You may have noticed that the last three posts were all in response to something Scott Greenfield posted over at Simple Justice. While I don’t usually have enough time, it’s not unusual for Scott to post three or four items I’d like to comment on.
Sometimes I think that I should start a whole separate blog dedicated to discussing whatever Scott is discussing. It could be a group blog with Joel, Mark, Susan, David, Badtux, Anne, Ken, Karl, and Gideon all contributing.
What’s a good name? The Greenfield Conspiracy? The Simple Justice Roundtable? The Greenfield Report? The McGreenfield Group? Meet The Blawgers?
Who’s with me?
Hi, Mark. This is David (Giacalone, who can’t quite figure out how to register to Comment at your weblog). This is indeed tempting, but my doctor would never let a CFS patient try to respond to every Scott Greenfield post. Ain’t got the stamina, even if the spirit is willing. Since we’re all mere mortals, we’d have to divide the day or specialize in a particular subject covered by Scott, unless everyone quit his or her day job.
If you were going ahead anyway, I’d suggest The Greenfield Instigation. Good luck and let us know if you take the plunge in simplistic justice.
Simplistic justice? Ouch. That Giacalone has sharp elbows.
David, yeah, I can’t figure out how the comments here are supposed to work either. In theory, you just had to click “Comment Anonymously” and start typing, but I gather that that doesn’t always work. The error handling sucks too, and Movable Type support isn’t helpful.
You know, this was mostly in jest, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. We’ve got a pretty good community of commenters going, and although it probably shouldn’t be quite as Greenfield-centric as I’ve painted it, I think we could build a kickass multi-author blog with all that talent.
I know Scott and Gideon have kicked around the idea of a practical blog before. Throw in a couple of non-lawyer troublemakers like Joel and I, and we could make a bit of a splash in the blawgosphere…
…at least until we start fighting about the split on the ad revenue.
Works for me, sure. Except that I’d annoy Scott a whole lot by pointing out, too often, that the purpose of the apostrophe is not simply to announce that the word will terminate in an s. (I’m pretty tolerant of typeaux, which is just as well, since I make a lot, but that’s one that I tend to be a pain about.)
I’m very possessive about my apostrophes, Joel. And I mess up then and than all the time too. Wanna edit me?
Sure, I’m game! I like “The McGreenfield Group,” particularly if people call me “Eleanor, Gee I think you’re Swellanor!” I got nothing better to do on a Friday night.
As long as I don’t have to put up with “Joel, you ignorant slut,” I’m cool with it. Go for it.
Well, that’s two people who are interested. Which brings the total to three. None of whom are lawyers. Or named Greenfield. This is not a great start.
That sort of stuff can work out badly. I remember seeing a play where the main character never showed up, and it was really disappointing.
Hey! That could be the name of our blog: Waiting For Greenfield
Greenfield Street.
Roundtable Justice.
Algonquin Justice.