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

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

Tue, Dec 13th 2011 1:10pm — Mike Masnick

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...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: posts, techdirt

124 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hephaestus (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:54pm

"Here's to the next 40,000..."

40,000 more posts, not gonna happen. Take SOPA, PIPA, then toss in how badly big content dislikes this blog and you are a gonner for sure. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re:
  Congrats!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mrtraver (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:35pm
  
  Re:
  I'm not sure whether to click on "insightful" or "funny."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 6:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    I was going for sarcastic, pre-trolling, and funny ... so funny works
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:13pm

Thank you!
...and, you're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:16pm

Yay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:19pm

39,800 of them appear to be about SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JaDe, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:26pm
  
  Re:
  I was just going to ask how someone could troll this post. Thank you for your preemptive answer kind troll.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Dan (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh come on, I actually laughed out loud at that one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 1:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    That did not sound like a troll.
    
    That sounded more like someone joking about the annoying number of SOPA-related posts (around half of the posts every day lately, it seems).
    
    I hope SOPA, PIPA, and similar laws get rejected soon, so we can have a better variety of posts around here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Doe, 14 Dec 2011 @ 4:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I for one am thankful for the attention it gets here. SOPA is the single biggest threat to the internet we have ever seen. It is that important of an issue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:27pm
  
  Re:
  39,800 of them appear to be about SOPA.
  
  There's that Hollywood Accounting again.
  
  No wonder you guys think you're losing billions of dollars - you can't count!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:21pm

WTG Mike! Congrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:25pm

Wow, that's some prolific writing. Congratulations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:25pm

CHEATER!!!!!
this isn't a real post. I contains no substance. I will congratulate you on your next REAL post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re: CHEATER!!!!!
  This is not a real comment. I agree, you contains no substance I will make fun of you on your next real comment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:33pm
    
    Re: Re: CHEATER!!!!!
    Yeah i should have addressed it to mike.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:45pm
  
  Re: CHEATER!!!!!
  No substance??? He references the Guinness Book of World Records! You can't get more substantive than that!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:00pm
    
    Re: Re: CHEATER!!!!!
    It is a post for the sake of having 40k posts. That is like having posts saying you are awesome and then point to them and saying proof that i am awesome!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greg G, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: CHEATER!!!!!
      All I can say to that is... awesome ends with... ME!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - doughless (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: CHEATER!!!!!
      It's over nine thousand!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:20pm
  
  Re: CHEATER!!!!!
  Its states that he has made 40k posts, and that Guiness should be calling. That is substance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:25pm
  
  Re: CHEATER!!!!!
  this isn't a real post. I contains no substance. I will congratulate you on your next REAL post.
  
  you are 100% correct... you contains no substance.
  
  :p
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:33pm

Huh
I've apparently read 40,000 blog posts.

I need a hobby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re: Huh
  S0... you don't read as a hobby?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Huh
    Reading is for people who don't know how to WoW.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re: Huh
  what you need is to get a tablet or other more mobile device that will allow you to read Techdirt from a park or cafe. Then its like multi-tasking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clouser, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:35pm

MBA
And it all started with an email during the MBA...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:35pm

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:41pm

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fogbugzd (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:44pm
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TtfnJohn (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    True, given none of that slows Average Joe one little bit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re:
  Dude...really?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Meh. 40K posts should be an embarrassment since no one could possibly do proper research on that many topics.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 12:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      yes, depth has to suffer, how could it not !!!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:48pm
  
  Re:
  If you think the site is bad why do you use it?!?!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:26am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:35am
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just because he expresses his opinion doesn't mean that he shouldn't follow the basic rules of journalism. It's not an either-or thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, you're saying that everyone who writes a blog should follow rules of journalism?
        
        You'd be somewhat surprised at the number of writers who are far, far worse than Mike on this subject...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        S, 14 Dec 2011 @ 11:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You beg questions to the point of beggaring them; you also refuse answers if they're not to your liking.
        
        Nobody here takes you seriously except your sock puppets, and I expect you have to sneak up on them, too, in order to put them on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2011 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pretty sure more of the 'public' takes Masnick seriously than do you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you are correct !!!!!! I dont take him seriously at all !
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 12:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        of course someone takes you seriously,, his name is Masnick.
        
        Legend in his own lunchtime.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      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.
      
      None of which you've ever offered any substantive proof of, but why should you be honest now?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No comment on this post, Mike? No surprise there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        S, 14 Dec 2011 @ 11:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 11:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sigh. If he's going to write an article about how a court got it wrong, shouldn't he actually know what the court said? Basic, fundamental stuff. If he's lazy with the obvious stuff, just imagine how lazy he is with the not-so-obvious stuff.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re:
  Way to perpetuate the lawyer stereotype AJ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's got nothing to do with lawyers or stereotypes. Care to comment on the substance of my post?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 11:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If there were substance I could comment...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Guy (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:08pm
  
  Re:
  What do you guys think? Shill or troll?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hans, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Guy, can we pick both! Did you notice his rather sad and pathetic subject line?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pjerky (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Techdirt should really add a button for this, marking a poster as a shill or troll. Maybe even do a weekly thing on it. That would rock.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - CrushU, 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And the post explains why they're a troll/shill and the logic failings they have, or some such.
      
      That could actually be pretty cool.
      I vote Dark Helmet gets the job of writing the weekly post. :D
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Prisoner 201, 14 Dec 2011 @ 12:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course with further reading links to the logical fallacies used. I suggest a tag team of Dark Helmet and the Logician.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:55pm
  
  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.
  
  Amen to that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:56pm
  
  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.
  
  Amen to that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DC, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Seriously? the team jumps in here?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:38pm
  
  Re:
  So now that you've descended into petty sniping, I assume you won't be throwing tantrums when people insult you again?
  
  Nah, too good to be true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 1:11am
  
  Re:
  > Too bad quantity isn't a substitute for quality.
  
  Quantity has a quality all its own.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:42pm

Congrats Mike!
I was reading here back when a post would get only a handful of comments, or sometimes none at all. You know, the olden days of 2001.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difster, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:43pm

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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- WiseOdd (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:34pm
  
  Re: Free Doesn't Work
  Heh, you are just too easy a target :)
  Get a good look of how things are here in the real world...
  
  Now bugger off!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - WiseOdd (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Free Doesn't Work
    Apply Troll disinfectant.
    
    Troll Awayyy :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 6:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Free Doesn't Work
      Troll Awayyy :)
      
      I thought this was going to become one of those annoying "HeadOn" commercials. Heh...
      
      TrollOn! Apply directly to your posts... TrollOn! Apply directly to your posts.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DC, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:25pm
    
    Re: Re: Free Doesn't Work
    wow .. I'm speechless. 2 posts here ever? and you are trashing the poster? Pathetic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pjerky (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:52pm

What does that say about you?
So does this say you talk too much? Or maybe you have a lot to talk about. Personally I like to read your posts. Congrats on the milestone. Maybe you should throw a party when you hit 50k.

By the way have you contacted the Guiness Book people about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OhThisBloodyPC, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:53pm

Have i missed anything?
I've only just discovered him.

did I miss anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hans, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:18pm

Love You
Many, many thanks (40,000 of them) to you M&M, for all of your hard labors!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel Lew (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:21pm

Well done and congrats Mike.

N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:27pm
  
  Re:
  N? As in the white haired prodigy who wanted to succeed L as the world's greatest detective? (Death Note reference for those who don't get it). Pleased to meet'cha!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Guy (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:21pm

Techdirt's Bridge for Wayward Trolls
Congrats Mike. I hope you get another 40k posts, or at least the $100 million.

Just think, if the techdirt didn't put up this homey little online bridge, all these trolls may be homeless right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:34pm

Given your pace of late, I think you might hit 50,000 before the end of the year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:43pm

Quality Vs Quantity
Great you got quanitity down perfect, it's taken awile !!!! good work..

Now you might be able to focus on QUALITY !

I would rather an ounce of gold than a ton of dirt.

and they say practice makes perfect !!!!! what happened ?

But well done 40k is a good score...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BeeAitch (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:47pm
  
  Re: Quality Vs Quantity
  Darryl comments on the qualit...
  
  Holy Shit! A pig just flew by my window!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:18pm
    
    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 ?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:07pm
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 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 ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quality Vs Quantity
        I guess my point is pretty much exactly what you said, i said.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - B Pickel (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 9:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Quality Vs Quantity
      i guess you can't see the forest for the trees but...
      
      as a minimum he achieved a trollop of trolls that follow his every post (and they are even nice enough to comment on his 40k)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:06pm
  
  Re: Quality Vs Quantity
  Darryl, out of curiosity do you suffer from a learning impairment? I'm not trolling, it's just all of your comments are so random with bizarre punctuation and irregular capitalisation it makes me wonder.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:14pm
    
    Re: Re: Quality Vs Quantity
    sorry, i dont understand your question ? can you dumb it down a bit for me?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Quality Vs Quantity
      sorry, i dont understand your question ? can you dumb it down a bit for me?
      
      u crazy or just stupid?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Quality Vs Quantity
        bit of column A and a bit of column B
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Howard, Cowering, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Quality Vs Quantity AC#46
    Actually, darryl usually gets most of the mechanics right. It's out_of_the_blue who has only an occasional acquaintance with spelling, punctuation and capitalization.
    
    On facts and accuracy, however, darryl is often blissfully adrift in his own world.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Quality Vs Quantity AC#46
      On mechanics, darryl has had to practice a LOT for it. You should see some of his early trolls.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:38pm
  
  Re: ounce of gold vs ton of dirt
  If you ever owned a home you would appreciate the value of a ton of top quality weed free top soil.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DC, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:31pm
  
  Re: Quality Vs Quantity
  Yeah,well ... You are so smart that you have got your own ounce of dirt. Mined by yourself. Ignorant much?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BeeAitch (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:44pm

Congrats!

..and thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zangetsu (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:03pm

Guiness
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/how-to-apply/

'nuff said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:03pm

Worth it ?
15 minutes each
40,000 posts
10,000 hours
2000 hours in a working year

5 years full time work

$44,000 income over 5 years,,, total cost $220,000 dollars.

Priceless !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DC, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:51pm
  
  Re: Worth it ?
  This is interesting. You know Mike works aside from the blog, but yet you don't want to attribute any income from anything else.
  
  He would seem to get income from elsewhere ... What's our angle?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DC, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:55pm
    
    Re: Re: Worth it ?
    typo - your angle - though I know you will try to make this some mike conspiracy thing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:49pm
      
      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 !!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Worth it ?
      what's your point ??? did I claim he did or did not make that money or any money from 'other sources'??
      
      do I care ????
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 1:46am
  
  Re: Worth it ?
  "$44,000 income over 5 years"
  
  Can't believe I'm asking this of darryl, but...
  
  (Citation needed)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 5:00am
  
  Re: Worth it ?
  $44,000 income over 5 years,,, total cost $220,000 dollars.
  
  Huh?!?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andrew (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 7:18am
    
    Re: Re: Worth it ?
    I was baffled myself.
    
    On another note congrats Mike. I been here for the last few years (not when you started). Ironically I found this blog through the google homepage when they first started doing that. I been an avid reader since.
    
    Congrats again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - doughless (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 12:46pm
    
    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?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2011 @ 5:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Worth it ?
      $44K per year is a bit above the 'mean' income for someone working in the US. (it's closer to 40k). But I considered that Masnick would be on a higher level of income than the mean.
      
      Ie, he was 'above the curve'...
      
      Did I make any comment about 'content companies' ??
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:31am
  
  Re: Worth it ?
  Actually, you'll need to redo your math since he's been posting since 3rd quarter of 1997.
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/990317/0341214.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:39pm

So new shirts?
I read 40,000 posts on TechDirt and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:46pm

Way to go, Mike!

Do your fingers want early retirement? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lavi d (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:16pm

Cheers
Way to go Mike!

Here's to the next 40k!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:49pm

I guess when no one acknowledges you, you somehow feel obliged to go fishing for it. Kind of pitiful Masnick. What's the matter, didn't your mother pay enough attention to you as a child?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:56pm

I guess when no one acknowledges you, you somehow feel obliged to go fishing for it. Kind of pitiful Masnick. What's the matter, didn't your mother pay enough attention to you as a child?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DC, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:36pm
  
  Re:
  Wow ... you had to post that insult twice? can you tell us who do you work for? or exactly how pathetic you are?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kyle clements (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:29pm

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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  Working at it for 13 years and a few months doesn't hurt!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nom, 14 Dec 2011 @ 3:05am

Huzzah for the 40k post of Up To Date. You've come a long way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen Pate, 14 Dec 2011 @ 7:24am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re: TechDirt posts 40,000th blog denounces SOPA
  did you swallow ???
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
quickbrownfox, 14 Dec 2011 @ 7:46am

Congrats, Mike! Have a cold Guinness to celebrate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
farooge (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 11:02am

thanks Mike, I've seen (& enjoyed) probably 35k+ of them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 11:20am

L'Chaim!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]