Ashby over at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog had some fun yesterday with one of my posts . Not because he liked my post, but because Venkat Balasubramani (referred to in the post as some reader named Venkat) commented about lawyer stress. The WSJ loves posts that somehow relate to stress (and include the word “Slackoisie”, as I occasionally do).
This generated a reply from Dan Hull, which ended with this sentence:
When we went to law school, I thought we all signed up for stress. Didn’t we?
Buried in the comments to Ashby’s post is this observation:
Dan Hull is a blowhard.
Now Dan is many things, erudite, worldly, experienced, funny, bold. But blowhard is not one of them. Put aside, for the purpose of this post, that the individual teletubbie who posted the comment went anonymous, willing to post ill of Dan Hull provided he could hide. This per se disqualifies the comment from being of any consequence, but since this isn’t about the relative worth of the comment, we need not concern ourselves with the next Ned Beatty.
The point is that you can’t please everyone. Dan Hull shows no fear of having an opinion and stating it. That being so, he will have people who think he’s wrong. More than wrong, who hate him for having the opinion and stating it. That’s the territory.
Norm Pattis has been writing online for a long time, and he’s never held back. He’s made some serious enemies along the way, and if you have any doubt about it, check out his TLC posts and the anger generated by his disloyalty to the tribe and its chieftain. And then along comes Mirriam Seddiq who writes about discovering Norm:
Where have I been??? How have I missed this jewel of a blog? More importantly, how do I become like him? Where do I develop the skill and the cajones to go out and do it every day?
It doesn’t get any sweeter than that. Of course, in a comment to Jamison Koehler’s post, disagreeing with mine, a commenter wrote:
Why are you picking fights with the mighty Scott Greenfield? Have you not ever felt his wrath?
What a strange thing to say. Not the wrath part, as I’m well aware of my violation of the blawgospheric rule of blowing kisses at every teacup member of the Slackoisie, but the part about “the mighty.” How weird. But then I realized that the reason Anonymous called Hull a blowhard was the same. He was “the mighty.” Norm Pattis is “the mighty.” While I doubt that I deserve to be in their company, maybe even I’m the mighty to some out there. But while the commenter’s use was intended to be snarky, his point is worth a second thought.
No one puts a gun to anyone’s head and says, read a blawg or die. This is voluntary, in the extreme. Read or don’t, it’s entirely up to you. And if you read, care or don’t, it’s entirely up to you. And if you care, agree or don’t, it’s entirely up to you. When a blawger hits the “publish” button, he never know if what he writes will be read by one person or a million. It’s entirely outside of his control. As anyone who is disappointed in the number of readers they have at their blawg will tell you, just because you write it doesn’t mean that they will come. This isn’t a field of dreams.
To the extent that any of us, Dan, Norm or I, are “mighty”, it’s because others made us so. For whatever reason, other people have ascribed credibility to our writings, our thoughts, our positions. Without that, we would be the tree falling in the forest with no one to hear. Who cares whether the tree makes a sound?
It could be that people read things for the same reasons Alan Alda attributed to watching the cockroach races in M*A*S*H; for the crash. But rubber necking doesn’t build a very sustainable readership, and the moment will be over quickly. For Dan and Norm, the value of what they have to say has built over time, constantly growing and generating thought, discussion and, in many instances, change. The reason is that their ideas have merit, and that the majority of their readers appreciate what they write and agree with them.
There will always be some who hate them for what they write, or feel compelled to attack from behind the bushes. You can’t please everybody.
When someone tells me they hate a post, I shrug. What am I supposed to do, change my mind to please you? All I can do is write what I think, and you can agree or disagree, read or not. If it makes you feel better to call me a blowhard, so be it. But if you snarkily refer to me as mighty, then consider why that’s so. No one, but no one, has to listen to a word I say. No one.
You might also want to consider who listens to you, and why. Now stop your crying, teacup, and pay attention to what Dan and Norm have to say.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is one of my favorite posts ever! thanks for the laughs, it really helps me cope with my job related stress!!!
Despite your mentioning me, this is another one of your better posts. Again, nicely done.
Last 2 days I’ve been working “up north” and out of town with bunch of Hull McGuire people Julie and I are I especially fond of degrading, humiliating, pressuring and keeping away from their families. Three of us are today are still in Santa Monica/LA. Ironically, cell phones and laptops often do poorly here–so I missed out on some of Ashby’s fun. (Some e-mails I sent to you about our more serious pursuits got stuck on my laptop–but a full-engaged and reformed teacup is working on that.)
It’s Friday–so why not at least thank and comment to Scott if my e-mail will not work?
Look, the issue for me is the “ATL” anonymity one. Ashby (like Elie Mystal and Kash Hill at ATL) does a nice job–but at WSJ Law Blog particular I was hoping for a no-anonymity/ no-pseudonyms policy. Time to grow up–and most LB readers are grown-ups.
Or at least a tradition. Failing that, shouldn’t fire-breathing commenters have the class and moxie to say who they are? Give a name? Often, it turns out that Holden or I know the anonymous commenter on our blog because they are so emotional they forget to cover their tracks for the “full hide” thing.
Ex-employees are a big group.
Trial adversaries–for some reason just “worthy opponents” in our Midwest practice from the smaller towns–are the other big group.
There are course no reprisals for this kind of thing once we find out the identity of the nameless commenter on out firm’s blog. We don’t care. People are too busy. But if you want to give someone a dressing down, say who you are before you let it fly. If you don’t have a few enemies–known or unknown–you are probably not in the game. It means you were “never here” and might as well keep rocking back and forth and drooling on your shirt.
But there are enemies you respect and learn from–but you need to know who they are. I have learned a lot from and become friends with forthright people who did not like me the minute I appeared. I value them. Non-weenie detractors make you grow.
Whenever I think about Norm, I get inspired. But if this is another one of my better posts, does that mean most of them suck?
I confess. I blow mighty hard.
For months now between 6:00 and 8:00 AM ET weekdays several hundred of us from around the world–some mornings in a special “Greenfield Remedial Chat Room”, and other days in a noisy conference call–have been discussing how to help Scott Greenfield get his blog thing on. First, however, we knew we had to tell you about the need to improve. The Japanese and Finnish members in particular got into an old fashioned street fight on both sides of the issue about whether and precisely how to do that. Finally, everyone thought you’d take it all a lot better if it came from me. I got elected.
Don’t take this wrong, overreact, or be disheartened. Six good posts in 5 years is certainly a promising start, if you look at it a certain way. Everyone wants you to succeed. So talk to me on the phone some Saturday when I have the time to help you with your posts. Slow and easy at first. But do stick with me, sir.
I’ll turn you into a goddamn animal.
You are the sunshine of my life.
Just got back to San Diego to this great news that (1) you know what you need to work on, and (2) you are taking this well! Knew it all along. You’re not mean-spirited, violent or vindictive, like they said.
Look forward to our first tutorial together on the phone this Saturday morning about 8 AM. Maybe tonight you can have that guy who works for you and your family–Enrique, is it? or maybe Raphael?–whose employment raised those past issues under the Tax Code and the 13th Amendment mix you up a bunch Bloody Marys for the session.
Do you recommend a celery stalk or wedge of lime? Personally, I think the former works better with a large dash of horse radish, quite the wake-me-up, you know.
Good thing this isn’t a family show.
Either is really snazzy if you’ve moved to Indianapolis or Charlotte. Just two ludes is fine.