A Round of Applause for DRJ
I just want to take a moment to publicly thank DRJ for the great blogging she has put in these past several weeks. I came back from vacation fairly well burnt out on the idea of blogging. I have recovered the bug to a large degree, but while I enjoy blogging when I have something that excites me, I have come to resent the chore of making sure that there is something new up every day, whether I feel like writing or not. So it’s great to know that the blog is constantly being filled with interesting material that I don’t have to generate. The readers seem to appreciate the posts, traffic has improved, and the burden of providing something new every day has been lifted from my shoulders.
I am hoping to keep DRJ on for as long as she wants to do this. There are a couple of reasons I am particularly happy to have her guest blogging at this particular point in time. First, due to some personnel changes at work, my job has become extraordinarily busy. I am having more fun at my job than any time in recent memory, but it is also taking up a lot of my time. Second, I just got through putting up a hammock in the backyard. I have a feeling that when I am not working or playing with the kids or exercising, the hammock is going to take up a lot of my time. Granted, it’s possible to take a laptop into a hammock — in fact, I am typing this post from the hammock at around 8:30 on a Sunday evening, as I listen to the crickets chirp. But it’s a little awkward typing while you’re mostly horizontal. I have a feeling that I may be doing more reading and less blogging while in this thing.
Which is a long way of saying that it’s a huge relief for me to have such a talented and prolific writer blogging for me. I don’t mean to take anything away from my other guest bloggers, but they don’t have the same output and variety as DRJ. Without her, I’d still feel the pressure to make sure I had at least one or two posts every day. As it is, you can be sure that if you see a post from me, it’s because I am interested in the topic, as opposed to just doing filler.
Please leave your comments of appreciation in comments to this post. I’m hoping that if everyone here takes a moment to make it clear to her how much the site has improved with her posts, that she’ll keep doing them for a longer period of time.
You’re behind the curve, Patterico. We all love DRJ. I’ll repost this. I think it’s a fair and accurate poetical expression of the situation.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/21/2007 @ 7:53 pmI promise to work harder for you Patterico.
I feel so ashamed.
JUST JOKING.
I love DRJ’s stuff. Now if I could just get my email to go through to her. Send me another one D, my reply doesn’t want to go through back to you.
wls (fb8809) — 10/21/2007 @ 7:59 pmSo you’re telling me I got promoted to guest blogger because of a hammock?
Hey, no problemo. I’m the lucky one because I get to blog here.
DRJ (35ac59) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:03 pmDRJ –
Hey, you know I’m new here. But I sure have enjoyed our exchanges. You always pick interesting topics to post as well.
Itsme (f1f2ec) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:04 pmNah, I just put up the hammock today.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:04 pmThe great thing about DRJ’s posts is that they are the kind that tend to stimulate a discussion rather than push some point of view. Keeps this blog ahead of the pack in terms of interesting discussions and ideas.
EdWood (4cf264) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:07 pmI share the sentiments above, DRJ. Please keep posting.
Stu707 (adbb5a) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:20 pm#6 – totally.
DRJ, I always enjoy your posts as they never have a whiff of pontification either but instead are easily accesible, and makes me consider possibilities I might not have otherwise. It must be the estrogen.
Dana (ba8139) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:23 pmYay for DRJ!!!
I enjoy DRJ’s stuff also…
Even if it is all stuff from Texas. 😛
I kid, I kid…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:27 pmBeing from Texas, I like the Texas angle to some of the posts.
Plus, it branches out the blog, which is otherwise very Los Angeles-centric. I often run into fans of the blog in the area — but I think it’s because a disproportionate percentage of the readers are from the area, due to the local nature of many of the topics.
Branching out to Texas — or, like last night, to Louisiana election results — expands the base. Which I love.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:33 pmyou missed the “I kid” part, didn’t you…
DRJ is always appologizing for all the Texas stuff that gets posted. I decided to rib her a bit.
Being from Illinois, I’m not uber-interested in Texas news, but I’m not against it either…
I’m all about expanding the base. It improves this place’s utility for when I use it as a springboard in my efforts to take over the world. 😉
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:38 pmI appreciate Patterico’s post and these comments but this is like a Cabinet position. I gave P my resignation letter the day I signed on, and I hope to guest blog until I give out or P cancels my login privileges. It has been my privilege to blog here because it’s a great blog and Patterico is a person I’m proud to associate with.
I’ll also try to live up to the standards that the people who come here deserve. Day in and day out, the people who come here are bright, analytical, and open-minded. Although we all, myself included, have subjects we can be stubborn on, it’s rare to find a person who hasn’t changed their mind about something – or at least opened up to another point of view – after spending some time here.
Thanks for the kind words and the encouragement, and back at you — because I’ve learned that good commenters are the secret to a good guest blogger. And if you want, I’ll be glad to do more posts on other states, although I may have to visit them first. I’m thinking Hawaii …
DRJ (35ac59) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:39 pmI dunno if I’d call Alphie and his ilk rare…
And whatever excuse you need to visit Hawaii, you go ahead and use, DRJ… 😉
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:43 pmDRj,
Your last comment was so long that by the time I got to the last part I had forgotten the first part and as a consequence could not understand any part. 😉
You saying you staying?
nk (da3e6b) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:43 pmnk, the phrase you’re looking for is “TLDR”… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:45 pmNo, I read it. The fault is in the stripped gears of my brain.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:47 pmNK,
You’re right! That was so long-winded that I’m not sure what I meant, so let’s just go another month until it’s cold in California and Patterico is ready to get out of that hammock. Okay?
DRJ (35ac59) — 10/21/2007 @ 8:48 pmI have a heater for my porch.
Always one step ahead.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:00 pmDRJ – I’ve enjoyed both the variety of your posts and your participation in the comments section.
I hope you hang around.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:11 pmI hope to guest blog until I give out
You’ve got a pretty good head of steam going, DRJ. I have a feeling that you’ll still be insisting that you are a “guest blogger” here a couple of years from now.
Paul (d71395) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:12 pmI hope I’m not spoiling the intent of your post, Patterico, if I use this opportunity to make a small request. You see, I have to admit that I’m agnostic on DRJ, for one simple reason: I’ve read virtually none of her posts, because she hides most of them behind a “more” button. (This may be true of all the guest bloggers; I haven’t been paying attention to the signatures much.) I’d plead RSI, but the truth is that I’m just really, really, really lazy and don’t like to click.
I’m not saying the full body of non-Patterico posts should necessarily be on the landing page, but maybe a bigger chunk of them? A chunk that gives a reader the gist not only of the topic but of the viewpoint rising from the topic?
Does anyone else agree? I don’t mean to be a buttinski, and of course I withdraw my tentative suggestion if I’m in the minority on this.
Also, please forgive me if this quirk of guest posts has been explained elsewhere on the site.
Not Rhetorical (5a5b6a) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:16 pmI’ve been really enjoying the posts by both DRJ and WLS. Thanks to everyone who contributes to making this a great site, which I visit a couple times each day. 🙂
Best wishes,
Laura (7ed0d2) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:17 pmLaura
I’ll admit IO skip some DRJ posts because they involve clicking the “more” link…
I would likely read all of them if they were all out in the open.
But I’m just lazy, so take that for what you will…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:21 pmNot Rhetorical,
I am a very, very wordy blogger in the mold of Beldar. It’s a problem; I’m working on it. For me, the “more” button is necessary.
DRJ probably doesn’t need to use it as much as she does. I’ll bet it has to do with some desire not to clutter up the page; I don’t know. I’ll let her answer that. But she could never use the “more” button and it would probably be an improvement.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:22 pmNot Rhetorical,
I use the (more) feature on purpose because I don’t want people to have to read my post when they probably came here looking for Patterico’s posts. Also, I often use extensive excerpts and the posts can be quite long. Hiding the body behind the (more) prompt lets people scroll down more easily.
DRJ (35ac59) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:24 pmThose are interesting points. I’d like to know how others feel about hidden posts because I never realized it was an issue.
DRJ (35ac59) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:27 pmLong after she’s forced Patrick off his own blog… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:27 pmIt isn’t an issue… Just a prefference… Either way, I love the posts that I read.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:29 pmI use the (more) feature on purpose because I don’t want people to have to read my post when they probably came here looking for Patterico’s posts.
I had a feeling it was something like that. Tell you what: try not using it for a while. Just as an experiment.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:31 pmBlog readers are a very fickle lot. Put any roadblock in their way, and it’s usually enough to keep them from reading the post.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:32 pmI have noticed this phenomenon with my longer posts. Usually they are longer because I really care about the issue and have included a lot of information — and those who, like me, also care about the issue are often pleased to see the detail.
But the vast majority of readers say: “Meh. Too long.”
Nothing wrong with that. That’s how I am as a blog reader myself.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:34 pmDRJ, like I said, I’m not necessarily advocating that you stop using “more” — just that you put more of your post out there, so I’m better able to guess whether it’ll be worth the firing up the hydraulic lift to laboriously hoist my index finger and then drop it like a ton of bricks on the button.
And Patterico, do you ever use “more”? If you have, I haven’t noticed — it’s rare, which is fine with me. (But I wouldn’t be surprised if some
readersnonreaders of, say, your Balko posts would be pleased for you to deploy the feature more often.)Insert smiley face.
Not Rhetorical (5a5b6a) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:39 pmHey, I tried to use strikethrough on “readers” before “nonreaders”! Now it isn’t funny anymore! Well, trust me, I’m sure you would still be laughing if the strikethrough had worked. Dangit.
Not Rhetorical (5a5b6a) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:42 pmI do use “more” but usually it’s when I’m going into full Beldar mode. As in, the post would take up most of the front page.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:43 pmI fixed the strikethrough for you. I knew it was what you meant.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:43 pmOkay – I’ll inch my way into it on future posts and thanks for bringing this up, Not Rhetorical.
DRJ (35ac59) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:50 pmAlso, I like “full Beldar mode” and I think you’ve invented a new internet verb: “Beldar (v) – to write a lengthy exposition on a legal subject with in-depth analysis and, where possible, enlightening and entertaining anecdote(s) known as ‘war story(ies)’.”
DRJ (35ac59) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:55 pmThanks, guys! I don’t care what Alphie says — you are openminded!
Not Rhetorical (5a5b6a) — 10/21/2007 @ 9:58 pmI don’t care what Alphie says . . .
Join the ever-expanding crowd.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/21/2007 @ 10:02 pmDRJ, your posts and just as much your comments have been appreciated. One thing, and you may take umbrage to it, it is my opinion you are a far better military, geostrategic, etc., thinker than a legal one. I do not mean to say you don’t know far more about the law than I do or even than most lawyers do. You do and probably do … because you’re insatiably curious. Everyone appreciates your intellectual honesty in debating ideas, so I won’t give any more attention to that.
I want to state that what I personally enjoy the most is your adding a depth to Patterico’s blog on military and international issues not many civilians can pull off (Captain Ed loves and supports the military, but doesn’t grasp the underlying issues as well as you do) that has really made Patterico.com more appealing to conservatives who like discussing more than the law.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/21/2007 @ 10:04 pmWell,
DRJ usually has some headlines which give a good precis before the dread More click, but perhaps a small abstract would be in order. That way the space incursion is minimal, so that DRJ might not feel intrusive and the posts will be read by those with interest in the area suffering from sloth issues.
Facilitation. It’s easier when you are not one of the parties.
And I hope that DRJ sticks around. She’s found some stuff I never would have thought about before. Hell, I’m pretty glad you’ve found such high quality in all of your guest bloggers. That’s a pretty good resource pool you’ve got on your side.
Uncle Pinky (3c2c13) — 10/21/2007 @ 10:05 pmDRJ–
You’re making me look bad.
Keep it up.
See Dubya (d4aa96) — 10/21/2007 @ 10:27 pmPatterico, with each of your guest-bloggers, you’ve found powerful and unique voices to sing along with your own — sometimes in harmony, sometimes in counter-melody, and sometimes solo, but always to good musical effect. That you have so unreservedly encouraged them to join in is to your own considerable credit.
Justin’s perspectives sometimes jar me, in the sense of prompting me to question my assumptions; that’s good. WLS has an experience base that deserves deep respect, and his posts independently earn their own respect through his comprehensive arguments. And DRJ has the clarity and concision that the rest of us should all aspire to, along with blogging vigor and a wide-ranging curiosity.
My hat’s off to you all.
Beldar (369293) — 10/21/2007 @ 11:43 pmThanks DRJ! I look forward to seeing your posts.
voiceofreason (2b30e4) — 10/22/2007 @ 1:17 amPatterico, I agree with Beldar that you have brought together interesting and thought provoking people to join you. Having more posts assures that I check your site more frequently, but much as I enjoy them I come for your posts. While there are times I disagree with you,and sometimes sharply, I find your style and passion enjoyable. I don’t comment very often here, but I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you for all the enjoyable hours I’ve spent thinking about something you wrote.
Fritz (dbdb3f) — 10/22/2007 @ 1:19 ami’ve been told a couple of times over the years that i’m at my very best while horizontal.
assistant devil's advocate (efc917) — 10/22/2007 @ 3:49 amDRJ, keep up the good work. Patterico, there is voice recognition software so you don’t have to do anything but talk while in the hammock. But, keep up the blogging, we would miss your intellect. Thank you for your work!
Sue (0fafec) — 10/22/2007 @ 6:43 amAfter DRJ started guest-blogging here I noticed that updates on the wars started being posted more frequently. Which is one reason I stopped visiting here so much, Patterico rarely posted anything about the actual events of the wars themselves as opposed to discussing various legal aspects of them – which was and is still very interesting of course.
chaos (e21f6c) — 10/22/2007 @ 8:20 amProud to say I knew DRJ way, way back in the day, back when I thought she might be Julius Erving.
driver (faae10) — 10/22/2007 @ 8:22 amI agree with the others who note the groupiness of the blog these days is a positive. Been reading it for a long time, plan to continue.
Keep up the good work, all of you. And though I’ve lived in Atlanta a few decades and am now back in DC again, I don’t mind LA local, Texas (hey, my sis lives in Houston!) or anywhere else that leads to interesting, informative posts. Shoot, I read Beldar.
Thanks to all of you.
Dan S (c77713) — 10/22/2007 @ 10:10 amClap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! (How many claps in a round?)
dave (0606c0) — 10/22/2007 @ 10:27 amDRJ, you should have sent Patterico a hammock a long time ago. I should have checked if you have a solo blog.
Now if you can only run out of office the Ronnie Earle’s of Texas, I’d drag my wife down there to live.
PCD (b47ba5) — 10/22/2007 @ 11:11 amlol, you go girl. now, how bout a revised title for blog?hmmmm, lets see now, DRJ & RICO? no, thats not quite it RICO N DRJ? no, i’ll think of something
james conrad (7cd809) — 10/22/2007 @ 12:09 pmJames…
“R&D”
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/22/2007 @ 12:16 pmYou know how I feel about you, DRJ. Love ‘ya, Honey.
lc
lc (a21bb2) — 10/22/2007 @ 12:20 pm