Scott Greenfield can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
I’m burning a bridge today. After I posted this comment on Scott Greenfield’s post today about the Slackoisie, Scott posted this response to my comment. Since Scott’s response, among other things, misrepresented a previous discussion we’d had, I replied with another comment, which Scott has since deleted from the comment thread. Scott then sent me the following email:
John,Since your return as a commenter at SJ, you’ve maintained a level head and appropriate tone. Today, you lost it. I do not care to spar with you. It offers me nothing. Do you want to continue to be allowed to comment? If so, let me know. But I will not tolerate your returning to your old ways. If I ban you again, that will be it.Scott
Of course as criminal defense attorneys we have a moral and professional obligation to put our clients first. I assure you that you and I have never had a “discussion before” where I argued that we can put ourselves before our clients. (If you’re referring to our discussion about whether criminal defense attorneys can legitimately claim to be serving “Justice” by serving our clients, wherein you argued that we can’t while I argued that we can, I certainly never said anything in the course of that discussion remotely resembling the claim that we can put our own interests ahead of our clients.)
If, in fact, as you suppose, the “slackoisie” are characterized by their tendency to put their own interests ahead of their clients, this is absolutely a fit subject for “exhortation” to show them the error of their ways and the error of their thinking. But I seriously doubt referring them to the rules of professional conduct will do the trick. Rather, it’s a basic matter of human virtue, a matter about which generations before the “slackoisie” have struggled, to improve themselves and others. That was my point.
I hope that when you conduct your cross-examinations you listen a little better to what the witness you’re interrogating is saying, so that the jury doesn’t think you’re putting words in his mouth and trying to pull a fast one on them.
That’s my answer to Scott’s email. Will this blawg survive having been deprived of all connection to the thought leader of the practical blawgosphere? Only time will tell.
Follow
I’ve burned that bridge as well. We will survive.
1Sigh. Listen, you write what you write, he does what he does. I like the blog because you are honest about who you are. That’s a wonderful thing. But, what do you mean ‘survive’?? Do you write for Mr. Greenfield? Do you write for me? Do you write for yourself?
Do not be concerned about any of it. Just write. If you do it well, people will read it regardless of who you’ve pissed off.
2Thanks Mirriam. I was only half, or less than half, serious about the “survive” comment. I really didn’t think anybody would be turned off by my falling out with Mr. Greenfield. I suspect just about everybody suspects, despite Mr. Greenfield’s undeniable major contributions to the blawgosphere, he might have a screw loose. The “survive” comment was an ironic reference to Mr. Greenfield’s perceived status as kingmaker or at least king-of-the-hill, a perception he probably also has about himself if his email to me is any indication. No, I don’t really think Mr. Greenfield is the indispensable blawger. Whether this blawg survives is entirely up to me. I know that. Mr. Greenfield is a Teacup.
3