Spam detection software, running on the system "avery.infomotions.com", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see eric_morgan_at_infomotions.com for details. Content preview: I spent about 15 years of my professional life growing crystals for scientific research. I would be offended if I went to a library and found a book on " the cosmic language being spoken by crystals" next to Alan Holden and Phylis Morrison's "Crystals and Crystal Growing". But physical libraries don't do that. They are pretty successful at giving appropriate context to books on shelves. Does an OPAC do the same? Should libraries emulate Google https://www.google.com/search?q=Crystals <https://www.google.com/search?q=Crystals> which is uncritical or perhaps Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal> which has a clear point of view? or is there a way to provide both context and inclusion? [...] Content analysis details: (-0.2 points, -1.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 URIBL_SBL_A Contains URL's A record listed in the SBL blocklist [URIs: kcoyle.net] 1.6 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL's NS IP listed in the SBL blocklist [URIs: kcoyle.net] 0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source [209.85.220.177 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.
attached mail follows:
I spent about 15 years of my professional life growing crystals for scientific research. I would be offended if I went to a library and found a book on " the cosmic language being spoken by crystals" next to Alan Holden and Phylis Morrison's "Crystals and Crystal Growing". But physical libraries don't do that. They are pretty successful at giving appropriate context to books on shelves. Does an OPAC do the same? Should libraries emulate Google https://www.google.com/search?q=Crystals <https://www.google.com/search?q=Crystals> which is uncritical or perhaps Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal> which has a clear point of view? or is there a way to provide both context and inclusion? Facebook's take on this: https://www.facebook.com/search/str/crystals/keywords_pages <https://www.facebook.com/search/str/crystals/keywords_pages> explains a lot. > On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Michelle Lubatti <michelle.lubatti_at_GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > This probably isn't the place to discuss collection development or > diversity, but why should librarians have the authority to define > "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-mysticism?" If our definition includes only > empirical science and fact, then we will be required to eliminate or label > most books about religion, philosophy, essay collections, etc. We could > only allow materials that have a fact-based historical commentary on these > subjects. > > I disagree with many of the religious and "pseudo-mysticism" books in my > library, but I do not agree that I have the authority to discard or create > a "fringe" category for them. This would go against all my assertions of > accepting and promoting diversity. > > I do not adhere to Buddhism, but it's important we carry books about it, > both history and practice. I do not believe in spirit animals, but books > on this topic are popular here and reflect one part of our diverse > community. Neither Buddhism nor spirit animals have empirical science > behind them (science is based on physical matter, so really only philosophy > can challenge these), but they still hold value for our community. > > We do make a decision to include them under religions, because this seems > most appropriate and where people will find them. Although we do have > books on a Buddhist flavor of mindfulness in our medical section. These > have some empirical science behind them, but it's not medical journal > terminology and quality. > > Collection development is a difficult topic, especially since we are > inclined to want our own worldviews to be preeminent (even if just > subconsciously). This is a good example of where we as librarians can > (must?) do practical things to encourage diversity. > > Michelle > >> >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> m: +1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 >>