And why Tim Coates is fundamentally wrong and I am fundamentally right. Let's take a look at that word "bookseller". It is a seller of books and the role is defined by the product for without books you cannot have a bookseller. With a small number of exceptions such as Amazon you have to have a physical building and space within which you can house your books in order to sell them. The role of the bookseller is to sell the books. I'd like to stress that there is absolutely nothing wrong that - exactly as it should be. I go into a bookshop because I wish to purchase a book. The activity and the item are inextricably bound together; if I do not have the book I cannot therefore buy it. It is the responsibility of the bookseller to attempt to sell me a book and unless I have a specific title in mind their major role is to sell me a product which is as close as possible to my original requirement. Indeed, a measure of their success is the amount of money they can make from the activity of selling me the book and so a good bookseller can easily be defined as somebody who makes more money than a bad bookseller. The ultimate satisfaction of the customer is by necessity of less importance, although it can of course be argued that the happier a customer is the more often they will come back to the bookshop. However, the reason they will come back to the bookshop is because they wish to purchase another book.
To a bookseller therefore a book is not only a product it is their livelihood and one that should be, understandably, protected. It is their job. My job however is that of librarian. My interest is not predominantly in books, it is in knowledge, the correct dissemination of that knowledge, and the appropriate choice of knowledge from an appropriate container. Now in many cases that will undoubtedly be a book, and indeed in the past that has been the only container for the knowledge. (You will forgive me if I subsume magazines and journals into this very large category.) The role of the librarian is to use the appropriate tool to disseminate knowledge, and in the vast majority of cases financial transactions are not part of the process. Indeed in its purest form the person requesting the knowledge does not need to know the format that it originated in, unless there is a particular need for purpose for that knowledge if the librarian is doing their job correctly. I am happy to provide information and knowledge to the person who has requested it by finding that in the most appropriate place; a book, journal, newspaper, video, or the Internet. Knowledge is the commodity of the librarian while the physical item is the commodity of the bookseller. It is therefore unsurprising if an individual who has spent most of their life working in a book selling environment finds it difficult, or indeed impossible to differentiate between the book and the knowledge which is contained within it. We also need to consider what a friend of mine once referred to as the "attraction of the artefact". Most of us, and I include myself in this, like holding books, inhaling their scent, collecting them and I think we can all argue that there is a certain thrill in physically opening a book at page 1 and starting to read. However, while we may have that emotional attachment we do need to take a step backwards. Some books are very precious because they are touchstones for memories, people, or an occasion in our lives. At which point the book ceases to be a simple collection of pages bound together and takes on an emotional role. Other books however never attain that importance as physical items as the many remaindered shops testify. As an entertainment device the physical item is undoubtedly part of that entertainment therefore, but as a container for knowledge it is less important. As an author I am interested in the knowledge that I can provide is made available to as many people as possible as quickly and as effectively as possible. In the past this obviously had to be via the book, but this is no longer important. If an individual is able to access my work online I am perfectly happy. Indeed, by attempting to bind the knowledge into the covers of the artefact I have effectively rendered that knowledge dead. I am unable to change it, correct it, alter it, or update it. If the knowledge is available online though this becomes much easier. So for a librarian and an author the book can be as much of a hindrance as a blessing when it comes to our main role which is in my opinion the dissemination of knowledge.
Let us now turn our attention to the physical building. I am happy to be proved wrong in this but I believe that libraries are named after librarians rather than it being the other way around. This is an interesting counterpoint to the book/bookseller naming convention. If you have a building full of books you may have a warehouse, you may have a bookshop, or in my own case you have a garage which is filled to the brim with carefully catalogued books in boxes. What you do not have however is a library. If you have a librarian in an otherwise empty room I would contend that you still have a library. Our profession is not defined by the item, our profession is defined by what we do. The library is not a collection of books it is a collection of containers which contain knowledge. This may certainly be in the form of books but it can also be in the form of newspapers, databases, journals, three dimensional realia or access to the Internet. It is the role of the professional to find the appropriate knowledge and pass it on to the person who has requested it. We are not, nor have we ever be, limited to the building since we have always been able to call on inter-library loans for example. Consequently if we do not have the correct knowledge available we do not try to palm off the incorrect knowledge to the enquirer. It may be acceptable for a bookseller to sell a book to a user even if it is not the correct book but because it is the only book they have in stock. Once again I do not see any problem with this. However, I do see a problem if a librarian tries to give the enquirer the incorrect knowledge. So as librarians we have never been constrained by our physical space while booksellers are defined by it. We have always sought to move beyond those confines and the early development of CDROM technology was spearheaded by librarians who were excited with the possibilities that were inherent in the medium. The Internet is a further extension of that and it's worth stressing again that our quest is for the appropriate knowledge, not the appropriate book which is how a bookseller would inevitably try to define the enquiry. The librarian deals with the intangible, while the bookseller deals with the very physical and very tangible item. I would say that we have rather more in common with musicians than we have with booksellers for a musician is primarily concerned with the music and the sounds that they can create and rather less with the way in which those sounds are captured. So the librarian has been constantly adapting what and how they do their job over the last 3000 years and a good librarian is one who is able to use knowledge as effectively as possible while the role of a good bookseller has not changed in the last 600 years and that is to sell as many books as they can.
The role of the librarian is to hunt and track down the information where ever it may be and so physical constraints are irrelevant. To that extent I suppose we could somewhat fancifully, and I do apologise for this, described the difference between the two professions as the librarian being hunter and the bookseller being farmer. The bookseller, constrained by their space, trying to cram as much in as they possibly can to sell or to harvest for the most money they can get. It is therefore unsurprising if a bookseller is overly concerned with physical dimensions but there is also another limitation in inherent in this viewpoint. The only people who matter to the bookseller are those that they physically see. Although the book that they sell may not be for the person they see in front of them that is all they have to work with. They have to work with that because they are constrained by the space and the product that they are selling. The purchaser has to physically obtain the item and in most instances they will still do this by physically appearing in the bookshop or building. For the librarian this is not a constraint. An enquirer can ring up and asked for information and it can be provided there and then. Indeed we can take this even further because I would contend it is not really the role of the librarian to interrogate the enquirer as to why they want the information that they don't. It would be quite exceptional for a librarian to have to choose not to provide the information. It is part of our moral, ethical and professional duty to treat each customer in exactly the same way. This cannot be said of the bookseller because if the person standing in front of the bookseller is not in a position to purchase the item they can rightly and legitimately be turned away. Therefore we have to provide a service irrespective of the physical location of the enquirer. I will of course accept that with the provision of some materials these can only be made available to appropriate members and this may include a location criteria. However, in the majority of cases somebody does not need to stand in front of us and so it is beholden to the professional to make provision for access to knowledge to people who are housebound, who are infirm, at a physical distance from the library, who are shift workers and so on. If we do not provide this knowledge provision we are failing in our job. The worldview of what is essentially a life long bookseller is of course going to be different since while they may indeed provide books for the housebound and so on they are provided by an intermediary and not by the bookseller directly. It is therefore going to be next to impossible for a bookseller to appreciate these ethical, moral and spatial concerns.
Allied to these issues are those of opening hours. Opening hours are one of the ways in which the bookseller defines their job and their activity. A good bookshop is by definition going to be open for as long as possible so that somebody can purchase a book. However, for the librarian the situation is rather different for, as we deal with knowledge, if we can provide that knowledge in other non-physical formats they then do not become time defined. The role of the website and the role of the electronic book become ways in which we are able to extend our reach, our influence, and the way in which we can do our job. A library does not need to be open 24 hours a day to be able to make knowledge available. A library is able to do that if they can provide electronic access to data and books. So for the librarian an electronic book is in many ways a more effective way of doing the job of knowledge dissemination. For a bookseller quite the opposite is the case for as they are so constrained by the physical item it is much harder for them to appreciate the difference. We do not deal with the physical in the same way that the bookseller deals with the physical and we should not be constrained by their approach. Consequently a good way of spending money is to provide 24 hour access to knowledge, and sometimes this will be at the expense of providing access to the physical items. I do not see a problem with this.
Let us now look at the role and the attitude towards knowledge itself. For the librarian there is no good or bad knowledge, there is just knowledge. If somebody wishes to know about the recruitment of extremists via the Internet for example it would make sense to take them directly to a website owned by the Klu Klux Klan. Knowledge is simply knowledge; it is the application of that knowledge which is important. It is the role of the information professional to get the correct knowledge to the correct user in the most effective way they can. However, I would contend that for the bookseller there certainly is good and bad knowledge because they will be defining knowledge in financial terms, which is to say can they sell this book? They need to have a concern, again quite rightly, of the importance of an individual title and if it is unlikely to sell, as in the case of a book about the recruitment tactics of the Ku Klux Klan, within their worldview that will be bad information. It is bad information because they cannot make money out of it. This is one of the reasons why I am concerned when I see suggestions from people such as booksellers or commercial organisations who seek to run libraries. Their world view will be completely different to that of the librarian. The role of the librarian should in many ways be anarchic. It is our moral obligation to ensure the free flow of information irrespective of cost or container. The librarian should constantly be asking how can I make that information transaction work faster and more effectively for the enquirer, and it should not, as in the case of the bookseller, be how much money they can make out of this. It should be a moral imperative that we resist attempts to censor knowledge because that is our stock in trade and to censor knowledge is to belittle both ourselves and the people that we work for, our clients, customers, users or patrons whichever term you prefer. Librarians in the United States have risked going to jail because they were not prepared to submit to the authority of the Patriot act. This is not a concern for the bookseller in the majority of cases since they only able to sell the books that they have available. I am not seeking any particular high ground, moral or otherwise but what I am doing is pointing out that there is a difference between a profession and a trade such as a bookseller.
I am extremely proud of the profession of librarian. It is a vocation and a calling. We are one of the few professions before which all other professionals are prepared to show their ignorance. One of the key roles of the librarian is to empower other people. We do that by having power ourselves, and our strength is in our knowledge of where to find, assess, and make available information. A librarian is capable of doing their job with very few physical possessions, and we are now in an environment where we can work effectively in a professional capacity with a computer and Internet connection. A bookseller without books is someone standing in an empty space looking rather ineffectual and stupid. This is why we have moral codes, ethics and professional codes of practice. Booksellers have cash registers. To allow a bookseller to tell what librarians to do is like asking a skateboarder to advise a formula 1 team. They both deal with forward locomotion but there the similarity ends.
I will not however go so far as to say that librarians always get it right. Clearly we do not. In the past it is my belief that people have entered the profession for entirely the wrong reasons. The role of a professional librarian should be that of somebody who is prepared to shout long and loudly for the free flow of knowledge. All too often however librarians are self-conscious and unwilling to make a fuss. They are prepared to allow other people to define their jobs for them and to tell them how to do those jobs. The best librarians that I know are those who have the confidence to try things that are new. They have the confidence to fail, because they understand that failure is in and of itself the successful outcome of a learning experience. They have the confidence to take what they have learned and embrace it to do their jobs more effectively.
We are at a crucial point both in terms of the profession and within terms of society as a whole. It is very tempting and I completely understand this, to continue to do in the future what we have done in the past. There is always a level of safety and security in the familiar and there is a sense of danger and insecurity in doing something differently. Unfortunately however if we continue to re-trench into those safe areas we are not in fact retrenching we are digging our own graves. What we have done in the past no longer works. If it was working we would not be looking at the cuts in library services which are now being proposed throughout the country. Successful defences against cuts in services will be made by communities which are able to see the role and the value of the library as being above and beyond those of the collection of books. Libraries must continue to develop and to innovate in order to remain relevant in the ever changing society within which we find ourselves. We need to look at ways in which the community can be used to enhance and protect the library and in order to do that we need to continually prove our relevance to our communities.
So what do we do? We look to our key strength which is providing knowledge in the best and most effective way that we possibly can. This is not by buying more books, it is by providing better access to data. This is not by having better buildings it is by ignoring the buildings and reaching out into the local community. It is by involving the community, and when I say that I mean the entire community; both those people who can come into the library and those who can't. To do anything else is an insanity, but it is unfortunately an insanity which is shared by people who cannot get beyond the concept that a library is about books. A library is not about books. A library has never been about books. A library is about reading, knowledge, and about adapting to a new status quo. A library and librarians are about change, while a book, bookshops, and booksellers are about the past. If we are about anything as a profession it is about asking and answering questions and of being of service to other people. If booksellers are about anything it is about selling books, and I would stress once again there is nothing wrong with that except and until we have a situation where a bookseller attempts to tell a librarian how to undertake their profession.
[Edit to add: Mr Coates has kindly linked to this post as he wants to increase the awareness of it, which is very flattering. He's keen to promote discussion in this subject area, and you're all of course most welcome to add your own comments here. However, I would also suggest that you add them to his post as well, so that readers of both blogs can see them. It's also helpful if they're here as well, since Mr Coates has a slightly tempramental spam filter, so at least we know that they've been posted. Unfortunately I can't link to the specific post on his blog, so you'll need to look for one titled 'The real argument about public libraries']
Curiously, the same themes emerge in the comments on the Bookseller post puffing his book: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/135106-coates-writes-good-library-manual.html
We thought our own comment quite to the point
Posted by: CoatesWatch | November 20, 2010 at 08:17 PM
Well said Phil. Librarians everywhere need to understand this to be true. If they don't, then it's goodbye to the profession. You're right in saying "The best librarians that I know are those who have the confidence to try things that are new." We need to morph with the changing landscape and go where information resides. The fact that data can now by accessed by multitudes of people at the same time transcends what printed books housed in a library could do. The possibilities for our profession are exciting, but we need the people with the right mindset and willingness to adapt to be doing it.
Posted by: Jenny Luca | November 20, 2010 at 08:41 PM
Phil, I take my hat off to you! A wonderful piece that makes me proud to belong to the same profession as you. Best wishes.
Posted by: Anne Robinson | November 20, 2010 at 08:45 PM
Phew! An amazing blog! An one of the things that struck me was that for a bookseller to be successful, he/she needs to sell books. It is all about money and profit. But for a librarian to be sucessful, it is not merely about directing people to the appropriate information source. This may be the case in public libraries where people just want the right information in as short a time as possible. But in school libraries it is more about teaching users what information sources are available to them and giving them the tools to search and evaluate appropriate sources for themselves. It is about empowerment. Something a bookseller doesn't even touch ...
Posted by: Barbara Band | November 20, 2010 at 10:32 PM
Wow. I actually read parts of this a second time, and will be sending the link to some of my friends here at my library.
I think one of my favorite statements was "We are one of the few professions before which all other professionals are prepared to show their ignorance." Boy, did I feel good. :)
Posted by: Jo | November 20, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Brilliant. Will send link to colleagues -- would retweet if my Twitter circle wasn't mostly a subset of yours....
Posted by: Aidan Baker | November 20, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Eloquently expressed Phil. I will definitely be reading this again and disseminating it to others. You have encapsulated much of what makes our profession unique.
Posted by: Lesley Martin | November 20, 2010 at 10:54 PM
these thoughts are echoed in the talks listed here
http://www.theunquietlibrary.libguides.com/content.php?pid=165142&sid=1401342
the Neiburger ones which I just listened to on Thurs, isnt it funny how stuff always appears all at once on the same topic. Or is it just our brains noticing more effectively when we have just thought, heard, see or read about something. eg you read a new to you word and then suddenly if pops up all over the place.
Anyway Brilliant link which i too will pass on
Posted by: Ingrid Hopson | November 21, 2010 at 07:37 AM
This is a brilliant, thoughtful and thought-provoking piece about the credo of librarians and of booksellers. It deserves wide circulation. Why not offer the same text for publication in CILIP Update, say? Or save it for your Presidential Address (I'm assuming here you do become President of CILIP of course).
The whole piece makes me proud to know you.
Posted by: charles oppenheim | November 21, 2010 at 08:05 AM
Yes, indeed – and let’s be all hypocrites and tell booksellers and publishers how to do their jobs... Oh yes, and tell readers what knowledge is and how to use it... Etc., etc., etc....!!!
Posted by: Harry Matlay | November 21, 2010 at 11:10 AM
As ever Phil, hitting the nail on the head, and an excellent piece for us librarians to draw on if ever we forget or need to justify why we came into the profession. Thankyou
Posted by: Jayne Davidson | November 21, 2010 at 11:28 AM
But Harry, the problem is that a lot of people DON'T know how to find or use information (and bear in mind that I say information and not knowledge because the two are different). Librarians help people find relevant and appropriate information so that they can, hopefully, turn this into knowledge. As for telling publishers how to do their job ... well, considering the number of badly edited books I had to read for the recent Booktrust Teenage Award, not to mention the number of books that are published with the most appalling covers that I know will be rejected by my teenage users (even if they happen to contain an amazing story inside the covers) then yes, maybe someone does need to tell publishers how to do their job!
Posted by: Barbara Band | November 21, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Barbara, thank you for your comment... Yes, a lot of people don’t know and some commercial publishers are the way you described, and will go out of business... A lot of people, however, do know and some even discern between data, information and knowledge. The market will decide and only the best, I hope, will survive in the long term. I only use academic libraries, so my experience is limited to places of learning – if you humour my indulgence, please... In these places, I find that some librarians are self-indulgent, pompous and patronising, as if they have the monopoly on knowledge. In my long career, I met some excellent librarians and their service was impressive in all aspects. To go a step further, I would suggest that librarians ought to stick to their jobs and facilitate knowledge dissemination, rather than pontificate about its origins, accuracy, mode of presentation, etc. As a researcher and university professor, I know what knowledge I want and where to get it, but I rely on librarians to deliver a fast, cost effective and prompt service...!!! I do not need, or indeed wish for, gatekeepers...
Posted by: Harry Matlay | November 21, 2010 at 05:46 PM
An interesting and thought-provoking piece, which I'll be sharing with several of my colleagues here. However, I'm not sure I agree with just how far you appear to be separating the roles of librarians and booksellers (good booksellers, at least). I worked as a bookseller at a couple of different (very good) stores before qualifying as a librarian, and both stores worked very hard to foster a sense of community much greater than merely selling a book and then pushing someone out the door. One of the bookstores specifically had areas set aside for browsing and general reading.
Particularly, I've found that experience in book retail invaluable from a customer service point of view; how to deal with a customer, find out what it is they want (more than merely a reference interview), saying "If you like this, you may also like this", et cetera. I firmly believe more library staff ought to have bookselling experience; it would certainly help reduce the sense of intellectual arrogance that some members of our hallowed profession can fall prey to.
Too many librarians believe that once a book/piece of information has been placed in a borrower's (supplicant's!) hands, their job is finished; in the modern world of changing library spaces and roles, that's no longer enough. I'm not saying I disagree with you in principle; merely in degree. The roles of a good bookseller and a good librarian can perhaps be argued to be opposite sides of the same coin, or at the very least closely related.
Posted by: Nathan Turner | November 21, 2010 at 11:17 PM
Thank you for your comments Harry, although it's a shame that you feel it necessary to be insulting in order to back them up. You're understandably missing out on a subtext of this piece, (my reference at the very beginning), and I'm looking here primarily at public libraries, rather than academic or corporate.
I am delighted that you have had good experiences with librarians, and I'm also pleased that you know exactly what information you want, and how you want to get it. I would consider this to be the norm within an academic environment. However, this is not always the case elsewhere. Other users sometimes do need assistance in choosing the right sources, or indeed having the choice made for them. They sometimes DO want gatekeepers, and while you prefer facilitators, I think we need to be flexible enough to provide both, to all users in accordance with their needs. I'm sorry if you find this pontificating or hypocritical.
Posted by: Phil Bradley | November 22, 2010 at 11:25 AM
"I am happy to be proved wrong in this but I believe that libraries are named after librarians rather than it being the other way around."
Accoding to the OED, the word library comes to us from a late Latin and then French word meaning bookshop. "Libro" meaning "book" (possibly deriving from "liber" meaning "bark", as bark was a writing material). The word library exists in English meaning a place of books at least as early as Chaucer in the late 14th century.
Librarian is a more modern word, from the early 18th century, replacing the earlier term library-keeper.
So on a purely etymological ground Mr Coates is correct- libraries are places with books in, and librarians are there to look after libraries. "Librarian" does not mean "information professional" or "information disseminator" or "hunter of information" - it means the keeper of the library.
Of course, words change their meanings, and your vision is inspiring!
Posted by: James Fishwick | November 22, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Thank you Phil for your very accurate comments. Your distinction between librarians and booksellers is good, and I shall use your summary (acknowledged) that a library is not about books, but reading and knowledge. I agree with Barbara about working as librarian in a school environment, students need all the help they can get.
Great article
Jenny
Posted by: Jenny Horler | November 22, 2010 at 02:23 PM
A great article, and the question of how being a librarian changes in the academic and corporate environment changes is an interesting one. On the whole I think the approach is the same - there is no value to a private organisation to receive inaccurate knowledge, even if it is not hte information they want to hear. The big difference comes in the sentence 'It would be quite exceptional for a librarian to have to choose not to provide the information'. Because of the funding models used in some corporate environments, their librarians are forced to say 'sorry, I can't help you as I'm not funded to answer your enquiry' or 'because your department has chosen not to pay for our services'. I had to do it many times when I worked for a certain large, public-sector broadcaster. But my colleagues and I hated doing it because we knew that we could help the people in question do their jobs better if we were allowed.
Posted by: Katharine Schopflin | November 22, 2010 at 04:43 PM
James, the library of Alexandria contained no books as we know them, in the form of the printed codex. Was it a library?
Posted by: Tom Roper | November 22, 2010 at 09:42 PM
The problem with asking librarians to "stick to their jobs" is that their jobs are continually changing - after all, as information sources and user needs change and adapt, so too, surely, should the people that manage and provide those information sources? This is certainly the case with school libraries; the job I do now is very different from the one I started in 20 years ago! And I would never consider my job "finished" once I had placed a book in a user's hands - I would want to know whether the book fulfilled their needs and whether they wanted any further information (or another book to read). As for librarians not pontificating about the accuracy of information or its mode of presentation, etc. I would have thought that we would be the ideal people to discuss such things. After all, we are the people who manage, organise and dissemminate the sources of information; we are the people who are often the front line for users looking for information and so are immediately aware when the sources available do not meet user needs. Some people are fortunate in that they know what they are looking for and where to find it; many people don't. It is part of my job to teach students how to decide what their information needs are and how to find a resource that is relevant and accurate that fulfills that need. I would also surmise that for many university students their first port of call for information would likely be the academic librarian. Not their tutor.
And btw ... did you know that the Ancient Chinese believed dragons to be the guardians of information and knowledge? So I would be careful about messing with a librarian because they might just turn out to be a dragon in disguise ;)
Posted by: Barbara Band | November 22, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Tom, the OED defines a book as:
"A written or printed treatise or series of treatises, occupying several sheets of paper or other substance fastened together so as to compose a material whole.
In this wide sense, referring to all ages and countries, a book comprehends a treatise written on any material (skin, parchment, papyrus, paper, cotton, silk, palm leaves, bark, tablets of wood, ivory, slate, metal, etc.), put together in any portable form, e.g. that of a long roll, or of separate leaves, hinged, strung, stitched, or pasted together."
So yes, according to the OED the Library at Alexandria did contain books and thus is indeed a library.
Posted by: James Fishwick | November 23, 2010 at 05:01 PM
Hi Phil….
Sorry that you think that I am insulting… and that you perceive my honesty in such negative connotations…
Let’s agree that we are both entitled to our opinions, which can vary considerably according to experience, posturing and positioning! Such are the perils of generalization – but, I respect your point of view and accept its potential value to others. Hopefully, you might understand my frustration with your profession as well as my wish to have free choice, not just academic freedom…
Obviously, you feel just as strongly as I do and consider sarcasm less offensive than honesty: good luck mate, you need it…!!! If I chose to be offensive or insulting, I could say – for example – that your are short sighted and/or hypocritical… But there is no need for me to say it: your own words illustrate your position amply…
Posted by: Harry Matlay | November 25, 2010 at 04:06 AM
Very well said Harry! I could not agree more...
Posted by: Hina | November 25, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Is there really "no good or bad knowledge"? As a medical librarian, I would consider the provision of information that had no basis in scientific evidence to be a dereliction of duty.
Take as an example the many "naturopathic" books claiming that eating fruit can cure cancer (rather than simply [possibly] helping to prevent it).
Would you be happy to provide such information say, to a cancer sufferer? I know that I would not.
Posted by: David Rogers | November 26, 2010 at 03:00 PM
Thanks for your comment David. It all depends entirely on context. If a cancer sufferer wanted good, hard factual information that obviously wouldn't be 'good' information for them. On the other hand, if someone was doing research into quack cures that information would be perfect for them.
I would say that it's the role of the librarian to understand the request and choose the appropriate material based on their own knowledge and skill to match the needs of the enquirer.
So I agree with you 100%! I hope that puts your mind at rest.
Posted by: Phil Bradley | November 26, 2010 at 03:06 PM