Electronic Brown Wrapper: Hustler via ILL [former student of logic replys to request]

[scharles]

I think the fallacy you are talking about is called "Reasoning by False
Analogy".  I am not sure it applies here.  As an example, I have not seen
any requests (in the public library I work at) for Von Klauswitz, or many
for the Tao Te Ching, or Lady Chatterly's Lover, or Tropic of Cancer, The
Tao of Pooh, or many other works I could cite.  I think the colleciton
philosophy that justifies having physical possession of these works is known
as "just in case".  As a practical matter modern ILL methodologies have
allowed us to minimize acutal possession of low circulation works.  I am of
the opinion that it is these unusual atypical requests that are best served
by ILL.

And I frankly think it would be an incredible blunder to refuse an ILL
request, and I do think the library that did so could get sued, and I do not
think (as was suggested by someone) that one can "sign away" one's public
library rights.  In any event even if they did, they should not be allowed
to "sign away" mine.

I also find it hard to believe that while it is still in living memory that
Jews, Catholics, Non Whites, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and the Mentally Disabled
were vilified in print and in the flesh, and books burned and ideas scorned
based on ethnicity, Artists and Writers blacklisted and forced into exile,
that anyone would not have to swallow very hard over this filtering camel.
For myself the gnat of pornograhpy is easier to swallow.

But I will say this: I cannot wait for the filtering software to be perfected.

SC

At 02:09 PM 6/6/97 -0700, D Burt was talking about:
>Hal Kirkwood wrote:
>
>>Ok this was just too good to pass up....so I will charge in with sword
>flailing.
>>And this passage from Mr. Burt's msg....so what if only 3 academic
>>libraries have it?  The last time I checked it did not matter how many
>>libraries carried an item for an ILL request to be processed.  It only
>>matters whether ONE of these locations actually loans the item out.
>
>Ok, this classic error in logic is too good to pass up.  Hal and others
>take a very unlikely, highly unusual hypothetical situation, prove it
>could theoretically happen, then claim it is the analog of an everyday,
>common occurrence.  Philosophy  majors on this list, isn't there a name
>for this type of informal fallacy?