 |
 |
A free exchange of materials is something ARLIS/NA should support. It may seem pedestrian to some but the effort by serials librarians is cooperative collection development at its best. I'm not a serials librarian but I do appreciate the very practical role that our list plays in filling gaps in collections and putting information in the hands of our patrons. IF someone wants to set up a separate list, it should be for Collection Development (not just serials) and include exchange lists as well as vendor information. Jill (again) at OCAD -----Original Message----- From: Jill Patrick <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thursday, July 23, 1998 6:55 AM Subject: Re: Separate serials list >I personally don't think its necessary to have a separate list -- the >process of preparing serials for binding (and discarding duplicates) happens >usually around the same time each year, during the quietest time of year, >and the messages aren't overwhelming --- anyone who is not interested, can >delete after glancing at the subject line or forward the message to someone >else. The fewer lists, the better. >Jill Patrick, OCAD >-----Original Message----- >From: Mary Wassermann <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> >Date: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 12:34 PM >Subject: Separate serials list > > >>I agree with Greta and would support a separate list for serials swapping. >> >>Mary Wassermann >>Philadelphia Museum of Art >> >>Greta K. Earnest wrote: >> >>> I have oftened wondered whether it might be useful to have a separate >>> ARLIS-L list devoted exclusively to serials swapping. It seems there are >a >>> lot of messages devoted to serials swapping which is extremely useful to >>> those of us involved with that activity but add many extra messages for >>> those that don't have anything to do with periodicals in their libraries. >>> If this would be a feasible option would anyone find it desirable? >>> >>> Just a thought. >>> >>> Greta Earnest >>> Art and Architecture Librarian >>> Pratt Institute Library >>> 200 Willoughby Ave. >>> Brooklyn, NY 11205 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Maryly Snow <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> >>> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 1:30 PM >>> Subject: Re: Reply to individuals, not the list!!! >>> >>> >I agree with Tracey whenever the issue at hand applies to procedures, >>> policies, how do you do it, >>> >and information requests that might serve to educate a large number of >>> folks. Maryly Snow >>> > >>> >Tracey Sams wrote: >>> > >>> >> Overall, I agree with Angela's point. However, I think it's also >equally >>> annoying to completely read through someone's request for assistance, or >to >>> read something of interest just to have that individual ask that the >>> response be sent to them privately when the information could be >potentially >>> beneficial to other colleagues who are taking the time to read their >>> requests in the first place. >>> >> Tracey Sams >>> >> Covington & Burling >>> >> Wasington, DC >>> >> >>> <[log in to unmask]> 07/22 10:53 AM >>> >>> >> Please, please, please can we show some common courtesy when >responding >>> to >>> >> queries which are of a personal nature or are of no interest to the >rest >>> of the >>> >> list. READ THE MESSAGE AND SEND YOUR REPLY TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO >WROTE >>> IT. >>> >> Most of the time the sender asks that you do it anyway. Take the >extra >>> 10 1/2 >>> >> seconds to actually type in an address rather than just typing >"reply." >>> While >>> >> reading personal responses is on a rare occassion funny - Jim Emmett's >>> >> preference for "a woman's neck over a man's bum" and his reference to >>> >> "dangly bits" - they are usually just plain annoying. >>> >> >>> >> Angela Binda >>> >> Brandeis University >>> >> [log in to unmask] >> >