From a veritable flurry of posts on Evangelical Textual Criticism, the following are of note:

• ETC Annual Achievement Awards: Nominations. Be sure to read the comment thread on this one. I won't place my ignorance on display for everyone by making nominations ... but if you'd like to humor me you could read the post where I call Tischendorf a "stud". Or check out the ricoblog Textual Criticism category.
• A link to A.E. Houseman's The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism. Check out the below quote:

I have in my mind a paper by a well-known scholar on a certain Latin writer, half of which was concerned with grammar and half with criticism. The grammatical part was excellent; it showed wide reading and accurate observation, and contributed matter which was both new and valuable. In the textual part the author was like nothing so much as an ill-bred child interrupting the conversation of grown men. If it was possible to mistake the question at issue, he mistook it. If an opponent's arguments were contained in some book which was not at hand, he did not try to find the book, but he tried to guess the arguments; and he never succeeded. If the book was at hand, and he had read the arguments, he did not understand them; and represented his opponents as saying the opposite of what they had said. If another scholar had already removed a corruption by slightly altering the text, he proposed to remove it by altering the text violently. So possible is it to be a learned man, and admirable in other departments, and yet to have in you not even the makings of a critic.

Drop by Evangelical Textual Criticism and give the rest of the recent posts a read too.

Update (2005-12-12): More from the A.E. Houseman article. This is an awesome read. Below are some more quotes from the paper.

"The human senses have had a much longer history than the human intellect, and have been brought much nearer to perfection: they are far more acute, far less easy to deceive. The difference between an icicle and a red-hot poker is really much slighter than the difference between truth and falsehood or sense and nonsense; yet it is much more immediately noticeable and much more universally noticed, because the body is more sensitive than the mind. I find therefore that a good way of exposing the falsehood of a statement or the absurdity of an argument in textual criticism is to transpose it into sensuous terms and see what it looks like then. If the nouns which we use are the names of things which can be handled or tasted, differing from one another in being hot or cold, sweet or sour, then we realise what we are saying and take care what we say. But the terms of textual criticism are deplorably intellectual; and probably in no other field do men tell so many falsehoods in the idle hope that they are telling the truth, or talk so much nonsense in the vague belief that they are talking sense." (pp. 72-73)

"This is thoughtlessness in the sphere of recension: come now to the sphere of emendation. There is one foolish sort of conjecture which seems to be commoner in the British Isles than anywhere else, though it is also practiced abroad, and of late years especially at Munich. The practice is, if you have persuaded yourself that a text is corrupt, to alter a letter or two and see what happens. If what happens is anything which the warmest good-will can mistake for sense and grammar, you call it an emendation; and you call this silly game the palaeographical method." (p. 77)

I'm tempted to paste in the conclusion to the paper, but you really need to go read the whole thing yourself and simply enjoy the end. It really isn't that long; the original printing ran from pp. 67-84; and even those pages don't appear to be too big. It is a quick and enjoyable read.