New blog from Rosemary Hannah here: http://rosemaryhannah.wordpress.com/
Tentative blogging from Eamonn here: http://nonesomodest.wordpress.com/
(Let us hope he continues).
[Note that my list is of Scottish Episcopalians who blog. The list on the SEC website is SEC Episcopalians who blog quite a bit about the church. It is quite a difficult distinction to make, and open to gentle challenge.]
Any more links I should be including?
Thanks for linking to my blog, Kelvin.
‘Tentative’? Yes, I suppose so. I’m rather a laconic person, but I hope some of what I say from time to time will be interesting and helpful.
“………. Scottish Episcopalians who blog ………. Any more links I should be including?” ……….
Not unless your readers don’t object to swearing!
🙂
Hi Layclerk.
I’m happy for you to be included.
I think my readers ought to be able to cope with your language.
Since I started this blogroll, I’ve always listed people by their real name. You happy about that?
At the risk of sounding w**ky, no, sorry Kelvin, I’ve developed the habit of only using the pseudonym online and probably want to keep it like that. Those who know me, know me, but I don’t want to use my real name all that widely. It’s not really just for personal reasons, it started off being largely for work reasons, and probably still relates to that I guess.
Not to worry, I write my Blog primarily for myself anyway, and if anyone stumbles across it and reads it, fine, and in the unlikely event that anyone actually enjoys it, then that’s fine too.
I’ll still carry a link to yours anyway!
Maybe see you at the ceilidh on Sunday.
Thanks Layclerk. I thought that might be your response, so I’m glad that I checked first!
Happy for you to get your links from comment postings.
Hope to see you at the Ceilidh.
Layclerk, I’m happy to learn that you are a ‘local’ blog, and am going to go read now. I’m thankful, though, that Kelvin has kept to the ‘named only’ custom for his links.
One of the things that I am proud of in SEC blogging is the transparency of the conversations. We may not always like what others say, but since we (mostly) blog in our own names, there is a structure of accountability and a means of continuing conversation elsewhere if need be.
My lovely husband has started a blog now, Kelvin. I think it will be well worth reading, but then I am somewhat biased!
http://www.changeanddecayinallaroundisee.com/
Point about transparency well taken, Kimberly.
A question: do you have a policy about when you blog/comment as ‘Kimberly’ and when you do so as ‘wonderfulexchange’?
no policy, it’s just depends on whether I’m logged in. If I’m filling out a form, I always use Kimberly. Sometimes the blog-name appears because of automatic recognition in the software.
Kimberly, I think I should stress that I’m quite happy that Kelvin has stuck to his real names policy, and I think using real names online is often a good idea.
I’m not seeking to keep my identity a bit covert so that I can offer abuse to other commenters safe in the knowledge that no one will realise it’s me, and so that I can’t be held to account.
The “work reasons” to which I alluded were the origin of my decision a long time ago, and these are nothing whatever to do with SEC, and are still valid. In fact I rarely Blog about SEC type stuff anyway.
I’m perfectly open about telling people I have a Blog (and directing them to it) if speaking to them in the real world. My email “signature” carries links to both my Blog and my (rarely updated these days) Website, as does my Facebook profile. I’m not trying to hide, I’d just rather that my name didn’t appear too widely on t’InterWeb.
And I’m also happy for anyone to be told by others who I am, just as long as it doesn’t happen in writing on the Web for the whole world to see!
Oh and by the way Kimberly, if you did go and read some of my Blog, I apologise if my occasional profanity offended!
🙂
Kelvin, your Blog comments are showing in BST, not GMT. I nearly panicked when I saw the time on my previous one as I’ve got to get to Edinburgh soon!
Dear Layclerk, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that your anonymity was problematic. It’s not — nor was I trying to questions your reasons.
A helpful reminder of how quick comments can go wrong.
Kimberly, no apology necessary in any way shape or form! I just felt like I’d like to expand on my earlier comment, that’s all!
🙂