Thanks to those who agreed with my post about disrespectful public behavior in general and in museums in particular, such as Amy Marshall. To those who disagreed, I hardly know what to say. Does Christopher Whittle really believe we must "make accommodations" to those who want to lick paintings? I think that's one of the most bizarre things I've ever read on the Internet. How accommodating can we be? Not only does museum stewardship oblige us to protect the objects under our care and ensure them a reasonable longevity, we also need to protect the viewing public from their own follies. As others have pointed out, abusing museum exhibits can be hazardous to your health; I scarcely think that licking paintings can be considered a healthful activity. "Accommodate" painting-lickers? Egad! Would Mr. Whittle think that we should similarly "accommodate" those enthusiastic souls who think they have a right to throw stones at animals in zoos? Enough. I think I've already dignified such blatant nonsense too much by bothering to disagree with it. As for David Harvey's remarks in "Visigoths-At-The-Gates," I agree that museum professionals need to find ways to send clear messages to museum visitors about what can be touched and what should not. I agree that we need to "treat our visitors with respect as sentient beings with intelligence and the capacity to learn." That's why we produce explanatory labels and other texts in exhibits, is it not? That isn't really an issue, is it? However, I think Mr. Harvey is right that his experience is "limited." It may well be true that most of the visitors to Williamsburg are well-behaved, but I daresay that the price of a Williamsburg visit tends to filter out some of the more poorly behaved folks who may visit a free museum such as mine. In any event, the "problem" visitors definitely are a minority, but I suggest that they constitute a larger minority than 0.01 per cent. Why Mr. Harvey feels a need to go on and make a snide comment about my use of the term "reverence" puzzles me. Or why he wonders how I would "fare" in a "visitor-oriented institution." I assure him that I do work in a visitor-oriented institution--although it isn't nearly as much so as I would like--and I fare just fine, thank you. Let's talk about "respect," Mr. Harvey! My office is located on a public floor of the National Museum of American History, and one of the hats I wear is that of "public service officer" for our unit. I encounter museum visitors daily: I answer their questions, handle their complaints about exhibits--some of which are quite rude--escort them to rest rooms and escalators when they get lost, and on one occasion rescued a woman who got herself locked in a stairway after hours. I personally have been lobbying our administration for better directional signs, because the few that exist in our wing are confusing and inadequate; in fact, I've produced and installed such signs on my own initiative while waiting for administrators to pick up the ball. I regularly push elevator buttons for visitors who can't figure out how to operate them. Oh, yes, I've also provided first aid for injured visitors on several occasions. I too have had a number of "pleasant conversations" with museum visitors. On the other hand, I have also found the need to admonish kids not to play on escalators (interestingly enough, I've NEVER witnessed kids playing dangerous games on department store or subway escalators--but they love to do it in our museum), bawl out a teenager for breaking a full glass soda bottle on an exhibit floor, stop people from smoking cigarettes in exhibition areas, pick up trash that people throw on the floor and on exhibit cases, turn off faucets in public rest rooms that people leave running full blast, stop people from trying to crawl around exhibits on raised platforms, etc. I'm sorry to learn that Williamsburg has a policy of "instantly" firing staff for rudeness to visitors. How often has this been implemented? Having once been told by a telephone operator that I was "rude" for asking him to repeat a phone number I didn't understand, and regularly telling my colleagues that their complaints about "surly" researchers seem to me unjustified, I know that "rudeness" is often a question of personal perception, and think that anyone considered rude deserves a second chance. Is there no gentle education of staff at Williamsburg when they are deemed less than pleasant to visitors, just summary firings? I would vigorously oppose such draconian measures, and would suggest that they do not represent respect for the staff. --David Haberstich