UCD Library Bald Power-tripping Librarian

griffdaddy wrote: »

no for emphasis of their frustration or anger, although what they were emphasizing isn't really that important, the fact is that they weren't being literal, and you acted like they were, when you clearly knew they weren't (you seem like an intelligent person) and that's just being pedantic and pointlessly feigning outrage for the sake of it.

No, there is still no reason to need to make negative personal comments about a member of the staff--that was one example from the thread, which the reader can choose to interpret. There’s quite a difference between stating your issues with a situation and simply attacking someone. My original post was in consecution of a person receiving an infraction for abusive comments, yet because people perceive Librocop to be almost an innate entity, they can say whatever they wish, with foundation or not, in a derogatory way. It’s uncalled for, in my opinion, and I’ll state that if I so wish.

The Economist wrote: »

He gave me a dirty look yesterday. I was silently walking into the bathroom. And he gave me a dirty look!

It shouldn't matter that I was going into the Ladies for a bit of a perv.

Well, you were making funny looks at people late on Thursday at the stand up computers in Arts block. You do look like quite a shifty individual, even for an economist :pac:

Yes, I do stalk you. Be afraid.

Redrover1999 wrote: »

That made me laugh a bit. You put that up as if you've just dug up some real dirt.

Anyway, it's true that I don't like power-tripping people.

This does not mean, as you say, that I have a problem with authority - most people would define power-tripping as an abuse of authority.

While we're on the subject of the new security on campus, have you an opinion either way on the way they are working out for UCD?

Or should you lodge a formal complaint via the appropriate avenues and not dare to discuss your opinion anywhere ever?

Actually, I referred to the post to note that you seem to have a continuing problem with security in all parts of the University. One can conclude they are unconnected, or they are inexorably linked to a broader problem you have. That’s why I said, ‘maybe’.

You’re confusing what I’m writing as though I’m asking, or implying, that all negative comments should be muzzled, so to speak. I never said that, my position is I feel it’s uncalled for to single out a specific staff member and to denigrate them (as I already wrote in the post you linked.) Some people are more naturally inclined to get personal, as vote4pedro illustrates. But, assuming Librocop somehow wronged you, does it say more that people can politely cite their grievances or should they lower themselves to the standard of someone they describe as being completely ignorant of basic courtesy and manners? Put another way, the demand for spite is low, and the supply is high, in this thread after the 5th page.

On a general note, this is starting to go around in circles. If you fail to see my point of citing grievances in a reasonable way, as opposed to denigrating a specific staff member by getting personal, then there’s no point in typing it x different number of ways--or getting lost in a sea of differentiating metaphors and literality.