🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec15.175442.423@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> johnh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (John J Humpal) writes:
>In article <1gikq6INNra5@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>>
>>When you spend X dollars on libraries for the poor, instead of giving
>>the poor X dollars, what you are saying is:
>>
>>"You do not have enough money to spend on things you need, but we do not
>>trust you to decide what things you need.  Therefore, instead of giving you
>>money, which you would not spend wisely, we will give you what we think
>>is best for you."
>>
>	My goodness.  Who ever said that libraries were only for the poor?

I must thank the sewer sprites of Baltimore that I somehow escaped from
that place.  There's lead in them thar steam leaks.  If I'd spent more
than a year at Johns Hopkins I believe that to this day the inside of
my skull would be plated with a fine film of solder.

And lead, they say, corrodes the mind.  The first sign is the infamous
"Homewood Shamble," but rot in the imagination cannot be far behind.
Fortunately I am a liberal type and well willing to compensate for the
handicaps of other; so I shall introduce you to the concept of a
"private library," which is exactly the same as yer vaunted public
library in all respects, save that it is not financed at gunpoint, but
in the same way as your local racquetball club, solder-scraping plan,
or slicemonger trade school.

If you can still get onto the roof of the NEB and have a good Aerobie
arm you should be able to hit one such.  Two if it ain't snowing.

>Do you believe that libraries are mere book repositories?  Perhaps you
>ought to visit one.  Speak to a reference librarian.  You'll find that the
>modern library does far more than simply lend books; it is an information
>resource.

Ooh.

c