Hans, I considered sending this message off-list, but since your complaint
was not sent to me privately, and since mine, which offended you, was not
directed to you but to the whole list, I think it's appropriate to post this
response to the list. First, I apologize if my sarcastic tone offended you
(Hans), Anita, or anyone else.  It certainly wasn't intended to do so; I
think you're overreacting, and I'm sorry--albeit slightly mystified--that
you're Really Miffed.  You have misinterpreted me because of the tone.  As I
look at it again, I see nothing potentially offensive except the introductory
"Gee, Hans."  I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but I stand behind the substance of
the first three sentences, and see nothing that should miff anyone.  But I
recognize the fact that we're all individuals, with different levels of
tolerance for different stimuli.  The thing that gets me Really Miffed, for
example, is having my name misspelled :-) --but I'll ignore that in the
spirit of Playing Nice. :-)

I was not "attacking" you, Hans, or Anita.  I was trying to say that
"learning center" is vague and could encompass a variety of institutions.
 Therefore I didn't like it as a substitute for "library."  If you're going
to interpret that as an "attack," I won't lose any sleep over THAT.  Perhaps
it was unclear, but the second half of my message was not directed to you
personally--it was a response to the spinning of our collective wheels over a
generic alternative for "library."  Yes, I was questioning the judgment of
engaging in such an exercise, but it was directed not to a single individual,
but to all the participants.  I was "attacking" the exercise, not people.

"Learning Center" is vague and can be applied as logically to schools and
other institutions as to libraries; I daresay the average person would expect
a learning center to be a school, especially for children; what's worse, I
think it connotes "remedial."  If Hans has a right to suggest a term, I have
a right to critique it. That adults might object to going to a "learning
center" has already been suggested by someone else.  If a list like this is a
forum for dialogue, we have to be prepared for debate and give and take.
 People on this list have never been shy about voicing their objections to my
ideas, but it doesn't bother me to have them articulate their negative
reactions.  I don't consider every disagreement an "attack" on me personally.
 I'm always a bit surprised to rediscover the reality that not everyone in
the world agrees with me (but hey, that's my problem--if I have a "bubble,"
Hans, perhaps that's it), but I certainly don't object to their EXPRESSIONS
of disagreement.  I wouldn't want them to remain silent and let me assume,
erroneously, that they all agree with me.  But I also get verbal pats on the
back which reassure me that I'm not alone out in left field.  Stay on the
list, Hans: you'll get both disagreements and accolades, and you'll learn to
accept them with equanimity.  IMHO, that's a mature, professional stance.
 Rest assured, I have enjoyed many of your posts.

The latter half of my message was directed to everyone who thinks there's
something wrong with a perfectly clear, useful, succinct word like "library."
 Many of you have endured my conservative approach to language in past
exchanges and know where I'm coming from.  I think "library" is an adequate,
descriptive, reasonably precise name that doesn't need the substitution of
vague, politically-correct-sounding euphemisms, and that the search for an
alternative is like re-inventing the wheel.  There were other responses which
agreed with my view, and several described specific past attempts to impose
alternative names which eventually were overturned.  The problem with most of
the suggestions was their fuzziness.  A "resource center" could be a coal
mine or a supermarket, for example.  Even if "media center" is frequently
applied to school libraries, I think it's somewhat more justified in that
environment than if applied to a corporate library--it evidently identifies
some features which the traditional library might not have, such as lending
teachers equipment to play "media."  A teacher friend says that's precisely
why her school's library is called a media center, because it has two
components, (a) books and magazines for students and (b) tapes, filmstrips,
etc., and equipment for the use of teachers; it's a "center" because it
centralizes in one room, under the supervision of one librarian/media
specialist, these two functions.  Anita has indicated that "media" might be
misleading in her case.

I was trying to caution the list members against falling into the trap of
playing word games with titles and definitions.  The evidence I've seen on
Museum-L and in my own museum suggests to me that "museum professionals" are
not very good at it; while I don't mean to discourage creative thinking,
sometimes we can get carried away and indulge in something analogous to
playing computer Solitaire in the office under the guise of increasing
mousework proficiency.  I'm not concerned about a waste of MY valuable time
in reading it, because there's always the "delete" key, as people are fond of
pointing out ad nauseam--although 30 or 40 deletions per session do add up.
 Rather, I wonder if folks may be wasting THEIR valuable time with pointless
brainstorming.  You can bring on the flamethrowers for THAT remark--but it's
just my HO--and note that my original remarks were phrased as questions.  I'm
not opposed to wordplay: I'm currently re-reading Joyce's "Ulysses" and am
exhilarated by the word games of a master.  In any event, Hans, I wasn't
castigating you personally for your suggestion--I was merely asking if the
list might not be utilized by its members for more relevant communication.  I
meant to be provocative, but not to provoke.

Stephen did not CALL Hans a radio pop-psychologist--he said the suggestion
sounded like something such a person would invent--and I don't see why that
would necessarily be offensive anyway.  Radio pop-psychology is a perfectly
honorable, distinguished profession.  On the other hand, I thought it was off
target: that profession doesn't have any exclusive claim on the activity of
fashioning politically correct nomenclature.  I can't speak for Stephen, but
I doubt that he intended any disrespect.

I'm surprised anyone was vexed by MusmDesign's message.  If it was meant
seriously, it would be idiocy.  But it had all the earmarks of a jest.
 Perhaps it was intended as a provocative way of saying that inventing new
names for museums and libraries is a waste of time, and that museum
professionals sometimes take themselves too seriously?

While I think that a search for an alternative generic name for all libraries
would prove tedious and ultimately a waste of time, this is not to say that
Anita's library shouldn't have a UNIQUE, specific name, and it might be more
useful to redirect one's energies along those lines.  Just as a restaurant
does not have to include "restaurant" in its name, I would concede that
there's no need for Anita's library to be officially called "The Library" or
have "library" in its organizational title.  "Book Barn" comes closer to what
I have in mind than "learning center" or "resource center," but perhaps
something more dignified, yet distinctive, could be concocted.  I'd suggest
that Anita find a creative title to express the unique qualities and
strengths of her particular library, rather than try to invent a generic
euphemism to rename all libraries.  People can use that distinctive name in
official communications and in wayfinding, etc., or they can continue to
refer to "the library" without feeling that they're being gauche or
politically incorrect in calling a "resource center" or "learning center" by
such an old-fashioned (I would say "time-honored") name as library.

I hope this smoothes some ruffled feathers.

David Haberstich (without the second "t")