On 21/02/2012 20:56, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
<snip>Well perhaps. Others can decide that. I do know what a straw man argument is. In my defense, I will not debate something under a format (i.e. RDA/FRBR) that I reject in toto. To me, that is similar to the old question: "Do you beat your wife on Sundays?" "No." "So, why not on Sundays?"
How can I make it clearer? I reject the straw man argument because I reject the entire argument. That includes the >straw man, so I am setting fire to the straw man.Well, at least that's useful. Setting fire to a straw man is a colorful way of characterizing the fallacy. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
But, taken from my previous comment:
<snip>It seems this is also a useful way to avoid making a business case for RDA/FRBR which will have very practical and highly negative consequences for real, live human beings. One debate may be theoretical and the other very definitely is not. My concern is with people much more than some theory.
The library staff who lose their jobs because of the costs of implementing FRBR/RDA, that is, an unproven theory (or as described in earlier days, a "library superstition"), those people who lose their jobs will be a whole lot angrier, along with those patrons who can't get materials because their libraries will have to cut their acquisition budgets. They really will be mad since they are the ones who will have to pay the price.
From all of this, it is clear to me that nobody seems to want to make the business case. Or perhaps no one can.