March 27, 2007

"Life Trumps Blogging", iteration N

Posting will be light/echolinkish in the next week. I have too much real work to do, and I should think further on the fish-or-cut-bait decision I keep putting off (about shutting down versus going for higher levels).

If anybody is waiting for me to weigh in on the recent bogospheric mob scene, I'm taking discretion rather than valor (email me if you're one of my journalist friends, but I'm not jumping into the hurricane - I don't like blogging. I really don't.).

Life trumps blogging. At least it does for most sane, balanced people. -- Walt Crawford

By Seth Finkelstein | posted in misc | on March 27, 2007 05:10 PM (Infothought permalink)
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage


On a more serious note, I'd love you to keep blogging at current pace. It's up to you to decide, but life trumps blog reading as well, so there are people who love low-traffic blogs like this one. I guess that's the "long-tail of the long-tail" or something.

Posted by: Sergey at March 28, 2007 07:04 AM

Thanks. The problem is that it just seems to do me more harm than good :-(.

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at March 28, 2007 08:21 PM

I found your thoughts anyway - good conversation on David's comment, though I MOSTLY disagree with you.

Shame for it to be hidden away like that.

Posted by: jonathan peterson at March 30, 2007 12:21 PM


There are a few minds blogging that can articulate a complex situation and expose the greatest good. You're interest in restraining governments and groups from obtaining over-reaching powers to control ideas and public assets is without peer.

Loosing your voice in the debate would be a loss of incalculable measure... for the common individual.

I don't always see your side in ever situation but I find that reading your views exposes me to a POV that I never could have detected in other sources.

Regarding recent events... the fundameental rules of evidence should be applied before individuals are called out for endorsing "Death Threats". Legal threats are also best used as a last resort.

We need to embrace open conversations and not use the incredible power of the web to attack.

You know the works of Chris, Frank, Jeneane, Alan and by extention Doc. They are powerful social crittics. They are not violent people. They destesdt the hucksters and self-promoting "profits" of web-authorship. They speak in many ways for a large segment of people that believe in open, honest and scathing criticism for self-righteous web authors.

The truth needs defenders. The truth needs voices to speak up and take a stand for fairness and restraint.

You, for me and many others, have always represented that position in the world of blogs.

It's a small population of bloggers that I can state that about... you, Shelley, and our recently slimed friends stand alone in that regard.

I understand how a series of events can lead a person to misjudging the dangers they face... but I can't understand why the world of blogging won't take the evidence apart and seek to understand the true nature of the situation and attempt to limit the consequential damages.

Think of Atticus Finch holding back the mob in "To Kill a Mockingbird". You represent that level of courage to ask people to think and consider the evil being done from ill informed anger.

Don't quit. Wait. Re-group. Pick other issues.

Live and blogging are worth defending against free floating fear.

Posted by: McD at April 1, 2007 03:18 PM