79 Comments on “Gone”   rss feed

1. Jeff Nuttall on May 29th, 2006 at 1:31 pm

   I’m sorry to hear that. I actually very much enjoyed your posts, even (maybe especially) the ones that didn’t necessarily have anything directly to do with cutting-edge science.

2. Emily H-J on May 29th, 2006 at 2:04 pm

   Hi Clifford,

   I really enjoy your posts too, whether or not they have anything to do with physics. The physics ones are interesting since it’s good to hear another perspective on the happenings in string theory, but the non-physics ones are a very pleasant diversion. I’ll be sorry not to be reading them for a while.

   Best wishes, Emily

3. Belizean on May 29th, 2006 at 2:07 pm

   Clifford,

   I have very much enjoyed your contributions to CV. While I’m not particularly interested in some of the topics that you covered, I read nearly all of your posts nonetheless. Because in doing so, I got know more about you. To me, CV is not so much a blog about physics, but a blog by people who happen to be physicists — people with various interests and passions beyond physics. But then, maybe I got the implicit “statement of purpose” wrong as well.

4. Robert on May 29th, 2006 at 2:19 pm

   I am sorry to hear that you guys seem to disagree about the editorial policyof Cosmic Variance. This is quite sad since I liked your approach. And indeed, I don’t have to read all the posts. My personal likings are more about cooking than about gardening so I did not follow all gardening discussions. Of course, I like the science posts, but again I skip those that are too advanced or too elementary for my taste, especially if I am short of time.

   On the other hand, I can understand that some want to have a more focussed discussion. Maybe you should consider starting another blog, one of your own.

   When I started atdotde, I was already host at the String Coffee Table but wanted something of my own where I do not have to worry if something is stringy enough to talk about. But that does not mean I do not consider myself part of the Coffee Table team any more, it’s just that Urs’ writing is much more prolific and when time comes and I have something stringy to discuss in blog style I will post there again.

   I hope you get this sorted out!

5. Moshe on May 29th, 2006 at 2:25 pm

   Hey Clifford, this is sad and disappointing, I grew to like your posts a lot, I hope I can still get to enjoy them, here or elsewhere (or both).

6. erc on May 29th, 2006 at 2:32 pm

   I am disappointed to hear this too, and echo entirely Moshe’s comment.

7. stevem on May 29th, 2006 at 2:35 pm

   Clifford, the posts have been great: from hikes in death valley, gardens in bloom, arts, music, food, movies and media, your views on science education, and even crazy radio shows, and much more. Yes, even the yard sales (my remarks on that post were leg pulling and not meant to be taken seriously at all). Your posts all have a good vibe to them and certain charm. As far as I am concerned you should be able to write about anything you like and have the freedom to do so. Readers also have the freedom to skip it if they prefer and look at the other material. That’s what blogging is about in my opinion. I hope they (your colleagues) and yourself reconsider.

8. spyder on May 29th, 2006 at 2:44 pm

   I suppose i am supposed to be grateful that there are some who wish to make my life simpler by removing available choices for me to make among several posts and threads. Pruning for the sake of some limited thematic vision seems to be an artist’s perogative, but then that also limits the range of those who would view the art. But as i said, someone knows better than to let me have more choices. Sad in so many many ways.

9. Alejandro on May 29th, 2006 at 2:46 pm

   Your belief that readers could pick and choose which of your articles they read was correct. I am a scientist living and working in Los Angeles, so your discussions about living as a scientist in LA never interested me. That was okay, since I still enjoyed your physics discussions. I just skipped the rest. From my perspective, the system worked.

   I am sorry to hear that you will stop posting, because your work was thoughtful and articulate, which is a scarce trait on the web. Good luck with your other endeavors.

10. Andrei Sobolevskii on May 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    Clifford,

    Sad to know you are “gone” even if for a while. Academic life as you describe it, from a personal perspective, in your “offtopic” posts is a perfectly legitimate and important subject. And, are these posts really “non-physics”?

    Compare what Lance Fortnow writes on his blog Computational Complexity, or the LabLit project (perhaps not ideal examples but the first that come to mind). Is it not worth doing?

    At the end of the day, I realize that my own reading of CV was so much biased toward your “illegal” posts that, should you start your own blog as their analytic continuation, I’d effectively switch to it. And frankly, is it only me?

    Best wishes, Andrei

11. Mike W on May 29th, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    I’m going to be much less likely to head over to Cosmic Variance now you’re not going to be posting. It is a science blog, but the posts I find most enjoyable are rarely the scientific ones. The thoughts and general life observations of an active scientist are rarely heard and give an important insight into scientists as people, making the more esoteric areas of science seem richer and more accessable.

    I’ve enjoyed your reading your posts and I hope to read more in the future, wherever they may be.

    Cheers Clifford,

    Mike W

12. anon on May 29th, 2006 at 3:36 pm

    Clifford, I’m very sorry to hear about this. I enjoyed your posts the most, whether they are about physics or anything else. You write very well. In fact I think that your posts shows how scientists really are just people like everyone else. I will say that when making your point, you do so quite strongly, but you also admit when you are wrong and apologise for it.

    Perhaps you would consider the idea which others have put forward, that is to start your own blog for other things that are not CV material.
    Thanks for all you’ve written so far, I hope you’ll write again in the not so distant future.

13. Clifford on May 29th, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    Dear All,

    Thanks for your comments…. but let me interrupt and say two things:

    (1) This is not intended to be a beauty contest!
    (2) There is no sense in which I have made “illegal posts” as one commenter put it, or have been in any way banned from posting anything. My friends are just concerned that the overall emphasis might have gone askew. I did not think that this was possible in view of the fact that readers can filter with the tools provided. We don’t agree on that, it seems. Disagreement is just fine. So -allowing for the possibility that I am simply wrong on this issue- I’ve made the decision -on my own and with no encouragement- to sit back for a while and give the others some space, in case that helps. I just felt I’d explain to you my reasons.

    That’s all.

    Actually, your constructive input -positive and negative- will be informative to all of us…. so please go ahead, but please keep in mind point number (1).

    -cvj

14. Brunsli on May 29th, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    What is wrong with some of your readers? Why can’t they click past the posts that don’t interest them? I echo the Clifford-fans above and hope you continue blogging about whatever comes to mind.

15. Elliot on May 29th, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    I would be interested in the comments of the other 4 CV members on this. Sometimes its helpful to hear everyones perspective however I would like to echo Belizian’s comment above:

    “To me, CV is not so much a blog about physics, but a blog by people who happen to be physicists —”

    ….and are we to surmise that Sean may have recieved similar feedback re: posts about politics/religion?

    Elliot

16. Scott on May 29th, 2006 at 4:27 pm

    You can look at the archive page for each author to see their last 15 posts. By looking at the dates of the last and last-15th posts, you can estimate each author’s posting rate. You get something like this: Clifford: 9.5 posts/week Sean: 3.6 posts/week Mark: 1.9 posts/week JoAnne: 1.2 posts/week Risa: 0.4 posts/week

    This either shows how the other authors need more “room” or it illustrates Clifford’s point that they should simply provide more of whatever it is they want to see. I report, you decide, as they say.

    What I think is interesting is that Clifford mentions his CV “colleagues“, plural, when the only other author who even approaches Clifford’s contributions (by number, not necessarily quality) to the blog is Sean. To me this implies that some other CV authors are upset about what Clifford writes on “their” blog even though they themselves rarely contribute.

    I would be very interested to see comments or posts from the other CVers on this, not to start a flamewar but just for clarification.

17. Cynthia on May 29th, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    Clifford in the Blogosphere…

    As you imprint your last scattering surface upon the Cosmic Variance, may your signature across the sky continue to red-shift forever…

    Best Wishes, Cynthia

18. Say Lee on May 29th, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    I’ve just started reading this blog and have not yet appreciated the group dynamics that goes on behind it. Nonetheless the self-imposed “exile” is completely unexpected and runs counter to the name and tagline of the blog: variance and universe of ideas. How incongruent is all I can say.

19. D vanCleve Mitchell on May 29th, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    I am a 60yo female newby, looking for Favorites that cover a wide spectrum. I was so pleased when I found CV that I recommended the site thusly: “…five articulate physicists who are interested in EVERYTHING!…”. Some of us were not aware that physicists noticed everyday life, you know. Even the science that whips over my head is interesting on CV, but without ‘personal experience posts’ it will seem out of balance. I’m with Mike W.
    Please stay put! Thanks / DvCM (who lurks)

20. Schwaumlaut on May 29th, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    I’m quite curious what your colleagues think Cosmic Variance posts should look like.

21. Jennifer West on May 29th, 2006 at 5:10 pm

    This is interesting - since the CV bloggers are friends as Clifford mentions I would have thought this would have been sorted out offline - perhaps ample discussion was had between the magnificent 5 but I’d be very surprised if the verdict of a self-imposed exile was unanimously agreed upon -

    Anyway, I’m a CV fan through thick and thin, I’ve been meaning to write and congratulate Risa whose adventures on short lists I’ve seen on the rumour mill page, and to say thank you to JoAnne for her awesome work for the future of particle physics, and just to say thanks for a great blog, and thanks for thinking of ways to make it as interesting as possible for all of us, even people like me more interested in science and public outreach than slice of life…
    All the best,
    Jennifer

22. anon on May 29th, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    Clifford,

    I like your posts, and I hope you will consider starting an independent blog for those that don’t fit the CV atmosphere so much.

23. IrrationalPoint on May 29th, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    I must disagree with your colleages. I’ll be sorry to see you “sit back”, even temporarily — I’ve enjoyed your posts here, and the breadth of subjects that you cover in your blogging. If I wanted to read only science, I’d be reading Scientific American or a physics textbook, not a blog (scientifically inclined or otherwise)!

    Mike put it well:

    ‘the posts I find most enjoyable are rarely the scientific ones. The thoughts and general life observations of an active scientist are rarely heard and give an important insight into scientists as people, making the more esoteric areas of science seem richer and more accessable.’

    Hope to be reading more of your Cliff-style posts soon. Or you can guest blog for me, lol!

    Take care,
    IP.

24. Anonymous on May 29th, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    Everyone seems to dislike the other four web loggers and their opinions. Why don’t you ask them to sit back for a while?

25. citrine on May 29th, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Hi Clifford,

    I think it’s pretty ironic that your posts - which span such a wonderfully broad range of topics - would be considered as skewing the emphasis of a blog called “Cosmic Variance”!

    I really enjoy your perspectives on things profound and mundane, your adventures and the accompanying photos. Plus, you are an eloquent writer. As has been pointed out by you and other readers, each one of us has the opportunity to exercise our computer keys and click only on posts that interest us.

    I hope your exile is short-lived and that you will continue to provide us with a glimpse into your life and thoughts.

26. Risa on May 29th, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    Sorry, I have to put in my two cents. There was no general agreement on this, no consensus among the CV “establishment” (of which there is none) about what our posts should look like, nor did anyone ask Clifford to stop posting on topics of his choosing. There was a *very* brief discussion about it, which Clifford interpreted in a way that led to this post. I expect and hope that CV will remain varied in topic and style — and in the frequency with which we all post, and think that we all hope that Clifford will continue to post here.

    And Jennifer, thanks much for the congrats.

27. absolutely on May 29th, 2006 at 7:00 pm

    Cliff, yours is practically the only thing worth reading here. Get your own blog please and update it DAILY!

28. Pyracantha on May 29th, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    I agree with some of the other posters…time to get your very own blog. You have made me aware that physicists can be human beings. And your tact and consideration when it comes to people with religious beliefs is quite different from that of the other members of the CV group, whose narrow view of what religion is continues to make me grumble. I’ll miss you if you don’t write somewhere.

29. The Anti-Clifford on May 29th, 2006 at 7:27 pm

    I really have no interest in any of Clifford’s posts, but I think that they serve a purpose here at CV and that many people enjoy them. I hope he will stick around. As he said, it is easy to scroll past him. I’ve been doing it for months!

30. spyder on May 29th, 2006 at 8:05 pm

    The notion that you feel the need to self correct at this point, in terms of limiting the diversity of your posts, is for practical matters still a degree of this weblog losing choices for the readers. Whether you felt this was appropriate due to contacts with peers–and thanks to Risa, we have some degree of input on that, or just through critical comments by some whose preference for choice is to frame discourse narrower, you still have expressed the sentiment that you will be restricting your posts to more specific topics. Our loss, and it is a loss by degree of diversity (a not necessarily beneficial thing at all), and as such we are not better for it i think.

31. AR on May 29th, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    In response to Pyracantha’s demand for greater respect for religion, let me say, I very much enjoy– in fact, I am thrilled at times– when Sean and Mark hammer religion. I see no reason why people should be respectful towards something they believe, on very rational grounds, to be complete nonsense. Would you demand the same respect for people who believe in “The Great Green Bbllbb”? To many of us religion is precisely as illogical and irrelevant as that. If you– and to be fair millions of others– choose to believe in it, well, you are welcome to your beliefs but do not expect us to be respectful in any way– and certainly not in private blogs. Besides there is a good reason for the hostility. Intolerant, ignorant religious fundamentalism is a major threat both here and abroad and needs to be fought wherever possible.
    I know this is somewhat off-topic, but I thought this might be pertinent, as people seem to be debating what “Cosmic Variance” should be. I enjoy the blog immensely and that is aided by the fact, I can scroll past boring posts!

32. Arun on May 29th, 2006 at 8:15 pm

    Cosmic Variance is a group blog by five people who, coincidentally or not, all happen to be physicists and astrophysicists: Mark Trodden, Risa Wechsler, Sean Carroll, Clifford Johnson, and JoAnne Hewett. Our day (and night) jobs notwithstanding, the blog is about whatever we find interesting — science, to be sure, but also arts, politics, culture, technology, academia, and miscellaneous trivia. We have similar outlooks on many things, widely disparate opinions about others, and will do our best to keep the discourse reasonably elevated.

    The five very different personalities make this blog an interesting place to visit. I had thought that at least three were contributing less because of job pressures, and that Clifford was taking up the slack admirably (blogs need to constantly show signs of life).

    Clifford: 9.5 posts/week Sean: 3.6 posts/week Mark: 1.9 posts/week JoAnne: 1.2 posts/week Risa: 0.4 posts/week

    Anyway, to avoid any contention among the five, I suggest that no one post more than twice the average of the other four in the previous week.

33. Dan on May 29th, 2006 at 8:39 pm

    I really like this blog, and all its contributors. That being said, I think that the quality of the comments section has gone a bit down lately, probably as a consequence of the enormous amout of anonymous commenters (like myself). Some are bordering in the troll behavior. At the same time, I get the impression that comments by “celebrities” have gone down as well, I recall a nice debate involving Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, Lubos, Lawrence Krauss…

34. Supernova on May 29th, 2006 at 8:41 pm

    I will echo Mike W. and spyder. I’m very sorry to hear you’ve decided to post less often, and believe this blog will lose a fundamental and worthwhile part of its character as a result; I too will be stopping by less often if your posts become scarcer. I think you’ve done a terrific job of showing that physicists are real people with wide-ranging interests, and of exposing your Internet audience to a wonderful diversity of fascinating and challenging topics. For me personally, the best part has been experiencing the clear sense of joy and fulfillment you find in your career; you’ve made me more confident in my decision to cast my lot in with the academic scientists, and given me a strong sense of excitement and anticipation of all I can do there. I’ve been reading CV only a short time, but have come to admire you immensely. Please keep up the noble fight for the hearts and minds of the public (I know you will). And please do post occasionally, here or elsewhere, to let us know what’s new in your world. I wish you all the best.

35. Jack on May 29th, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    Obvious solution: instead of writing less on non-science, cvj should write more on science! Come on, cvj, you undoubtedly have strong opinions on developments in theoretical physics, so why not just let it all hang out? While at the same time continuing with the other stuff.

36. Aaron on May 29th, 2006 at 9:11 pm

    Hey! I love the variety you mix into your posts, and I would be sad to see you narrow your focus. Like many of the people who’ve already commented, I think it would be great if you started up another blog for the posts that would be off-topic here!

37. Plato on May 29th, 2006 at 10:44 pm

    Clifford,

    I like your writing too. No major annoucements here:)

    We can all be reactionaries to a degree(my comments about your script writing, not!), while the question of continuing, may have been brewing in the back of your mind?

    I noticed your times away as “rejuvenating” and when coming back, giving wonderful glimpses of the world I might never have seen in my own lifetime.

    Walkabouts, blank slates, bus rides, and of course your “crazy” bike.

    Can’t keep a good science/script writer down?

38. Frank on May 30th, 2006 at 12:24 am

    Let me echo what others have said. I’m more than a little disappointed since it has been in fact your articles that have drawn me back. Not that I dislike the others, but you have given me a perspective that I haven’t really seen before, and it’s refreshing.

    I hope that the situation isn’t as rancorous as it sounds and that you guys can work it out without you stopping posting for a while. I find it absurd that instead of stepping up to the plate to actually post more, they would expect you to post less, but that is between you and them.

    If you feel you need an independent outlet, well, there are a number of potential alternatives. If you like, you can contact me for your own blog at exit.com.

    Regardless, thanks for your work so far and I hope to see more of it in the future.

    (And as this is the first time I’ve commented here, I have to say that the instant preview mechanism has serious coolness.

39. Cygnus on May 30th, 2006 at 12:26 am

    Clifford,
                I’ll miss a lot of your “illegal” posts on science pouplarisation, hikes, and Jacarandas. I still remember your post about the little girl on the bus sitting beside you and doing math. Besides, this whole thing being an online blog, I can always skip some of your posts about gardening and markets etc. which I personally do not find very interesting. So I don’t see any reason to deprive other CV readers from those kind of posts.

                However, I think I can understand why some people(bothe readers and contributors) might have a problem with your posts. There’s a very nice post Georg on the distinction between Physics blogs and Physicists’ blogs. In this regard, if I may make a suggestion, you could probably split CV into two complimentary blogs, with one of them being devoted to Physics related posts discussing stuff at various level (from beautiful pop science level descriptions to acaedemic level discussions like this, this and this And the other one could have things of science popularisation (like the Categorically Not!, articles in the media, things like this etc.) and other general articles about your lives, and general stuff etc. Whatever it takes, please keep posting so that we don’t lose this wonderful blog.

40. bizarre on May 30th, 2006 at 12:36 am

    My opinion: while there is a place for Clifford’s posts, as is demonstrated by people’s comments above, the blog was becoming too dominated by them. Sounds to me like the other CV bloggers had what they thought would be a discreet word in Clifford’s ear to tell him this. It’s a bit of an overreaction to then dramatically resign from the blog and create this big scene. And it puts the other bloggers in an uncomfortable position. Clifford - put the toys back in the pram!

41. Jennifer Rohn on May 30th, 2006 at 2:10 am

    Clifford,

    The sorts of things that you seem to enjoy posting fall completely into the remit of LabLit, as one of the above posters rightly pointed out - fleshing out the world behind scientists but in terms that both scientists and non-scientists can understand, whether earnestly or irreverently. If you are interested in contributing, please get in touch.

42. erc on May 30th, 2006 at 3:15 am

    It’s a bit of an overreaction to then dramatically resign from the blog and create this big scene.
    For heavens sake, read the post! Clifford has not resigned, he’s merely said he’ll not be contributing so often for a while.

    As for someone saying that commenters “don’t like the other bloggers”, that is unfounded too. Just because people say they enjoy cvj’s posts doesn’t mean they don’t like the others. Please, a little common sense!

43. boreds on May 30th, 2006 at 3:34 am

    As the Palace Brothers say: `stay another day’.

    But then they also say `You Will Miss Me When I Burn’.

44. Mike Dinsdale on May 30th, 2006 at 3:56 am

    It’s not completely clear what the “problem” is, but if it’s just Clifford’s prolificity (is that a word??) scrolling the main page too fast, couldn’t that be solved really simply by (say) putting the “fold” a bit higher up in some posts? Also helpful for people on dial-up

45. boreds on May 30th, 2006 at 4:49 am

    Isn’t Clifford the only blogger who currently puts folds in his posts?

46. adam on May 30th, 2006 at 6:47 am

    You should perhaps start your own blog (in addition to this one), as you appear to enjoy writing in the way that you do and people appear to enjoy reading it.

47. Mike Dinsdale on May 30th, 2006 at 7:02 am

    Yep, I think so. I didn’t mean to criticise Clifford for not using the fold enough (fwiw personally I enjoy reading CV as is) - I just meant that *if* the bloggers are concerned about the balance of different contributors/subjects on the main page, using the fold would be a simple solution.

48. michaeld on May 30th, 2006 at 7:27 am

    I also like the blog exactly as it is, including all the “irrelevant” posts and the religion bashing (actually my only complaint about the latter is that it’s not harsh enough).

49. B on May 30th, 2006 at 7:49 am

    Hi Clifford,

    I am sorry to hear there is some disagreement about the intention of CV between you and the other contributors. I can only guess that the concern is that the overall scientific level is lowered on average. As many others before, I don’t see any problem with just not reading your posts. As long as the scientific contributions are good, I actually don’t care about the rest. Some people just like to write many words, others don’t. Take care, B.

50. Tom Kh on May 30th, 2006 at 8:01 am

    I’m sure this whole thing is overblown. Clifford, I think you have put the other bloggers in a somewhat uncomfortable position now (evidently without intending to do so).

51. cynic on May 30th, 2006 at 9:14 am

    This could, and should, have been resolved ‘in camera’. Now we are left with an uncomfortable sense that Cosmic (Variance) Censorship - be it of Clifford’s quotidian quota of self-disclosure, or of less than right on contributions to the debate (where are Lubos’ interjections?) - is an issue. I came to CV as a regular reader of Sean’s Preposterous Universe; for what it’s worth, I thought that PU got the balance between the personal, the peripheral and the professional about right.

52. Stephen on May 30th, 2006 at 9:58 am

    Consider me a part of the community who would read an individual blog of yours, should you decide that it would be worth your time and effort. All the best, Clifford.

53. JustAnotherInfidel on May 30th, 2006 at 10:31 am

    So does this mean that Dr. Carroll will stop posting his liberal rants? What makes politics and the terrible thing that is religion ok to discuss, but yard sales and gardening are off-limits? It sounds like you are holding yourself to a double standard, for some reason that is not apparent.

54. Ken Muldrew on May 30th, 2006 at 11:36 am

    Clifford,
    One could get the impression from reading your posts that you couldn’t possibly even be a scientist, because you are too busy writing plays, going to gala events, cycling about LA, and smelling the roses. Why not stick pictures of your garden into a post about something scientific and get the best of both worlds? But mainly, more science! And don’t be so damn nice all the time; draw some blood from time to time.

55. Jeff on May 30th, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    obviously I enjoy your rants and rambles Clifford. Without knowing the details, I hope that the editorial direction of the blog gets clarified amongst yourselves to your (the group’s) satisfaction (more so than to the readers wishes). See you here soon — or in the real world.

56. Richard E. on May 30th, 2006 at 12:43 pm

    I was interested to see this. I am not an active participant in the blogosphere (as a producer, or a consumer) but many blogs that work best seem to be polycephalous efforts like Cosmic Variance, and it has always struck me that CVJ’s contributions were often along an axis orthogonal to those of Mark and Sean in particular.

    No offence to M&S, but the irony is that *because* these guys tend to blog about topics I am broadly familiar with and already have firm opinions about (dark energy, the next physics Nobels, or the sad state of American politics) I also tend to find their posts less gripping, since they are unlikely to tell me something genuinely new. Clifford, on the other hand, tends to post pictures of his garden, or something eye-catching he saw on the bus, and that is much more likely to be new to me.

    On the other, hand I am guessing that most of the readership of CV are science enthuiasts, rather than actual scientists (just based on the numbers — cosmologiists are thin on the ground, when all said and done), in which case they may get more from the dark energy, liberal politics and Nobel gossip than I do.

    Anyway, its not my site, and Clifford has already posted to ameliorate the impression left by his initial comment, but here is my opinion for what it’s worth.

    Richard

    PS Part of the problem here may be one of *design*. As currently formatted, CV simply puts up the entries in the order they are made. This works fine for a single author blog, but for a multi-author blog it tends to slew the “front page” (ie the first screen full on the text on the homepage) strongly in favour of the most proflic poster, in this case Clifford — and in that sense, any random visitor might think this site is more about California flowers than it is about Nobel gossip or dark energy. However, another group blog I read (this one without comments, and much more focussed on current events, so it reads more like an Op-Ed page than a “community”), Public Address, has a layout that deals much more effectively with the different posting rates of the various contributors (and there is at least an order of magnitude spread in these), as this generates the front page on the fly, showing only a sample of each contributor’s most recent posting.

57. adam on May 30th, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    This can only be settled with rapiers* at dawn, I think.

    *If that breaks any laws, substitute handbags.

58. Amara on May 30th, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    I like the mix of personalities on CV; I wouldn’t have asked for any changes. Each has their distinctive voice and style so it is easy for me to know who is writing without looking for the author. Usually a mix of contributors like this goes through phases where there are different dominant voices, so perhaps CV is experiencing a phase transition now. Let’s watch and see.

59. Joao Carlos on May 30th, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    Whar may I say that hasn’t been said? We’ll miss your posts, Clifford!…

60. Jose on May 30th, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    I can’t help but wonder if the objections raised to Clifford’s posts
    are not actually motivated by reasons other than those expressed.
    For example there is a strongly antireligious view expressed
    but some of the other bloggers. Perhaps Clifford’s recent expose
    on his exploits at a local church rubbed someone the wrong way.
    I think this theory is bolstered by the fact that although Clifford
    seems to go off topic more than anyone else he is not the only one
    who does so. There are many blog entries from the other bloggers
    that run pretty far a field. My understanding is that this is more or less
    a physics blog, but the other bloggers put all kinds other stuff up: politics,
    baseball players, Billy Graham etc. (I am not particularly interested in the contents
    of Clifford’s garden but it will beat out Sean’s predictable poltical rants
    any day.) In any case my point is that I don’t think Clifford’s post were
    that far of the page for this blog and I for one suspect other motivations!!!!

61. agm on May 30th, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    Actually, this amusingly resonates with posts in the last few weeks over at CT and other places around the web. Is this an academic blog, or a blog by academics? It sounds less like there is discord about the answer to the question and more like this is the first broaching of whether there should be an answer to the question.

    Clifford, CV seems to me like it has been becoming more and more a “vanity” blog. You are ABSOLUTELY right about people being free to choose how they spend their time, so I’ve only been accessing CV through Mixed States, skipping things I feel not worth my time. That being said, I’d say it’s high time indeed for you to take follow the fine example of a number of other popular bloggers about the web — post here “on topic” (whatever that means…), and be the star in your own domain. Then you get to pick another witty title!

62. Metztli on May 31st, 2006 at 5:50 am

    Oh no!!! !! I read CV occasionaly, but I always look for Cliff’s posts first! … they were usually the best for me, and moreover, I seldom see posts from the girls, few from Mark… Seans’s are also quite enjoyable (for me), but still, I think Cliff, you have got the vocation of a writer! (for me). I have found so many interesting nonphysics posts from you (and also physics related, of course!)…
    E.g. I am also a bicycle fan, so I very much enjoyed your posts related to it… the girl writing maths at the bus, the flowers, the diamonds… This is really sad…
    Well, perhaps you need to start thinking about a Cliff’s blog, for all your fans!

    Hope to read you soon!

63. B2 on May 31st, 2006 at 6:28 am

    There have been too many comments on this already, but I wanted to say something slightly different:

    As someone considering ‘becoming an academic’ (subject to getting a job…etc) I found Cliffford’s posts very cheering because they show that it’s possible to be a professional string theorist while being genuinely interested in the rest of the world. Most physicists that I’ve met are narrowly focussed on their research and perhaps a few hobbies, but without any wider interest. I was beginning to wonder whether being this narrowly focussed was necessary to get anywhere in string theory!

    So it seems to me that Clifford’s non-science posts actually serve the very useful scientific purpose of keeping people in the field.

64. justin on May 31st, 2006 at 9:06 am

    I don’t have any inside knowledge, but I would be surprised to hear of any deep disagreement on the content or appropriateness of Clifford’s posts. I just think that he is posting so often that the other contributors are feeling drowned out. I imagine that Sean or whoever had the “talk” with Clifford thinks it’s important to keep the ballance — but it’s easier to ask Clifford to post less than to “force” everyone else to post more.

    If Cliff would post only once a day I think that would go a long way towards keeping the group blog feel. Of course, it would be nice to hear more from Risa and Joanne if they can be convinced to put more time into it.

    I certainly don’t want Clifford to disappear from the face of this blog — even for a limited period. He does a huge amount to keep the blog fresh, but maybe he could turn down the intensity a little?

65. JoAnne on Jun 1st, 2006 at 2:29 am

    Wow - tonight I have just returned from a very, very nice, relaxing, get away from it all, long Memorial Day weekend in Hawaii and found the blog in turmoil! Whatever the discussion was that prompted this post (I am sure it is in my multitides of email), I am caught completely unaware and whether I agree or not, I want it on record that I am caught completely unaware.

66. ppcook on Jun 1st, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Dear Clifford,

    I have enjoyed your brand of ‘cutting-hedge’ physics posts, I think it has made this blog into a very nice mix of posts. I do hope you will not change your posting style too much as, for the record, I would miss it very much. It seems plenty of other would too. Also for the record, I do not find it at all hard to scroll past posts that do not interest me.

    I think you and your colleagues have created a very nice blog with a surprising mix of technical content and social content. I think it works very well and think you, and your colleagues deserve congratulations and thanks.

    Best wishes,
    Paul

67. adam on Jun 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    Joanne’s denials are fooling no one. She has been spreading discord with mind bullets*.

    *Tinfoil hats are no defense.

68. antib2 on Jun 1st, 2006 at 9:23 pm

    B2–

    Your gut feeling is correct–it *is* neccessary to be obsessed and focused to get somewhere in physics. The people on this blog are not, and have way too much time on their hands. As a result I guarantee that none of them will lead the way to the next important advance in physics. There is an excellent reason why none of the really top people blog–you don’t see Witten, Seiberg, Polchinski, Vafa or Maldacena talking about their gardens and poems. I think this blog is a real dis-service to the public, misrepresenting physicists as little yuppies who jet around the world to schmooze with their buddies and hang out in jazz clubs. Far from it–the relevant people are brilliant and ridiculously focused, doing physics almost all the time, as they have been for centuries, from newton to einstein to heisenberg, dirac, feynman and weinberg. CV try to show the public that “scientists are normal too”–which is both condescending and completely false. Important scientists are far far far from normal, and that is what makes them great, compellng and fascinating characters.

69. Supernova on Jun 1st, 2006 at 10:03 pm

    Oh, GIVE me a &*#$*(@ BREAK. This idea that only the most “brilliant and ridiculously focused” scientists are the only ones who amount to anything in physics is the oldest story in the book, but it is complete bull and very damaging to boot. Just because you can name a handful of brilliant, driven scientists who have made key contributions to the field does NOT mean that’s the only way scientific progress happens, nor does it mean that’s the only way to be successful/happy/fulfilled as a scientist. This myth is a BIG part of the reason women and minorities are scarce in the physical sciences. Besides that, it obscures the very real and very important contributions made by many smart, hardworking, and “normal” people over the years. I wonder how many more have chosen other careers because they’ve felt they’d never be an Einstein, so why bother?

70. Supernova on Jun 1st, 2006 at 10:33 pm

    Okay, it occurs to me that antib2’s post may be tongue-in-cheek, in which case I apologize and pronounce myself gullible (though not especially amused).

71. JoAnne on Jun 1st, 2006 at 11:47 pm

    B2 and antiB2: Anyone who has read `Surely you’re joking Mr. Feymann‘ realizes that many truly great physicists are insanely curious about the world and are intent in living life to its fullest. In fact, I would have to say that is the most common trait amongst all the physicists I know.

72. B2 on Jun 2nd, 2006 at 5:36 am

    Hi Joanne,

    I realise my post wasn’t very clear. Firstly, I meant specifically string theorists, not physicists in general. But also, and I’m not sure how to explain this, Clifford’s wider interest is different from for example Feynman’s. Perhaps it is just that I can relate to the way Clifford seems to view the world in a way that I can’t to Feynman and so the fact that Feynman wasn’t narrowly focussed on physics doesn’t make me any more comfortable with ‘becoming a string theorist’, whereas Clifford’s wider view does.

73. IrrationalPoint on Jun 2nd, 2006 at 6:39 am

    It sounds like whatever discussion prompted this post, it has now been blown way out proportion.

74. cynic on Jun 2nd, 2006 at 7:25 am

    Would Feynman have had a blog? You betcha - he too was a remorseless self publicist. And he spent a significant quantity of time in bars, strip joints, and in the company of artists and other undesirables. Scientists are not saints, or monks. And then I noticed that Joanne had this covered; nonetheless the self promotional imperative disuades me from deleting the whole thing. If others can’t self-censor, then why should I?

75. PhysicsFan on Jun 4th, 2006 at 4:51 pm

    I too am saddened by this decision, although I respect the views of the other CV bloggers (whose posts I have also enjoyed).

    Hopefully after everything has been worked out you will be able to come back at full capacity as I really did enjoy many of your posts.

    I understand that in any joint endeavour there has to be a measure of consensus, so maybe the bloggers could hammer out a joint policy behind the scenes and everyone would know what the guidelines are.

76. CapitalistImperialistPig on Jun 6th, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    I would add my voice to those who wish this could have been dealt with more gracefully. We are left wondering *who* it was who dissed Clifford, and why, though Risa looks like the obvious suspect. I enjoyed many of Clifford’s posts, though I can see how the format might be a problem when one poster is far more prolific than the others.

    `Surely you’re joking Mr. Feymann‘ realizes that many truly great physicists are insanely curious about the world and are intent in living life to its fullest. In fact, I would have to say that is the most common trait amongst all the physicists I know.

    Some of Feynman’s colleagues thought he might have accomplished more if he had been less of a show-off and dilettante, though of course he did accomplish a lot.

77. Science on Jun 7th, 2006 at 6:08 am

    Clifford,

    I think you were on course with posts about making ice cream with liquid oxygen, etc. Perhaps you just want to get away from abstract physics a bit when blogging? You don’t want every post you write to be about branes and the final theory, but to include stuff more down to earth?

    

78. Plato on Jun 7th, 2006 at 6:44 am

    Ya I think you maybe on to something there Science.

    
    

    However, more fundamental than the absence of dissipation is the behavior of superfluids under rotation.

    It started with that Molasses thingy(a English flavour favorite?), and of course, my mind was getting lost on the “viscosity revelations,” about the experiemental result “quark Gluon plasma,” and the strange effects attributed to superfluids that were occuring.

    You got to remember I think, that scientists can be very creative too?:)

79. ksh95 on Jun 7th, 2006 at 8:20 am

    I stopped reading this blog because of Clifford’s tedious inconsequential ramblings. Your post on yard sales is a perfect example.
    Anyway, here’s your answer. Stick to topics relevent to the world at large, and avoid all posts about the tedium of your daily life…unless of course it’s juicy gossip or related to the world at large.

    Less; “Today I stubbed my toe, and then I saw a red chair. Here’s a picture”.

Comments are currently closed.