|
Wednesday February 25, 09
|
|
07:07 AM - tales of the jacked-up Journal
|
|
last year, when I submitted my comment (which was declined for publication), I came to think that they didn't publish the thing or give it credit with honors because of it being a bit of a grodie topic and the fact that there is a passage within that chides an article written by a TX judge for the St Mary's law journal about 20 years before for his bad interpretation of the law. I also thought that maybe a spot on the board was the consolation prize I got for the prior board being a bunch of chickens.
Time and the process of grading this year's batch of Comments washed some of that away. After all, I was mature and felt like I needed to accept the fact that there were better papers than mine and the simple thought of "I worked hard" just doesn't cut it.
Fast forward to last night.
Speaking to this year's editor in chief, he suddenly went out on a tangent about how i got on the board this past year:
"The board last year loved your paper. They said it was 'out there' in a good way because everybody else had written the same thing and that you did a really good job. It was that paper that got you a spot on the board."
So, wait a minute....I essentially wrote THE best paper of the whole bunch, but I only got "Credit" for my efforts?
And I got on the board because of that paper?
Hmm. Maybe I was right all along.
|
|
