My supposed “constant preaching about how the blog is no longer worth much of [my] time,” as near as I can tell, consists of one article to that effect and a few comments responding to reader comments. It seems a mischaracterization to label my writing “constant preaching,” even if one thinks it appropriate to label it “preaching” based on so few instances.

My “constant belly-aching [sic] about how others respond to the blog” I can only assume is related to the same post and comments just noted and perhaps also to the fact that reader posts which attack me (and occasionally my arguments) using rhetorical devices not based on normal logical principles of argumentation. I can only apologize to those who find it acceptable (see next point after this parenthetical section) for others to employ such devices, but unacceptable for me to criticize them for doing so. I find it perfectly appropriate to point out the failures of such “arguments.” And while there are more instances of my complaining about people’s “valiant” attempts at discrediting my posts through the use of epithets or mere statements of disagreement as to the veracity of statements made without providing evidence of a lack of veracity, I still think “constant belly-aching [sic]” is a mischaracterization; personally, in this case I think “bellyaching” itself is strong. If one is counting the times I’ve taken readers’ comments to task for fitting into the categories of epithets or mere statements of unsupported disagreement over veracity, it doesn’t fit the definition of “bellyaching”; my comments in those instances are more often refutations of the implied validity of such appraoches, rather than “complaining and finding fault whiningly or with disgruntled peevishness.”