Geeklawyer’s co-blogger has started her posting career by going on strike.
Bizarrely he ran into Becky in town today - how random is that in such a large town?! Unfortunately he got his nuts ripped off and handed back to him in a silk purse.
Umbrage was apparently taken at Geeklawyer’s rather crass introduction of her to his readers. Like most emancipated women (who seem to be remarkably common these days?) she disliked being described as a babe, with accompanying photographs as proof. Seemingly she regarding this as diminishing her vast intellectual capacity and inherent capacity to interest readers.
She also seemed to think her appointment was merely a strategy to annoy Ruthie and make her jealous.
Geeklawyer feels the need to set the record straight:
Despite having crushed Ruthie’s personal life and career, for no reason other than that it amused him to do so, Geeklawyer does NOT have a problem with Ruthie at all nor she he; this is so whatever the cross blog sniping may imply to those not privy to our back-channel communications. So much so that Geeklawyer has deigned to allow Ruthie to buy him supper next week; albeit a vastly and enormously expensive supper. You may think that having wrought a catastrophic visitation upon her life, and then salted her open wounds by dumping her humiliatingly and publicly she would have to be mad to pay for the privilege. Geeklawyer says that you have a right to an opinion.
The point being that Ruthie and Geeklawyer and their respective blogs are not really in any form of war through proxies cobloggers or otherwise. Geeklawyer has been seeking Becky as a coblogger for many months before the parting of the GreatBlog.
Geeklawyer should also emphasise that Becky, despite being with the Open Rights Group, blogs in a private capacity.
Hopefully this bit of public grovelling will pacify her 
Oh dear Ruthie is experiencing a strange sense of Deja Vu having been on strike a few times herself. Some advice for Becky:
a) Geeklawyer is an autocrat with no shame and will write whatever he wants regardless of any views you may have
b) Following from this assume that any information you give me (Geeklawyer: ‘him’), however personal, will end up plastered all over the blog. He is pathologically incapable of discretion exception when it involves himself.
c) Anything you write that he dislikes remotely will be deleted.
So, bearing in mind this advice, happy blogging.
Ruthie is feeling distinctly less crushed now that Mystery QC has loomed large in her life. In fact I think its rather 40 love to Ruthie in the co-blogger stakes since your co-blogger has yet to write anything at all.
Already there is a leakage of commentators from your blog to mine. Soon this trickle will become a flood and as your blog slithers down the Google rankings, whilst myself and Mystery QC will be invited to host the Today Programme and appear on the cover of Legal Week. Eventually you will be grateful just to have the privilege of holding my Archbold.
a) true
b) regretably, false.
c) true.
The only way your blog will overtake mine is if MysteryQC does all the lifting: he will need to be more entertaining wittier and funnier than you. So MysteryQC or, failing him, a pebble should do fine.
Anyway its difficult to hate someone that makes me laugh so much.
For the clarification of other readers: you mean with not at of course.
Have you considered I might be slipping rat poison into the expensive dinner?
Have you considered I might swap plates while you are in the ladies loo?
And have you considered I might swallow the rat poison voluntarily after an hour in your company?
Geekie, you call that grovelling? To the average pleb that isn’t grovelling, but I must assume that in your tiny universe that is the most Becky will get from you.
I would agree that you are an autocrat and you will delete what you don’t like. Not sure about the plastering of all personal information, as I have not witnessed you doing so. So, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume (due to the vast length of our acquaintance) that you are innocent of (b) until proven guilty. Ruthie what private information has GL shared with us?
I thought it was an embarrassingly voluble bout of sycophantic grovelling. I was positively embarrassed for myself but I thought it necessary to assuage the outrage and concern of Becky. I’d never have done it for Ruthie of course since I never respected or valued her, but Becky …
Oh, as to (b) you are charming, but never assume my innocence. Least of all when I am proudly and unapologetically guilty. Ruthie will surely respond to detail my indiscretions.
It’s called “support” you silly geek.
I’m sure Ruthie will paint a pretty picture of your indescretions.
I assume that Ruth’s blog has something to offer, although I can only guess that it becomes apparent to those within the profession rather than random internet drift wood such as myself.
However this Blog has wit, not to say that Ruthie lacks this just that it has never been apparent in her posts. The benefit of this wit is that people like myself who otherwise wouldn’t take an interest in IP law and such technological issues find themselves drawn in and taking an interest.
I’m not convinced that as of yet the blogsphere is a suitable environment for a more serious approach due to the lack of established authority it has in relation to more conventional mediums.
There is bound to be a flow of commentators from this blog to Ruthies, this is called riding on the coat tails. I guess time will be the judge. However I don’t see why there needs to be such competition GL has been very supportive of the new venture.
Groveling is kind of relevant to ones standard behavior. GL’s persona is not such that it could warrant a comparison to your average pleb.
I think the value of mere commentary is potentially huge. Sure, chaps like myself will rarely (at least on this, my non-serious, blog) be inclined to make intellectually significant commentary. But that isn’t inevitable. Look at ConflictofLaws.net or Impact - they make interesting comments on their respective areas of law. Just because I am, proudly, the Daily Star of legal blogs it doesn’t diminish the intellectual value of the others.
I don’t know the blogs you speak off, but from my experience the internet discussion is prone to flame wars, misinformation etc.. Also debasement from trollers, spammers, anarchists, comedians.
Maybe there are a few specialised sites that offer pillars of intellectual debate (Ruthies Law?) but when you compare it too most journals then the blogsphere still has a long way to go before it’s a credible medium.
There’s nothing wrong with the Daily Star, it gives mediocre people such as myself a sense of intellectual superiority.
It is also prone to bad grammar … he he he….
What’s this?
Geeklawyer has been…. dumped?
Ha ha ha ha ha!
No! Actually Becky will blog soon.
[…] readers and quiescent cobloggers have assumed that there is a degree of antipathy towards Geeklawyer by his ex-blogger Ruthie. this […]