As if I didnt yet have enough doubts about whether to continue this blog or not, one of the few people who (imo) did a truly magnificent job decided to stop her blogging activities right after celebrating her first blog-anniversary. Christine C. Dantas maintained Christine’s Background Independence, a blog dedicated to quantum gravity, and motivated her decision to stop as follows :

Hello all.
Here are the facts, before too much speculation runs wild…
Yes, the blog is “dead”. The main reason is that I do not have the right temperament to be in the middle of so much polemics. Yes, I had fun with the blog and got a lot from it. But lately, although I wanted to make it seem that everything was all right in its first year anniversary, things were not that good, at least, not to me.
First, a major Brazilian journal posted (for the first time here in Brazil) a large article (with front page) about the current polemics in string theory. Some weeks earlier, a journalist (the author of the article) contacted me asking me to help him on the jargon and to correct possible mistakes and misunderstandings. The article is a review on Smolin’s new book and also contains an interview with him. I have made some corrections (as well as another Brazilian physicist working with strings did, as I came to learn afterwards). The published article, however, includes a part that was not in the original draft sent for me to review. It indicates that there are hot discussions over blogs and cites (including the corresponding links) the blogs of a physics Harvard professor (you know well who) and my blog, and makes it appear we are both fighting each other over the web uneducatelly.
Second, Bert Schroer wrote a paper specially for the the blog anniversary. Although I felt that some parts were too harsh and unfortunate, I still believed that it would be interesting to make it available, since there was also a scientific content that could be of value. In fact, I was interested to read the constructive comments of readers in these specific scientific parts. However, after posting it over at my blog, I soon realized it was too polemic and was already causing a strong reaction, specially from people I have high consideration, like Bee, and she was right on what she wrote. Although it was clear that Schroer’s post was not mine and that I did not necessarily agree with his points of view, I felt embarrassed and sad. (You see, I do not have the right temperament for “living in the blogosphere”…)
These recent past occurences, plus several other during the past year of its existence, and other internal pressures, made me realize I was not willing to go on with the blog, although I understand that it was useful and interesting not only for me but also for some of you out there.
I’ve made a (partial) copy of the blog and deleted it from the server. I do not wish the whole content to be available anymore, so I left no major traces. I just left Oriti’s contribution because I wanted to do so and felt it was a right thing to do.
All things come to an end, so now it seemed to be a good time.
I am a quiet person, and wish to go back to my quiet life, to my quiet readings and studies.
Thank you, I’ll continue visiting PF, I enjoy greatly this place.
Best wishes, Christine
In fact, the whole thread at PF is pretty interesting reading, as is the parallel comment section at Not Even Wrong. Trying to maintain a non-anonymous blog makes you much more vulnerable than you want. It is always easy to criticize (and even laugh at) people who express their opinion, thoughts and trivia. Keeping your mouth shut and your ideas to yourself is generally considered a much better career move. So, why should one continue with a science blog? Perhaps the ultimate reason is contained in Christine’s follow-up comment
I have created the blog and I have destroyed it. It was just a blog. It was useful, nice, interesting? Good, I am happy I did something useful in this life! Now it’s gone, like many things in life I suppose…
All the best, Christine
That’s what it all should be about, trying to make a positive contribution somehow, even when you sometimes feel like being the court jester, entertaining the voyeuristic (and gossipy) masses at maths and physics departments all around the world…

blogging