Laurie Fenwick refers to "Robert who suggests that the scheme is inevitably
going to
disadvantaged those who either cannot or will not pay for the service."
Going back to Robert's message, I note that he made no reference whatsoever
to "those who will not pay." He said "I don't see how you can describe a
service which favours those who can pay and disadvantages those who can't
can be described
as anything but discriminatory." Neither do I. Laurie neglects to mention
how it can operate in a non-discriminatory fashion. Over to you, Laurie...
Aran Lewis.
-----Original Message-----
From: Laurie Fenwick <[log in to unmask]>
To: Robert Gent <[log in to unmask]>; 'George Kerr'
<[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: 26 June 2000 16:18
Subject: Re: Bestsellers
On the face of it this idea about Bestsellers seems an excellent idea, and I
disagree with Robert who suggests that the scheme is inevitably going to
disadvantaged those who either cannot or will not pay for the service.
Where the almost inevitable discrimination is going to come, though, is in
those Libraries where the elected members begin to realise that they need no
longer to buy Bestsellers.
Then the waiting lists will remain about the same size, but with fewer
copies to service them!
Laurie Fenwick
University of Sunderland Library
[log in to unmask]
[[log in to unmask]]
http://www.geocities.com/laurie_fenwick
[http://lauriefenwick.freeservers.com]
Tel: +44 (0)191 515 3149 Fax: +44 (0)191 515 2901
----- Original Message -----
<<<snip>>>
> There are a lot of weasel words being employed to explain why the proposal
is is not discrimination. I don't see how you can describe a service which
favours those who can pay and disadvantages those who can't can be described
as anything but discriminatory.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|