"We, the members of Blogpower, form a co-operative based on our shared goal of challenging the domination of the blogosphere by just a few monolithic blogs. We are resolutely non-monolithic, and regularly disagree strongly amongst ourselves. We accept that some readers may find some of the opinions expressed by Blogpower members objectionable, but ask that we not be judged collectively: any opinion expressed belongs solely to the poster. We uphold the principle of free speech. You are cordially invited to express your own views in the comment thread to any post. Membership of Blogpower is open to anyone, regardless of nationality, sexual orientation, political belief, party affiliation, religious outlook, or any other factors not specified here. Membership requires only that the Blogpower manifesto, including this amendment, be accepted at least in spirit."
James then goes on to say some more.
Further to this, we’re well aware that some groups are attempting to turn us into a pro this or pro that group. Again, we are not a group. We are individuals who have decided to help each other out.
Which is lovely, I think that you will agree. It is a laudable ambition, and I think that it would be fantastic to join.
The reason that I have not acknowledged this initiative so far and the reason that I have not joined it is simple: I don't have the time. I currently have ten zillion people making demands on my time and I would also like to spend some of that time doing what I want to do, selfish though this may seem. I do not want to make any committments that I cannot honour (and I aready have more than enough), and so I have not signed up.
However, on the issue of exposure, I would like to address a related issue; a little while ago, I acknowledged, with a little guilty pleasure, that I had been picked up in an online Times article. On that post, a John Miller commented.
I've quite enjoyed your blog, but it does make me sick when a blogger smugly self congrats when they get a bit of flattery from mainstream. don't you realise what the Times guy was doing - its called ingratiation and its only to intro you into the back scratching club. In my book everyone can make a mistake, so I will be back - but then again, to make the same mistake twice is not forgivable - beware
I can understand John's point of view—and I am grateful for his clemency in giving me a second chance—but think that he may misunderstand my motives. Yes, I am vaguely flattered, but it goes further than that; it is an incontrovertable fact that it is the mainstream media that sets the agenda; as someone who rails against all politicos in general and this government in particular, it would be encouraging to know that someone, other than other worthy but low-profile bloggers, is reading my rants.
Because at the heart of my sweariness, there is (almost) always serious points and attempted solutions. Wouldn't it be nice to know that someone with the power to change things now—not in ten years time when British blogging is politically relevant—was actually reading, understanding and passing on some of the ideas that we have?
I think that it is, and so I shall continue to acknowledge those mainstream mentions: John, though I would consider it pusillanimous to do so,if you leave because of that I shall be sorry but there are, as Richard might say, bigger fish to fry. And on that pompous note, I bid ye farewell!