My advice - review what you've experienced, but don't review someone based on some highly partisan bitching/backslapping about them that you can find on the internet.
Erratic! - "Having no fixed or regular course; wandering." - that's a bit much. Sometimes I have the occasional stinker of a gig - all comedians do. Generally I'm consistently average with occasional flashes of jolly good. I've had a run of really good ones quite recently. By now, I know what I'm doing and I know why I'm doing it. Sometimes, though, the chemistry doesn't work and I'm not quite able to fake it. Sometimes. Not erratically. You don't get booked if you're erratic. Erratic suggests someone who careers off course more often than not. Someone who is, essentially unhinged. It's not that bad... yet.
The thing is, this particular blogging game of tennis runs the risk of turning into a cross-blog dialogue, which I'm not that keen on. I've decided not to post any further comments on the particular blog that first had a pop at me. Everyone's entitled to have their opinion and publish it as they see fit - so long as they're not trying to muster some sort of bigoted response (I would shut down the BNP's website without a second thought). As for having a debate. Nah. It's not worth it. I didn't get into comedy to defend myself against people who don't like what I do. I did it to entertain people and enjoy doing it.
That's the good thing about comedy. When it works... when you're in the zone and the material feels real, but actually is just an underscore to the real amusement of making funny with an audience... when that happens - it's bloody marvellous. And anyone who sneers from the sidelines can jolly well do so without me.