10,000 Scientists Speak Out Against "Political Interference" ... Guess Who They're Upset With?

[JABBS]

Click here for more.

[mloutre]

1. This post is blatant blogwhoring.

Please at least include a small semblance of actual original content for DU before you just point people to your own personal blog instead. Thank you.

[JABBS]

2. blatant blogwhoring?

I post three or four items a day. If you're familiar with my blog, you know that almost all feature original analysis.

I thought this stood on its own, although I did make it clear in the post that the scientists were upset with the Bush administration, a point the scientists do not come out and say -- until you start clicking around on their site and see that nearly every criticism comes against the Republican leadership.

[bananas]

3. That's a good reason to put you on ignore

if you're just going to spam DU several times a day with teasers for your blog, there's no reason for me to bother even clicking on your posts.

[longship]

4. I agree. You should put an abstract in your post.

Otherwise many people won't click. Not necessarily because of Blog whoring, just on principle.

[JABBS]

6. I've been chastised

for putting too much information in a DU post. I've been chastised for not putting enough info. But no matter how I tease my pieces, someone seems to have a problem.

I mostly write original analyses on my blog, and that's what I tease here. This link is the exception, not the rule, which you would know if you spent even a minute or two browsing what I've done over the past two-plus years. My stuff has been picked up by Buzzflash, Americablog, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, World O'Crap, Crooks & Liars, Fark, Old American Century. I'm pretty comfortable that what I write on my blog is worthwhile.

[madrchsod]

5. i do read your posts/blog or what ever

but you should put a bit more info on the page then the click through

[JABBS]

7. see above

I try to mix it up. I'll keep trying to make everyone happy.