Library Bathroom Crime Info Sought - Please Help and Comment

safelibraries.org:

Please help me uncover cases of child rape or child molestation in public library bathrooms. I would like to write a scholarly work on this issue, and I would like it to be as informative and accurate as possible. Please comment below with any information you may know. Please include specific URLs or specific citations. If any written works already exist on the subject, I would like to know about them too (example).Note, I am a member of the American Library Association [ALA]. This work will not be a vehicle for any undue criticism of the ALA. I seek assistance from anyone and everyone, including ALA members, including those ALA leaders about whom I have been critical. It is my intention that this work be as factual and therefore as useful as possible. People may disagree with my conclusions, but my facts should be spot on.I am currently aware of relevant incidents in Philadelphia, PA; Brooklyn, NY; Des Moines, IA, and the recent one in St. Paul, MN. Are there others? (Might this query help, or this one?)Please help all you can, and please provide the information in the comments section below so everyone may benefit.Thank you.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What kind of sick pervert

What kind of sick pervert wants to collect stories about kids getting molested in bathrooms?

scholarly works

Safe,

People who write actual "scholarly works" are able to do it mostly on their own. Posting a "hey, help me look stuff up" message on an internet message board does not bode well for your final product.

Let me save you some time: terrible things can happen in public buildings, especially with inadequate parental supervision. No one, not even Clint Eastwood or Iron Man can stop that.

If an actual scholar were to write an article on violence in libraries, or best practices for security or sex crimes in libraries, that I would love to read.

Yours? I think I got the gist of it already.

Actually, It's the Opposite

Actually, it's the opposite. I want to make the final product really good/useful. I believe that if I get input from others it will be better. Further, if and when people complain about this or that, it will be clear that I gave everyone a fair opportunity to have a say.

Listen. Once I was in a class, moot court, where the object was to prosecute an arson suspect. I went to the library on campus and pulled out the one and only book in the library on the investigation of arson cases. Naturally, the tendency is to keep it to yourself. Not me. I brought that book into class and with the teacher's permission I showed it to everyone and said I would make it available if anyone wanted it to prepare for their own cases. No one took me up on the offer. When moot court came around, I used the info in that book to thoroughly grill my opponent. He was so rattled that he actually complained to the teacher that I was being unfair and using special knowledge outside the scope of the course work. The teacher pulled us both aside and said to him did you read that book that Dan offered everyone in class? He said no. The teacher said too bad, get back out there. I continued to grill him and I was the one and only person to get the arsonist convicted.

It's the same thing here. It is not a weakness to do what I have done. Rather it is a strength, and the hope is that it will result in an excellent product, just like I was the only one to get the arsonist convicted.

As to the issue in the first place being "sick," no, the crimes are sick. Efforts made to stop those crimes are not sick. I truly hope my ultimate work results in less children being raped or molested in public library bathrooms.

As far as an "actual scholar," well I am directly involved in a number of these cases, as will become evident in the article itself.

-=-=-=-
http://www.SafeLibraries.org
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/

oh, I see

If posting long irrelevant stories about how cool you are is refutation of anything I've said well then congratulations. Job well-done.

As far as an "actual scholar," well I am directly involved in a number of these cases, as will become evident in the article itself.

"Directly involved?" Are you the perpetrator? Is this some kind of "Scared Straight" piece? I'm not sure that's scholarly.

Well..

Seeking assistance from those who you have repeatedly bashed and made rather harsh comments about in the past may not be your best move. I know, I know, you state that your work "will not be a vehicle for any undue criticism of the ALA," but your past efforts allow little faith that you will not at least attempt to walk that road.

In other words, It's a bit like a White Supremacist asking for stories of good, wholesome American white people being attacked by African-Americans on the subway, and then stating that the finished document will not be alarmingly biased.

The Ultimate Solution

I bet I can predict what Dan's scholarly article will conclude...

"Privacy screens in library bathrooms are as ineffective as they are on library computers. All stalls should be removed and video cameras installed so the librarians can perform bathroom content filtering continuously and in real time."

Dan, you're a scholarly genus! Problem solved!

Wow

This is simply amazing. A guy asks for help for a paper he is writing and librarians tell him he is a jerk, suggest he is a child molester, and decide the work will suck even before it is begun.

From librarians? I do not expect this type of conduct.

How can you people consider yourselves librarians? I am astounded.

I will help, I will send along anything I know about sexual attacks at libraries local to me, including this one at the Bloomingdale Library in Hillsborough County Florida. The suspect in the case was later linked by DNA to the rape of an older woman at her dome. The library was closed when the rape took place, and it seems the defendant was not a library patron immediatly before the attack.

This may be contrary to your hypothesis, but in the goal of scholarly research it is important to include it.

If anyone wants help writing a paper that draws conclusions different than those in safelibraries work, I'll provide just as much help. After all I am a librarian and I consider it an obligation to be impartial when presented with requests for assistance. I thought all librarians did.

Thank you, mdoneil, for the tip

Thanks, mdoneil, for the tip.

Let me ask you about that case. My understanding is that this was a brutal rape on the grounds of the library, outdoors, by a perp who was not inside the library on that day. Is this a correct assessment? If that is correct, I am not likely to include it seems to have nothing to do at all with library policies or practices one way or another or with library patrons--although I may include it if I mention other crimes that happen on library grounds that have nothing else to do with the libraries themselves. But I could be mistaken. Do you know of any way this particular rape is in any way connected with Bloomingdale Library policies or practices one way or another or with any library patrons?

Thanks for your help.

-=-=-=-
http://www.SafeLibraries.org
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/

This is simply amazing. A

This is simply amazing. A guy asks for help for a paper he is writing and librarians tell him he is a jerk

Actually I said he was a hack and unqualified. Which judging by the writings on his web site is an opinion I stand behind.

suggest he is a child molester

That was a goof.

and decide the work will suck even before it is begun.

In my professional and personal opinion, based on all the things I've read that Safe has written, an article he writes will be as good as the rest of his stuff. Which is terrible.

From librarians? I do not expect this type of conduct.

Until my paycheck says "mdoneil, ltd." on it or you get appointed my sainted grandmother your expectations of my conduct don't mean squat. Please keep that in mind as you address other grown-ups.

After all I am a librarian and I consider it an obligation to be impartial when presented with requests for assistance. I thought all librarians did.

I'm under no obligation to help any and everyone who materializes out of the Internet. In person I help the crazies and feebes the same way I help the lady who gave our new building $100,000. That's on the clock.

And professionally speaking I don't think that Safe is someone worth working with on an article.

Chuck Sounds Unkind and Is Wrong About My Writing

Chuck sounds very unkind and unforgiving. He is definitely wrong about my writing -- apparently he just disagrees with my writing but can't argue against it factually so he chooses to use ad hominem argument.

Here is my latest writing. Note how I logically present a story using publicly available sources of information, then I arrive at and explain my conclusions based on those facts. Note how I have dozens of end notes to back up almost all of the statements of fact that I make. "Who's Controlling County Libraries: Taxpayers or the ALA? New Teen Sections at County Libraries Stocked with Sexually Explicit Materials," by Dan Kleinman, St. Louis MetroVoice, 21 August 2008.

I can easily see in this article why Chuck cannot challenge it factually but instead uses personal attack to besmirch my reputation generally. The article discloses how an ALA Councilor publicly suggested using media manipulation to ensure ALA policies stay put in local public libraries despite community efforts otherwise. Chuck wants people to ignore my writings like this, and since it is hard to say the ALA Councilor did NOT recommend media manipulation, Chuck instead tells everyone, "In my professional and personal opinion, based on all the things I've read that Safe has written, an article he writes will be as good as the rest of his stuff. Which is terrible."

Judge the article for yourself. Is it "terrible"? One has to wonder why Chuck works so hard to convince others not to read my work.

-=-=-=-
http://www.SafeLibraries.org
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/

sins of the bathroom

Dan,

If I suited up and played a quarter for the Detroit Pistons I would be called, rightly so, a terrible basketball player with no business being on the court. That's not an ad hominem attack. That's descriptive.

I think that you are a bad writer and a bad thinker. That's not ad hominem. That's my description of your writing and thinking abilities. Just because it hurts your feelings doesn't mean that it's an ad hominem attack.

If you want examples of my attacking your facts you can search the archives of this site. I remember writing quite a few.

Your article engages in, repeatedly, the same wrong-headed thinking that your others do. Namely, you assert a fact as true and then make a conclusion from that fact that has nothing to do with that preceding fact.

There are lots of true statements in your various articles. They just don't mean what you think they mean.

In the case of St. Louis: how big was the "community movement" involved?

Chuck Should Consider Substantive and Constructive Arguments

Chuck,

As to the "community movement," my understanding is that it is rather broad support from the community generally, and large numbers of people went to public meetings, most of whom spoke in favor of moving adult books from the teen section to the adult section. I would say this is one of the more motivated communities. Speakers even included people from various national organizations.

Chuck, go on and continue to attack and besmirch me personally. Go on and continue to fail to address any actual issues whatsoever. It doesn't bother me, makes your own arguments look foolish, and has nothing to do with the facts. For example, it is a fact that moving a book from one library section to another is not censorship. The problem here is not me, as you are fond of making it appear, the problem is the library director claiming that that is censorship and forcing the community to keep such materials where they do not belong. That's the problem, Chuck. The library, not me.

And I'm not the only one pointing this out, Chuck, that it is not censorship to move a book from one library section to another. For example, Stanley Fish just said the very same or similar thing in The New York Times. Go ahead, Chuck, tell Stanley Fish he "asserts a fact as true and then make[s] a conclusion from that fact that has nothing to do with that preceding fact." See "Crying Censorship and the ALA; Don't Let the ALA Redefine Censorship." Here, let me help you: "Nor is it censorship when a library decides ... to withdraw a book from the shelves. You can still get it from Amazon.com. or buy it in Borders."

Chuck, you seem to me to be very bright. And you definitely have the time to write. Please consider turning your attention and skills to making substantive and constructive arguments.

-=-=-=-
http://www.SafeLibraries.org
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/

SafeLibraries: Soft on Logic

Here's an example of your faulty reasoning: "The Stanley Fish and ALA definitions [of censorship] are almost diametrically opposed. Everyone knows the Stanley Fish one is correct. The question is, when will people expose the ALA definition as being false?"

Everyone does not know that. Based on your use of logic one could make the contrary argument, "The Stanley Fish and ALA definitions [of censorship] are almost diametrically opposed. Everyone knows the ALA one is correct. The question is, when will people expose the Stanley Fish definition as being false?"

Also, do you realize that I can work a full day at the library and not think of the ALA once? Honestly, if it weren't for your obsession with the ALA, I doubt they'd enter my mind at all.

Chuck Turns Down Cooperation Offer and Stays On the Attack

Chuck,

I'm disappointed. In my last email I said, "Please consider turning your attention and skills to making substantive and constructive arguments." Your response was to stay on message: "SafeLibraries: Soft on Logic." Attack the person, ignore the issue. So long as you continue to do this, I will be forced to respond.

Chuck, the point of saying that everyone knows the Stanley Fish definition is correct is that anyone who reads it will definitely agree with it precisely because it is correct. But you turned what I said on its head and, by that means, avoided the issue, namely, the ALA's false claims of censorship, etc.

This is what you do, Chuck, avoid the issues by attacking the person, and I am a frequent target of yours. Here you are accusing me of being "soft on logic" while at the same time you are using illogical ad hominem argument to claim this.

According to Stanley Fish, censorship in the USA is very rare. According to the ALA, it is very common and happens so often that it is not even reported to the "Office for Intellectual Freedom." Banned Books Week is an ALA propaganda effort designed with the very purpose of convincing people that censorship is just one Christian (etc.) away from every library anywhere. And it really has done an effective job in fooling people. Here's an example: "Controversial Titles Stay on Shelves, by John Santa, South Hills Record, 4 October 2007. Here are the first two sentences from that story: "This week, the idea of censorship has been on the minds of librarians locally and across the country. Libraries and literary institutions have been celebrating the idea of stopping censorship in the form of challenging and banning books as part of Banned Book Week, now through Oct. 6."

So my original question stands, "The question is, when will people expose the ALA definition as being false?" Your ad hominem arguments change that not one iota.

Again, Chuck, you obviously can think like a lawyer. Please turn your talents towards issues instead of messengers.

-=-=-=-
http://www.SafeLibraries.org
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/

anonymous is anonymous, Chuck is Chuck

I didn't post the "Soft on Logic" post.

Oops!

Oops! Anonymous is anonymous, and Chuck is Chuck. I guess my logic is soft on reading this thread! Sorry. ;-)~

-=-=-=-
http://www.SafeLibraries.org
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/

Does none of you have a job?

Snipe, snipe, snipe. Now: in re. Godwin's Law: How long 'til someone gets compared to a Nazi?

i can haz job

i can haz job

Syndicate content