What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Bad day for bloggers

    Today is, rarely, a bad day for bloggers. Today is the day that Google Reader is being switched off by those people at Google.

    What it means is that the primary way that some people read blogs is not going to be available to them. Clever-dick readers will already have switched to another server. (I’m using Feedly). The worry is that non-Clever-dick readers (I’m using technical terms here) will just not bother or not rememeber in time and end up reading less blog posts as a result. Loss of readers is a bad day for bloggers.

    Lots of people are cross with Google for turning off Google Reader. But it has been a service free at the point of delivery (funded by advertising and giving Google and insight into what one is interested in). I think that makes it harder to complain.

    Some people can’t cope with the bother of using a reader service to aggregate or collect all their blog entries. For them, the joy of email is still the best way of ensuring that they don’t miss a blog post.

    I’ve got a simple service that allows people to sign up to receive my blog posts by email and you can sign up here.

    Don’t be shy!

    And for goodness sake, sign up with Feedly or something similar too. Shake that magic Google dust from off your sandals. It is time to move on.

    If you want to be reminded of why it is a good thing to use a reader in the first place, read my description of why you should have signed up to Google reader in the first place.

    You can find it here: How to Read Blogs

    And for good measure, here’s what I said about Google Reader’s demise previously: Google Reader RIP

    , , , ,

4 responses to “Book Review”

  1. Peter O Avatar
    Peter O

    I think you miss the point of the book Kelvin. It’s meant to be a guide to listening to *all* sides of the debate, not just those you agree with. That’s what makes the last section so good, because it forces us to deal realistically not just with the genuine evidence on the causality of homosexuality, but also the fact that some people *do* see remarkable change in their sexual orientation (and that others don’t).

    I wrote my own review here.

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    We were not called by the last Lambeth Conference to listen to all sides in the debate.

    Reply
  3. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Ruth Gledhill has posted a PDF of the whole thing, for those interested:
    http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/files/Final.pdf

    Reply
  4. Rosemary Avatar
    Rosemary

    I’ve now read the ‘scientific’ section – thanks for the link ryan – and I thought it was mixed. I thought Glynn Harrison made a serious attempt at dispassion. I think it is a fair point that any person must decide their own priorities, and the final argument must be between theologies, not sciences. I was not so impressed by David de Pomerai – though one could hardly quarrel with his conclusion that we simply do not know exactly what makes one person homosexual and the next heterosexual. However his whole argument was bedevilled by assumptions that, e.g. homosexual men will be more effeminate than straight ones. Anecdotal evidence instantly produces examples where it is the straight male siblings who are drama queens and run from spiders, while gay ones take it all in their stride.

    It must be accepted that both gay and straight people live with voluntary or enforced celibacy with no ill effects – and that some people can change their sexual orientation and live happily with the change. What I found truly heart rending were the desperate attempts and the high cost to those who actually did succeed in changing orientation – however much Harrison denies the skin colour analogy, it reminded me painfully of those endless jars of skin lightener which encrust Sri Lankan chemists, where beauty is measured in skin tone. Because whether or not genetic, orientation is not a simple free choice. But I suppose the answer would be: ‘And what is?’

    The final point, though, is always the same. Is Christianity a religion of an authoritative book, or an authoritative Person?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Rejected Ad

    Want to see the United Church of Christ advert that has been rejected by the major TV channels in the US?Take a look here: http://rejectionhurts.com/ejectorpewfull/ 

  • Politics of Pilgrimage

    On a comment on the post about Walsingham, below, Joan said:Isn’t it possible that all devotion will be politicized if it is mediated through truths laid down in a book.  The nature of such a text inevitably leads to argument for or against certain interpretations of the text.  Wouldn’t it be nice if life were…

  • Sermon – 26 March 2006

    What shall we make of the Old Testament story this morning. (Numbers 21.4-9)  What use is a story like this to us.  There were snakes poisoning people. What the people believed was this – that if they did things which were bad, then bad things would happen to them. It is a belief as old…

  • Blogging again

    Alright, alright. I’m back blogging again. It has just been a very busy week.Off today on mini-pilgrimage with a member of St Saviour’s. We are going to Walsingham. Well, we are going to Paisley really – Walsingham is coming to us. There is an afternoon of contemplation and meditation and general holiness in the Holy…