And Dan posted it hours *before* I posted my comment (I had searched in the Law School Hiring topic, and Dan didn't include that topic on his post, so I missed his post).

Hey Tim, looks like that number is down to one: Robert M. Wilcox named dean of USC School of Law http://law.sc.edu/highlights/2011/20110414-dean/

I'll chime in here as someone who only a few years ago started working on scholarly writing (as opposed to practical/doctrinal writing). I use workshops in three ways: first, to disseminate my work and ideas in a place where I can talk to people about them. I like to think I'm open to critiques, suggestions, alternatives and improvements, but the primary idea is to start the discussion and see what people think and how it fits with what they're doing. My second kind of use is to discuss "intuition" pieces that I'm working on. That is, I've thought about something, I'm pretty sure it's important, but I can't quite get down to answer the "so what?" question that dogs me so often in what I write. So, I go out and present the basic insight, setting down tentative ideas that fit with the intuition, and then see what happens. More than once I've had someone say, "You've said A, and played it as being important because of X, but you're really talking about how it affects Y because of X." It has also happened that someone has said, "You've said A is important because of X, but it's really how X affects Y that is important" and I've replied, "No, that's not quite it, but your point makes me think that how X affects W is important." Sometimes a push (in any direction) is all I need, and these kinds of exchanges are incredibly helpful to me. My third kind of use is simply to see what other people are thinking, to engage with their ideas "on the fly" and to contribute something back to the community that is contributing to my own work. Besides, it's fun listening to what people are working on, even if it's not directly related to my own work. To reflect a bit, maybe in the second scenario I'm cheating; getting others to help me figure out why I'm writing what I'm writing. But the way I look at it, so long as I haven't said, "law has existed for a long time," and then waited to see whether someone will come up with a more interesting thesis for me -- ie, so long as the intuition I have had is potentially important -- then a bit of discussion to get to the meat of the insight is fair game. Perhaps as I mature (as a scholar) this will come easier and more naturally to me, but for now I appreciate my colleagues' willingness to engage in this way. On that note, not all workshops are created equal. I have presented a number of times at workshops where another piece on my panel was quite controversial. In those situations I've gotten relatively little discussion on my piece as everyone focuses on the more controversial piece; what I get at these times is the opportunity to say "out loud" what my piece is about (which can be helpful just in itself, and is something I often make my students do).

I have not seen any pets at my current school, but when I was in the UK I used to bring my dog to the office and she would sleep on the couch. Did that until she started barking every time my neighbor left his office. He didn't complain (he would stop in and pet her), but I felt uncomfortable with the ruckus she was making.

Jason, do we know for sure that most/all law reviews don't rely on Lexis and Westlaw? I had the impression from some things I've seen that at least some do. Ted, I agree on getting close to the source. I saw a recent discussion about two versions of a widely used quotation circulating, and when it was traced back to the original written letter, neither one was correct. But do we lose all efficiency when we have to trace back each citation to its (for example) printed source? Let's assume it's not laziness, but simple desire to work efficiently. How do we square that desire with the desire to "get it right" each time?

Eoin, I have no problem with "So" in Heaney's translation, and I doubt Larry would, either (especially given his post and statement here in the comments). Poetic license = excuse to do whatever you want with the language so long as it sounds cool and speaks to someone. If he repeated two thousand times, it would be a different story (though perhaps Philip Glass could even get away with that).

I really enjoyed the comments on this post. Eric, just to be fair to Larry, he did recognize an exception for poetry, and I think that probably applies to all kinds of "lyrical" writing, including novels. A great line, though, and definitely one to leave as is. Scott (perhaps I should have said, "And Scott"), I agree with Matt, no problem with a few "and" or "but" line starters in a piece (just don't go and overdo it now).

Zach, that's interesting. I'd be curious about how often this happens, and what kinds of digs judges make (I wondered about that; do you "make" digs or "take" digs?). I agree, TJ and GJEL, that these other elements could be relevant to the right of publicity, but no one seems to dispute that exists and is applicable here; so the context isn't a dispute about whether she's famous, it's a dispute about how her rights as a famous person play out. The digs seem a little out of place to me given that context. As for Hilton being famous for being famous, that's a bit circular, isn't it? She must have "become" famous at some point; this is a good way of hinting at the fact that she hasn't "earned" her fame in the traditional way (by exhibiting some skill or another, for example), but I still think it's unnecessary to "go there" in a judicial opinion (even if it does amuse me).