UPDATE – I lost my temper [I Should Be Banned from the Blogosphere? As If…]
UPDATE 2/4/10 – 7:45 am Below is a post that I should not have written. I let my temper get the better of me and attributed a view to a respected colleague, Mark Bennett, that I should not have. Mark actually apologized in a comment, but I too am responsible. Jumping to conclusions, as I did, is one reason for lack of civility in the profession. I would have served myself better by picking up the phone and having a conversation with Mark, which I intend to do.
Believe me, I’d love to remove this post, but the one strict policy that I’ve maintained here since Day 1 is that I don’t take down or secretly change posts, even when I’ve erred. If I were to start down the path of withdrawing or surreptitiously editing posts, my blog could no longer be trusted. And so, instead, this error of judgment will remain as an example of how not to react.
So, Mark Bennett at Social Media Tyro thinks I should be banned from the blogosphere. From his post, here’s the replay:
I said: (paraphrased) Nevertheless, I’m far less comfortable with criticisms about the lawyers embroiled in the Total Attorneys ethics mess or naming the names of lawyers who advertise on what Eric Turkewitz has termed dreck blogs.
Mark said: Carolyn’s reasoning is that
the lawyers who subscribed to services offered by Findlaw and Total Attorneys, both of which are ABA sponsors, most likely believed that the ABA had vetted these companies’ practices before accepting their sponsorship dollars. [I said that]
Any lawyer who holds that particular belief should be barred from the internet until she develops some sense. [Mark’s comment, emphasis added].
Let’s just say it’s going to take a lot more than a comment like this — even if it is from the "Sheriff" or Top Cop of the blawgosphere — to force me from the Internet after seven years of blogging. Especially by someone whose blog, Defending People is a PR 5. MyShingle is a PR 6. And, as Mark suggests, page rank matters because:
Bloggers have authority in proportion to how many people read them (and link to them).
Call this my notice.
And, also call this the way that discourse in the blogosphere sometimes works. Not my preferred way of doing things, but if that’s the cost of doing blogging these days, then I’ll do what I have to do. Because if the blogosphere isn’t big enough for the both of us (which I don’t believe), well, sorry, but it’s not going to be me who’s leaving.
Carolyn,
I offer my sincere apologies for my failure to accurately communicate my thoughts, and take full responsibility for the offense you took.
To be clear, I didn’t think that you subscribed to that particular belief. You didn’t say that you did, and I didn’t say that you did. You said that “the lawyers . . . most likely believed” that the ABA had vetted their subscribers. It was apparent to me (from that comment and other discussions we’ve had) that you didn’t believe that yourself.
I was using “she” in the generic “he or she” sense (I do that about half the time when describing lawyers, rather than using the antigrammatical “they” or the boring “he or she”).
If it had even occurred to me that you might put yourself in the group of lawyers who believed that the ABA’s acceptance of advertising money was an imprimatur, I would have worded my comment better.
Still a fan,
Mark
p.s. This is not the first time my efforts at nonsexist usage have bitten me in the butt.
Carolyn,
I offer my sincere apologies for my failure to accurately communicate my thoughts, and take full responsibility for the offense you took.
To be clear, I didn’t think that you subscribed to that particular belief. You didn’t say that you did, and I didn’t say that you did. You said that “the lawyers . . . most likely believed” that the ABA had vetted their subscribers. It was apparent to me (from that comment and other discussions we’ve had) that you didn’t believe that yourself.
I was using “she” in the generic “he or she” sense (I do that about half the time when describing lawyers, rather than using the antigrammatical “they” or the boring “he or she”).
If it had even occurred to me that you might put yourself in the group of lawyers who believed that the ABA’s acceptance of advertising money was an imprimatur, I would have worded my comment better.
Still a fan,
Mark
p.s. This is not the first time my efforts at nonsexist usage have bitten me in the butt.
Thank you.
One of my signpost principles is that the speaker is responsible for his intended audience’s understanding.
Thank you.
One of my signpost principles is that the speaker is responsible for his intended audience’s understanding.
Carolyn: I’ve learned through hard experience that whenever I’m tempted to vent, I should instead take a deep breath and wait for the urge to pass. But that’s kind of dull, so I admit to a vicarious thrill watching you vent, even if you ended up regretting it! Ken
Carolyn: I’ve learned through hard experience that whenever I’m tempted to vent, I should instead take a deep breath and wait for the urge to pass. But that’s kind of dull, so I admit to a vicarious thrill watching you vent, even if you ended up regretting it! Ken
Glad that this bit of confusion is cleared up. Carry on.
Glad that this bit of confusion is cleared up. Carry on.