MY COMMENT AT TED FRANK'S OVERLAWYERED . . . Boy, what went wrong? Just two days after Ted Frank and I both asked our readers to be polite in the comments, Frank has used something an Overlawyered reader dug up about me and posted in the comments on this website to skewer me on Overlawyered like I'm a regular old Fred Baron or Willie Gary. Wow.
Here's Ted's post. After linking to an article about me that I had already said on this site was factually inaccurate, Ted used it to draw some conclusions about one of my old lawsuits:
[Quote removed because Ted took down his post--Evan]
Here was my reply to the post in a comment on Overlawyered--
[Quote removed because my reply doesn't make sense once I removed Ted's quote--Evan]*
Shocking, or not? Perhaps all that money being shoved into a lawyer's mouth in that billboard is really getting some people worked up. Or is it my weblogging philosophy that's all wrong? I want to have a weblog that has comments so that readers can interact, and I feel so strongly about welcoming opposing opinions that I even decided not to delete some personal attacks on me last night--a decision that led directly to Ted's post.
Maybe I'll have to reconsider my approach to comments. And though I'm a little flattered that Ted has now inducted me into Overlawyered's pantheon of the-most-notorious-trial-lawyers-ever, I really don't believe that old yarn that all publicity is good publicity. So I think I might be more miffed than flattered.
Does anyone think I should ask for my coffee mug back?
*Although I amended part of this post after Ted Frank removed his post from Overlawyered, I'm going to keep the rest of it here to preserve the comments, in which readers spent time continuing the discussion about the lawyer billboard and other topics. If anyone disagrees with my selective editing of this post, please let me know in an email. I don't know if there is a lot of past weblogging precedent for me to follow.