On occasion, I post something a bit more introspective than my typical commentary on law, news or the loss of dignity, client service and professionalism amongst lawyers.  Today is going to be one of those days.  For readers who hate when I do this, go away now.  Run.  Flee. Avert your eyes.

For quite some time now, my brethren and sistren in the blawgosphere have used the adjective “prolific” to describe my posting.  It pisses me off.  There, I’ve said it.  I hate it when I’m described that way.  It insults me.  It offends me. 

Others, usually clueless about what I do at Simple Justice and more often than not card-carrying members of the Slackoisie, assume that in order to produce posts on a blawg, not to mention respond to their silly comments, I must spend every waking moment hard at work at my keyboard.  They assume this because it would take them hours, maybe even days, to produce a post.  They can’t write worth a damn, so that means it must take me as long as them to write something.  After all, it isn’t possible that there are people out there who can do anything they can’t do.  They are the most awesomest person ever, and everyone else is measured by them.  I can easily ignore these fools, though I feel sorry for them and want to help. 

But it’s the people who have come to know me through my writing that bother me.  You know who you are.  You should know better.  You’ve read what I have to say on the subject, that I have spent the past quarter century doing pretty much the same thing I do now at Simple Justice, thinking about stuff and cranking my thoughts out in words.  I don’t count the number of words or posts or the minutes ticking away on the clock.  I just pound the keyboard until it’s out of my head and onto my screen. 

Calling me prolific elevates quantity over quality.  On very rare occasion, I look back at something I’ve written.  Usually, I do it because I see a typo (I use spellcheck before posting, but I never proof anything on the blawg, ever.  That’s reserved for real work) which bothers me when it comes on my radar.  As I reread my stuff, I usually like it.  Sometimes, I like it a lot.  I think to myself, that’s pretty good writing or that’s a pretty good analysis.  There is a measure of pride in what I produce.  Not because there’s a lot of it, but because the ideas, the language, the delivery, pleases me.  But not you, eh?

Am I just the smorgasbord with so much food laid out before you that you can gorge yourselves, but none so tasty or well-prepared that it’s worthy of mention?  That’s how calling me prolific makes me feel.  When the first thought that comes to mind about Simple Justice is that Greenfield sure writes a lot, the message is clear.  Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.  Don’t you think I can read between the lines?  I get the message.  Simple Justice, where words go to die.

Thanks for your kind thoughts.  Prolific.  Feh.  Why not just come right out and say it, ya buncha wussies.  Go ahead.  I dare you.

And now for something completely different.*

Dan Hull, who is finally beginning to shed his shrinking violet image at What About Clients?, has had enough of “big mouths, no names.”  Me too.  This is not to invite another debate about good reasons for anonymous posting, but to make a point to all those who believe that their value judgments matter when they express it under some silly nom-de-comment.  It happens constantly.

Sometimes the identity of the person posting a comment doesn’t matter because the content speaks for itself.  But that’s rare.  Usually, the content involves a rank opinion, for or against something, or an assessment which only derives meaning from the fact that you’ve got a basis to lay claim to an opinion.  What possible worth is your opinion standing alone?  This isn’t a Gallup poll, and the side with the most votes doesn’t win.  When some anonymous person writes “I’m a really good lawyer,” it means nothing since you aren’t the judge of your own competence.  On the other hand, it tells me that you’re too stupid and egocentric to realize it, so that suggests you’re a really bad lawyer who just doesn’t get it.

These anonymous commenters get their panties in a twist when I call them out.  They take it personally, and fail to recognize the irony of shielding their bona fides through anonymity while being personally hurt by being told they don’t matter.  If you want to matter, than be bold enough to stand behind your opinion by using your real name.  Hull, enemy of the spineless, thinks it’s time to start a NWZ.

Because WAC? is seriously considering a policy of “No Real Name, No Real Publish, Jack”.  A No-Wankers Policy. A No-Weenies Standing Order. No-Wank Zone. No-Wimp Zone. Set up your own No-Weakling area. Establish “Spines-Only” districts. Not sure. Maybe…”No-Wuss” zone. I think I like that one best.

Stop kidding yourself.  If you don’t have the balls to stand behind your opinions, to let others know that your views are worth the ten seconds it takes to read them, to provide some basis, any basis, to make anyone care what you think, then use your name. 

I’ve got no plans to block anonymous commenters.  But don’t expect me to fawn all over you as if you’re entitled to being taken seriously.  On the flip side, if you twit under some idiotic name that involves body parts or your favorite critter or anything else that clouds who you are, I will not follow you, respond to you or take you seriously.  I’m terribly wrong not to appreciate your brilliance?  I’ll live.

And one more thing:  No anonymous commenter, nor any commenter under the age of 30, is allowed to call anyone else “whiny”.  You are presumptively wrong and clueless.  It’s like one toddler calling the other “stupid”, and the second saying, “No, you are!”  I’ve had enough of it.  All of you, go to your rooms until your mother and I tell you to come out.

Why?  Because I say so.  So there.

And now for something else completely different.

Most blogs link to the source of a post, when something comes on their radar because another blog picked it up.  Most are very good about doing so, both because of etiquette, credibility and the mutual benefits of link love.  Most.  Some, not so good.  Some bad.  Very bad.  Some never link to the source of their information at all, ignoring completely how they became aware of a case or issue, and going instead to the initial source (like a newspaper story) as if they came up with it all on their own.  Res ipse loquitur, my butt.

It’s not quite plagiarism, but it stinks from a lack of integrity and etiquette.  If someone else did the heavy lifting that now benefits you, don’t pretend that you did it all by yourself.  That’s deceptive, and you’re milking someone else’s efforts.  It’s all out there in the ether for anyone to find?  True.  But you didn’t.  Someone else did.  Give ’em the credit.  Both because it’s the right thing to do and because your integrity is suspect.