I don’t aim to please everyone. If I did I would be very worried!

Richard

Phew! I'm another who thought you may be criticising me. I'm aware I do link within my blog. But, like Francine I do it for several reasons. First to reiterate. Second to avoid repetition. Third because it takes a long time to find external links in context, and if I've done it once I sometimes find it quicker to go back to my blog where I first did it than start all over again.

That said: I get most criticised for quoting from other people. Those blogs who are not my fans like to say I simply re-hash other people's news. Quie how they think I might get to news stories before the FT defeats me, but I think this does two things. First it says you can't please al people. It also says some people don't get blogging.

Incidentally, I think this is the difference between a blog and a wiki. The latter must have external links. A blog is a narrative that can have longitudinal integrity.

Richard Murphy

Very interesting. I was afraid you might call me out on my internal linking. I'm proud of the fact that my stuff is dynamic, alive, with lots of links. That part of the process sometimes takes more time than writing the post. I do try to go half and half, outside and inside, and find new and interesting sources, often from outside the US.

But I will be honest. In search of an audience, I have tried to stay on topic. The old "less is more" theory. I've found out that "narrowcasting" is actually a Web 2.0 strategy for search engine optimization. Who would have thunk it?

But as I approach my 600th post in approximately 23 months, I find that being able to link back so often to my old posts convinces me that I'm staying on message. That my basic premise is sound. That makes sense to keep hitting the same points because the Big 4 keeps giving more examples of the same foibles.

I was telling someone today, a very smart lawyer who was kind enough to confirm some of my deepest fears, " I think feeling sorry for the fat head partners in the Big 4 is silly. They are often irresponsible, sometimes negligent and, on occasion, damned reckless."

That's my premise in a nutshell and I'm not embarrassed to admit I often repeat myself.

From the general practitioner’s perspective, this view that they somehow have IP is ridiculous yet I see very little evidence of attempts to learn and apply to their general business dealings. It’s an incredibly dopey view but one which is sadly prevalant.