None of my favorite fictional detectives believes much in coincidence as
an explanation when one event looks suspiciously related to another. But,
I’ll let you decide whether my Comments here on Feb. 14, 2005 are related
to what happened there on Feb. 15, 2005.
Details: On February 14th, Bob Ambrogi wrote that he had just discovered
Blawg Republic. In response, my alter ego Prof. Yabut left this Comment:
“A lot of us had positive things to say about Blawg Republic
when Denise Howell first pointed us to it on Sept. 30th. However,
Blawg Republic stopped being useful after only a couple weeks in
existence, when it switched from listing the latest posts from the
most popular law weblogs to having its very limited Top Blawg Posts.
Now, you can get on their top-20 list by merely linking to one of your
own past posts (a trick used by many weblawggers, who garner much
of the page at a time). The Top 20 list neither tells you who did the
linking (so you can’t readily check whether the pointer was pro or con)
nor when the listed post originated. Now, there’s really no reason to
check this page very often.”
Agreeing with Prof. Yabut on the “past post problem,” Evan Schaeffer opined
that Blawg Review drove him “batty,” and noted “It seems like the fix would
be simple, but so far, no fix.”
In response, Merrick Lozano, Co-founder of Blawg Republic, did a little self-
censoring that day, removing his first comment at LawSites (would love to know
what it said). Merrick then left a Response that concluded:
“Thank you for the feedback in this comments section. We are
looking into the past post link problem described by prof yabut
and evan (www.blawgrepublic.com/blog/) as soon as we resolve it.”
I can’t tell whether the “past post link” problem has been solved. [I had, in fact,
mentioned it at this weblog in mid-Nov. 2004.] However, something was “fixed”
for sure: The freshest post listed on the Blawg Republic page for Legal Ethics News
(which has only tracked one site in that category — f/k/a) is the following:
f/k/a . . . – February 15, 2005
. . . but, maybe we’re not both covered. The fight over
f/k/a: Frozen in time as of Feb. 15, 2005. Must be a coincidence.
update (June 17, 2005): Yesterday, I followed a Referral link to this website from
BR and discovered that only the name f/k/a and our former tagline now exist
on the BR Legal Ethics Page. Them coincidences keep buildin’ up, don’t they?
most end up
stuck in mud…
cherry blossoms
ISSA , D.L. Lanoue, translator
potluck
lure lambs into the Law, and then reading my Response, Yeoman did quite a bit of soul-searching
and has an important discussion on Mistaking Personal Unsuitability for Systemic Problems
in the legal profession.
If you’re going to impose an immense fine on a judge for election misconduct, why not “noyabutsS”
remove him or her from office? That’s what Justice Lewis asked again in a Florida Supreme Court
case thatwas decided May 12, 2005. Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re: Ana Marie Pando, ___
So.2d ___ (Fla., No. SC04-1636). Justice Lewis had a full — and, I believe persuasive — discussion
on this topic in In re Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77 (from p. 38, Fla. 2003) (via sunEthics, May 23, 2005)
with your own reasons. (via Is That Legal?) On a related topic, the Berkman Blog group is holding
a seminar on June 2 on Why Do You Blog?, moderated Michael Feldman of Dowbrigade News. If
you’re gonna be in Cambridge, Mass., you might want to stop by.
from dagosan
untoasted today —
slowly chewing
whole wheat bread
[May 23, 2005]