LA, I think I love you. In a manly, shoulder-punching way. Certainly not in any way that would mean that we avoid eye contact the next day, or, when the subject comes up in future years, we laugh nervously and change the subject
Certainly not.
Regards,
Shodan
No, because it makes the clerk an agent in the conversation. When you say “I don’t know”, others can (and do) take it as an invitation to keep talking about it. Once you say “I”, it becomes personal.
No, some of them are. And the others --the sane ones–aren’t going to get any better results if try to explain things to them, so there is no advantage to the clerk in risking a Nutjob Encounter.
I’m sorry, but in my experience, it is more effective. A nutjob needs a way in, a foothold–it takes two to make a conversation. Refusing to engage is the quickest way: hardly anyone ever persists after the third repetition-- instead, they go away or change the subject.
Stoid, aren’t you’re 2 hours just about up?
Can someone link to the lawyer thread everyone keeps mentioning?
Well…
Um.
Well…you sure did show us.
Oh, and for pedescribe: Arrogant Attorney Asshats. Hope you have a comfortable seat.
You mean to tell me that Stoid was the OP of that thread? But…but that would mean she’s being a giant fucking hypocrite here. That can’t be right.
I better go lay down. My head hurts.
My deepest regards to you too, my friend. 
Well, Stoid, it seems to me that this very thread betrays your alleged innocent curiosity. You have asked, “Why do people, in response to my questions about various policies I find dissatisfying, merely repeat the policy rather than explaining the circumstances of and rationale for its adoption?”. In other words, you have asked, “Why do people have this annoying policy of non-responsive that I don’t like and that frustrates my purposes?”.
You assure us that you are not looking to be obstreperous, but are merely inquisitive, and if your interrogatee doesn’t have enough information or comes up with a good-faith but inadequate response, you’ll go on your merry way knowing that you nevertheless did all that you could.
But in this thread, no such benign reaction is in evidence. Here we are at post 110 and for every attempted explanation of the librarian’s conduct short of “He should let you, Stoid, do whatever it is you want to do,” you have come up with any number of caveats, provisos, and exceptions as to why that explanation doesn’t cut the mustard in your case and that further justification is still required. Not once have you said “Aha! I hadn’t thought of that, I guess I can see where they’re coming from now” or “Hmmm…I don’t like it, but I guess I’m going to have to live with it.” Your claims that you are merely an inquisitive customer of even temperament not spoiling for a fight are transparently false.
But, if you do want know why the library has the policy, Green Bean’s post at 71 is almost certainly spot on.
Don’t bother replying, I think you know what my answer will be.
Kimmy:
Why shouldn’t she reply?
I’m just curious mind you. I’m not looking to find excuses, loopholes or gotchas. No, the only reason I inquire is the pure shining light of intellectual inquiry. And certainly nothing more.
Honest!
Actually, I don’t believe I did. I believe I simply bitched about it.
Oh, and a tip: many people…perhaps even most people, respond to different situations, relationships and circumstances in different ways. It’s probable that many, if not most people don’t talk to their boss in a meeting the way they talk to their best buddy at a sporting event. They probably don’t interact the same way with a restaurant server as they do with their doctor. It’s highly unlikely that that most people talk to their children’s teacher the way they talk to their children. Nor do most people talk to people at a party the way they talk to customers at work.
So holding up this thread and saying “See? You’re arguing with message board posters! You would have hassled the library clerk exactly the same way!” is more than a little silly.
Really? That’s odd, since it wasn’t about you.
I disagree. It shows a pattern of behavior.
Quoted for truth. Customers just don’t understand (or don’t care) that staff in retail stores are paid pretty much the same whether they work at the supermarket or at K-mart or in a clothing shop. They just don’t care (for the most part) Why the policies are in place, because they’re not paid to care.
Also, in the OPs case: Is there some reason you can’t use the internet at home? I mean, you’ve got an iPod, which presumes some kind of computer. If you’ve got a lot of research to be doing on the internet, wouldn’t it be better to be able to do it at home where you can take as long as you need without worrying about librarians having to enforce arbitrary rules?
Yes. A pattern of behavior on a message board. Which is generally where I come to bitch, to discuss and debate - leading to an experience of me that is heavy on the bitching, discussing, and debating.
I go to the library primarily to access Lexis, but also to use the books and other materials. Apart from what he can do for me, which he’s informed me is very little, I have sub-zero interested in discussing or debating or bitching about anything with the library clerk.
I am firmly committed to avoiding spending my precious time doing anything, ever, that lacks any kind of payoff for me, and harassing the library clerk is the very definition of a payoff-free activity, especially in that setting, when I have far more rewarding activities to choose from.
Multi-state Lexis. Shepards citations. Witkin, Matthew Bender, CEB and Rutters…all digital, the latest, downloadable.
I can access the basic case database for free online, which is wonderful, but limited.
When I was studying law several years ago, the University had a set-up where you could get access to that sort of thing from home via the University library’s online services. Perhaps its something to look into? At least that way you aren’t limited to either two hours at a time or the whim of the librarian on duty…
I couldn’t have said it better myself.