One thing I’m wary of is that whenever Gorman goes off about the perils of the tubes, it gets picked up much more widely so as to go mostly outside the librarian audience. When techies and other folks respond to it, they typically say, “former ALA head Gorman…” This disturbs me because I don’t think your average reader on a non-library blog is necessarily going to know or take time to find out that Gorman doesn’t represent all librarians, and this is not how all librarians think. It’s an image issue. Gorman can say whatever he wants, but it falls to the rest of us to work extra hard to make sure people know we are up on technology and are moving forward with them, not against them.

On the second point, thanks for clarifying. I’ve added an edit to the post noting this clarification.

On the first, I maintain that you’re applying a double standard by your selection of recipients for your critique. You criticize others for being rude in response to Gorman, leaving out entirely that Gorman himself is exceptionally rude. You suggest in your comment above that you find Gorman’s tone offensive and unacceptable but you don’t say this in your own post. It is this conspicuous absence that bothered me. This absence suggests to those uninitiated in the debate that others are reacting to Gorman in this way only because they don’t like his views.

They’re reacting to someone who has been publically insulting and berating them for years with writings chock full of dishonesty.

For the record, I don’t think it is unfair, when discussing someone who is notorious for being rude, dishonest, and irrational, to suggest this person might be a lunatic or a jerk.

For the record, I suspect he’s just a jerk.

Second, I may have stated this badly, but my statement that “I don’t have any grounds for questioning his sincerity” was meant to apply to the NASIG speaker, not to Gorman.