The joys of obsession

Can you imagine? Here I spent more than two weeks assembling, editing, revising, re-revising, re-editing, and finally preparing an oversize C&I about Library 2.0 and "Library 2.0"--and never once thought about Teleread.

Which, of course, didn't stop the inimitable David Rothman from assuming that my remark about national public library systems (based on Talis' white paper) must be an attack on Teleread, and proceeding to lambaste me not only on Teleread's blog but here as well--and somehow have me attacking ebooks, audiobooks, assistive technology, and who knows what else?

I've objected, of course, but I doubt that it will do much good. Geez, Rochelle, you drop by here: Could you maybe tell DR that some of us really don't think about Teleread 24 hours a day and don't find ways to insinuate opinions as coded messages?

I have not used any foul language in this post. That has been an effort.


Although someone was bound to disagree with you on something, I want to thank you for putting the Library 2.0 issue together. I just finished it, and now will ignore stories on Library 2.0.I will continue to devour anyone's stories on meeting user needs, and using technology either to amplify existing successful services or creating new ones that meet user needs.I don't have the URL handy and don't have time to search right now, but there was an OCLC survey (or highlighted on an OCLC blog) about how most users remain blissfully unaware of library-provided electronic resources and services. Perhaps we should be raising awareness of what we offer before inventing yet more services that might wind up on the electronic dustbin.On the other hand, I think Open WorldCat is the best thing since sliced bread. Is Open RLIN far behind (or already on the web but less publicized)?

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel...Ever hear of RedLightGreen?

The OCLC "Perspective" that I think you're referring to is a huge publication (I count somewhere around 280 full-size pages in the paperback they sent me). I'm going through it now, and expect to comment on it in the near future. There's a lot of interesting stuff...

Disagreement I expected. (Actually, I was expecting a lot more than I've seen so far...) The problem with Rothman is that it was a personal attack that had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the issue.

I guess I would say that this week's "Library 2.0"-related posts are shifting so sharply towards serious discussion of real-world cases and possibilities that I wouldn't use the term itself as a negative filter. I'm really heartened by most all of what I've seen over the past three days.