|
Grex > Agora47 > #27: BANNED BOOKS WEEK - 20 to 27 September 2003 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 50 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 25 of 50:
| 
Dec 2 02:56 UTC 2003 |
Since they're almost always objecting to the content based on their
assumption of its likely effect on their offspring, I would expect
such a policy to be, errr.. fruitless.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 26 of 50:
|
Dec 2 03:13 UTC 2003 |
(groan)
|
willcome
|
|
response 27 of 50:
|
Dec 2 07:48 UTC 2003 |
Is it OK to object to books being allowed in libraries if it's based on size?
See, there're certain editions of certain books which're made humoungous and
I voted against them being in my Local Library, did I do wrong.
|
aruba
|
|
response 28 of 50:
|
Dec 2 14:23 UTC 2003 |
Re Where's Waldo: It's been many years since I looked at the book, but I
remember one page that was "The Sixties", or something like that. It had a
area with hippies, and they seemed to be smoking weed and acting strangely.
But, I could be remembering it all wrong. If anyone has a copy of the book,
please correct me.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 50:
|
Dec 2 16:53 UTC 2003 |
Re #27: most libraries have a section of "oversize books". They aren't in
any subject order, of course, but can be located via a catalog. Did you
object to your library holding oversize books per se, or just an oversize
edition of a book that was already in the library? I would not think the
latter involves book-banning - especially if the book would still be
available via ILL.
|
jiffer
|
|
response 30 of 50:
|
Dec 2 21:26 UTC 2003 |
I say we get all the ignant peoples together, force them to read the
books, and discuss. I don't find anything objectionable in the list.
Then again, my parents went out of their way to ensure that we read
books on the banned lists.
|
willcome
|
|
response 31 of 50:
|
Dec 2 21:43 UTC 2003 |
29: nononno. The books I'm talking about are several storeys tall.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 50:
|
Dec 2 21:46 UTC 2003 |
Many books have lots of stories, and some are tall. But how tall are the
books?
|
willcome
|
|
response 33 of 50:
|
Dec 2 21:48 UTC 2003 |
They're nearly as tall as the building.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 34 of 50:
|
Dec 2 22:31 UTC 2003 |
Do you know how many books perished in The World Trade Center?
|
gull
|
|
response 35 of 50:
|
Dec 3 14:55 UTC 2003 |
They say it was burning paper that created the heat that weakened the
towers enough to collapse. So those books are TERRORISTS.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 36 of 50:
|
Dec 3 14:58 UTC 2003 |
Hmm. The "they" I read, said it was a combination of the fuel and poor
insulation (possibly the asbestos or whatever was used had flaked off
or been shaken off by the force of the collisions).
|
edina
|
|
response 37 of 50:
|
Dec 3 15:15 UTC 2003 |
A close friend is a manager at George Washington University's Eccles library,
and they had a display on banned books. What was interesting is that the
books had been banned in public elementary and secondary schools. This
brought about the question as to whether these books had been banned in any
colleges/universities. Anybody know?
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 50:
|
Dec 3 15:17 UTC 2003 |
That was part of it, but the jet fuel fire burned itself out relatively
quickly. What continued to burn after that was paper and other office
debris.
|
bru
|
|
response 39 of 50:
|
Dec 3 16:27 UTC 2003 |
They didn't use the right kind of insulation on the steel framework.
asbestos would have worked, but was banned as a cancer causing agent. They
went with a type of concrete. Being hard, it was blasted off by the impact
and explosions. Teh blast also moved all the furniture to one corner where
it burned unhindered.
|
flem
|
|
response 40 of 50:
|
Dec 3 17:00 UTC 2003 |
re #30: It's called high school. It doesn't really work.
|
tod
|
|
response 41 of 50:
|
Dec 3 17:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 42 of 50:
|
Dec 3 17:17 UTC 2003 |
They also didn't adequately protect the stairwells with fireproof material,
such as drywall.
(interesting side note about the paper - don't think of it as burning sheets,
think of it as an almost explosive dust... which is what it would have turned
into during the initial blast.)
|
gull
|
|
response 43 of 50:
|
Dec 3 21:44 UTC 2003 |
No, they used drywall. The problem is drywall is easy for pieces of jet
planes to smash through. Not only did that make it ineffective as a fire
break, the drywall debris blocked the stairway. If the stairwells had been
surrounded with concrete more people would have gotten out.
The fact that, during the first WTC bombing, people trapped in elevators
were able to cut through walls and get out with nothing but car keys should
tell you something about the quality of construction we're dealing with.
|
tod
|
|
response 44 of 50:
|
Dec 3 23:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 45 of 50:
|
Dec 4 02:51 UTC 2003 |
Drywall is "quality" construction. It's purpose is to support some
attachment, paint, and to not burn very well. If you started installing
concrete walls you will not have 100 story buildings.
According to a documentary I saw about the Twin-Towers, they did design it
to survive an airliner of that time flying into it.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 50:
|
Dec 4 15:54 UTC 2003 |
Yes, the intercontinental version of the Boeing 707. I think they only
took into account the initial impact, though, not a fire.
From what I've heard the WTC towers were considered firetraps from the
day they were built. The only reason they got constructed at all is the
New York Port Authority had the right to ignore building codes.
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 50:
|
Dec 4 19:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 48 of 50:
|
Dec 4 19:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 49 of 50:
|
Dec 4 23:37 UTC 2003 |
Notice, though, that both disasters revealed that the buildings were
impossible to evacuate in a timely way. That's pretty much the definition
of a firetrap.
|