Research strategy.

I think that I'm going to start a blog for my specialized research on that one ancient language that I've been studying intensively for the past 5 years or so.

I don't think that it will have any substantial volume, but strategically, it seems like the way to go.

Like I have done for years, I always try to build a new idea into the title of a talk, so you can publicize it and stake out and claim the idea in an indisputable way -- there's the title, it's dated, you were there by then.

That strategy has served me well, but I've had a major and mega-sexy idea turned down by one conference (they only chose people in tenure-stream jobs) and then that same idea was waitlisted for another conference (???), which shows to me that I'm spending too much time pursuing these people, as well as that criteria for talk acceptance can be radically unpredictable (are they on a different wavelength? do I make someone look bad and so a committee member puts up a stink and so they compromise and put me on a waitlist?).

Recently, too, I had a very small paper that I quickly wrote up with an idea that I didn't previously claim anywhere, since it was a decisive but very, very small contribution and I thought that it would just sail through the peer review process.

However, the first reviewer went after it so much, he said that there was no way it could even be revised to ever make it acceptable for publication, and that it was one of the worst articles that he'd ever reviewed!

(In other words, I'm very right, and he abused the structure and went after me hard to eject me from even having that venue for where I can publish something and advance the field, even in a small way, since it makes him and the field look like cr*p-ola, since what I did is so intellectually obvious in retrospect, once you say where you look for evidence)

Anyhow, between rejected and waitlisted talks and that one peer review, then, I really am starting to worry about the possibility of idea theft.

Like my one (art school) colleague who wear's (women's) clothes also thought after he read that one super-nasty peer review, did the guy try to close off any avenue for publication to waste time for me, so he could edge in and steal it? 

The response was so extreme, it does make it seem like something else could potentially be going on.

And, I mean, my ideas are big and decisive and simple and memorable and clear a lot of cr*p out of the field, so it's not like he couldn't understand it, and that type of work makes the ideas highly stealable.

So, in any case, I think the answer is to have a blog, where I can circulate the basic ideas on social media and maybe a listhost, and when an idea is ready, it's there, and I don't have to waste time on talks etc.

I mean, I'll still maybe try to give talks if I feel it, like at that one regional conference where people are cool, but I'd focus that on ongoing research, and not use it to debut new ideas per se.

If I'm able to put this stuff out there like I hope, that will be three major advancements -- and one major major major -- that have been done pretty much entirely outside of the field by someone who didn't train in it, only had glancing contacts with it, and was repeatedly rejected and so defaulted to using a **blog** to avoid all the bullsh*t that comes with contact with so many of the quote-unquote "experts" in this contorted and insecure "discipline" where they expect you to fall down and worship them without question, when in so many regards they don't even have their basic sh*t together.

Honestly, it's just like one embarrassment compounding another, for them.

If this stuff gets all out there like I hope, what will people of the future think, when they look back at the publication and presentation history of the major ideas?

Honestly, an independent blog, decisively correcting one major part of the entire research history of the language?

It's understandable when you dig down into the dynamics, but it's also just appalling.