Bryan of Arguing with signposts (who teaches communications) is aruging (and am I not even a signpost) that I, your humble Political Scientist Friend, can't prognosticate because of the following evidence:
Their predictions prove to be false in record time.
At 12:01 p.m., the following prediction was noted:I have been panelling and need to do some more work on my presentation for this afternoon, so light-to-no blogging is predicted until this evening. - Steve the poliblogger.
Posts since prediction:
12:41 p.m.
12:46 p.m.
and the lengthy Paul O'Neill blog at
2:42 p.m. [sic, it was 2:24, -ed.]which you really should read.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "light."
Clearly, the gap between the original post at 12:01 and the subsequent short posts at 12:41 and 12:46 demonstrate both that I did do some work for about 40 minutes, and two dinky posts is surely "light blogging". Further, I would submit that the long O'Neill post was 2:21 minutes after I had watrned of the lightness factor. Hence, it was obviously "light blogging."
So, the problem was hardly with my prognostications, which were perfect, but rather you mis-operationalized "light."
The real problem is that I read some news, and that, almost always, results in blogging.
I was going to repond to Bryan at his site, but it wouldn't let post a comment.
(My panels--it was a two parter, where I chaired the first half, and presented in the second, went quite well).
Anyway, everyone that it's economists who you can't trust!
Posted by Steven Taylor at January 10, 2024 08:15 PM | TrackBackWell, this is a guy who gets pooped from a mere 16 posts. They must be really panty-waists over in mass-com.
Posted by: James Joyner at January 10, 2024 08:37 PMYou make a point.
Posted by: Steven at January 10, 2024 09:12 PMHey, you didn't say "light" posting, you said "light-to-no blogging." I figured there would be a way to weasel out of this, being a *political* scientist and all.
It wasn't me who "mis-operationalized" "light-to-no blogging," it was you who failed to define your terms in the first place.
Also, your O'Neill post came at 2:21 p.m., which was clearly "mid afternoon," not "evening," and thus breaks the prediction of light-to-no blogging "until this evening." I guess that also depends on how you operationalize "evening."
I would submit that unless you are Instapundit, three posts in the span of three hours fails under any operationalization of "light-to-no blogging."
And I can't say why my blog wouldn't let you post. I didn't get a trackback ping, either.
As for James, "pantywaists"? Hardly. We have lots of productive things to do with our time besides post to the blog. ;-P
Glad to know your panel went well.
Posted by: bryan at January 10, 2024 10:46 PM