I am much like the Annoyed Librarian myself and, in general, have nothing against her take and style. If I was even half as witty I might try more of that myself. The reason I don’t subscribe is that there is more than enough of her kind of dose of library reality in my everyday world. It does not mean that I begrudge her work or that I want it to go away. I am, in fact, quite happy that she writes what she does. I think libraryland needs that kind of voice, and more of them! What I do not desire to read more of is the folks shouting past each other and/or at AL herself.

I read, and quite enjoyed her post, when it had about 20 comments. Yesterday when I looked it had 50. The reason I choose to no longer read them is that it is highly unlikely that there is any actual discourse going on there.

I do try and engage in real dialogue on a regular basis, thank you very much. But some of us have found that it is next to impossible, and usually is impossible, to actually have much of a conversation–in this medium, anyway–with people who tend to either end of the spectrum.

I am sorry that my comments are unfathomable to you. I will assume my lack of clarity is responsible because if you truly understand what I had tried to say (and sorry, I cannot spell out everything in a comment that I fully expect Meredith to be able to fathom for those without the same history of discourse) then I expect we pretty much fully agree. You said, “It’s the denigration and dismissive attitude towards dissenters that concerns me.” See the 2nd sentence of my 1st comment; it is shorthand for exactly that thought.

I also fully agree with the Walt Kelly sentiment here. There is room for everyone and I would like to help foster more dialogue between them all. But there are only so many battles on can join and so many hours in a day. “Read everything. Listen to everyone” is a wonderful attitude, but is also an impossibility in reality.

Thanks for saying what I want to say.

This whole thing is really getting me down again. I really like your Tower of Babel analogy; the only problem with it is that–at least for those at the far ends–it is a willful choice to not understand each other. I have no idea how to reach either of those groups, and I honestly don’t know who any of them are. I cannot point to any radical twopointopian and most of the alienated folks are either not commenting on blogs or doing so anonymously.

As for your scale, I think it is dead on. Again, except for one problem, and you did admit that it is clearly a simplification. So to complicate it a little, where do I fit? [rhetorically] Honestly, depending on the specific technology, program or idea, I think I fall somewhere along the entire spectrum!

Karen Schneider wrote a post yesterday about the ubiquitous “they”and how it is passive-aggressive. I do agree that it often is, and as many know I try not to use it. As I said above, I don’t know any specific rabid 2.0pians (sorry, easier to type) because if one were to directly engage one who might be labeled such in an actual discussion they would certainly and, I think, honestly disavow the views that are considered rabid.

Yes, in a case like this the “they” is really a strawman argument, to a point. There may not really be any truly living, breathing rabid 2.0pians.

BUT. And this is the point that many of the kids in the candy store, pragmatists, or wherever they might place themselves (I did not say all) need to realize. There is a definite perception out there that Annoyed Librarian and others NAILED! I, for one, have it. Even though I know I cannot really point at any particular person and say, “There’s one!”, I nonetheless fully feel that this level of rabidness exists as a palpable position with the “dialogue.” And even though I fall along the entire spectrum on individual topics, I am primarily in the middle. So, if I feel that this is a real position in the dialogue–even though I cannot point at a specific person who truly holds it–then consider those to the right of me on the diagram, folks.

I agree with Karen (and I am pretty sure she knows this) that “they” is an often dangerous and/or cowardly word. But in this case, I think it is fully justified. Who is AL and others (me?) supposed to point to? That does not in any way invalidate that we feel that this is an argued position in the “dialogue.”

[NOTE: I am not trying to defend AL here. I rarely read her. I am not subscribed to her blog. As Karen said--to which I fully agree --I am cranky. I don't really need the general tenor of AL in my daily life. I dipped in a few days ago when there were a lot less comments than now and while I enjoyed the post itself quite a bit because I think it is an honest perception, I found many of the comments unfathomable. I refuse to read any since then.]

Sorry to have gone on so long, Meredith. You did a great job and I thank you for it. I, too, have no answers. My point, though, is that there is a real palpable perception that 2.0pians and their “opposites” exist. I cannot point at a real world example, but neither can my (and others’) perceptions be dismissed so easily.