Is a blog a blog if readers can't participate

Seth Godin thinks so. I saw this posting on techcrunch and it got me thinking about my answer to the poll at the bottom

“So, given a choice between a blog with comments or no blog at all, I think I’d have to choose the latter.”

To which I would say, "That's fine, but you're not blogging."

I take a very cluetrain approach to blogging. I see it as a conversation. I start the conversation and (like in the real world) those listening (or reading) can chime in. That's how conversations work. When they only work one way it's called a monologue (you know, those are what villians do when the hero is tied to a converyor belt with a laser aimed at his crotch).

At the time of this writing, here's the standings from TechCrunch

Is a blog really a blog if there are no reader comments?

• Not a requirement, but comments enhance content dramatically
  76440% of all votes
• Comments are not a requirement for blogs
  66534% of all votes
• Without comments, it isn't a blog
  50026% of all votes

Total Votes: 1929

Mike Arrington says it well (emphasis mine)

"I believe the term “blog” means more than an online journal. I believe a blog is a conversation. People go to blogs to read AND write, not just consume. We’ve allowed comments here on TechCrunch since it started. At times, user comments can be painful to deal with. But they also keep the writer honest, and make the content vastly more interesting."

The way I see it, a blog without comments is a press release. Press releases are boring because they are one way. I want those who read my blog (yes, you three) to keep me honest, correct my incorrect assumptions (not that those are frequent occurances), and provide feedback. PLUS sometimes I ask a question and sometimes it's answered in comments, that's great! That's blogging.

If you feel strongly one way or the other, go to techcrunch and vote