Not OPM, OPBs!

OPM is, of course, Other People's Money, a currency upon which 'Hash Broon' has been partying for the last ten years!  However, what I would like to discuss today is OPBs, that is, Other People's Blogs.  My new-look make-over -  so terribly smart, 'don'tcha think'? - has provoked me into taking a hard look at my links to other bloggers.  I have, more or less reluctantly, binned some of them, perhaps because I have simply fallen out of the habit of reading them, or, because they have fallen into idleness and post so infrequently that I have given up.  In the course of the next few days I will add one or two newcomers.

As you will see from my side bar, I now have a new box just above my links to OPBs which explains the code rating that you can now see after each blog name.  It is a very simple code indicating two different aspects of the blog concerned.  First, there are 'stars' to indicate how often I read it.  This is not always an indication of my interest but is sometimes the fault of the blogger concerned who fails to write very often.  For example, Kirk Elder always provides an excellent and hilarious read but does so only on a monthly basis - and then only on a good month!  Second, I use the '?' symbol to indicate that the content is more or less questionable by me. Now you all know my general view of the world and its doings, so from that symbol you can have a shrewd guess at the likely content of the blog concerned.  My definitions are in the side bar but here they are again with amplification:

*       I read it occasionaly - but please note my remark above.

**    I read it fairly often

***  I read it daily - in other words I wouldn't miss it!

?       Content is questionable - in the sense that, I would question it.

??      Content is very questionable  

???     Content mostly garbage - but it may not stop me reading it!

I enjoy reading and debating on blogs with whose 'editorial' opinions I disagree.  Many bloggers find that odd but I fail to gain much pleasure or education from behaving like one of those nodding dogs you see in the back of family cars by only joining a thread in which everyone is agreeing with everyone else.  My dear, too, too, tedious!

Comments

[dearieme]

You wouldn't care to advise Bishop Hill on font size, would you?

[David & Son of Duff]

I'll try.

[David & Son of Duff]

I've told Bishop Hill of your complaint and he is deeply hurt because he had increased his font size to comply with your wishes. I told him you were a grumpy, short-sighted, old bugger who's never satisfied but that, even so, he must try and do better. He has promised to look into it. Watch this space, or do I mean, watch his space?

[dearieme]

The Bish is cleared of all charges. I find that I can now, just, read his stuff. If you brought this about, DD, thank you. And thanks too to his Grace (are bishops "Graces", or only the arch ones?).

[David & Son of Duff]

'Lord', I think is correct for Bishs. Anyway, I have passed on your, slightly grudging, acceptance of his font size and trust that Christian unity is thus repaired!

Sorry, I can't do anything about the font size on my comments which even I find microscopic. To do anything about it entails spending considerably more money with Typepad - natch!

[dearieme]

Well if I can't promote him to a "Grace", I'll promote him to a Mountain.

[Deogolwulf]

Very kind of you to give me three stars, Mr Duff. Unfortunately I don't post much these days.

[David & Son of Duff]

True, 'Deogulwulf', but with you each post is a considered gem, unlike the stream of un-consciousness that pours onto these pages! So, whilst it isn't possible to read you daily, I always check you daily.