“scrutinity” should be “scrutiny”
“analoguous” should be “analogous”

It’s too bad that comment boxes don’t have spelling checkers. But I’ll be the first to criticize my own spelling errors.

I suspect that you might be new to blogging. Blogging is entirely a very public form of publication, somewhat analoguous to the old time and very rough-and-tumble pamphleteering that happened in days of yore. Once a person publishes a blog, he opens himself up for public scrutinity and criticism, just as if he had published a book or magazine article. People are free to praise or diss what the author writes. Your analogy, likening things to invading Mr. Edelen’s kitchen, is really not apt at all. When someone publishes something he is open to all sorts of literary criticism about his writing style and what he writes about. That’s the nature of the blogging beast.

What criticisms I might have made are meek and mild compared to some of the radioactive flame wars that occur in the comment boxes in other venues I know about. In fact, I don’t often criticize Mr. Edelen for what he writes, and I have him on my blogroll.

Let the man prepare his own repast. If you aren’t hungry for it, there are other places to eat, my dear.

You’re taking yourself way too seriously here.

Quote: “At others, it’s just friends chatting.”

You need more of this “friends chatting”. Lately, it’s getting to be all direness all the time.

Quote: “…my way of sharing what God is teaching me.

Has it never occured to that, possibly, some things may be intendedjust for you and not to shared with everybody in the entire world? To think it necessary to tell everything to everybody all the time, sounds a teeny bit egotistical.

Quote: “…this blog fills up the lack I feel in that area of my life.”

Ask yourself, “what is exactly is this ‘lack’ that I feel?”

Is blogging really the best way to fill that lack? Perhaps, the answer is elsewhere.

Dan, as an example, when you write about TBN, for example, it might feel good to go all rage-monkey. But it’s a complete waste of time for readers, such as myself, to bother reading such stuff. (This is why I don’t read a lot of “God bloggers” anymore, especially the pompous “Truely Reformed” ones—whom the KJV translators could just as well as described as “giving liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves and hammered on their anvil“. Please don’t become like that.) Nevertheless, the Crouches are the sort of territory that’s been burned-over a gazillion times before. It’s now just a very tiresome and boring topic. Sure, people who already hate the Crouches or hate Benny Hinn will fill up your comment boxes with “Thatta Boy Dan! Give ‘em the old flamethrower! Jan Crouch looks like a hypertrophic Barbie Doll! Just look at her hair and makeup. And Paul Crouch is a stupid head!” But in that case, what have you actually accomplished other than stroking your own ego with having a bunch of people agreeing with you? In my opinion, this is blogging at its worst—the sort of stuff that happens at BeliefNet.

Although Ms. Moonbones watches the Gaither’s music on TBN, I haven’t watched TBN for years and years and years in fact. Recently it occured to me that perhaps I should no longer go on merely what “I thought I knew”, or on what other people have said about TBN. Instead, I’ve decided to start watching TBN and PTL for myself, and thus to reach my own conclusions based on my own observations. For starters, I am not sure I can agree entirely with your hyperbolic assertion that TBN studio sets look like something in a French whorehouse during the reign of Louis XIV—at least not the ones I’ve seen so far.