on 25 May 2001 Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote: > The posting by Albert Henderson, rather than illustrating fallacies > on the part of others, is merely illustrating the errors to which one is > prone when one has a conflict of interest (between what is really the > case, and what one is advocating -- in Albert's case, as we all know, > the advocacy is on behalf of certain parties' interests...).
If anyone has read my writings fairly over the years, they should conclude that I have advocated on behalf of libraries and their users more than any other segment of the learned community. That has been my intention. That sometimes means criticizing well-meaning but destructive ideas, organizations, and individuals. I am not a lone critic. My references go back to Thorsten Veblen and Max Weber. Perhaps Stephen Harnad and his cohort will -- like Verner Clapp, Patricia Battin, and Fremont Rider -- eventually suffer at the hands of Nicholson Baker if he goes on to write the sequel to this season's hit expose, Double Fold. Finally, let me make it very clear that I am not receiving any payment for my advocacy. I am on no payroll. I receive no other kind of gratuity. I have not accepted any consulting assignment for some time. Albert Henderson <[email protected]>
