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")