« Libertarian Democrats and Bigfoot | Main | Foley! Shut Up! »

October 03, 2006

Comments

John Cole? Jim Henley? Thomas from redstate? (kidding on that last one)

"So: anyone have any good ideas for new commenters?"

Do you perhaps mean "posters"?

(Or you could use "blog posters" if you want to engage in the popular usage that commenters "post" rather than "comment," although personally I think that usage blurs a useful distinction, although I also can't claim that the distinction is universally recognized.)

I think it would be fantastic if you could talk Gregory Djerejian into posting here, but I'm not sure what the rationale to attract him would be.

I suspect that finding lesser-known bloggers is the most likely way to find willing people.

BruceR of Flit would be great, but I gather his current job limits him writing about anything political.

And let me suggest that there's no reason to restrict the field to Americans (Bruce being Canadian).

If her written English skills were just a little better, I'd suggest Dutchmarbel.

But, then, the first goal is to find folks on the right, to whatever degree, so I'm not helping here.

Too bad James Joyner isn't more obscure.

Dave Schuler? 3rdGorchBro? Get Mona to defect from Inactivist?

Who does Charles read and like?

Sebastian, who do you read and like?

Andrew, who do you read and like who isn't on the left?

Most of the bloggers I read (OK, all but one) are way-better known than I am. Dave Schuler, Radley Balko, Jim Henley, Stephen Green. I'd suggest Adjutantman (my 3d-oldest friend in the world by time we've known each other), but I don't think he posts enough to really add much.

Get Mona to defect from Inactivist?

Or D.A. Ridgely -- judging by his Left2Right history, he seems happy to mix it up with people he disagrees with, without losing his cool or his sense of humor.

I second (or third) the nomination of Jim Henley. I'd love to see him get more readers.

I'd love to see him get more readers.

What, the 1,100 comments he got on his Blog post weren't enough for him? :)

Yeah, I doubt moving here would be any sort of "promotion" for Jim, which is why I don't suggest him.

Of course, Jim is one of my favorite bloggers, and has been on my blogroll from the start (five years ago in 8 weeks), and why I'm one of the original "OG" bloggers on his blogroll.

But he's pretty successful on his own. (A few hundred times more than I am, he said self-pityingly.)

Jeebus. That's about 30% of all the comments my blog has ever drawn.

"five years ago in 8 weeks)"

10 weeks, actually, he revised.

Never claimed I could count.

And don't start with the self-pity, Gary. The whole power question may still be up in the air, but I can whip you cold when it comes to pure blog pathos. ;)

I think the strong center-right political blogs are already listed on the left-hand side:

Drezner, OTB, UO, John Cole, Belgravia Dispatch, QandO.

But OTB, Cole and QandO are already group blogs. (On the gripping hand, OTB and QandO are grouped right. A combination of either of those blogs with this one could be very interesting. Cole already straddles and has a larger commentariat.)

Vodkapundit? Don Surber?

The Tacitus site is looking close to moribund. Maybe someone who posts there regularly might welcome an invite.

(anyone at Winds of Change that might be willing to come here for a regular gig?)

And, for the record, yours truly's blog hits the five year mark in eight days.

"That's about 30% of all the comments my blog has ever drawn."

I think that more often than not you've gotten more than I have, though I'm not sure.

I think I've had a handful of posts that have gotten upwards of 40-50, but it's a literal handful, out of thousands of posts. Usually it's between 0 and 5-6, though mostly 0.

The average is unquestionably less than 1.

But now: Veronica Mars premiere!

So: anyone have any good ideas for new commenters?

Von? (:

"Cole already straddles and has a larger commentariat."

Yes, but while some are fine folks, and some also comment here, a fair proportion are, um, jerk-like. (Ditto all the popular large blogs.)

Partially due to John's, ah, inimitable style, he tends to attract a lot of commenters who think "you doody-head!" is an effective insight.

"(anyone at Winds of Change that might be willing to come here for a regular gig?)"

Well, I did quit blogging there, myself. ;-)

Some suggestions culled from my bookmarks/rss feeds:

Dr Steven Taylor
The Commissar
Ilyka Damen
Abu Kais
David Weigel
Thomas C. Reeves

What about Bob "The" McManus? I think that dude's really interesting. Plus it would parallel a sports-talk radio tradition, where one of the frequent callers gets elevated to the weekend graveyard spot where they have to talk about, like, I-AA football.

Andrew: Jeebus. That's about 30% of all the comments my blog has ever drawn.

Would it be twisting the knife to point out that he got all those comments on a post consisting of a single word?

Guest posts. Otherwise you've got to get a blogger who doesn't mind folding up his/her blog to join ObWi, or you have to identify someone before they really get into the blogging game. I don't think it should be an open call, but if you notice someone (like the dr. ngo promotion) has an expertise and a passion about something, invite them to write about that. FWIW

I realize that finding folks on the left isn't as big a deal, but I'd welcome Bob McManus as a poster - I'd like to see him in initiating as well as responding mode.

The bizarre video of Tom Reynolds made the Daily Show. And then Stewart went on to talk about the torture "compromise" and McCain's cave-in (the "Straight Talk Express" has become a "Squirmy Mumble Minivan") -- not that that will stop Stewart from fawning over him the next time he's on the show. And then on to Specter's collapse on habeas corpus.

"Otherwise you've got to get a blogger who doesn't mind folding up his/her blog to join ObWi,"

That's not remotely true. Cross-posting has not yet been made illegal, my lawyers inform me.

When I was asked to join Winds of Change, no one asked me to stop my own blog, and it would have been loony to do so; instead I cross-posted a highly limited number of posts that seemed to fit.

Such an arrangment will vastly strengthen a lesser-known blog, in terms of raising visibility and bringing new readers, not contrawise.

I'd be happy to have the increased visibility from Winds of Change, but without going into other details, I've no interest in hanging out in a place largely inhabited by folks who from my POV are right-wing loons, which is why I don't exercise my option to post there any more.

"but I'd welcome Bob McManus as a poster - I'd like to see him in initiating as well as responding mode."

But I would have to pretend to be sane and reasonable, and pick left, right, or center.
Being a commenter has not inhibited my initiating much. And I think they would rather ban me than give my privileges. My alternating positions of vulgar Marxism and Hereditary Monarchism actually offends people.

If I had original material to post I would have a blog. I actually have three, I think, but have forgotten my passwords.

I don't know, Gary, I'm not a blogger (TiO doesn't count for anything in the scheme of things, AFAIC), but I would think that the dynamic would be this: blogger moves here, crossposts his major pieces, the commentariat moves over here for the major pieces, leaving the first blog a shadow. It doesn't have to be like that, but I think that is a possibility, unless the person has a commentariat that is so at odds with the one here that they aren't going to join us and then, I don't think they would be a good match. I think this is generally a more likely possibility than a blogger comes here and their original site suddenly blossoms from all the new attention. Though I could see that this is not lead pipe cinch, but I think your possibility seems less likely. YMMV of course.

However, even if you are right, I don't think that sinks the main suggestion I made, which is tapping various commentators to post on subjects near and dear to them that may arise.

someday, bob m., you're going to have to post your pharmaceutical regimen.

;)

Geez, Bob, where do you get this sane and reasonable stuff? I mean, look at the company.

*hides*

My alternating positions of vulgar Marxism and Hereditary Monarchism actually offends people.

See, there's your problem right there. Multiple subjects, so the Marxism offends the Monarchists and vice versa. Pick one of the two and cut the number of people you offend in half. ;^)

I'm also reminded of the supposed story about Jean Baptiste John, a general during the French Revolution who later became King of Sweden and had a secret tattoo "Death to all kings" though Wikipedia says it's probably false.

I'd second (or third) Dave Schuler.

On the libertarian side of things, Neel Krishnaswami, a regular commenter at Jim Henley's place and elsewhere, is one of the most thoroughly decent and regularly fascinating, challenging, articulate, fun people I know.

"My alternating positions of vulgar Marxism and Hereditary Monarchism actually offends people."

Do you use the Luke Rhinehart method, or another?

"...but I would think that the dynamic would be this: blogger moves here, crossposts his major pieces, the commentariat moves over here for the major pieces, leaving the first blog a shadow."

What makes a blog a "shadow"? Why do you assume a blog already has a better commentariat than here?

Every blogger is an individual, of course, and I can only a) look at different cases, and point to a whole bunch that haven't worked like that; and b) look to my own experience, and point to the fact that it hasn't worked remotely that, and I kinda think that that demonstrates that that ain't necessarily how it would work, so what's the point in worrying in advance before asking someone that it might work like that, so why bother asking them?

I mean, I think people are capable of figuring out their own preferences in this sort of thing. I'm at least that libertarian.

"but I think your possibility seems less likely."

Sure, I only have actual facts and experience to back what I say, whereas you have pure conjecture. You're probably correct, therefore.

Clearly Andrew's blog is now a shadow of what it once was, since he started posting here; right, Andrew?

"However, even if you are right, I don't think that sinks the main suggestion I made, which is tapping various commentators to post on subjects near and dear to them that may arise."

I don't see anything objectionable about the notion, but it doesn't solve the problem of not having enough regular bloggers and enough regular bloggers from the right.

"someday, bob m., you're going to have to post your pharmaceutical regimen."

Well, he's listed some of the ingredients before.

"Neel Krishnaswami"

Sure, good suggestion.

For that matter, you'd be a terrific choice, Bruce. Would you be interested?

Re: Winds of Change:

I've no interest in hanging out in a place largely inhabited by folks who from my POV are right-wing loons

That's precisely the problem.

You're looking for anti-Bush, anti-war conservatives or libertarians, say Jim Henley. So the list of those acceptable is kind of narrow.

I'd say look for some conservative professor, who wouldn't be intimidated, wants to blog, and don't have an existing blog.

Good luck finding them.

"You're looking for anti-Bush, anti-war conservatives or libertarians, say Jim Henley."

Wrong. I, at least, am looking for people by virtue of their rational process, not their conclusions.

(Personally, I'd also include as a desirable characteristic, if not requirement, some ability with, and control over, the English language in writing.)

Personally, I have no litmus test of conclusions or policies; since I'm looking for people to argue with, that would be absurd and counter-productive. What I'm looking for is people is people who argue well, who understand logic, and logical fallacies, and doesn't engage in them; people with skill at debate.

What causes they wish to debate, or positions they take, I couldn't care less about.

Unfortunately, DaveC, this -- nice guy though I think you are, underneath the illogic, disdain for facts, uncanny ability to incorrectly mind-read, predilection for making competely unsupported leaps of logic, and inability to support any argument with reliable citations -- kinda leaves you out. But maybe you'd have some suggestions who fit this bill? If they are all for Bush, the war, anti-abortion, whathaveyou, bring 'em on, if they are articulate and rational. (A tendency towards courtesy, and some humor, also helps, of course.)

"are right-wing loons"

See, the operative word there is "loons," DaveC, not "right-wing." I have plenty of right-wing friends.

I also have no interest in hanging out in a place filled with left-wing loons -- but that doesn't describe Winds of Change.

"I don't know, Gary, I'm not a blogger (TiO doesn't count for anything in the scheme of things, AFAIC), but I would think that the dynamic would be this: blogger moves here, crossposts his major pieces, the commentariat moves over here for the major pieces, leaving the first blog a shadow."

This wasn't my experience. Until I totally lost control of the spam comments on my blog its popularity wasn't dimmed by my posting here.

Gary: If I weren't in the midst of a severe and prolonged depression about pretty much all things political and still grieving over the loss of my father and a very good friend in the last few months, I'd be posting more hither and yon. But I'm in a rather full-bore retreat from political discussion on almost all fronts, and my well-being seems to require more cutting back, not less.

(I might and sometimes do wonder how many active bloggers would also be in better mental health if they cut back being angry so often, but their lives aren't ultimately my call.)

At this point I'm mostly trying to prompt myself to do more book reviews and other basically apolitical things.

Now if there were the Obsidian Wings Hopefully Not Relevant To Current Events Cultural Auxiliary blog, that I'd love to post to.

"But I'm in a rather full-bore retreat from political discussion on almost all fronts, and my well-being seems to require more cutting back, not less."

Entirely understandable; my sympathies. Given that I've actually read some comments along those lines from you before, I apologize for any insensitivity in not recalling them.

Still, be aware that I, for one, am a huge fan of yours as a writer and commentator and thinker and human being, and if you get to a [METAPHOR] where you feel interested an able in posting here, I'd sure lobby for you, and otherwise be interested in reading where ever you wish to blog.

"Now if there were the Obsidian Wings Hopefully Not Relevant To Current Events Cultural Auxiliary blog, that I'd love to post to."

The place probably could use a Court Jester.

Oh, wait, that's Thullen's job.

In this case, Gary, no insensitivity perceived here. Actually, the compliment did me much good. So your credit's good with me.

What makes a blog a "shadow"? Why do you assume a blog already has a better commentariat than here?

A shadow, not many commentators. I don't think I said anything about a 'better' commentariat, just a more active one, with more people participating.

Sebastian, I wasn't around so much for the golden age of ObWi, but I think that the blogosphere has changed a bit since that time, with spam comments, RSS feeds and trackbacks changing things a bit. I think blogging is a much more time intensive pastime than it was back then. In fact, the fact that you lost control of your blog to spam suggests that my scenario is "remotely" possible, to use Gary's adjective, though you could accuse me of moving goalposts, but if it were such a big boost, it seems we wouldn't need a suggestion box to add new bloggers, they would be dropping off notes to the kitty saying 'pick me!'. (Maybe they have, or maybe everyone is so shy that they can't put themselves forward. If the latter is the case, all you bloggers may want to put yourself forward, as the crew that runs this place has pretty good taste in these matters)

Bruce, TiO is open and waiting for your posts ;^)

John McCarthy
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/
Dunno if he's still up for the battle,
but back in the Elder Days of Usenet
he was among the best of the conservative commenters.
Notable for defending himself with
actual facts, even data. Remarkable, really.

Maybe Steven Den Beste?

"someday, bob m., you're going to have to post your pharmaceutical regimen."

Sugared strong Coffee, 60 oz a day
2 packs of cigarettes

At bedtime
1 vitamin;1 nightime cold pill (Nyquil equiv) for allergies;2 1/2 mg Valium (half the smallest);1 weak vicodin 5mg hydrocodone/400 acetimenophen

wakeup:1 allergy pill (psuedoephedrine/dextromorphan/guafenisin)

an occasional ambien, but they do little for or to me

Very little variation from that for 15 years. I replace bottles of Rolaids and Tylenol when they go bad;I may take Rolaids once every three months;same with headaches or other pain.

BP and cholesterol and blood sugar are great;pulse is way high, but a day without stimulants drops me to 80. Try to walk 30 miles a week.

Any other questions?

One problem with this is, if we're looking for right-wingers, I don't read that many right-wing blogs. What about DaveC, though? His posts on TIO have been interesting. Not sure if he qualifies as "reasonable": I'm not equipped to judge. ;-)

If we're just looking for interesting, how about Dr Ngo/Anarch as a father-son double-act? :D

In a dream world: Bellatrys. Avedon Carol. (She writes short link-heavy posts for her blog: I'd love to see what she'd do with essay question posts, so to speak.) Roz Kaveney.

Heard this NPR on the way in this morning:

Tucked away in fine print in the military spending bill for this past year was a lump sum of $20 million to pay for a celebration in the nation’s capital “for commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not surprisingly, the money was not spent.

Now Congressional Republicans are saying, in effect, maybe next year. A paragraph written into spending legislation and approved by the Senate and House allows the $20 million to be rolled over into 2007.

Suggestion: (Slightly OT?)

Actually a request for hilzoy and Katherine (and everyone else of course). Given the number of posts here on Gitmo and detainee treatment, how many innocents, etc…

Patterico has a fascinating (IMO) series running this week in which he interviews an Army Psychiatric Nurse who spent 6 months working with the detainees. There is some pretty chilling stuff.

The request is to read the series, and then have a discussion thread here, possibly over the weekend.

In part the first, he introduces him and establishes his credibility.

In part two, he describes his arrival at Guantanamo and the detainees in general.

Part three today talks about the hunger strikes, suicides, etc.

The blogger and commenters are likely a little too "right" for your normal tastes, but I think this is an incredible first hand account – something you won’t get elsewhere.

My suggestion is to follow this series of posts, then have a discussion about his observations in the context of the many posts I have read here on the topic.

Thanks for considering it.

I didn't read the comments, but I have just read the three posts OCSteve linked to. I agree it's a truly chilling account: preserve me from falling into the power of a psychiatric nurse like Stashiu!

I kind of dig Scott Eric Kaufman, but he's got other gigs, and mostly I don't understand what he's saying so much as appreciate the way in which he says it.

But he's in no way a conservative, as far as I can tell. He is fair, though, and I tend to value that more highly than ideology these days.

And by "dig", I don't mean to say that he's got great legs or anything.

The real problem is, the only bloggers who are likely to come over here are those, like me, who are going to get a bigger audience by doing so. And finding people like that is difficult, because they're generally unknowns or close-to-it. Long term unpopular blogs like mine just aren't in big supply.

On the other note, traffic over at Chez Olmsted has declined somewhat since I came over here, and commenting has pretty much dropped close to zero, so I think it's not unreasonable for someone to fear hurting their own site if they move over here too strongly.

so I think it's not unreasonable for someone to fear hurting their own site if they move over here too strongly.

Well yeah, but isn't the cash and free bling you get from the ObWi vaults and the love from groupie commenters like Jes enough recompense?

And by "dig", I don't mean to say that he's got great legs or anything.

So you're saying he *doesn't* have great legs? I don't see why he'd want to blog over here if people are just going to insult him like that.

The real problem is, the only bloggers who are likely to come over here are those, like me, who are going to get a bigger audience by doing so. And finding people like that is difficult, because they're generally unknowns or close-to-it.

That's why I'd suggest looking on livejournal / greatestjournal for people who can write well, seem reasonable, have good quality commentators - and might be interested in getting a different/larger audience. Roz Kaveney or Bellatrys are both examples of this. (I don't know if either of them would be *interested*, but they are certainly interesting.)


The Nielsen-Haydens
Gary Farber!

Dave Cambell of Dave's Longbox (daveslongbox.blogspot.com), normally blogs mockingly of bad comics, but I suspect might have funny things to say about current events. Or not.

Lately he's been posting scans of a guide to the WW2 North African campaigns which he hand-drew a while back. It's actually pretty good.


How about a scienceblogger?


Here's an interesting post from 'The Mess That Greenspan Made' blog on the idea that GOP string-pulling led to the steep fall in gas prices.

Apparently, Goldman Sachs made a change in August, which resulted in about $6 billion in unleaded futures getting dumped on the market, which may have triggered the drop in gas prices ever since.

Goldman Sachs, of course, is the company Bush's new Treasury Secretary used to run.

I'll suggest myself.

I have a blog with very few posts (mostly comments from other blogs), but I'm a regular commenter at Crooked Timber, was a regular commenter at Left2Right, and am a regular on the Actuarial Outpost BB.

A link to one post I'm proud of:

A post on education

Six billion dollars is roughly a week's worth (eight days, actually) of gasoline at $2/gallon; that assessment assumes a total bath on the $6 billion. I'm not sure if that theory makes any sense, and the drop in crude price doesn't quite seem to follow, either.

Mess Greenspan

Barry Rithholz is all over that Goldman-Sachs article with charts;my eyes aren't open yet let me know what he says. If you move around the page he hand his professional commenters have been discussing gas prices in other posts.

My eyes are opening. Check that Rithholz link in a couple hours; Rithholz is good but his commenters are professionals. They don't like that article.

Also follow the embedded link;that blog explored GSCI and gas prices in depth not too long ago.

I think we should draft Bob McManus. Hilzoy can do that, right?

"A shadow, not many commentators."

This not being a sentence, I'm not entirely sure what it means, but I'm guessing you're trying to say that a blog that is a "shadow," in your usage, is a blog with not many commentators.

Which still leaves me more or less at sea, since that defines most blogs, so clearly, by your standard, adding posting privileges at ObWi would be a useful option, let alone by standards of reality for most bloggers, save for those whom are prominent (such as many already proposed). But thanks for answering.

"Sebastian, I wasn't around so much for the golden age of ObWi, but I think that the blogosphere has changed a bit since that time, with spam comments, RSS feeds and trackbacks changing things a bit."

You could be right; I really don't know what you mean, but it wouldn't be the first time I'm oblivious to changes taking place around me. Still don't know what sort of significance you have in mind, but I suspect we've already drained this exchange of whatever usefulness it has had, so you need not explain further.

"...but if it were such a big boost, it seems we wouldn't need a suggestion box to add new bloggers, they would be dropping off notes to the kitty saying 'pick me!'."

Again, this certainly could be yet another case of me being an outlier, but personally I'd never dream of having the chutzpah of putting myself forward like that. It would seem to me to be terribly rude, insofar as, for one thing, it puts the blogowners in the terribly awkward position of having to come up with polite explanations as to why they don't want you, which would be the most likely outcome, I'd assume. That, in my book, is damned rude. And thoughtless.

Besides, being asked is nice, whereas being turned down can be hurtful and/or frustrating, for some (maybe that's included in what you mean by "shy").

Anyway, that's me; I'm sure not everyone is like that, but I also suspect at least a few are. Me, I'd pretty much always wait to be asked, rather than suggest myself, in most any such situation.

"Maybe Steven Den Beste?"

Well. Can't say that wouldn't be, ah, interesting.

"In a dream world: Bellatrys. Avedon Carol. (She writes short link-heavy posts for her blog: I'd love to see what she'd do with essay question posts, so to speak.) Roz Kaveney."

Don't know the first. Avedon, I've known since 1974, and extremely closely since 1975. Avedon is one of the most brilliant people I've ever known, and a tremendously skillful writer. Also one of the most passionate in her beliefs people I've ever known.

She'd certainly make an unbelievably good contributor, though she'd also flay the skin, muscles, and all tissues, off the bones of quite a few people, if she felt they deserved it.

Certainly once a couple of right-type folks were found, were she willing, I'd, well, repeat what a fantastically good contributor she'd be (and she writes at essay length at her blog all the time, contrary to Jes); on the other hand, it would take another 10 folks on the right to even try to balance her, and frankly, it would be unlikely any ten could; she's a force of nature. In terms of balance, she'd probably tip the boat over and send it spinning into orbit. :-)

Oh, yeah, Roz; also known Roz slightly, at a distance, since the 70s, in writing and via mutual friends, though we've only met once or twice; also a fine and brilliant writer, though about 10,000 times less prolific than Avedon. Definitely would make a worthy contributor, but I don't know that she's have much to say very often. Of course, can't know without asking. But my strong suspicion is that she wouldn't find this sort of thing congenial or worthwhile.

Andrew: "The real problem is, the only bloggers who are likely to come over here are those, like me, who are going to get a bigger audience by doing so. And finding people like that is difficult, because they're generally unknowns or close-to-it."

Yup. It's why I have to ask, since I, too, don't read any little-known right-type blogs that are excellent. Beyond yours.

"On the other note, traffic over at Chez Olmsted has declined somewhat since I came over here, and commenting has pretty much dropped close to zero, so I think it's not unreasonable for someone to fear hurting their own site if they move over here too strongly."

That's also a matter of style and prolificness. For instance, you cross-post almost all of your posts here, with only occasional exceptions, and that's because you're not a 10 posts a day sort of person, and because most of what you write is perfectly appropriate here (which is another reason I suggested you).

Whereas I, for instance, used to do 40 posts a day, until I realized that meant that nobody was reading all of them, and deliberately cut down to 4-15, with a cap, as a rule, on doing any more. And I post on a variety of topics, none of which do I expect anyone to be interested in all of. I only hope people will be willing to scroll past the science fiction to get to the politics, or vice versa, or the sf to get to the history/books, or past that to get to the weird science. Or whatever.

So when I was asked to join Winds of Change, I knew that Joe wouldn't want more than 3 posts a day, max, and I certainly wasn't going to pick out my more idiosyncratic stuff, but instead went with stuff appropriate for the site.

Were I asked to join ObWi, I'd do the same thing; make a limited number of posts, so as not to overwhelm the other posters or the site, and pick ones that struck me as reasonably appropriate in some fashion.

So, bottom line, sure, there are a limited number of cases of bloggers who might wind up with fewer readers at their own site, but it's clearly something that would only happen to some, and obviously they're capable of deciding whether they want to do that or not themselves, so I see no point whatever in worrying about it; let them worry about it, if they're going to. What's the point in us discussing it?

Jes: "That's why I'd suggest looking on livejournal / greatestjournal for people who can write well"

That's actually not a bad idea at all.

Jon H: "Gary Farber!"

Thanks. See my comments about waiting to be asked.

"A link to one post I'm proud of:"

I think you're trying to link to here, actually, which is what you wrote, rather than the series of questions at the top, which you, in fact, apparently did not write, and which isn't an interesting post, per se. (Knowing what a permalink is is not required advance knowledge.)

I'd just like to state that I am categorically opposed to a draft, as always. ;)

Ugh,

As I said last week, they still haven't delivered on the parking space they promised. And that after, like Reggie Jackson in the 1970s, I came over here and became the straw that stirs the drink.

Jeez, could someone fix my broken italic tag? Sorry, and thanks. (Remember: "preview" is your friend, Gary; be patient enough to use it.)

"A post on education"

As always, just speaking for myself: that was a well-written, reasonably interesting, post. I can't otherwise, however, speak to whether you'd be a good contributor here because, no offense, I've not noticed your name before (I only very sporadically read comments at CT, and I'm afraid I never read Left2Right. Do you have other comments you can point to? And I'd suggest starting to comment here a lot! ;-)

End Italics.

Thanks Gary for the better link.

"As I said last week, they still haven't delivered on the parking space they promised."

You do have the keys to the executive, uni-sex, bathroom, though, right?

Gary,

That is no small part of it, although I have tried to post things regularly over there without cross-posting them here, for varying reasons. Much as I appreciate the opportunity to post here, I think it's good to keep up the home front as well, in case I ever hit it big. ;)

Besides, I need some place to promote my novel, if I can ever sell it.

You do have the keys to the executive, uni-sex, bathroom, though, right?

They told me I could use the public bathroom. I'm still borrowing a desk, too. And I won't even get into the whole hazing issue.

I think I've nominated Gary enough times that doing it a few more times might have an effect opposite from the one intended.

Sorry Gary, I meant
[To me] a shadow [would be] not many commentators. Of course, Andrew's own experience is only one data point, but it seems to describe the dynamic that I suggested. Thus, it seems that the more likely population would be to identify people who might be good at blogging, but haven't yet tried it rather than trying to find someone who already is blogging.

Of course, to draw them from the commentators here would have the effect of reinforcing any 'echo chamber' (not to get into the whole question of whether there is or isn't, just to point out that the idea is promotion from within, which would reinforce current norms), but my take on this post is not 'hey, we need some more conservative types here' but 'hey, we need some more people posting', and those people would more logically be those who haven't established the 'brand' of their own blog. Of course, demanding that they be able to do a permalink or master the rudiments of html would have disqualified hilzoy, but one could ascribe your call to changing times and increasing higher bars. I've invited posts on TiO, and have had a few nibbles, but, as I mentioned to Andrew, the 5 weeks before the election are going to be a pressure cooker, so now may not be the best time to test out my theory. There are probably some other things to think about, but it's 1 am here, and I better go to sleep so as to be able to teach tomorrow. The only thing that I would add is that it might be considered to replace/move Edward's bloglinks and put Andrew's list there so that a few more people might be enticed to drop by his site. Gary, if I've missed explaining something (the italicization makes it hard to tell), apologies.

And I won't even get into the whole hazing issue.

A goat in your office? A couple of olives in your pocket? I've always visualised Hilzoy looking something like C.J.Cregg, to tell you the truth.

"Of course, demanding that they be able to do a permalink or master the rudiments of html would have disqualified hilzoy, but one could ascribe your call to changing times and increasing higher bars."

I wrote:

(Knowing what a permalink is is not required advance knowledge.)

Yes, indeed, my explaining that knowing what a permalink is is not required certainly should be taken as a demand that one needs to know that.

Good call. Excellent reading.

"I've always visualised Hilzoy looking something like C.J.Cregg, to tell you the truth."

A little less tall and thin, I think, if pictures and video are accurate (which they may not be; they can be misleading, but, then, I've never seen Allison Janney in person, either).

Apologies Gary, it was hard to discern what you said with the italicization. However, the juxtaposition of discussing someone's ability to permalink with the quality of their ideas could be taken by some as doing precisely that, regardless of your intentions, which I am sure are precisely as you note.

Statements that are nominally true, when embedded in larger contexts, can mean the opposite. The linguistic joke about this is the one about the lecturer who say 'I have conducted an intensive 35 year study of all of the world's languages, and I can say with absolute certainty that there are no languages where a doubled affirmative represents a negative meaning!' and one of the members of the audience (which, being a linguistics lecture is probably just touching the 2 digit figure) says 'Yeah, yeah...'

Jes,

I'm not permitted to speak of the rituals involved in joining the ObWings hivemind.

On a totally unrelated note, does anyone know where I can get a live chicken?

No idea. Not that I'd know, but an egret or a sandhill crane will do just as well.

Probably.

I can provide the chicken, but you'll have to come to Virginia.

Several comment threads in which I'm active, for Gary.

On the history of the http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2004/11/less_contempt.html#c3021319”> tension between traditionalists and the urban elites.

On the http://www.crookedtimber.org/2005/10/19/same-sex-marriage-breakdown/#comment-111987”> role of the state.

A long discussion of http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/27/the-logic-of-yogic-discovery”> science and intelligent design.

On differing views of http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2005/02/selling_the_cur.html#c3719662”> academia.

You can't put in two sets of quotation marks, Sam, without breaking the links. But it's fixable if people copy them and paste them into their URL bar, while deleting the bad parts; or you could repost them.

Naturally, let me make clear once again, that I'm not on the Evaluating Committee, and in fact I have no idea whatever as to what the decision-making process is amongst the blog-owners.

I'm just a loudmouth.

the decision-making process is amongst the blog-owners.

But it is noted that you already have a live chicken.

Hey Sam
interesting stuff, also interesting to note you are an actuary, which is related to what Charles does.

I've fixed the links (your browser is appending the ObWi URL to the link. I've had this happen to me as well, I'm not sure if it is a browser issue or use of keyboard shortcuts)
-----
On the history of the tension between traditionalists and the urban elites.

On the role of the state.

A long discussion of science and intelligent design.

On differing views of academia

I'll second SBF's recommendation. Scott could be the first person to post on protein wisdom and ObWings in the same month. And look! He can hyperlink!*

*Note: Not an actual hyperlink.

"But it is noted that you already have a live chicken."

It's the Amygdala Page, actually.

Ahh, the old authentic replica hyperlink. Good stuff.

I have to admit, I love the beer blogging, put a recipe up to go with wine thing that is going on over at Balloon juice, even though that selection of beers and wines that are obtainable here is rather limited, so I just read the posts and don't go into the comments. A food and drinks blogger would be nice.

"your browser is appending the ObWi URL to the link"

Actually, that's what your browser is doing, LJ. One person's browser can't affect either someone else's, or how they write HTML.

Scott could be the first person to post on protein wisdom and ObWings in the same month.

And on The Valve; let's not forget that.

I'm afraid I only know Scott Eric Kaufman from this immortal post, but on the strength of that alone...

I'm also a big fan of Timothy Burke.

Neither is conservative, obviously...

I think Scott can be brought over to the Dark Side, though. I can feel the anger flowing through him.

Actually, Gary, if you look at the source code for the page, you'll see that the Obwi link to the comment is appended to the correct url, so I don't think it is my browser that is doing the appending, though I may be misunderstanding this internets thingee...

Though, Katherine, that immortal SEK post would blow past all of the posting rules (which should be taken as a warning if you are reading this at work). Though it certainly was an 'I am not worthy moment' when I read it for the Koufax nomination.

I think hilzoy linked to it, actually, once upon a time. And even excerpted it a bit.

"you'll see that the Obwi link to the comment is appended to the correct url,"

How, exactly, do you think I knew that his problem was adding the extra quotation marks.

"you'll see that the Obwi link to the comment is appended to the correct url"

This remains incorrect. Here's the HTML:

<a href="”http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2004/11/less_contempt.html#c3021319”" rel="nofollow">
That you see the ObWi URL is not because it's in the HTML he wrote, or in the page source, but because your browser is interpreting it that way.

Moreover, browsers read HTML, they don't write it. Well, maybe some people do that with some add-on or capability, but it's a remarkably dumb idea, because then you don't know what it's writing for you; I type it, like any sensible person does. That way I make my own boneheaded errors. (Yes, this is an opinion. Also, everyone should use Firefox or show a note explaining why not.)

While I'm issuing ukases, let me say that anyone who uses a spell-checker other than their eyes is guaranteeing homonym errors, and endless errors with correctly spelled wrong words.

I'm guessing, LJ, that you didn't, in fact, look at the page source, but instead ran your cursor over the links. I may, of course, be wrong; may I ask, out of idle curiousity, what browser you use?

The Cunning Realist might be worth a shot; he's very into undoing spin. Plus, he does a good job with economics related posts...

His backgrounder post is here.

How 'bout emailing an invite to luisalegra?

Sorry, luisalegria

Hmm, I remember LuisAlegria from old CalPundit threads back when they were interesting. He often struck me as a good writer and thinker.

Found his diary

I may not be conservative, but I am an ornery contrarian. And the book-event I'm currently micro-managing just got a shout-out* from Kevin Drum, so I'm a genuine political blogger now. (You see the title of that book? Like I said, contrarian.)

Yes, hilzoy did link to that post, rules or no rules.

What's with the short bald fat guy with glasses only checking out my legs when there's a blogfight on? They're always stunning, thank you very much.

*Note: Actual link.

OK, I've been thoroughly instructed in the building of links; let's try this again. (liberal japonicus, your links have gibberish at the end for some reason, and so go to the posts rather than my comments).

On the history of the tension between traditionalists and the urban elites.

On the role of the state.

A long discussion of science and intelligent design.

On differing views of academia.

Can't find it, but Gary wrote something above about a possible nominee having the tendency to flay people alive if they got on her bad side. That's a disqualifying feature, IMO. We have enough barroom brawling around here as it is and anyway, there's something distasteful to me about people who take too much pleasure in ripping apart their opponents in a debate, even if I'm mostly on their side. (Gary is free to jump in and say that I misunderstood and I'll accept it, since I don't know much about the person he was discussing.)

Sam Chevre might be good. I haven't hung around Crooked Timber comment threads long enough to have much recollection on what he's generally like, but we were (to a degree) on the same side in that ID discussion linked above and that's enough to get my vote. I'm easy. Also, my impression is that he isn't the sort whose ego psychically feeds off the corpses of his debate opponents.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad