This is odd.
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say it, but I spose I could do it a few more.
I'm not creating a 'rival' event, and the main differences between the Scholar's Lounge Catholic Blognic and the Vatican blogger conference (which are being held on different days] are thus:
1) Whoever runs a Catholic blog, that is, is a Catholic and blogs about Catholic-related stuff, is welcome
2) I have no "selection process," and couldn't enforce one if I did, since I'm having it in a pub...
3) ... where there will be beer and food and fun and
4) no Swiss Guards (sorry Kat).
Sign up now!
Jackie Parkes who runs a blog in the UK, just sent me a somewhat puzzling, snarky note:
What is wrong with the official meeting? Aren't you being quite biased in your own links? Some bloggers loyal to the magisterium don't all link to the same bloggers..perhaps a third meeting could include them..
Hilary Jane Margaret White said...
Maybe you could read the posts around town about "what's wrong with the official meeting". A lot of people are talking about it, but most of all, what's wrong with it is the infinitessimal chance I have of being invited.
As I've said (many times now) I didn't want to miss out on the fun, so I'm having this one so I don't have to.
And yes, I'm being biased in my links. These are the blogs I happen to like. I invited them because they're the ones I pay attention to.
You will note, however, that the call is for people to invite whatever Catholic bloggers they want, and for any and all Catholic bloggers to invite themselves.
I don't have a "selection criterion" except, "be a Catholic, a blogger and want to come".
It's a funny thing to be accused of exclusivity when I'm putting a public notice of my event on my blog and on facebook and begging bloggers to invite whomever.
But if there's one thing that characterises bloggers of all stripes it's the pleasure they take in sniping at each other.
Normally I erase comments that contain the even tiniest whiff of snark, but this seemed like a teaching moment. Maybe bloggers have just become so used to thinking in terms of conspiracies and hidden agendas that they can't tell the difference any more.
I can help with that.
A conspiracy is usually done in secret and hidden agendas are, by definition, hidden.
We're having a party for Catholic bloggers, people who write about Catholic stuff on 'blogs that are read by the general public. We're holding it in a public place, where anyone at all can come and I am hoping that lots and lots of people will come whom I've never heard of.
The main speaker is Michael Voris, whose opinions are widely distributed on the internet. My own opinions and biases are also plastered all over the internet for anyone to see. Anyone who is in doubt as to my opinion on any topic whatsoever, is invited to email me and ask. As anyone who has read me for more than a week will know, I'll be overjoyed to fill you in.
I've been inviting bloggers by email and on Facebook and I have
I don't actually know who all has been invited, who intends to come or who is actually going to show up. The Facebook sign-up page is public for anyone on Facebook, and I've been sending it around by email to people who don't appear to be on FB.
Short of renting a truck with a loudspeaker on top and driving it around Rome on the day of the Beatification and inviting random passers-by, I'm not sure how much more non-conspiratorial I can be.
But if you really want to think of it as a conspiracy, if that gives you a thrill, be my guest. I'm thinking of helping out the Cloak 'n Dagger buffs by giving out "infiltrator" stickers at the Blognic. If you've come from some group that likes to imagine itself in some kind of rivalry, your Official Infiltrator sticker will be good for one free beer, on me.