Of late there seem to be a lot of the well knowns of blogging bowing out (at least in volume) because of how much work it takes to qualify and disclaim the topics they take upon themselves. I find it sad because even the essays I find myself disagreeing with usually provide the same thought provoking effect as the ones I enjoy in agreement. It's strange to think that people like Paul Graham and Joel Spolsky would be exasperated by the barbs people toss their way and yet, it seems, they are. Paul's essay on disagreement seems evidence of this and the most recent Stackoverflow podcast dwells considerably on the topic from Joel's perspective.
I would like to make the following proposal both in encouragement of people like this writing and for people like myself enjoying it: rather than quick barbs and/or "jumped the shark" posts, return to the previous material of the author and enjoy an old post. It's not that disagreement is bad or unwelcome; I think a lot of the well knowns enjoy a spirited discourse. It has more to do with people either misunderstanding or disagreeing in the wrong way - DH0 to DH4 as Paul would have it.