Criticisms of Bill's little 'rants' ...

(NB/ Please see the two updates at the end of this post.)

One of the moderately regular visitors to my little blog, and in the past a relatively regular commenter on some of my posts (until I asked why he did not permit comments in his own blog - since which time he no longer seems to comment here, although I still notice his visits from time to time), has just written a post in his blog, dated 3rd October 2006 (but which I have just come across - see [*] at the end of this post), dedicated to cricitsing me as, as I suppose one might say, a 'perpetrator' of something he calls Totaligayrianism - golly, he's coined a word just for li'l old me, I am flattered.

Whilst 'revving up' to the substance of his criticism he notes, in passing, that I do not link to him although he links to me. My 'Links Policy' is available here or as a permanent link near the top of the right hand column. In addition to what is stated there, I observe that I have never asked to be linked to by another blog; if another blog chooses to link to me then obviously I am pleased and happy and consider it an honour. I link to a largish number of other blogs, but never request or make a pre-condition of being linked to in return; some of those to whom I link are kind enough to link to me also, some do not. Reciprocity in linking is neither requested for this blog nor observed by this blog.

The post I wrote to which he takes exception is here. Anyone who is interested is welcome to read both his post and my own and make up their own minds. Suffice it to say that I find his analysis both of my post and the situation I refer to within the Church to be flawed, but I am perfectly content to leave it to others to form their own opinions.

If the writer chooses to comment either on this post, or the earlier post to which his own post is dedicated, then I shall endeavour to respond. Similarly if he opens up his own blog to comments then I may comment there, either on his post criticising me or on others of his posts from time to time. I feel no obligation, however, to waste time here by writing another post in my own blog on a topic I have already covered ad nauseam. If and when I choose to write another post about the Roman Catholic Church or other churches or faiths I shall do so in my own good time.

[*] Frankly I do not visit his blog very often; it does appear in my 'Bloglines' feeds, though, so I visit occasionally if I come across something that interests me, which has not been often of late. I noticed his post dated 3rd October 2006 only because I noticed a visit to my own blog from the permalink for that post in my site statistics earlier today. The lack of open comments in his blog is certainly one of the reasons why I visit only rarely, quite apart from the content of the blog, in which I find little to interest me; I am writing this as openly and honestly as I can. Apart from this, I have been passing a lovely day up here in Nairn, where it has been unseasonably warm and sunny, and in visiting my mother to deliver her prescription medicines to her and to resolve one or two other matters for her.

UPDATE: (Saturday 14OCT06 09.33 BST) I note from my overnight site statistics that a person from the IP address normally used by my 'illustrious detractor' visited a few hours ago seemingly homing in on this post, but has not left a comment; more's the pity as I should have enjoyed reading his bons mots over breakfast - I shall have to make do with the more uplifting material to be found in this morning's batch of junk mail.

2nd UPDATE: (Saturday 14OCT06 09.45 BST) I have just discovered, by tracking back to his blog from another visitor here from that blog (thanks for the minor increase in my traffic, by the way, most grateful), that he has in fact posted what one imagines must be a considered 'riposte' to my little effort - you can read it here, if you wish for some innocent amusement. My commiserations, old bean, it must be a dreadful burden to bear.