For some reason, I missed your response. The other example you cite is one where I cannot/will not provide the direct example for reasons I consider overwhelming.

But I do hear you, and I’ll try to cut down on blind items.

Here’s a thought: If you see a blind reference in a W.a.r. item, think of it as one of those W.a.r. items that’s too random to be taken seriously.

Walt: I picked on you because I’ve been confused by other recent blind refs in your posts — see for example:
http://walt.lishost.org/?p=379
“Separately, I’m seeing (a few) more examples of childish syntax/repetitive structure (made mild fun of in the preceding paragraph) becoming a hallmark of (certain high-profile) Library 2.0 advocates.”

Certain who? Again, if I don’t know who you’re referring to, it makes no sense, and if I do, I can choose either to be annoyed on their behalf or to nod sagely and agree happily at being part of the “in crowd.” If you’re talking about a given example, then I don’t know that a useful discussion can occur without access to the language you refer to in its original context.

Again, though, pet peeve. And, I agree that your “sophisticated argumentation” post led to a great comment thread, but would argue that the comments only got more interesting once the speaker in question was “outed.”

As it happens, I may have misinterpreted the reporting of the speech–but it did lead to a long and interesting, if contentious, comment thread.

Your point is well taken, though. Still, sometimes blind items are useful, not for “in crowd” reasons (I’m not part of any in crowd!) but to avoid focusing a discussion on the specifics of one example. This may not have been such a case.