UCD Library Bald Power-tripping Librarian

Économiste Monétaire

vote4pedro wrote: »

Oh for Gods sake, I've said it before in this thread but the dweebiness of boards.ie appears to have reached a new low. How am I keyboard warrior? I called a bloke who works in a library a bit of a tit. I have no huge gripe with him, I just think he's a bit of a tit the way he carries on and tries to play up to his reputation amongst the Belfield obsessed. If you are going to take offense at that on his behalf and report posts and demands threads to be closed because someone gets called a tit then well....

What next
"I just got a manky roll from 911"
"Take that back, the 911 food chain is a reputable business, how dare you demonise them on an internet forum, show a little more integrity from now on. Reported!"

First, I never reported any posts, so I don't know where that comes from. Second, I never demanded that anything be closed, I simple questioned why there should be a negative thread dedicated to a member of staff. Also, your logic bemuses me: A person saying they would like to kick Librocop in the throat because he asked them to move back after an alarm went off, and the disgusting injustice to food that is 911, are not comparable.

vote4pedro

Yes, I'd imagine that person really, seriously, considering kicking the security guy in the throat. I'm sure he was being serious. Thank god we have people around to take umbridge with such vile remarks. I'd say you're a right laugh down the pub.

alan4cult

Wow this thread got very long, very quick!

griffdaddy

UCD_Econ wrote: »

Also, your logic bemuses me: A person saying they would like to kick Librocop in the throat because he asked them to move back after an alarm went off...

That was clearly just someone being exaggerative for the sake of emphasis. Why are people all of a sudden picking up on these throw-away remarks as if their some damning indicting sign of the times? Maybe it would be better if we all spoke in absolute definitive terms from now on where every single avenue of misinterpretation or conflict is closed off preemptively.

Économiste Monétaire

griffdaddy wrote: »

That was clearly just someone being exaggerative for the sake of emphasis. Why are people all of a sudden picking up on these throw-away remarks as if their some damning indicting sign of the times? Maybe it would be better if we all spoke in absolute definitive terms from now on where every single avenue of misinterpretation or conflict is closed off preemptively.

For emphasis of what? Their hatred for someone they sparingly know?

vote4pedro wrote: »

I'd say you're a right laugh down the pub.

And-it-just-keeps-going-downhill.

RandolphEsq

I bluetooth explicit pictures to people in the lib

griffdaddy

UCD_Econ wrote: »

For emphasis of what? Their hatred for someone they sparingly know?

no for emphasis of their frustration or anger, although what they were emphasizing isn't really that important, the fact is that they weren't being literal, and you acted like they were, when you clearly knew they weren't (you seem like an intelligent person) and that's just being pedantic and pointlessly feigning outrage for the sake of it.

BrightEyes wrote: »

I bluetooth explicit pictures to people in the lib

let me in on that action

ianthefox

So like, I wouldn't have actually kicked him in the throat...I'd say he could definitely take me...

Time Magazine

He gave me a dirty look yesterday. I was silently walking into the bathroom. And he gave me a dirty look!

It shouldn't matter that I was going into the Ladies for a bit of a perv.

Redrover1999

UCD_Econ wrote: »

Note that this isn't your first issue with someone apparently being on a power-trip

That made me laugh a bit. You put that up as if you've just dug up some real dirt.

Anyway, it's true that I don't like power-tripping people.

This does not mean, as you say, that I have a problem with authority - most people would define power-tripping as an abuse of authority.

While we're on the subject of the new security on campus, have you an opinion either way on the way they are working out for UCD?

Or should you lodge a formal complaint via the appropriate avenues and not dare to discuss your opinion anywhere ever?

Mr.Nice Guy

ianthefox

Supposedly there was a hilarious bebo page dedicated to him where lots of people left stories of their encounters with him.

I was also told there was a story of a girl going on a blind date and it turned out to be LIBROCOP.

Hilarious, if true. And if it's completely made up actually.

edit: oh, here's the bebo page.
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=454372294

Économiste Monétaire

griffdaddy wrote: »

no for emphasis of their frustration or anger, although what they were emphasizing isn't really that important, the fact is that they weren't being literal, and you acted like they were, when you clearly knew they weren't (you seem like an intelligent person) and that's just being pedantic and pointlessly feigning outrage for the sake of it.

No, there is still no reason to need to make negative personal comments about a member of the staff--that was one example from the thread, which the reader can choose to interpret. There’s quite a difference between stating your issues with a situation and simply attacking someone. My original post was in consecution of a person receiving an infraction for abusive comments, yet because people perceive Librocop to be almost an innate entity, they can say whatever they wish, with foundation or not, in a derogatory way. It’s uncalled for, in my opinion, and I’ll state that if I so wish.

The Economist wrote: »

He gave me a dirty look yesterday. I was silently walking into the bathroom. And he gave me a dirty look!

It shouldn't matter that I was going into the Ladies for a bit of a perv.

Well, you were making funny looks at people late on Thursday at the stand up computers in Arts block. You do look like quite a shifty individual, even for an economist :pac:

Yes, I do stalk you. Be afraid.

Redrover1999 wrote: »

That made me laugh a bit. You put that up as if you've just dug up some real dirt.

Anyway, it's true that I don't like power-tripping people.

This does not mean, as you say, that I have a problem with authority - most people would define power-tripping as an abuse of authority.

While we're on the subject of the new security on campus, have you an opinion either way on the way they are working out for UCD?

Or should you lodge a formal complaint via the appropriate avenues and not dare to discuss your opinion anywhere ever?

Actually, I referred to the post to note that you seem to have a continuing problem with security in all parts of the University. One can conclude they are unconnected, or they are inexorably linked to a broader problem you have. That’s why I said, ‘maybe’.

You’re confusing what I’m writing as though I’m asking, or implying, that all negative comments should be muzzled, so to speak. I never said that, my position is I feel it’s uncalled for to single out a specific staff member and to denigrate them (as I already wrote in the post you linked.) Some people are more naturally inclined to get personal, as vote4pedro illustrates. But, assuming Librocop somehow wronged you, does it say more that people can politely cite their grievances or should they lower themselves to the standard of someone they describe as being completely ignorant of basic courtesy and manners? Put another way, the demand for spite is low, and the supply is high, in this thread after the 5th page.

On a general note, this is starting to go around in circles. If you fail to see my point of citing grievances in a reasonable way, as opposed to denigrating a specific staff member by getting personal, then there’s no point in typing it x different number of ways--or getting lost in a sea of differentiating metaphors and literality.

ProjectColossus

Despite being in my 5th year in UCD, I've never so much as seen the guy (on account of never having stepped foot inside the library), but from all the incidental stories I've heard over the years, he sounds like a bit of a bollocks to me. For what it's worth.

Riamfada

This thread is sad and pathetic.

+1 Librocop. He has a job to do and he does it. This "kick in the face" attitude is all a result of free fees imo. Higher fees keeps these kinds of people out of UCD.





.......... ill get my coat

randomchild

Grimes wrote: »

This thread is sad and pathetic.

+1 Librocop. He has a job to do and he does it. This "kick in the face" attitude is all a result of free fees imo. Higher fees keeps these kinds of people out of UCD.





.......... ill get my coat

I never knew Brady posted on boards!

griffdaddy

UCD_Econ wrote: »

No, there is still no reason to need to make negative personal comments about a member of the staff--that was one example from the thread, which the reader can choose to interpret. There’s quite a difference between stating your issues with a situation and simply attacking someone. My original post was in consecution of a person receiving an infraction for abusive comments, yet because people perceive Librocop to be almost an innate entity, they can say whatever they wish, with foundation or not, in a derogatory way. It’s uncalled for, in my opinion, and I’ll state that if I so wish.

How was it a personal comment? The only thing personal said about him was that he's bald, which he is. And if negative comments can't be said about a member of staff when they're working in a professional capacity how can you ever comment or complain about anything anybody does in UCD? if people were saying things like, 'ooh i hear librocop wears stockings and panties at the weekend and dances around to boyzone in his room' well then clearly that would be unacceptable. Commenting on how he behaves during work hours is fair game, and nothing libelous or that bad has been said, like another poster here said, people are just getting far too dry around here.

vote4pedro

UCD_Econ wrote: »

No, there is still no reason to need to make negative personal comments about a member of the staff--that was one example from the thread, which the reader can choose to interpret. There’s quite a difference between stating your issues with a situation and simply attacking someone. My original post was in consecution of a person receiving an infraction for abusive comments, yet because people perceive Librocop to be almost an innate entity, they can say whatever they wish, with foundation or not, in a derogatory way. It’s uncalled for, in my opinion, and I’ll state that if I so wish.

"God, I feel like killing Lecturer X for putting that question on the exam"
*UCD_Econ calls Gardaí*

seraphimvc

just to clarify that i eat,drink,listening to ipod in the library all the time :pac:

if you eat extremely quietly,pack up your rubbish,dont stupidly enough bring coffee from the entrance,drink your 911 coffee in bath room - act like a ninja,Librocop wont bother you at all!!

in fairness i have seen some idiots talk on phone where there are about 100 desperate people studying around you - Librocop is a justice for assh*ole/bast*rd/m*ron ,which i believe there is only 1 or 2 of them among 25000 people in UCD:o

i will form an official Librocop fans club for the man if he can get rid of the people who come in to talk in library especially during exams period,which again,only 1or 2 of them among.......

Redrover1999

UCD_Econ might have a point about it not being appropriate to bring it up in public- although this is open to debate as I said because he is a mini-celebrity. I also agree that personal insults are out of line

Also some people are INCREDIBLY ignorant in the library. Very surprisingly stupid! I have encountered people talking unbelievably loudly with complete disregard for the people trying to work.

So in conclusion,

for firmly implementing the rules Good

being unnecessarily nasty :mad: Not good


Nothing is ever black and white