FBI Admits That It Uses Carrier IQ For Law Enforcement Purposes; Won't Say How
Louis CK: Connecting With Fans & Giving Them A Reason To Buy By Being Polite, Awesome & Human

Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts

Techdirt

from the i'd-like-to-thank... dept

Tue, Dec 13th 2011 01:10pm -

It would appear that this post will be my 40,000th blog post on Techdirt. 40,000. And that’s just by me. If I include all the other bloggers, there are a bunch more posts. That’s a lot of blogging. Along those lines, the Guinness Book of World Records apparently still has 17,212 blog posts by a single person listed as the most prolific. Perhaps it’s taking them time to have someone count up all my blog posts. Anyway, it just seemed like a neat milestone that I figured I’d note, along with a huge thank you to folks here in the community who keep coming back and making it worthwhile to write, share and discuss. Here’s to the next 40,000…

Filed Under: ,

124 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
124 Comments
fogbugzd (profile) says:

I just wanted to say thanks to Mike, the other contributing bloggers, and commenters. Heck, I would even like to thank the trolls who have, perhaps unintentionally, occasionally contributed thoughtful comments and valid counterpoints; they keep us honest and our logic tight.

This blog has been an important counterpoint to a lot of the industry misinformation out there as well as an outspoken advocate and rallying point for defense of first amendment freedoms.

fogbugzd (profile) says:

Re: Re:

>>Too bad quantity isn’t a substitute for quality. I suppose it’s easy to spout off thousands of posts when you’re not encumbered by silly things like journalistic integrity. God forbid any kind of ethics slow you down.

At least on this point, Average_Joe, I will concede that you are an authority on the topic of your comment.

average_joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

This site has entertainment value, and the “articles” are usually about subjects I’m interested in. It’s Mike’s complete lack of journalistic integrity that irritates me. It’s one thing to be opinionated. That’s fine. I’m opinionated too. But it’s another thing to purposefully misrepresent things, or to present only part of the story while leaving out the parts that are contra to your position, etc.

Mike should decide whether he wants to be taken seriously or whether he wants to be the schoolyard gossip. If he wants to be taken seriously, then he needs to do the basic sorts of things that journalists do. Instead, he’s all too happy to admit that he doesn’t research, fact-check, present both sides, etc. He can’t have it both ways.

Just like the pirates, Mike wants to have something that he hasn’t earned.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“It’s Mike’s complete lack of journalistic integrity that irritates me.”

Dare I, in that case, suggest once again that you go to an outlet that claims to be a source of journalism and not someone’s opinion blog if that’s what annoys you? There’s not a single story written about here that can’t be found elsewhere.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

I’m saying that if he wants people to take his words seriously, then he needs to put in the minimum amount of background work that would justify people taking his words seriously.

I love that you assume no one takes me seriously.

Did you “fact check” that? Because you’re wrong.

I also think it’s funny that you assume I don’t put in such work.

Did you “fact check” that? Because you’re wrong.

AJ, just because we’ve proven you to be wrong time and time again, there’s no reason to start making more silly assumptions. It really hurts your credibility.

average_joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

That’s your response? Hilarious. Shall I link to the posts from a few weeks ago where I kept asking you if you researched your posts and you refused to answer? Instead, you kept asking me if I researched my comments. WTF? You ADMIT that you have no journalistic integrity, but then you think people should take your words seriously. You can’t have it both ways, buddy.

average_joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Not sure what to tell you. My point is that since he admittedly doesn’t do the things that would warrant the public to take him seriously, it makes no sense for people to take him seriously. He chimes in to point out that people do in fact take him seriously. I don’t doubt that. In fact, that’s part of my point. Why should they take him seriously? That’s the question and the point.

average_joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

If you can’t see it, I’m not sure I can help you. Just last night, Mike posts this silly “story”: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/03254117040/tweeting-juror-leads-to-retrial-guy-convicted-murder.shtml

Mike’s so sure that the court’s reasoning is wrong–how can this guy’s tweets cause a mistrial?–but, of course, Mike didn’t actually take a few minutes to find out what the court’s actual reasoning was. What kind of an idiot writes a post about how the court’s reasoning is wrong without actually looking at what the court’s actual reasoning was in the first place?

That sort of idiocy is unfortunately the norm on Techdirt. It’s one thing to think the court’s reasoning is wrong. It’s another to declare it wrong when you don’t even know what it is. It took me 10 seconds to find the .pdf of the opinion, and five minutes to skim it to see what the court was saying. If I were going to write a story about how the court got this one wrong, I would have invested those five minutes.

Just because Mike is offering his opinion on things, that doesn’t relieve him of the ethical duty to do a bit of research first. Around here it’s shoot first and ask questions later, if ever.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

No comment on this post, Mike? No surprise there.

What’s to comment on. I stand by the post. I think it’s silly to go after someone for tweeting. That I didn’t precisely quote the ruling… is really unrelated to the issue.

Why did you (falsely) assume I hadn’t read the ruling?

Did you fact check that? No. Of course not. Hypocrite.

average_joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Your lame attempts to get back at me are truly amusing. I deduced and inferred that you hadn’t read it because you were all like “Why is that happening? I don’t understand it? What’s going on here?” If you had actually read the ruling, you would have understood where the court was coming from and you would have commented on the substance of the court’s ruling. Funny how you aren’t saying here and now whether you actually read it. This only bolsters my original conclusion that you had not. And what does my fact-checking have to do with anything? Nice try, but irrelevant. I don’t run a blog. I don’t put myself out there like you do.

I’m talking about duty and integrity and ethics. I know you don’t understand, Mike. I know.

S (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

A lot of things in Mike’s posts hinge upon something you seem unfamiliar with: common knowledge.

When discussing meteorology, one does not typically take time to explain that rain is composed of water, or that the earth’s atmosphere is composed of “air”; likewise, Mike does not stoop to remedial digression in order to placate the specious demands of a career troll.

Difster (profile) says:

Free Doesn't Work

You need to start charging a premium subscription fee for your posts. Obviously you would be WAY more successful if we had to pay you in order to read what you write.

But noooooooo you want to give it all away for free and hurt the people that are trying to charge for their content. Everybody knows that all of top quality content is by paid subscription only, look at the NY Times paywall as a prime example.

Mike, why do you hate the quality content producers?

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Quality Vs Quantity

Thing is, I am not running a blog, and not the one blowing wind up his own ass about how good he is that he can copy/paste 40k times !!

after 40,000 posts what have he actually achieved ?

Heh.

Either you agree Techdirt has some value, and thus you have achieved far less since, as you say, you are not running a blog – or you feel Techdirt is completely worthless, at which point you have actually managed to achieve negative anything by spending all your time commenting here.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Quality Vs Quantity

Yes, I agree TD has some value, and yes I have achieved much less of that particular thing.. but I have made no claims that I have, or that I would even want too do that.

What is your point ?

My point was pretty much exactly what you just said. So with that in mind, what’s your point darryl? What’s the point of all your insane, stream-of-“consciousness” ranting in the comments here?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Worth it ?

What is my angle ??

What angle ??? do I have to have an angle ? (ie bias?).

It is a simple analysis…make of it whatever you like..

You are even welcome to build it into some huge conspiracy !!!

Like im actually from your Tax office, and am calculating Masnicks Tax bill !!.

Maybe I am a double agent, working for the RIAA and homeland security !!

doughless (profile) says:

Re: Re: Worth it ?

I *think* what darryl was trying to say is that if you average 15 minutes per post, then that’s 10,000 man hours of work; or, at 2000 hours of labor per year, comes out to 5 years of labor for all the posts.

He then takes some random income of $44k (I can only assume he’s claiming that’s the median income for that type of work), multiplies by 5, and is claiming that Mike’s blog cost $220k, because he gave all that content away for free.

And then, for everyone riding darryl’s wonderful logic train, we arrive straight to the obvious conclusion:

Why do you hate content companies and love thieving raporists, Mike?

kyle clements (profile) says:

I wish I had something insightful or heartfelt to add here, but I can’t think of anything at the moment. Congratulations on your milestone.

I’ve struggled to get to 100 posts on my own blog, I don’t know HOW anyone could possibly get to 40,000.

Any ideas for marking this milestone? Perhaps printing up a “best of techdirt” anthology – the top 10,000 posts?

Stephen Pate (user link) says:

TechDirt posts 40,000th blog denounces SOPA

TechDirt is one of a kind ? editor Mike Masnick works tirelessly writing stories every day to promote freedom of speech and freedom on the internet.

Mike has written articles denouncing censorship, state control around the world including the US Congress attempt through SOPA to shut down the internet as we know it.

You don?t have to agree with Mike, although it?s usually better to say nothing back!

Mike believes fervently in Web 2.0 and he backs it up with facts.

Mike believes musicians should get paid by giving people a reason to buy, while supporting free downloads.

Mike believes the record labels and studio executives with their $30 million salaries are selling the public a bill of goods they are losing billions to downloading.

Mike exposed copyright trolls like Righthaven, who have been shaking down consumers with phony copyright law suits.

If SOPA passes, the internet will change forever. Websites can be taken down by frivolous copyright holders, despite protections under the law.

Mike wrote his 40,000th post yesterday. Keep it up Mike. We need those stories.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

FBI Admits That It Uses Carrier IQ For Law Enforcement Purposes; Won't Say How
Louis CK: Connecting With Fans & Giving Them A Reason To Buy By Being Polite, Awesome & Human
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...