The Great Change: Turning Cathy into a Lawyer

Out of curiosity, how do posts like this (entertaining as they may be), contribute to any of the goals set forth in the Boston Globe article for professional blogs?

Out of curiosity, how does tearing me up in the comments on a regular basis contribute to any of the goals set forth in the Boston Globe article?

As you've noted before, I leave comments open to encourage discourse about any topic I've raised. But I get the distinct impression that you think my blog is but a private playground for you to show off to me how right you are and how wrong I am. Given that you profess to be so concerned about my public image, I wonder why you would feel it constructive to so regularly and so publicly rush to point out just how flawed you always seem to think I am. (I am quite aware of how public this blog is, even if you're not.)

While I said I appreciated your candor in the other post, I meant it to the extent that the particular expression was open and honest. What I don't appreciate is the incessant campaign to take issue with nearly everything I have to say. Not only are your criticisms often misplaced (or misapplied to minutiae), and not only does it make me look bad (making me look like I'm incapable of ever expressing myself understandably), but it also swallows up all the oxygen so that no one else who reads these things can ever feel comfortable to post (a handful of close friends excepted).

I was just trying to point out to you that posts like this one don't seem to be putting your best professional foot forward. That's likely obvious to just about anyone reading this blog--they don't need me to point it out. It clearly isn't obvious to you, who both claims that the blog is a carrer-boosting endevor and makes posts like this. I was hoping that my comment would clarify what I had been commenting on in your prior post-- which was, I believe, a discussion of why your blog is carreer-enhancing.

As for oxygen-swallowing and misplaced comments-- get real. I doubt that my comments keep folks from posting thoughful comments. They might more be scared off by the fact that you insist that any post (by anyone) that disagrees with one of your posts is missing your point and by the fact that most of your posts are seriously off topic with respect to what they claim to be responding to. With all due respect, I'm not the one who's off-base, and that is obvious to anyone who reads the blog.

Now this comment, I agree, could be oxygen swallowing... But I don't think that there would have been much discussion under this post otherwise, do you?

Mark

That said, this is your playpen... So I will comment no more.

Mark,

I completely came into this post wanting to put a light-hearted jab at Cathy's fashion sense, but I just couldn't after this set of replies. I don't think you understand how misplaced your comments are sometimes, and how they affect the mood of the conversation. If you want to debate the various merits and demerits of Cathy's posting style, fine, but (a) there's already a separate thread for that, and (b) it's been done to death.

I appreciate Cathy's blog the way it is, with all the personal stuff mixed in with the law stuff. If this were purely a recruiting tool, then maybe she should follow the suggestions in the Globe article. But that's not (only) what this blog is about, and I'm sure Cathy is intelligent enough to figure out what kinds of posts she should be making on it, and what posts she isn't. If I didn't come here to read about her more personal stuff, I wouldn't read about anything on the law, and I'm sure some of Cathy's non-law friends have benefitted similarly from the blog.

A lot of times, oxygen-swallowing comments will drive people away from a particular post, or blog, either because people will get tired of reading the arguing, or just skip it entirely. And sometimes I wonder why I waste my own time on posts like these, since I never feel entirely good after posting. So I suppose I will stop (it's two in the morning anyway).

Breaking my silence just to respond to a comment directly addressed to me...

Koichi...

I have never maintained that this is a "bad" blog, or an unentertaining blog, or a blog that isn't worth reading. If it were, then I wouldn't be reading it-- let along posting to it. I very much enjoy reading the blog.

My point was, and consistantly has been, that even a very good blog is "good" only with relation to the context in which it is being read. Here, this blog is very good and useful as a means of providing an interesting read, as a means of Cathy conveying what she is up to and, as you note, introducing non-law folks to Cathy's philosophies and some legal principals. It is likely good for any number of other reasons as well...

However, Cathy uses it as a professional calling card and recruiting tool, placing it on her resume and making it easily found by those screening her during a hiring process. That is why I pointed out the caveat in the Globe Article with respect to using an unfocused blog for that sort of purpose. In my experience, if something isn't, in its entirety, going to help you impress employers (here law firms and, potentially, clients who own or have some interest in intellectual property rights), one needs to be really careful about bringing it to their attention. That's why I have lobbied Cathy to take the blog off of her resume, to restrict it to serious posts, and/or to make it annonymous. I think this is a great hobby blog-- but not a professional blog (in the sense of being useful as a calling card within a profession as buttoned down and self-concious of judgement as the law).

As for my comment that started this thread-- I admit that it was a bit snarky, and that it was causing a thread from a prior post (where it was on topic) to jump to this post about fashion sense. I did that to draw Cathy's attention to what I saw as a flaw in her very recent argument that any "good" blog is career enhancing pursuant to the Globe article. This drew a strong reaction from Cathy and, apparantly, from you. I might have crossed the line there.

On the other hand, I note that Cathy never really responded to my question in my initial comment on this post. Likely because my point-- while possibly made more rudely than necessary-- was right.

As for "oxygen sucking"-- I've admitted to sucking the oxygen out of this thread. I don't believe I have done it in the past. Most of the time I just respond to and discuss points that Cathy makes-- not meta-points about the blog itself. But, that said, I have stated that I won't post any more on the blog. We'll see if, as Cathy posits, that will cause there to be a jump in real discussion on the blog. And, in any case, I'll stop pissing Cathy off-- which I dislike doing, as I consider her to be a friend.

So, back into silence, unless something is directed at me.

Mark