Richard, I ask:
It is possible to be a Web 2.0 enthusiast and be cynical of the dotcom Bubble mentality?
I'd say yes. And that's where I'm coming from.

I read what you wrote:
"The serious and worrying thing for me is that I'm writing a book about Web 2.0. But then I believe there are a great many things of value in Web 2.0 and that's what keeps me going.  My job is to distill all the signal from the noise - and most of the noise is coming from the anti-Web 2.0 brigade currently. I am also trying to pin down the long-term trends for the Web, together with the real disruptive things that are changing the Web."
This is the challenge both you and Joshua and have set yourselves with your book - to seperate the wheat from the chaff and define the essence of Web 2.0. I think this is an absolutely worthwhile endevour. Why? Because I agree with you: there is something new going on.

But I'll also point out where I think we're heading down the bullshit river, hence my bubble 2.0 references. When I do, this isn't about moralizing - I really don't want to experience another dotcom boom and bust.  This is about doing my bit to make sure we don't frenzy ourselves into another deep recession. 

Unlike Dare or Joel, I will continue to use the 'unspoken' term.  The 'challenge' for them and the others that have pledged to disown the 'Web 2.0' term and its concept is what term they will conjure up and use instead.

The real test is not whether our perceived transformation of the web is called 'Web 2.0' or not. This is a trivial matter.  The real test is this: At some point in the future will we collectively look back upon this stage of the Internet's development and agree that there was something new, transforming and profound going on with the web?  I happen to believe so.