BreakThe students have taken their last final and the library books have all been returned (yeah right). Finally, the librarians have some peace and quiet for a brief interlude.
A library informant told us yesterday that there is a rumor that the librarians are not to be messed with. Students know that when they come to the library, no crap will be tolerated. It’s as if there is a sign that says: “No Fun Allowed.” When we heard this, we all laughed with glee! We broke the students’ spirit!
To be perfectly honest, I don’t give a damn if students play games online, chat, or check the most recent headlines. I only care that the place not be a wild zoo with cell phones ringing, people sitting on tables, or having loud raucous conversations.
Oddly enough I get this power trip, which is really out of character for me. When I hear students being loud, I’ll simply walk over and start straightening chairs or something like that. They shut right up. Amazing. I also recommend making eye contact with them. If they keep talking, just stare them down. You would think it wouldn’t faze them, but once that reputation is established, you just work it!
- Hen 1
4 comments:
hey, i sure would love to see all the Hens post more often! i know it's hard to keep a blog going. but this is one of the best ideas i've seen in a long time. so, hope to hear more from you!
Where are we now?
[b][url="http://hydrocodone.dewall.info "]buy hydrocodone online[/url][/b]
"To be perfectly honest, I don’t give a damn if students play games online, chat, or check the most recent headlines. I only care that the place not be a wild zoo with cell phones ringing, people sitting on tables, or having loud raucous conversations."
Bingo. My sentiments exactly.
I work at a small (we're talking one main room here) academic library. I don't think people realize half the time how their chatter or their obnoxious ring tones affect other students.
January 2008: Unlike the DCCA of Hawaii, who I supplied documentation to, the Department of Health and Human Services "Region 10", without documentation, finds that Dr. Au did violate the privacy act by charging me too much for copies of my records.
But, Region 10 tells me they cannot proceed on the 6 other allegations
1. Along with saying I did not see as well with the new glasses, I said
that the prescription that I was given was weaker than the one I had the
previous 7, count them, seven years. Your office nor the DCCA responded
to this charge.
2.The reason I asked Dr. Au to change the prescription was because the
NEW one, I repeat, was weaker in one eye. This was the only alternative
Dr. Au gave me other than accepting the weaker prescription.
3. The "Vision Certificate" Dr. Au provide, had no licsense number
where it should have been and she did not sign it where it should have
been signed.
4. Dr Au refused to give me photocopies of my records and did not give
me a reason, per her offices policy, when I asked for them in her
office.
5.Dr charged me 2.00 dollars per page, totaling 20.00 dollars, which I
believe is exorbitant.
6.There are conflicting numbers on my records, that I would like
explained. This, no one has addressed. And I doubt that my records were
reviewed by an impartial optometrist, as any reasonable person would
assume to be a part on what your office calls an investigation.
7. I was trespassed from Dr. Au's office for no other reason than
asking for copies of my files, and in her response to the DCCA she says
I was escorted out of her offices by mall security, which is a lie by a
optometrist that pracitces deceit.
Nov, 2007 I receive a response from the FDIC, in Kansas City, saying my concerns are contractual, although I point out two misrepresentations by the bank's compliance counsel, Judith A. Villarreal.
Coincidentally, there are counsels and others at the FDIC named Villarreal: Jesse O. Villarreal, Jr, Lisa M. Villarreal, Victor Villarreal.
March 2007: My complaint to the Dept. Of Ed is refused on the grounds that they do not fund any programs or activities at the Hawaii State Public Library System, and therefore do not have jurisdiction.
If the situation is threatening enough to cause a change in levels moment to moment, it stands to my reason, it would remain at a certain level until there is a sufficient enough change or stabilization to bring it to a lesser level. But that's just me.
On the 17th of Oct. 2006, I submit a complaint to the Police Commission relaying concerns about the treatment I experienced at the security checkpoint at HPD District 1 the previous day. An investigator tells me it is the policiman's job to "interpret the law".
Returning to the station to locate a article I left, I am told by Officer Kahele, in the presence of one officer Hung, and another, that it is mandatory that I produce ID, and that I remove everything from my pockets, and take off my belt before passing through the metal detector.
I point out this information is not on the signs, and officer Kahele says there will be no furthering of my purpose if I do not comply. After complying, I am told by officer Kahele that I must sit down, or she will not take my report. Previous to this occasion , when at the HPD headquarters, I was never asked to remove everything from my pockets and, or to remove my belt, or that I had to produce ID to enter. Officer Lau, the sergeant for this post, tells me the same.
I am told by a detective that it is not mandatory to produce ID, "We don't care who you are. Anyone has the right to come in here". Sergeant Lau, who I am told is the officer in charge of the post says depending on the threat level, procedures may change day to day. He says one may be required to remove everything from ones pockets etc., or be required to submit to dif
Post a Comment