Harvard Law Review

The Bluebook is excellent for actual technical legal material (opinions, bills, briefs, etcetc.) in which a large number of different types of legal documents routinely need to be referred to and differentiated from one another, and should never, ever be used otherwise (although it too often is, for example in academic papers on law-related topics that do not get technical, like this one I've been editing on the state of legal education in Japan in which only a handful of laws are even mentioned but where I still have to follow all the Bluebook's weird, counterintuitive referencing and formatting requirements--or did, until the author was like fuckit dude, I hate this too let's just submit it as is. He has a good attitude and I wish him good luck with his submission!).… (plus d'informations)

My Bluebook is pretty much falling apart and there is only one reason for this--INTERNET SOURCES. *stab, stab, gouge, gouge* Once upon a time, I was researching for an environmental law professor o' mine and a large portion of the information was from the internet because it was about current practices of corporations to lower energy emissions and blahbittyblahblah. It was actually fascinating stuff but you know what wasn't fascinating? Trying to frakking cite all the internet sources. I spent hours typing (and drinking) and citing (and drinking) and staring at the bluebook (and playing video games) and wanting to punt my bluebook through some field goal posts into a pool of ravenous paper-eating piranhas who abhor uniform systems of legal citation. (as all piranhas do)

Anyone for some ceremonial burning? I'll bring the matches! Let's make it 10 years from now at 9 or 9:30. (Let's say 9:30 and you make it your beeswax to be there at 9:30)… (plus d'informations)