{"id":4351,"date":"2006-01-31T16:23:29","date_gmt":"2006-01-31T20:23:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2006\/01\/31\/a-few-more-words-on-eschewing"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:12","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:12","slug":"a-few-more-words-on-eschewing-blawg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/01\/31\/a-few-more-words-on-eschewing-blawg\/","title":{"rendered":"a few more words on eschewing “blawg”"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Here’s a quick summary of my position against calling law-oriented <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
weblogs “blawgs<\/EM>“.  It now appears at the top of my original piece, the<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
full-length essay (with updates), “<\/FONT>let’s make the term ‘blawg’ obsolete<\/FONT><\/A>.” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
Quick Summary<\/STRONG>:<\/EM>  Lawyers don’t need a special word to <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
designate their weblogs.  Weblog technology is not being <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
used in any special way at law sites.  No other group or <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
profession has coined a special word for their category <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
of weblogs.  By insisting on using the trivializing, confusing <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
and too-cute word “blawg,” lawyers appear to be elitist, clan-<\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
nish, or childish (likely, all three).  Those who agree can help <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
stop the terminology from becoming a generally-accepted <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
part of the English language (and spread worldwide), by not <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
using the term “blawg” and by declaring their choice publically.<\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"umpireS\"<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Yes, there are many<\/EM> things I would prefer to be writing right now, and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that you would surely prefer to be reading about — so I hope I can <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
let the subject percolate on its own for awhile.  Before leaving it, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
though, I want to say that there was no need for <\/FONT>Denise Howell<\/FONT><\/A> (who <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
coined “blawg”) to print, and <\/FONT>Dennis Kennedy<\/FONT><\/A> to second, a not-very <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
veiled insult of anyone who cares about this topic. The insult was com-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
pounded <\/FONT>by not even bothering to link<\/FONT> to the major posts <\/FONT>raising the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
issue — <\/FONT>mine<\/FONT><\/A>, and the earlier argument from <\/FONT>Kevin O’Keefe<\/FONT><\/A>, <\/FONT>who is <\/FONT>not <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
exactly a minor character on the legal weblog scene.  Not <\/FONT>linking, <\/FONT>of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
course, made it harder for their readers to encounter our <\/FONT>arguments <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and less likely that search engines would find them.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                   \"umpireSN\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
On the bright side, Evan Schaeffer<\/FONT><\/A> was good enough to point to<\/FONT>
\n
Kevin <\/FONT>O’Keefe’s post and this one (as well as the defense by the Editor <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
at Blawg Review<\/EM> (“<\/FONT>Who let the blawgs out?<\/FONT><\/A>“),<\/FONT> <\/FONT>and to risk being unpopular <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
by reit<\/FONT>erating <\/FONT>his position on the <\/FONT>word “blawg:”<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“Not only does the indiscriminate use of the word “blawg” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
lead to obscurity, but it gives readers the unintended impres-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
sion that the weblog writer is running a private club.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
He received quite a few dissenting Comments, including one from <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the well-known Jargon Sheriff, <\/FONT>Monica Bay<\/FONT><\/A>, who stated: <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“. . . i don’t mind blawg. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
“Why: because it adds meaning to blog. It accurately <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
describes a specific thing. You see “blawg” and you <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
know that it is a law-related blog. It defines, it narrows, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and it doesn’t obfuscate.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
My response at Legal Underground<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> was: <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
Monica, I don’t agree that “blawg” adds significant meaning. <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
If your audience already knows the proprietor is in the law<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
community or the topic is law, it adds nothing. If they don’t <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
know that, just tell them, rather than using a word that does <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
confuse the uninitiated, and can refer to anything from the <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
cultural musing of George <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>Wallace’s “<\/FONT>Fool in the Forest<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>,” and <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
my punditry & poetry weblog, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>to <\/FONT>How Appealing<\/FONT><\/A>‘s<\/FONT> small blurbs,<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and the major essays of Judge Posner.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Judge Posner.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Of course, I should have added that “blawg” is also applied to both the  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
personal diaries of law students and the topical legal and political <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
commentary of well-known law <\/FONT>professors<\/FONT><\/A> and <\/FONT>public intellectuals<\/FONT><\/A>.<\/FONT>  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Come back to the <\/FONT>fold, Dear Scold<\/EM>.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"tiny  Again, let me stress that I am not against <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
new words, nor trying to dictate what others should<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
do.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny  Two years ago, I wrote a post<\/A> pointing out that a<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
lot of the fun of being in a weblog community was lost <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
when Comments and Trackbacks are deleted because <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the weblog owner disagrees with what was said.  Today,<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I’m waiting to see if Dennis Kennedy<\/FONT><\/A> will ever post the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Comment I left at Between Lawyers two days ago, con-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
cerning the use of the word “blawg” in Europe. or allow<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the related Trackbacks.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (11 PM, Jan. 31): Last Friday, Dennis Kennedy <\/FONT><\/FONT>pointed<\/FONT><\/A> to a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
post by Edwin Jacobs, at his <\/FONT>Law & Justice<\/EM> weblog<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/A>, saying “Interest-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
ingly, I noticed in the post that legal blogs are apparently <\/FONT>being called <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
‘blawgs’ around the world.”  I’m happy to see that Mr. Jacobs has <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
now clarified his own feelings about the word “blawg,” in Comments <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
at his <\/FONT>own site<\/FONT><\/A> and at <\/FONT>Blawg Review<\/EM> #42<\/FONT><\/A>.<\/FONT>   Here’s what Edwin had <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to say:  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“Indeed, I prefer to use the term “blawg” to explain it and when <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
it appears in the name of some site\/blog I am citing.  Otherwise, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I use “lawyer blogs” or “law-related blogs”. The reason is that it <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
better says what it really is, I think, i.e. a blog related to law or <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
made by a lawyer in his capacity of a lawyer, e.g<\/EM>. not about his <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
pet or hobby or whatever. <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“I think it’s a simple matter of communication with the target <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
audience and I don’t make a big issue about it. I don’t care which <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
word is used, as long as it is clear what person A is communicating <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to person B. But I think in communicating with non-lawyers, or with <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
non-tech savvy lawyers for that matter, it just makes more sense to <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
talk about a “law related website, lawblog, …” instead of “blawg”. <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Frankly, even using the word “blog” is often complicating things. <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
So, use whatever you want, but “keep it simple” for your target <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
audience.”<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                                  \"dictionaryN\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
heavy clouds<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the snowplows’ rumble<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
drifts into town<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/FONT><\/EM> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/EM> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/EM> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
snowmelt<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
he changes into play clothes<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
after school<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/EM><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/EM> <\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
a fat horse<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
gallops with the others<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a bit behind<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
swaying branch<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the warbler’s song<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
rises and falls<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
DeVar Dahl<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“a fat horse” & “swaying branch” from <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                something to sing about<\/EM>, pawEprint 58<\/EM> (2003)<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV>
\n
“heavy clouds” from HSA Members’ Anthology<\/EM> (2003)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“snowmelt” – from Walking the Same Path<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here’s a quick summary of my position against calling law-oriented weblogs “blawgs“.  It now appears at the top of my original piece, the full-length essay (with updates), “let’s make the term ‘blawg’ obsolete.” Quick Summary:  Lawyers don’t need a special word to designate their weblogs.  Weblog technology is not being used in any special way at law […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-18b","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4351","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4351"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4351\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12803,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4351\/revisions\/12803"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}