UPDATE - please see my public apology to Phil after reading this post.

Well, time for a bit of good old fashioned blogspotting I think!

I will admit it Centurion , I did ask a select handful of blogging buddies for links to mark my 2000th post. Despite appearances we are never totally "above" the hunt for links, although to be honest I am not sure I want TOO many more links or traffic as I quite enjoy the level of spam-free comments I currently have. Having said that, contrary to popular opinion it is the more popular sites that need your links MORE than the less popular ones if they are going to become more popular still - which as I say may not be everyones goal!

My current level of traffic and bloggers eyeball crunching anti-spam techniques combine to give me every bloggers dream:- a spam free existance whilst still retaining the facility for feedback and interaction on posts. (NB for those who wonder, although you sign up for a blogger account to comment here it does not mean you get a blog of your own unless you want one!)

Other bloggers to have noted my milestone include

• Tim Challies who has assured me privately that the tone of his comment was entirely friendly!
• John Shroeder of blogotional
• Bene Diction who took it as an opportunity to applaud my contribution to soothing the blogpopheres troubled waters.

Meanwhile, I havent got around to commenting on the responses of the two protagonists mentioned in the post Bene links to. The contrast beteen the responses is striking. Michael sent me an email to thank me, and links to the post prominently with a "read it" comment.

Irony of ironies to me is that Phil seems to have himself misinterpreted my post as a direct criticism of him. I actually said in my original post that the tone of the post worried me at first but then on re-reading it I was in fact encouraged. It kind of makes my point about not being able to read the tone in a post, doesnt it. If I in turn am reading him right, Phil felt so got-at in my post which was in fact intended to encourage all of us to think carefully before we post about how we can excercise both Christian love and committment to the truth.

Blogotional seems to be broadly supportive of my position.

Certainly some people seem to have taken note - Centurion begins a recent post about the iMonk with a warning for me not to read (as though I am some kind of blog tone policeman!). I of course ignored his warning and actually found a post that to me at least seemed to have a good tone whilst being clear about areas of misunderstnading with Spencer. I wonder if Specncer took it that way.

I would love to see some more discussion on the concept of how we should blog graciously but truthfully and would like to hear what some off you made of my Lloyd-Jones posts. So keep blogging or if you have no blog, why not leave us a comment here - its really not TOO hard to get through bloggers loops!