Scott Bailey brings up this nagging question and Jim responds with his usual…rhetoric. I am not going to try and answer the question (by most definitions I might well not be included as one), but I am going to ask, when was it that so many self-defined bibliobloggers became the TMZ or Perez Hilton or the religious world?
Perhaps we should have a new category, “The National BiblioEnquirer” for those who post solely about other stories that inflame, irritate, or otherwise make their undergarments get scrunched into uncomfortable shapes.
Anyone remember Phil. 4:8?
5 thoughts on “Once more, what makes a biblioblogger?”
Is it your perception that I, “post solely about other stories that inflame, irritate, or otherwise make their undergarments get scrunched into uncomfortable shapes”?
Nope. That is not my perception nor what I was suggesting.
Whew! ‘Cause if you had replied ‘yes’ that would have stung. Though to be honest, I have talked to a few of my friends about being more diligent in the future in finding positive stories to balance the negative ones I am wont to post.
Everyone is free to post what they want as frequently as they want to do so. I can simply speak for myself and say that I rarely look at or read Jim W’s blog, for example, because I am not interested in 95% of what he posts. But he certainly can post what he wants.