Larry,
You don't know me. You cannot assume whom I am aligned with. I am much less easy to pigeonhole or stereotype than you seem to believe, let's just leave it at that.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here and why you sound so touchy about my bringing up the question of Bruce's newsletter, etc. I believe it is perfectly possible to discuss the newsletter in this type of forum so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Keep in mind that this whole thing started with people referring to the Archives' List. And to archival leaders supposedly indulging in character assassination. I don't know about you, but I go oh oh when I see people refer to others as indulging in character assassination. I don't believe it is a charge which should be flung about lightly, certainly without providing concrete examples. I definitely don't want people to think that SAA's leades were reckless in anything they posted on the Archives List, they don't deserve that impression. Since I didn't see anyone else post about the use of that term, including you, I did. I'm still waiting to hear, on or off line, any examples of where any leaders of archival or RIM profesisonal associations indulged in character assassination last year.
Steve didn't sound nearly as touchy in his reply to the List as you did, LOL. Actually, I sent him an off list query recently. Sooooo, not to worry.
Maarja
>>> Larry Medina <[log in to unmask]> 06/29/05 1:08 PM >>>
> There's little point in rehashing the extent to which Carlin allegedly was
> forced to resign.
With this comment, I must agree... water under the bridge, nothing can be
done to change it, especially since the position essentially serves at the
pleasure of the President, for right or wrong. And yes, I know the law that
was enacted in 1985 regarding the position, and yes, I know it was not
complied with (to the letter), but it's over... game, set, match.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/44/chapters/21/sections/section_2103.html
If you did speak up publicly on the issue, you probably would expect that
> as an insider -- or former insider -- your views should carry more weight
> than those of outsiders who are just guessing or projecting.
I totally disagree with this opinion, because an insider would still base
their views on their personal opinion... simply being an insider doesn't
make you a greater source of fact, and if anything, would color your
judgement even MORE on the subject, because you may in some way be impacted
by the decision. Unless you were personally in the room when the decisions
were made and the speeches were given, or in the heads of the involved
individuals, you're STILL "just guessing or projecting".
On the Carlin issue, I give more weight to what a NARA insider tells me or
> tells Bruce Craig for his newsletter than...
And this is of little surprise, because it sounds as if you're aligned with
Bruce's views AND as a former insider, you disagreed with the action. Well,
I can tell you that I ALSO DISAGREED with the action, but the number of us
that disagreed was outweighed by the number that agreed and/or were
complacent, something that happens on a regular basis in our society. And as
for Bruce Craig's newsletter being of any more "value" than the opinion of
another who shares different views, well, that's what makes this Country a
GREAT place... everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone else is
entitled to dissent if they don't like it.
But if it gets too political, this isn't the Forum for it... and you should
take it off line and discuss it indepentdently with whoever you are in
disagreement with.
If the issue centered on Steve's office, and Steve spoke up on the List to
> provide context, I'd give his opinion more weight than that of an outsiders.
> Isn't that natural?
Well, from personal experience and having traveled many roads with Steve
(by choice, I might add) I can tell you that if this was about Steve,
Steve's Office or Steve's Boss, you wouldn't be hearing about "it's context"
here... and he wouldn't care too much about the opinion of outsiders, so he
likely wouldn't be asking for it.
This discussion was about an individual that was appointed to a public
office, served a term, was either asked to consider resigning or resigned on
his own, did so for whatever reason, has been replaced by another (who will
also be replaced at some time) and the whole issue was controversial because
of the politics that surrounded it.
It may have made for some great discussions on the Archives List, but it
was short-lived here.
Larry
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
