Three comments:If anything else needs to be said, I'm sure it will find its way out into the blogosphere.
(1) Your new blog template completely blows away the ghastly old one you used for years. No idea when you updated, but credit where credit is due.
(2) It is sporting of you to cite scripture to try to quicken my conscience. I wonder: if I cited Magisterial degrees (the binding ones, not the infallible ones) that forbid lay apologetics, would that quicken yours?
(3) Don't lose sleep over blogging. That's not healthy. As I scan my mental list of people who have lost sleep over writing that I know personally, they all used the excuse "many people do it", meaning "many great writers do it." Funny how none of them -- and some of them are my friends -- are great writers. My suggestion is that you grab an extra 3 hours sleep each night (enough to add a decent REM cycle) and try again. Even if your prose does not improve, your general vigor will.
And that's all I have time for, Armstrong. I'm sure there's an argument from my silence on some things with which you can have a field day. I'm sure your blog-spectators will come up with many, many original plays on words ("Turk ... a jerk" -- gosh: he stayed up to 1:50 AM to write that? Do you see what I was getting at, above?) to denigrate my response. I'm also sure that having a discussion which attempts to go past superficial with you is like trying to open a can of peas with my teeth: I am certain it can be done, I am certain that what is in there is technically "good for me", but I am certain that what's inside is not worth that kind of effort.
And I kept it just over 300 words. See what a good night's sleep can do for you?
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Apparently either my browser needs restarting or HaloScan is having indigestion this morning. Before troubleshooting, my reply to Dave Armstrong is a blog post rather than a comment in the meta. Sorry 'bout that, folks.