in article 40cbc55b$0$23276$44c9b20d@news3.asahi-net.or.jp, Shannon Jacobs
at shanen@my-deja.com wrote on 6/13/04 10:45 AM:

> Ernest Schaal wrote:
> <snip>
>> The more you post, the least impressed I become. You post a tirade
>> about how the Japanese library system is somehow stupid for
>> preferring Japanese translations to the originals in English,
> 
> No. Go back and read what I actually wrote. Either you have a fairly serious
> reading deficiency, or you have been led astray by some nameless
> ad-hominemo, or you simply find it more easy and convenient to ignore the
> facts when they interfere with what you already want to believe. There was
> certainly nothing along the lines you suggest in the original post you cite.

I reread your original postings of May 30th and a follow-up message of the
next day (all in the thread "Local Japanese libraries--with attitude!").
Those two messages show that a clear indication that you were "quite
offended" that the library made the decision to throw away the book you
donated.

You may not have wanted your message to sound like a tirade, but that is how
it came across. I noticed that in your May 31st message you admitted that
you were "basically venting spleen." In light of your own admission of the
31st, I don't thing one needs to have a "fairly serious reading deficiency"
etc. to read the message as you wrote it, not as you would like us to read
us after your intemperate behavior was noted.

Your remarks about "serious reading deficiency," "nameless ad-hominemo," and
"ignoring the facts" do not speak well of you. If you don't want to be
considered a troll, stop acting like one.

> There is nothing in anything I wrote to suggest that English originals are
> more "useful" than "faithful" translations. What I *actually* believe (and
> wrote) on the topic is that many Japanese patrons do read English well
> enough that they might like to consult the English originals in certain
> cases. I did not link that comment to アホでマヌケなアメリカ白人, though
> that is probably a good example.

I reread your follow-up message of June 6th, where you accused libraries of
wanting to "avoid controversial English books. They are willing to shelve
some translations of controversial best sellers, but apparently not the
originals."

Based upon your original message, and your messages of May 31st and June
6th, you definitely were critical of the Japanese libraries shelving
translations (which could be read by most of the readers) instead of the
original (which could be read by only a small fraction of those readers(.

> Now if anyone had wanted to investigate the ACTUAL topic rather than launch
> into ad hominem attacks and typically savage defenses of the local pecking
> order, they could have done a bit more research and disputed my statements
> with actual facts. My main point was that Japanese libraries apparently shun
> controversial works. That was the meaning of the key word "attitude" in the
> original post, and no one asked for any clarification on that potentially
> difficult nuance.

Your messages do not support your main point that they are "shunning
controversial works." Instead, what they are doing is simply making a
decision as to the best use of limited shelf space.

Pointing out the absurdities of your argument is NOT an ad hominem attack,
nor is it a savage defense of the local pecking order. If you are going to
post "venting spleen" don't expect us to respect you for that.

> So let's look a bit more deeply at the facts. For example, by looking in the
> Kawasaki Library online catalog, I now see that their various branches have
> a total of 18 copies of アホでマヌケなアメリカ白人、of which 16 are
> currently on loan. (I had already reported in that original post that their
> reservation system was able to get a copy for me within a few days.) They
> have five copies of おい、ブッシュ、世界を返せ！(his newest) and four copies
> of アホの壁ｉｎ　ＵＳＡ (an older work). All nine of these books are on
> loan. They even have two copies of Stupid White Men, though not in my
> branch. This narrowly focused evidence seems to show two things (but I am
> not "constructively motivated" to do broader research just now). Most
> importantly, it seems to show that many of their patrons are interested in
> Michael Moore's books, but I further believe it supports my contention that
> the Kawasaki Library does not like controversial books of this sort. Based
> on my experience, I think these are an extremely high borrowing rates and
> would justify additional copies. (However, very little of this really
> applies to the other book which was the primary focus of my first comment,
> since it is not even available in translation.)

The fact that they had so many copies of the work goes far in shooting down
your main point. If they did not like controversial books, they would only
have bought one or two copies. Eighteen copies is a lot of copies for any
book.

> I do believe that original works are more revealing of the author's true
> intentions than any translation, but that only applies when the reader and
> writer share the same language. (However, even in that case,
> misunderstandings are clearly possible--as shown by your post.) Since the
> primary concern of Japanese public libraries is with serving their Japanese
> patrons, translations are their most "useful" resource in that sense.
> However, insofar as American politics influence life here in Japan, I think
> this is an area of especial interest even to the Japanese patrons.

The fact that American politics influence life in Japan do not make the
translations any less "useful" than the original.

> One of the few informative tidbits from the earlier discussion involved the
> Blue Parrot (and thanks and a tip of the hat to whoever provided that item,
> though it was apparently lost in the flamage). I have actually formulated a
> "constructive response" to the situation involving that bookshop, which I
> visited again yesterday. The manager expressed strong interest in anti-Dubya
> books, which apparently move quite well (and he was out of stock at the time
> of my visit). After my friends finish with them, I will sell my anti-Dubya
> books to him, and though their subsequent circulation will limited, it's
> better than nothing. I'll buy hundred yen books with the proceeds, and
> donate those books to the library. It will be interesting to see what they
> actually choose to put on their shelves.

The fact that you donate books to a library does NOT mean that they are
under any obligation to shelve those books. On the contrary, the decision of
what goes on the shelves is based upon a variety of factors, such as how
many copies are checked out, how often, and is there a general balance of
all topics.

For instance, when I moved from Marin County to Japan, I donated many of my
books to the library, knowing full well that most of them would be sold.

>> completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the readers in
>> a Japanese library are more fluent in Japanese than in English. Then,
>> when you don't get the praise for your tirade, you explain it as "the
>> right to free speech gets abused"?
> 
> I certainly expected no praise, though it would have been nice to provoke
> (and contribute to) a thoughtful and useful discussion of Japanese
> libraries.

Rereading your previous messages affirms that your messages were more in the
nature of a tirade than a thoughtful and useful discussion of Japanese
libraries. Your subsequent remarks share a tendency to strike out that those
who disagree.

> In fact, given the closed-group dynamics of this newsgroup, I was
> not at all surprised by the unprovoked ad hominem responses. I was slightly
> surprised by the subsequent visit of the external ad-hominemo. I was then
> sort of amused to see the collective reaction apparently defending the
> ad-hominemo's deliberately rude and disruptive behavior. Perhaps I can
> introduce you to a charming ax murderer as your next friend?

The above paragraph is an excellent example of my point before, that your
messages are tirades, not thoughtful discussions.
 
>> Are you really so self-centered as to believe that your thoughts are
>> the only valid thoughts and that any disagreement is an abuse of free
>> speech?
> 
> Certainly not. In fact, if I take your words at their (rude) face value, I
> would have to say you are lying, since you are claiming to know my actual
> beliefs, and you are *not* privileged to know them. You cannot read my mind,
> nor I yours. I do try to write very clearly, sometimes even forcefully, but
> I (obviously) do not believe that clear writing is a sin.

I made no claim as to know your actual beliefs. Notice my comment was
drafted as a question, not a statement of fact. If you are not so
self-centered, then why do you label the disagreements with your comments as
an "abuse of free speech"?

It would be helpful if you would clarify your remarks rather than lash out
at everyone. The "abuse of free speech" remark is particularly troubling,
since it shows an indication on your part to censor those who disagree.

> My reference to "abuse of free speech" was (clearly) related specifically to
> the ad-hominemo, but that is actually an exceedingly complicated topic. For
> example, I believe that free speech must also be free in the free beer
> sense. If not, the people with the most money will dominate "free speech"
> (and to a degree this is what is happening in America these days, ultimately
> producing "leaders" like Dubya). In this specific case, however, the problem
> relates to even more complicated questions of the relationships between free
> speech, anonymous speech (from the ad-hominemo), personal reputation, and
> the complicated (legal) line between parody and slander.

As a lawyer, I find your reference to "abuse to free speech" to be
troubling, since it shows a lack of understanding of the basic concept.
"Free speech" is not simply "the right to agree with Shannon Jacobs," or
even the right to agree with me. Instead, free speech is the right to
disagree.

As for slander (or libel, since the media is the written word, not the
spoken word), mere disagreement is not slander or libel. If anyone has
damaged your personal reputation, it is you.

>> True, I respect you more than I do SuperOutland and Kaz, but that
>> really isn't saying much.
> 
> Sorry, I have no idea who these persons are. If I have seen their posts, I
> saw nothing worth remembering there. By their posts I shall remember them
> not? (In some venues, by my writings I am remembered more positively.)

SuperOutland and Kaz are trolls that often frequent fj.life.in-Japan, and
tend toward juvenile racist remarks.  It is hard to tell on the Internet,
but apparently SuperOutland is a pre-teen using the Internet to rebel and
apparently Kaz lives in Osaka, hating everyone else who doesn't live there.
SuperOutland gives the impression of simply trying to get noticed, while Kaz
is more difficult to figure out. Many of Kaz's writings are
ultra-nationalist, but he apparently hates the emperor and the Tokyo crowd.

Which venues are you remembered positively?