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?”
Dr. Brady,
Is it your perception that I, “post solely about other stories that inflame, irritate, or otherwise make their undergarments get scrunched into uncomfortable shapes”?
Scott,
Nope. That is not my perception nor what I was suggesting.
Chris
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.