I am not an expert, but I play one on the internet.
I am in no way qualified by qualifications or academic credentials to be considered on that list– at least for the subjects I’m writing about here.
However, I am good at synthesizing information and doing research. I then can string it along in some sentences, which I tweak over and over to make sure you can read and understand.
If that makes me look like an expert, well, I’m sorry.
***
You may not like some of the decisions I make on this blog. You may hate some of the conclusions I’ve reached through doing my research for posts.
That is fine. You can call me all sorts of names. I’ve been at this for a while now. I’m used to it. In some ways, I’m very glad that what I wrote ticked you off.
Because that was the point.
But as per my decision to take on a co-blogger, I’d really appreciate it if you tried to show a little respect.
I have received nothing but positive feedback on this decision.
If you don’t like her posts, you don’t have to read them.
And you can wait until I put something up.
As I said before, blogs must continually reinvent themselves. Otherwise, they become stale.
I was running out of personal innovation.
So I got someone else.
End of story.
And I’m not changing my mind.
*sigh* You just don’t get this whole interwebs thingie, do you? Allow me to draft a proper response for you to put in the tubes:
1. You are an expert. On everything.
2. Anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi.
3. If, by some bizarre confluence of strange circumstances, one of your assertions prove to be less than 100% accurate, you were joking and it’s the readers’ fault for not appreciating your deadpan sense of irony.
4. Racist!
5. If you really are joking, no one will get it and will think you’re serious.
you have to add this to this post:
The original is here.
lol! thanks!
It’s about uniqueness.
It is your magazine. You are the editor in chief. Your readers are not even paying subscribers. It’s your right and prerogative to change its focus to motorcycle repair, celebrity gossip, whatever.
But you know well that this blog, over the last couple of years, has done its part to advance understanding about dogs’ histories, what we have done to them in the last century, their current state, and the ways forward for the next 100 years. You have debunked some myths that are really pervasive, with facts and citations, two aspects of an argument that are usually lacking on the internet.
It may not be scholarly research, but it’s concise, referenced, and not usually prone to unsubstantiated claims. It is really, really unique in that regard. Three of many examples are:
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/the-history-of-water-dogs/
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/are-drahthaars-german-wire-haired-pointers/
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/the-relationship-between-the-beothuks-and-wolves/
It’s no better or worse than all the great blogs out there about people’s emotional connection and digital photos of their (usually rescue) dogs. They are nice, make you feel good, and even better, there are A TON of them out there! You can’t get too bent out of shape when some guy, the lone dissenter apparently, wonders aloud in the comments section, if the most significant change you’ve ever made to the site will further the real (again, if not technically scholarly) research that has been done here with the addition of some particularly informed opinion, qualification, or perspective, OR, if its purpose is to explore in a more emotionally poignant way our connection with the pets we love, without letting linked citations that back up conclusions ruin the mood.
I really wouldn’t worry too much about it.
My co-blogger has undergone a very extensive interview process. We have been in contact with each other for several months, and I know that she knows the material. She can write more than competently on all of these issues.
However, she is far more creative than I am, and I think that adds something to the blog.
I know enough about her that this blog’s content will only be enhanced. She’s only just now getting a feel for the blog.
I try to keep my blog versatile, but I’m only one person.
I never would have asked her to do this if I didn’t think I couldn’t keep posting what I normally do.
If you’d have phrased it like that to begin with, nobody would have minded. Instead, though, you did it in rude, condescending and insulting fashion.
When you’re a guest in someone’s house, would you inquire aloud to your host as to why another guest was there and question her credentials?
My opinion may not matter, but I think adding Liz to the mix was a great idea.
A blog should be something you enjoy, not something you detest. If it got to that point, we’d lose you altogether. Now, THAT would be a bad thing, wouldn’t it?