Meta: 6003

This is the 6,003rd post at Simple Justice.  I’ve written more, but only published 6,003. When I started this blawg in February, 2007, because I had nothing to do one day, and my wife said to me, “why don’t you start a blog,” I really had no thought about its future. It was just something to kill some free time doing what I enjoyed doing. I like to write.

I’m sure some of the blogs that were around before me have more posts, but it struck me that 6,003 is a lot of posts.  Having switched systems and platforms a couple of times over the years, I’ve lost track of some of the data. I don’t know how many people have visited SJ over the years, but the numbers were above 25,000,000 reads when I left my last platform at GoDaddy. I don’t know how many comments have been left here in total, but according to WordPress, it’s just under 45,000.

I’ve made a lot of friends here. I’ve made a lot of enemies. Some have been in both camps at different times. New people show up for a moment then disappear. Some people stick around for a while, then disappear without a trace, then are back again. Some tell me they don’t have the time to read, or to comment, like they used to, which I always find ironic since I have the time to write. But that’s me, and it has nothing to do with anyone else.

Two very good friends I’ve made because of SJ have passed away.  I miss them both.

I’m fortunate to have the courtesy of others who provide me with links to stories that interest me, and correct mistakes that embarrass me. I’ve watched as good blawgs are born and die.  I wonder what happened to good people who enter my sphere and disappear again.

There are emails from people I don’t know who tell me that something I’ve written helped them to understand the law.  There are emails from people I don’t know who tell me that something I’ve written is wrong and they want to hunt me down and kill me.  I’m told constantly that I’m wrong by people who are the center of the universe or arbiter of right and wrong.  I shrug, because they have it backwards.

But 6,003 posts is a lot of writing. A lot of words have been murdered here. When I think about it, I wonder whether it’s been for good or not.  One guiding principle is that I hope to illuminate, or more to the point, I hope not to make anyone stupider.  Far too many people don’t really give a damn about that, and they spew stuff out without much concern.  It troubles me deeply.  And it troubles me that I might be one of them. I don’t think I am, but no one is a good judge of himself.

According to the internet, my 6,003 posts should have brought me vast wealth and prestige.  That’s what people say happens when you write that much stuff. They hold conferences about it, and lawyers pay big money to attend those conferences to learn how to do this.  I have apparently done it all wrong, as I’ve attained neither wealth nor prestige from the internet. Or else someone isn’t telling the truth.

At various points, people have suggested I charge for the pleasure of reading SJ. Others have suggested I put advertisements all over the place and monetize the effort.  I never took these suggestions, as I didn’t think anyone would pay for the privilege of reading SJ and I despise ad-laden blogs. I laugh every time I see an Alexis Neely ad next to a post at The Puddle, which reminds me of the awful irony of trying to monetize blogs. It’s not that I have anything against making money. I am a capitalist. But the trade-off has to be worth it. It isn’t.

I’ve heard from various legal publishers who have graciously sought my content for their use at wages that might pay for lunch at McDonalds, provided I didn’t supersize or get a beverage.  They were in it for a profit. They really don’t want to share.

I’ve been asked to do books a few times, though never by the ABA like some other bloggers, but they were huge time-sucks with no return on the back-end.  I signed a contract with one publisher to make a book out of SJ posts, but they never got around to it. I was told that the staff assigned to do the aggregation was offended by my content, whether because I was unkind to police or the slackoisie, and they couldn’t bear to read any more. So it died on the vine.

Readers, especially non-lawyers who come here for one particular post, tell me everything I’m doing wrong.  Other readers, especially new lawyers who were in junior high school when I started SJ and whose parents were in junior high school when I started practicing law, tell me what I should be doing all the time. I do a lot wrong, apparently.

There are days when I feel as if I’ve already written about everything there is to write about.  But that doesn’t stop me when an idea pops into my head.  I apologize if I bore you, and I admit that I sometimes bore myself, but no one makes you read here.  The joke has always been, if you don’t like it, you can have a refund. I think it’s funny. Others, not so much.

But 6,003 posts is a lot. There are some good ones in there. Some aren’t as good. Some of the posts I like most don’t seem to capture the interest of others. Some posts that I think are a bit silly get a ton of interest.  Many times, I respond to people that they should go take a look at things I’ve written in the past which respond to their comments or questions, but not too many people take me up on the suggestion. What’s past is past. That means that 6,003 posts are now dead and buried, as if they never happened. Lost to the ages, so to speak. Gone. Forgotten.

I’ve enjoyed writing them, even if it hasn’t made me rich and famous.  But 6,003. Whew.

 

25 comments on “Meta: 6003

  1. Eddie Harrington

    I only wish I had come across SJ much sooner as I am sure I would have read all 6,003 posts. As it is I am certain I have read every SJ post in the last 3-4 years and hope that there are 6,003 more posts left in whatever computer you use as your voice is, IMNSHO, an important one in the never ending fight for a fairer system and more honest government at multiple levels. A hearty “Thank You” to Ms. SJ as well for allowing you the time to write as much as you do . I spend five minutes checking my e-mail and my wife is complaining about me “always being on the computer.” *Sigh* And if you ever do write a book I will be one of the first to buy it and perhaps one day get it signed by the author at one of those fancy book signings. You never know!

    1. SHG Post author

      Thanks, Eddie. Even if I write a book, I can’t imagine myself doing a book signing. I wouldn’t know what to write.

      1. Brett Middleton

        Doesn’t matter. Most of the signed books I have in my possession are more-or-less illegible.

      2. Jamison

        “I wouldn’t know what to write.”

        Ironic, given the 6,003 blog entries. I imagine you would think of something.

  2. Carl H

    As a non-lawyer who comes here to read your posts, I’m merely grateful there are resources such as your blog to keep people like me informed (although I do understand that is not the blog’s reason d’etre). And I get to learn a thing or two, not about law itself, but about other things.

    Best to you and yours over the festive period.

  3. Dan

    I remember the time you pretended like you weren’t writing the blog anymore. Very post-modern prank there.

  4. PaulaMarie Susi

    ” I wonder whether it’s been for good or not”
    Dunno, but you make me think, and if you make people stop for a moment and think – that’s a good thing in my book. Looking forward (?) to the next 6003.

  5. Nigel Declan

    Somehow, it seems fitting that it was Dr. SJ who came up with the idea for this blog, which continues to never fail to impress. That you are still making important, insightful and meaningful points after 6000+ posts is a testament to both your mind and your writing skill.

    Merry Christmas, Scott, to you and your family!

    1. SHG Post author

      Thank you, Nigel. Dr. SJ comes up with all the really good ideas in my life. It may have to do with the fact that she decides what ideas are really good. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

  6. AP

    I once read that the reason we listen to music is because in doing so we don’t feel alone. You’ve provided the soundtrack for criminal defence lawyers the world over. Sometimes the grinding loneliness of this job can get the best of us. When I read one of your posts I feel connected to something larger and more important. This is an incredible thing you’ve given to us lawyers.

    The best compliment I think I can pay you — from one criminal defence lawyer to another — is this: if I’m ever in New York and I get charged I’m calling you — whether you like it or not!

    Best of the season to you and your family and I look forward to another 700 + posts in 2014.

  7. SeanD

    Scott:

    I just wanted to thank you for paying attention and being so prolific. I don’t comment because I don’t have much to add but I get a tremendous amount out of this blawg. As a defense investigator I have a keen interest in the subject matter. Your posts help me understand what my lawyer-clients are talking about and I am able to feed them info gleaned from your posts. This is apprentice work and you are a digital mentor, as it were. Thank you.

    Warm regards,
    Sean

  8. Dennis Murphy

    No need to publish, Scott, but hat’s off to you. I had no idea it was that many. I have read most since I joined, not all. I thoroughly enjoy it. It’s the only blog I routinely follow. Murph

  9. Michael McNutt

    Haven’t read 6000 + posts but as a new fan this last year or so and knowing nothing about law I can say that you make it interesting and even sometimes fun to read about. You are a darn good writer. Thanks for all the hard work and passion.

  10. Thomas R. Griffith

    Sir, a hardy Congrats is in order for sticking with it and for being a digital mentor to the masses. Your work in progress has definitely slowed The Race-To-The-Bottom, from coast to coast. While some would assume you only punched the key board out of boredom, personal amusement, or her way to keep you out of the kitchen, I for one have been recently reminded that sometimes things happen for ‘certain’ reasons, if for nothing else, simply as a base for not believing in coincidences. If you were to come down with Blawgersblock today, the sphere would have you (and your adviser) to thank for creating a mold in which to pattern both types of readers’ lives and business models for years to come.

    Speaking as one of those non-lawyers that just happened to be a victim of the system due to a lawyer’s documented F-Up, I absolutely had no reason on God’s green earth to read anything a lawyer published, much less, believe I’d one day owe a lawyer a life long debt of gratitude. For – *proving that there are ‘good’ ones & spanking the ‘bad’ ones. *allowing us (me) to ask questions & taking time to address them without condescending or banning. *allowing me to confront one very specific ADA of Record aka: The King of Nolo Contendere. * something goofy about a form of closure goes here. *reminding me that just because ‘you’ wrote about another wrongful conviction ‘it’ wasn’t about ‘me’. *most of all, for never advising me to consider letting ‘it’ go. With that, since I ain’t quittin-shiet, any time soon, please blog on and we’ll continue to take notes as we follow ‘you’. Thanks a million.

    1. SHG Post author

      Thank you, Thomas. And just so you know, you are one of the non-lawyers that make me think there is a point to all this, and while I may not be able to help everyone, I can help some folks. I really appreciate that, given how many people want my scalp every day. But then, you’ve shown what can happen when it’s not just about pushing one agenda, but seeing the good, bad and ugly in the larger context and learning from all of it. You’re the hero here, Thomas. I’m just the scribe.

  11. DHMCarver

    SHG, I will add to the accolades. You wrote above, “When I think about it, I wonder whether it’s been for good or not. One guiding principle is that I hope to illuminate, or more to the point, I hope not to make anyone stupider. ” I am a regular reader, occasional commenter, and I can assure you that for this attorney (who works at an intersection of law and public policy), you regularly serve to illuminate — whether it be on a point of law, or on issues of public policy. As far as making folks stupider — well, as the old saying has it, you can lead a horse to water… There are plenty of thick horses stumbling around the internet who never have the sense to put their head down and take a drink.

    6,000+ — that’s a heck of a corpus. There are many of us who are grateful for each and every word of it.

Comments are closed.