I can think of a reasonable argument or two that people can be hesitant about a new method or system that might benefit them, or one group doesn’t want what might benefit another, but I’m cynical (or perhaps snarky) enough that I’d like that clarified.

But Laura’s response says two things:

1. The post was poorly written. As you say, even after being told what Michael and Laura intended by the title, you still don’t read it that way. Neither do I. Neither, as far as I can tell, has anyone else who’s commented on the post.

2. What they intended to say is not so much arrogant as pure nonsense. “We”–all of us, understanding it for ourselves–most certainly do not share a single definition of what “Library 2.0″ is and is not. As with most universalisms, that’s wholly improbable (“we” do not all agree on when the earth was created or, I suspect, on the idea that the earth revolves in an elliptical orbit around a star). In this particular case, there’s not even near-unanimity of opinion among Library 2.0 advocates.

I was impressed by TangognaT’s understanding of the situation. Maybe I’ll leave it there.

“I think you misunderstand. “We” is collective – it is all of us, understanding it for ourselves.”

Looking back at the post, I still read it as “we (Michael and Laura) know”, but I’m glad to hear they didn’t mean it that way.

Steven: Thanks for the comment–and I really wasn’t objecting to the tone of your post. I don’t post at midnight (or do much of anything else other than sleep), but I can see how posting your unvarnished feelings can happen. And it’s not such a bad thing to do sometimes.