The Great Library Filter Debate

It has now been several weeks since the great debate regarding pornography at the Greensboro Public Libraries materialized.  The prospect of patrons viewing internet pornography on the libraries' computers has been a matter of concern for some citizens.  I think this is an appropriate moment to review this entire episode, which at times has been absolutely grotesque.

1. Councilman Danny Thompson made a motion on the matter without advance notice at a City Council meeting.  Immediately, the hackles of certain council members were raised.  It was decided to discuss the issue two weeks later at the next meeting.

2. During the ensuing two weeks, efforts to oppose Thompson on this issue developed in the local media.  The explanation?  Simply put, this was regarded as a religious-right type of issue, and the effort therefore had to be extinguished.  This is, after all, Greensboro.

First, the News and Record editorialized against requiring filters.  That was predictable.

Second, the News and Record began to advocate against filters in a not-so-subtle manner on its news pages.  The paper began to focus on the reduction in porn viewing since Sandy Neerman and the library board instituted its half-hearted "throttling" solution.  It did not primarily focus on the fact that it is still very possible to view internet porn at the libraries.

Evidence of the worldview guiding the reporting in the News and Record is found in a couple of recent blog posts.

Amanda Lehmert has done some of the reporting, and wrote the latter post to which I linked.  She is married to Joe Killian, a local journalist-blogger, who also is employed at the News and Record.  Someone suggested that I do a search on the topic of "Joe Killian and porn".  The result of that search is found here. 

I think it is fair to say that the worldview of these folks would necessarily make them less concerned about the prospect of porn being viewed at the libraries.

Third,  Ed Cone and his minions in the local blogosphere had a series of posts and threads that sought to undermine the effort Thompson had made.  Ed also devoted part of a column in the N&R on this topic.

3. The last Greensboro City Council meeting was an ugly, filthy display.

Sandy Neerman and library board chair Steve Allen made their presentations.  I wrote more about Allen here.  There was no way for viewers to know at the time how "connected" the library board chair might be here in Greensboro.

The discussion among council members was a sight to behold.  Zack Matheny took an open, gratuitous shot at Danny Thompson.   Matheny behaved like an absolute jerk, and seemed to be expressing moral indignation at the putative offenses that Thompson had committed.  It brings to mind the words of Jesus Christ about taking a speck out of the eye of someone else when there is a log in your own:

"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

Immediately thereafter, Robbie Perkins and T. Diane Bellamy-Small piled on.  Of course, one can rely on both of these politicians to do the wrong thing quite regularly, but in the case of  Bellamy-Small, the behavior was quite interesting.  Why?  When I circulated questionnaires to council candidates last year, she indicated she supported using filters in the libraries.  She outright flip-flopped, even to the extent that she joined efforts to oppose Thompson actively.

Thompson made a motion to require filters, and it was voted down 6-3.  The six council members who voted in an amoral fashion were Robbie Perkins, Zack Matheny, Nancy Vaughan, Mary Rakestraw, Jim Kee and T. Diane Bellamy-Small.

A motion then passed to gather more data regarding the number of porn sites viewed at the libraries over the ensuing three months.  Certain parties in the local media and blogosphere stood up and applauded.  Yes, they said, we need data.

The only vote against filters that was difficult to understand was that cast by Mary Rakestraw. When all the others voted against filters, it was unsurprising. 

Rakestraw serves as the council's liaison to the library board.  My concern is that her relationship with Ms. Neerman and that board might have clouded her judgment on this matter.

4. We subsequently learned about an incident last year that had been reported on television.  A library customer had been arrested for viewing child pornography.  The problem is that the protections subsequently adopted by the library system do not preclude the act of browsing for and viewing child porn in the libraries.  They merely slow things down.  The library computer user who is patient remains fully capable of flashing child porn before other customers; and the system will not block it.

Of course, it was the library system that had distributed child porn to that customer; but no city official was arrested or disciplined after this happened as far as we know.

5. We then learned that the city manager requested statistics from the library system regarding the number of porn sites viewed during the previous month.  The results showed upwards of 700 attempted visits per day, although there were factors that obscured the meaning of this statistic.

Predictably, those in the anti-filter camp in the local blogosphere tried to diminish the significance of this statistic to make it appear that filters were not necessary.  They did so even though it was their side that had been demanding the statistics.  When the numbers rolled in, they merely disavowed them.

6. We also learned the "throttling" system adopted by the library system will necessarily slow the loading of certain websites such as those discussing matters like breast cancer.  Much political hay had been made of the idea that library customers would not be able to access these sites if the libraries installed filters.  But it turns out that those sites falsely identified as porn-- such as those on the topic of breast cancer-- will be slowed severely by the library system, likely causing customers seeking this information to be quite frustrated.

7. This entire civic discussion has offered a great object lesson on the subject of relativism-- a term I have used repeatedly over the last couple of weeks.

Princeton University is one of the top two or three national universities in the country.  It is much higher ranked than anything we have in Greensboro.  How does Princeton define relativism?

(n) relativism ((philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved)

We have seen relativism on full display during the library filter debate, in all its blazing glory.  We have seen it on the editorial page of the News and Record, and also on its news pages.  We have seen it in the News and Record blogs.

We have seen it in the blog comments of folks like Ed and Roch and Sue, and in the comments of their fellow travelers in the blogosphere.

But most importantly, we have seen it in Sandy Neerman, the library director; the library board; and among six members of the Greensboro City Council.  Again these include Perkins, Matheny, Vaughan, Rakestraw, Kee and Bellamy-Small.

These parties have collectively decided that the false god of "library information" accessed through the internet is at a higher level of priority than the moral imperative of protecting minors.  They have constructed an idol in their minds-- and that idol is unobstructed access to the internet.

Furthermore, during this entire conversation, we have likely also seen nihilists on display, advocating their position:

(n) nihilist (someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief)

There has also been a distinct undercurrent of sexual liberationism, which is quite prevalent in our society.

8. Greensboro cheerleaders have liked to promote the city as being family-friendly-- as being a great place to raise a family.  But when you are at significant risk of being exposed to internet porn in a city's public libraries, the right to call that city "family-friendly" no longer applies.

It seems to me that prospective newcomers to the city of Greensboro should be advised that they are at risk of viewing internet porn if they visit the city's libraries.  It seems to me that would be the decent thing to do in the interest of full disclosure.  Furthermore, they should be advised that the city's highest ranking leaders obdurately refused to correct the situation when they were afforded the opportunity to do so.

Then those folks can make an educated decision as to whether they wish to move to Greensboro.

Comments

[Kathy Hartsell]

Great post Joe.
To circle back:
1. City Attorney stated that GPL is not required to offer porn to adult patrons.
2. The device is in place to filter and block pornography websites based on the same categories that are being used to slow down the pages.
3. Breast cancer websites requested on GPL computers were not slowed down or "shaped".
4. Wireless access does not fall under the current "shaping" rules. Any and all pages are accessible. This is not family friendly.
5. What did GPL pay for at a price of $8,000.00?
Licenses must be purchased and this information must be entered when the device is setup.

Licensing—licensing with Network Composer is based on network connections. One hundred connections on your network will constitute 100 Network Node license. According to the documentation, the licenses must be in place before the device is operational (blocking or shaping).

From my understanding there are 227 computers on the network. This device is equipped to serve between 100 - 5,000 licenses. Apparently Sandy Neerman is telling some of the bloggers that GPL did not buy the content filtering module.

I am puzzled by this because they are using the shaping software rules to "shape" the sites. The shaping component does not ship with any rules in place. These rules are built around the same content filtering categories that are used to filter/block the sites.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

When I first read this thing last night, my intial reaction was, "Damn, Joe, tell us what you really think."

I've mulled it over and I think I'll stick with that.

;)

[Roch101]

"upwards of 700 attempted visits per day"

Liar.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Unfortunately, most of us cannot say what we really think about Roch and his debate tactics.

We're responsible adults and it's a family blog . . . unlike the Greensboro Public (?or maybe we should rename it "Pubic"?) Library.

[Roch101]

I don't know how else to describe someone who repeats a falsehood that has been previously brought to his attention as false. Maybe I'm missing something, but there were not 700 attempted visits per day, this was explained to Joe, yet he chooses to repeat it.

[Mike J Baron]

"These parties have collectively decided that the false god of "library information" accessed through the internet is at a higher level of priority than the moral imperative of protecting minors." Well said Joe! Mary, have you not seen my graphics?

[Bubba]

"Maybe I'm missing something, but there were not 700 attempted visits per day, this was explained to Joe, yet he chooses to repeat it."

Let me explain something to you.

You have no moral or ethical basis to call ANYONE, much less Joe Guarino, a liar.

I will remind you of this every time you make your little statement.

Understood?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Mike, I had not seen your slide, but great not-so-dirty minds think alike . . .

Roch, I think you need to look deeper into your vocabulary and perhaps even your soul. You've missed quite a lot over the years.

Indeed, Joe is not alone. You've called me a "liar" on these blogs before . . . knowing full well how that, in particular, pushes my buttons (having been falsely/unsuccessfully SLAPPED before - EVEN THE MIGHTY CONE acknowledges that).

Funny how, on this very weekend, a man whose family name is on the hospital that done me wrong . . . and who has an intimate working knowledge of the Randolph County Court system (and who told me flat-out that the DA's office would throw me under the bus on the cyber-stalking case simply because they could - just as your pal, Jeff Martin boasted they would) allowed me to blog on his point-of-view . . . as yet another home-grown child-advocate hosed in Asheboro.

Since you've not held back here, allow me to return in kind: This man coming forward . . . having checked out the facts that that neither you nor Cone nor Robinson (great "citizen journalists" that you all are) could be bothered with . . . does wonders for my credibility and makes you/others-with-their-family-names-on-hospitals look like the hypocritical blow-hard INSECTS you are.

Why don't you go find a library cubicle and be responsible?

[Stormy]

Bubba,

Roch can not debate the real issue here which is whether a public library should allow "any" attempts to access porn sites on its computers. He continues to use the only tactics that he knows, the Alinsky diversionary tactic to sidetrack the discussion on to an irrelevancy. The size of the issue is not the problem here. When that becomes unsuccessful, he resorts to the old name-calling and demonizing which is all that is left to his ilk. I suppose that the only thing he has left is to accuse Joe and others of being racists and bigots because they oppose allowing people to exercise their government-given rights. But, that is becoming very old and stale as well.

[John Robinson]

Joe, you say the newspaper advocates against filters in a not-so-subtle manner on its news pages, but you provide little evidence of that other than citing a couple blog posts -- which aren't reflected in the newspaper -- and insinuating bad things can be drawn from a Google search of the City Hall reporter's husband. Draw any conclusion you like, but that's a thin soup, in my opinion.

Just to be clear, the point of my blog post was to say that I think the City Council has many other things to be concerned about, things that I think are more important than pornography at the library. On that, reasonable people can disagree without their character being besmirched.

The post doesn't say I'm in favor of porn, only that I hope -- unsuccessfully -- that the council wouldn't spend much time or money on it.

[Brandon Burgess]

JR, give it up. You are trying to reason with people who think the council voted to permit porn in the library. You are trying to talk sense to people who really believe that those who don't see things their way want children to be harmed.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

John, thank you, I will draw my own conclusions. For instance, characterizing Joe's argument here as "thin soup" is RICH given the stories you/your newspaper have printed without any decent broth at all . . . or the steak & potatoes stories you have ignored (becaue they do not serve the great agenda - or might step on toes).

FYI, your exalted opinion doesn't count for much with the families of Jack Perdue, David Wray, Mary Johnson and Mike Baron.

"Reasonable people can disagree without their character being besmirched".

Oh really? I don't know what blogosphere you've been camping out in, but it ain't here. If I were Roch, I'd call you a LIAR.

[Stormy]

JR draws a clear distinction between liberals and conservatives. Liberals such as JR feel that there are "more important things than pornography at the library" and the city council spending time discussing and debating it is wasteful, whereas conservatives feel that it is a "gut" issue that defines principle and character in a society and very worthy of discussion. Considering the sad, characterless, sex-obsessed state of the American society today, people of principle should find the subject worthy of discussion. I would ask JR what it is that the city council is spending its time on that is so more valuable to its citizens, debating how to handle the region's garbage?

[Doc Alexander]

Now we know what it takes to get John Robinson to crawl out from under his rock; the defense of surfing porn at the Greensboro Public Library.

This is who we are dealing with, folks.

[Stormy]

Brandon,

Do you have anything useful to present here to enlighten us regarding why porn should not be filtered in the public library? Please tell us why filtering of all porn at a public library is not a good idea, regardless of the quantity of hits, attempts, users, etc.

[Brandon Burgess]

Stormy, I propose banning all but .orgs and .edus. That is a stricter approach than what Guarino proposes. What part of that do you not understand?

Now it's your turn: Please tell us why it's ok to say that the council voted to permit porn in the library (as Guarino reported) when that never happened. Porn is not permitted and no one is working to change that.

Tell us why it's ok to say that those who don't see things your way want children to be exposed to harmful images?

[Sue]

Bubba wrote, "You have no moral or ethical basis to call ANYONE, much less Joe Guarino, a liar."

How about "serial misconstruer of facts?"

This isn't an ethical or moral issue; it's a matter of understanding data and interpreting data correctly. Joe has failed to do that over and over and keeps repeating it even after he's been corrected. You know what they call that? "The Big Lie." Sorry, I'm not buying into it. What IS a moral and ethical issue is calling Sandy Neerman and the library staff "porn purveyors" or similar and trying to cast Joe Killian as a "porn worldview-er." For more about THAT sort of amateurish attempt to besmirch someone over nothing, check here: http://bit.ly/aLUKec (what comes around...)

Joe, you should seriously take a break of this, absorb some facts, learn about hits/stats and more and consider to whom you should apologize first. Related: http://bit.ly/9EiFXe

[Stormy]

Brandon,

"Tell us why it's ok to say that those who don't see things your way want children to be exposed to harmful images?"

I didn't know that I said that. Where exactly was it?

Okay, banning everything other than .orgs and edus is a position. I may not agree with that, but it is a stated position.

You say that porn is not permitted at the library, but it seems as though viewing it is happening, and that is what the discussion is all about. It seems that the city council motion was to require filters, and that motion was defeated, and the council wanted more data on the subject. So, porn is not permitted and no one is working to change that, so why does Thompson feel the need for filters to prevent porn being viewed?

[Stormy]

Okay, Roch and Sue, if there are not 700 attempted visits per day (Joe's BIG Lie), then how many were there? More than one? More than two? More than 100? Then, how many attempted visits are acceptable and require filtering protection against accessing porn?

[Brandon Burgess]

Stormy, you are right. I do not recall an instance of you stating that folks questioning the urgent need for filters wanted children to be harmed. I am sorry for implying you said that. It was other commenters here that I was thinking of, which leads into my next point.

Stormy: "You say that porn is not permitted at the library..."

--Correct; but Joe reported that council voted to permit porn in the library. That is a lie.

Those of us who agree that something should be done have a responsibility to point out such absurdities (even from the mouths/keyboards of folks who agree with us) lest they undermine the efforts of those of us wishing to address the problem in a serious manner.

[Tony Wilkins]

Stormy says: "how many attempted visits are acceptable and require filtering protection against accessing porn?"

Stormy, you won't get an answer for that, I've tried already. That would require a commitment.

[Bubba]

"You know what they call that? 'The Big Lie.'"

You know what I call your contribution here and at Cone's?

I call it just another arrogant, loud mouthed attack on those who disagree with the so-called "privileged elite" of Greensboro, who have decided the "correct" opinion on this issue is to sanction the availability of pornography on public library computers.

Why are we not surprised to read what you, Roch, Cone, and the rest of the Dwarfs have written on this subject?

[jaycee]

The library is currently providing tax-payer funded access to porn at the library.
Couch it in whatever terms you like, but that's the bottom line.

[Sue]

Stormy asked, "Okay, Roch and Sue, if there are not 700 attempted visits per day (Joe's BIG Lie), then how many were there?"

Can you give me a link to the stats breakdown? Like the AWStats I showed here? http://sue.polinsky.com/?p=8486

The graphs at this link (http://www.scribd.com/doc/36457605/Greensboro-Public-Library-Internet-Usage-Statistics) are not broken down into numbers that can be analyzed other than to say the number of "hits" for porn sites is an incredibly small amount of total web usage at the library. Remembering that HITS ARE NOT PAGE VIEWS [it could be 100 hits per one porn page and that's just an experienced guess], I'd guess that the actual page views stat is incredibly smaller than the "hits" count. Beyond that, I don't have data. Do you?

I don't interpret data I don't have. It should be a citywide policy.

[Jim Langer]

Once more, I am saddened the tone and tenor of discussion seems to reach the lowest levels. Joe, I have expressed my willingness to consider all sides and even to endorse (though Greensboro isn't my home) filters with fast unblocking upon request. I also decry the use of language like "liar", and intimations of intellectual superiority, etc. on either side. But, Joe, your purported summary of the events was loaded with language that casts the villains as, well, amoral and sinful hedonists, anarchists and generally haters of all things good and true.
That doesn't invite reasoned response, and so, they weren't.

Whether it's 700 digital non-visual, non-verbal (what does that leave?) pieces of a few websites per day, or 700 images on a website per day, it's too much. If the shapers can be retrofitted (seems they can't?) or replaced to block until requested opened for all that controversial line-blurring art, I submit to my liberal friends ("fellow travelers" being a term reeking of McCarthyism) that it seems a reasonable compromise. To my conservative friends, I submit that we try a moratorium on calling one another eternal sinners and such headed for hell. There's a guy on Facebook that does this on the RUSH 94.5 page, and I worry about his heart's health. No one blogging on this issue wants little kids exposed perchance to illicit imagery in the library, of that I am sure. Some feel the importance of free access to art or information about legitimate human interests should not be heavily abridged. Librarians, among whom I number many, many friends, are chief in their ranks.

I know someone will pun off "ranks".

I also agree that the constant refrain for more information, more data before taking a stand often leads to irresolution. It is Obama's greatest flaw. One can appreciate his careful thought, and yet wish he'd grow a spine.

[Spag]

Jim, I agree with most of what you said about the debate and how it should be conducted. That requires the admission of fault when fault occurs and an even handed approach to the analysis of everyone involved. That would include correcting the notion that Joe speaks for all conservatives on the issue and that all conservative opposition or analysis is rooted in religion. I certainly haven't made that claim.

[cheripickr]

Jim, well said, top to bottom.

[Stormy]

"I don't have data. Do you?"

No, I do not have the data. But, how is it that you are calling Joe a big liar for what he states, if you do not have the data to prove his numbers wrong? If you do not have the data, then you should not call Joe a liar. Brandon also called Joe a liar above. Has anyone considered, if they do not have the necessary information or the right information to prove someone wrong, it is not right to call them a liar?

"The library is currently providing tax-payer funded access to porn at the library."

Amen, jaycee. That's what I have been saying since this discussion started. It's not about numbers or quantity, it's about the principle. Of course, JR says there are "things that I think are more important than pornography at the library". A very, very revealing comment that helps explain things at our local MSM.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Jim, I cannot disagree with anything you've said here (like I said, when I first read this post last night, my first reaction was, "DAHAMN!!!"), except that I've not called anyone an eternal sinner nor condemend them to hell. Indeed, I've always been inclined to live and let live.

But I believe what I believe, and it's getting harder and harder to ignore the slings and arrows when I feel as if everything I've believed in (hardly "finge" thinking) is under active assault.

In terms of protecting children, I am naturally going to fall on the side of doing too much as opposed to doing too little.

And I am DAMNED TIRED of being called names.

I agree with you about Obama's greatest flaw - excepting that even as he hems and haws because he doesn't have all the data, he still flat out IGNORES data that does not correlate with what he wants to hear - from those of us who've had our spines impaled.

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

Were you behaving in an amoral and relativistic manner when you endorsed candidate after candidate for city council last year despite their opposition to filtering?

[Dave Ribar]

Mary:

What a confusing set of posts.

You write that you've not called anyone an eternal sinner nor condemned them to hell, yet you've instructed Roch to look deeper into his soul.

You claim to be tired of being called names, yet you call people "hypocritical blow-hard INSECTS," with CAPS no less.

And this is all in one thread.

[Joe Guarino]

I appreciate all the comments. Had a very busy day today at work, followed by an evening of yard work (yep, the kids are away at college).

I am not going to respond to each comment individually. But I need to point out that, when I write posts, I try to refrain from singling out people to call them names. And this post was not primarily about religion. It was, however, in part about the characterization of worldviews, and the actions and speech that arise from those worldviews. I think this is important, because it explains what happened between the two city council meetings. And I think the characterizations I made are, for the most part, accurate.

But it is important for bloggers to hold public officials to account; and I don't apologize for that one iota.

[Sue]

Ah, Stormy, this is entirely what it's about: " But, how is it that you are calling Joe a big liar for what he states, if you do not have the data to prove his numbers wrong?"

(I don't think I called him a liar. That was someone else.)

Joe is counting "hits" as "page views" and that's incredibly wrong and misleading. When we try to point that out to him, we're called names, "pro-porn," morally inferior or worse. We're talking about DATA. Sometimes, it's just not worth the effort.

My experience would tell me that 700 "porn hits" might represent a mere few "page views" if the pages actually loaded or were instead throttled, which is more likely. The number is so small that it's hardly worth all this shouting and name-calling. But what bothers me the most is that Joe is continuously claiming "700 porn views a day" when that's simply wrong and not backed by any data. I would have expected more from a person who ostensibly studied science and scientific method but calling Sandy Neerman, the library staff and many others "pro-porn" or "porn peddlers" based on non-existent data is over the top and he should apologize to them.

Doing an amateur Google search trying to vilify Joe Killian (and by implication, his wife) is outrageous. (doing that to anyone is outrageous). This is the worst sort of denial (no data) and atrocious personal attacks I've seen in a long time in this community.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Ah, the game of "gotcha".

(Please remember, everyone, before I'm accused of de-railing a thread, that Dave did ask.)

Yes Dave it IS all in one thread. But it's actually not all that confusing (and I would submit that you know it). Forgive me for paraphrasing Scripture, but one reaps what one sows.

In my particular case, a whole lot of sowing has gone one in this blogosphere - particularly on the part of one, Roch Smith, Jr., and being an intelligent guy, you know that too.

I will remind you that terms of holding public officials to account . . . and seeing promise in a concept called "citizen journalism" (maybe you've heard of it?) . . . five years ago, I came to the Greensboro blogosphere asking for help. Begged for it. Pleaded. Opened up my own heart and soul. Spilled my guts. Bled all over these boards (sometimes, it seemed, appeared for the sheer sick/warped entertainment of Cone and his pals).

And I jumped through every hoop trying to find what Cone calls a "hook". You know that too.

For my trouble, our Dr. Sue (who was once sucked into the Edwardian vortex) "diagnosed" me with "malignant narcissim". Of course, when she's dishing, it's not "outrageous".

And what, did Blogsboro's most prominent blogging journalists do? Maybe we should ask some of the other folks-with-stories-previously-cited-in-my-comments-here (or in Jack Perdue's case, his family - as he was driven to an early grave because of what Mr. Robinson's newspaper did) if they think my characterizations are accurate?

As someone who is disgusted with some of the same overwrought rationalizations and "arguments" that "responsible" people have been made for waiting/doing NOTHING in the GSO library debacle, I very much respect Joe and his viewpoint and his willingness to state it so forcefully - even if it offends. The biggest problem that many conservatives (particularly Chrisitian conservatives) face in this ether is that they do not always feel comfortable responding in kind to what is aimed in their direction.

It's been a real struggle for me. I'm slowing getting over it as the stake are clearing getting higher. I expect others are too.

[Brandon Burgess]

"Brandon also called Joe a liar above."

--Stormy, for the last time, the council did not vote to permit porn at the library. So what do YOU call it when someone says they did? I call it a lie.

I like Joe just as much as you but I will speak out against what I perceive as lowlife political tactics. That's not the way to get things done.

[Brandon Burgess]

"Has anyone considered, if they do not have the necessary information or the right information to prove someone wrong, it is not right to call them a liar?"

--Stormy, you must have not watched the meeting when the vote took place. I can't make you watch it. But the vote had nothing to do with changing the rules that ban viewing porn in the library.

That video evidence proves that when Joe said "(the council)...voted to permit porn surfing in the library", he was lying. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. I like Joe but not enough to go along with a lie.

[Dave Ribar]

Mary:

Characterizing the library's staff's response as "waiting/doing NOTHING" is wrong (again, what's with the caps?). The library has adopted a policy that includes software and several other elements. That change in policy appears to have reduced the number of reported incidents by 80 percent.

[Jim Langer]

Joe, I don't think you necessarily meant to consciously lump some of us into the role of Satan's Minions (or dwarfs). But words like "obdurately" do suggest a seriously sinful condition. In general, I have enjoyed much of the discussion, but I see it turning uglier all the time. If we could just grant that our opposition has good intentions, both sides, we can find commonality.

[Kathy Hartsell]

Images categorized as pornographic images on a web page do not raise the "hit count" for the number of page in the category (per Cymphonix).

Within the "hits" that was displayed in the snap shot of the interface, there is more information regarding the pages. GPL should contact support and ask them how to generate a report that will provide the information that the council requested.

The Cymphonix Network Composer is set up with the number of licenses that were purchased with the device. Each desktop computer setup on the network is considered a network node. Information is being tracked for each licensed network node regardless of how many people sign on to the computer.

GPL needs to dig a little deeper to provide the information that will actually answer the questions being asked.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Dave, like Joe, like others, I don't think the GPL/City Council is doing enough. But I will concede (just so no one here calls me a "liar") that perhaps I should have said "next-to-nothing" as opposed to NOTHING.

What is it with your aversion to caps? It's a way to emphasize a word/idea. Get over it.

While we're nit-picking, "appears to have reduced the number of reported (key word) incidents" is NOT (sorry) the same as reducing the number of incidents.

That pesky relativism again.

[Jim Langer]

An absolutist would say that all images potentially offensive should be removed from library shelves, too, but no one has taken me up on that, despite my reports of what images can be found in just a few shelves I perused. Hence, even those most opposed to the current system of mere throttling are relativists in that respect.

[Stormy]

"Joe has failed to do that over and over and keeps repeating it even after he's been corrected. You know what they call that? "The Big Lie."

Sue, what do you cal that, if not calling Joe a liar?

[Stormy]

Brandon,

Provide a reference where Joe said "(the council)...voted to permit porn surfing in the library". I do not see it here. and I have read several times to find it. All that I see is that he said "Thompson made a motion to require filters, and it was voted down 6-3. The six council members who voted in an amoral fashion were Robbie Perkins, Zack Matheny, Nancy Vaughan, Mary Rakestraw, Jim Kee and T. Diane Bellamy-Small." That is not the same statement.

In any event, even if Joe had made an incorrect statement of fact, calling him a liar is unacceptable on his own blog. Say he made a statement that was wrong or inaccurate, but calling him a liar is just juvenile. What are you trying to become a Roch Wannabe? Just because Roch called Joe a liar, it didn't give you license to do the same.

[Brandon Burgess]

"Perkins, Matheny, Vaughan, Rakestraw Vote to Permit Porn Surfing at Greensboro Public Library"

--Joe Guarino; August 17, 2010.

No such vote ever happened. Porn surfing is still banned. No vote regarding changing the rules ever occurred. Joe's statement is a lie.

[Brandon Burgess]

Stormy, if calling Joe a liar is juvenile, than I am safe. I never called him a liar. I did call one of his misstatements a lie.

It bothers me that you have a problem with me calling out a lie but you offer no condemnation of the lie.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Brandon, this is getting tiresome.

Allow me to quote Jim Langer's very astute observation (from the "counter-thread" at Cone's):

In politics, recharacterizing the message of your opponent in unflattering terms isn't lying. It's spinning.

You've done it yourself - on these boards - on a number of occasions.

[Jim Langer]

Joe's statement could be considered in political terms "spin". The headlines in newspapers often do the same sorts of things, to grab attention. Our society now condones this sort of thing as part of the razzmatazz of the "marketplace of ideas". The effect does lend itself to inviting like-minded pro-filter-blocking-sites to earnestly believe the mentioned persons may even want to encourage as well as permit such surfing. A "permissive" attitude toward low-life behavior, etc. Maybe they are permissive parents, too, I don't know. Are they "a-moral"? "Obdurate" (impenitent, refusing to atone for sins)? The slippery slope of language combined with context (where Jesus is invoked, for example, on the topic of motes), could reasonably imply to a reader that this is, in fact, a religious crusade. To some people, free access to information and images others may deem "inappropriate" but still this side of outright illicit and far from obscene, is ranked among the best opportunities afforded in a free society, and worth the admitted risk of images that fall short being loaded (as slowly as possible and under the careful supervision of trained staff) but not viewed with impunity, and strongly punished by the library in question. Perhaps a by-law (I know, another liberal wants another law, you'll say) mandating some form of shameful outing (maybe publication/posting of violators' names) would be constructive.

[Brandon Burgess]

Mary, point out a lie I have told; I am not afraid to own up to it.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Brandon, it's after midnight, and I'm just not going to play the Rochurian games tonight.

[Brandon Burgess]

That's what I thought.