The secret to success (in my opinion) is to work hard at what you love no matter who pays attention. Things don't happen overnight. But respectfully, it's off-putting to your readers, if you're constantly reminding them of your own frustrations. You've got a lot of support, stay motivated and keep producing quality content. Many of the NextWebs, the TechCrunches and ReadWriteWebs of the world started out as bloggers just like you. If your audience isn't online, then find other ways to reach them.

The internet is only a platform to deliver a message, so if your message is what's important to you, maybe you might explore some other ways of reaching your target audience.

Believe me, there's no better way to see the overly critical reaction to this than from right here in the U.S. This blog flat out calls for the bombing and occupation of North and East Africa - http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=New...

This is definitely a huge blow to 'Brand Africa' but we all now have to work that much harder to change perceptions about the continent and the reality.

Munashe, my response to this has always been "good". My stance is that the West will only dominate cyber space as long as they have people active, talented, and innovative enough to do so. To upset that balance, we have push ourselves to be better than (or at least as good as the rest). It's not necessarily a problem, it's a challenge, and people like you, myself and others need to be doing everything in our power to rise above that challenge.

I suppose that's relative, indeed. Looks like a cool service, if I could export from Feedburner I'd actually give it a try.

Thanks for the tip, Adam. I'll fix that on the print and Flickr page.

You make a good case, ten year mutli-entry as we want to encourage tourism!

Lol, thanks for posting Mike and sorry I got your name wrong. Are any of your works, especially the out of print one's, available digitally?

the answer is always: 41

Nothing in this post says anything about giving anyone money or that poverty is caused by overpopulation, nor does it imply that that giving anyone anything is a solution.

If you re-read carefully you'll see that what I said is that poverty is compounded by overpopulation. If a family of three can't get by on their earnings, how can that same family get by on the same earnings if they have two more kids? Also, the more people who are born at all, the more people who are 'born into poverty'. This assumes that worldwide, people living in poverty outnumber the rich, which they do. All that means is that as the worlds population increases, so does the population of the poor but not necessarily the population of the 'rich'. Especially, if they are having more children. This is not a pragmatic argument, it's just basic math.

I'm not sure I follow your logic, as I agree with you and didn't imply otherwise.

One more thing, my example of saying 'tree' 20 times was a poor one. A better example would be: saying tree 20 times in 20 different sentences. It always means the same thing unless the rules of language change it. ('tree' as in wood versus 'tree' as in folder hierarchy.)