by fellow members, but I have more in common with them than I do with an ignoramus who hasn't even bothered to read their positions before he spouts off.

You confuse pointing out the facts of Castro in Cuba with your overblown fears of what the Patriot Act is, has done or ever will do.

Behold, The Prophet Has Spoken! You can call my fears overblown if you want. Having read your prose, I defer to your expertise on what constitutes "overblown" by your consistent delivery of it.

You haven't pointed out one "fact" about Castro's Cuba apart from the obvious and well-known one that Castro is a tyrant. You have yet to deliver anything that supports the insult that you have laid on the librarians in Cuba. So start pointing.

And since the most important sex organ is in fact the organ between the ears, I will choose to take your comment as a wonderful, hope inspired, compliment.

That is your option. That isn't how I meant it. However, if this means that your image, and (due to the clumsy nature of filters) any text associated with you will be barred from public access computers in compliance with CIPA, that would be poetic justice indeed.

As far as 'balance' in a library collection, please by all means teach 'balance' in the collection strategies of nations like Cuba and North Korea.

What, precisely, do you think part of the object might have been to bringing Cuban librarians to a conference in Toronto where they could meet with their professional colleagues who practice balance in their home libraries? You are as subtle as a slap in the face with a wet dishrag.

Your rejection of the idea that individual pople could possibly have a way to collect and present books that could be more effective than government workers in a censored society is kinda silly, really.

Your rejection of the idea that people could be using a front organization for political purposes and calling it something innocuous, thus turning the heat on ALL the organizations called by that name and impeding their work, is naive to the point of stupidity. I suppose you don't think that al Qaida's use of mosques to collect monies for terrorist activities could in any way impede the genuine charity work of uninvolved Muslim religious organizations.

You fret over the bogeyman while excusing the real monster. Why?

The Patriot Act is no bogeyman. I refer you to my reply to Marcia, back at the original thread. But I'm sure that, since St. Ashcroft, acting at the behest of Burning, is the one who knows all and sees all, we haven't anything to fear from police making unwarranted searches of houses like sneak thieves while their owners are out.

Find me where I excused Castro. And quit twisting my words.