NateO must be on Spring Break as he is filling T&S with all the posts he hasn't been posting all semester (three in a row might be a new T&S record, NateOphiles must be in nirvana). The interesting one is about the upcoming PBS Mormon thing, which, naturally, he lets the Bloggernacle know he was consulted on. But, wait, Margaret Young, one of the T&S newbie-bores, was actually involved in the PBS Mormon thing for reals, and, huh, look at that, she is posting at BCC about it and not T&S. Hmmm. Makes a Snarker wonder.
Did they not want the newbie-bore to upstage their flagship-bore with contributions that are actually substantive? Did one of the other permabores take exception to the newbie-bores obvious distate for MoDoc? Is T&S too PC for the "n" word, even in an obviously historical context? Whatever the reason, they are driving their newbies into the arms of the enemy rather than resolve things amicably amongst themselves. Imagine that!
26 comments
I am sort of confused at how you are spotlighting things.
And does this make the upcoming PBS Mormon film bad or good?
There appeared to have been a dust-up involving Margaret about a month ago. She wrote this great post called, "Prophecy," (I think that was it). In passing you listed Martin Luther King, Ghandi, as "prophets."
Then, Adam Greenwood and Matt Evans started a medieval era Spanish-style inquisition. They accused her of an agenda to tear down the true church, blah-blah-blah. It was stunning to read. Eventually, T&S pulled the post. I assume to protect Adam and Matt from being further outed as knavish bullies. I don't think Margaret has been back to T&S yet. If I were here, I'd stay at bycommonconsent and leave Adam and Matt to have their own conversations.
Todd, sorry, but SnarkerNacle posts like this are for people who are steeped in the Bloggernacle, and not for occasional hit and run types like you. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the PBS Mormon film at all. On the other hand, Todd, how has your distributing of Jesus Christ versus Joseph Smith DVDs on car windshields in LDS Church parking lots been going?
Chris, yes, that was truly ugly. And, unfortunately for the Snarkers it was pulled so quick it did not even end up getting Google cached. Oh well. You are quite right though. Margaret is only the latest female fatality there, and will no doubt soon join the ranks of KHH and Melissa as "emeritus". One can only imagine Adam lying in wait for Ardis next, biding his time, waiting to pounce on her and assail her for some offense or other.
The real question is what heppened to the Matt EVans post about Gold's Gym?
Thanks Chris.
(Snarkimus, is there an article somewhere in bloggernacle that talks about people placing DVDs on windshields besides the brief spot on the BCC post you have linked?
And if there is, you must find info from bloggernacle more helpful than you let on?
I have never had enough time to place any sort of DVD in church parking lots. Too busy, receiving in our church mailbox from the LDS church, free tickets to the latest LDS flicks in town.
And now you have me pegged as a "hit and run" type? Where does this come from?)
Ah, but Google did cache it... I have seen it and read it with mine own eyes!
Todd,
You are an anti-mormon who trolls the Bloggernacle, that is why you are a hit and run type.
smug anonymous,
I looked and did not find. Would you care to provide a link?
Oh come-on snarkey, you're a closet T&S fan.
Yeah, Steve EM, just like you are a closet BCC fan.
Yes, where is the cache of the Margaret post? I'm very interested.
I'm also interested in any other details on the instances referred to regarding T&S behavious towards it's own bloggers.
I've been surprised at how aggressive, and yes, obnoxious some of the posters (such as Adam G. and Matt E.) have been to T&S' own bloggers.
click here to read the original post, with none of the insanity
The Google cache is returning the current blank.
Here is the Yahoo cache, which is returning content.
How long before Margaret Young joins BCC?
Thanks for the Yahoo link. It contained the start of the inquisition, but doesn't have the conversation where it turned more aggressive (at least as I how I remember that occurring).
You mean SnarkerNacle is an actual blog? I assumed it was a euphemism.
Hello gentlemen. (I don't see any women among your commenters, though maybe some of the "anonymous" ones are.)
Just FYI, I am still a permablogger at T&S. I will do periodic guest blogs at MM and at BCC. Right now, my time is devoted to making a documentary. Most of my time is spent transcribing interviews as we prepare to edit. I don't know Adam Greenwood, but I'm currently helping Matt plan a trip to Guatemala--and I don't intend to lead him into any volcanoes. They're good guys. I suspect I would like both of them a lot were I to meet them in person. Unfortunately, meeting people on blogs is rather dangerous, because we tend to speculate about their words and motivations without the help of their voice tones or facial expressions--or just the face-to-face sense of who they are.
Don't you find that to be the case?
So is Kurt on this blog? I like Kurt. I had contact with him years ago when I spotted some of his work on Blacks and the LDS Church. It appeared to me that he had done some solid research.
Anyway, don't worry about us at T&S. I comment there frequently. And, when I have time (which will likely be rarely), I will post blogs in all sorts of places.
Be generous in your views of all us flawed bloggers, okay?
Older Singer/aka Margaret Young
Yes, Margaret, SnarkerNacle is a real blog. Apologies for shattering your euphemism with reality.
And, yes, Kurt is one of the participants. But, we are legion, and some of the participants are women.
Glad to hear you are chummy with your pals there at T&S, but, really, you must admit they are rather a thorny bunch when it comes to trying to make friends with them.
Margaret, thanks for checking in, and I appreciate your generous, tolerant attitude.
Are you willing to share any details as to why your "Prophecy" blog was pulled?
Thanks for your concern, Chris. The decision to pull the blog was mutual. Sometimes people just have bad days and say things they shouldn’t. I’m as guilty as anyone in that regard. In the same way that I wouldn’t want anyone to know about petty fights I’ve had with my husband (not that I ever have…), I don’t want a permanent record of a bad day.
Today is Good Friday. I do want a permanent record of that particular “bad day” because of its eternal implications and the infinite gift it offers—as well as the example to accept a lash without lashing back. On Sunday, we will celebrate the resurrection. I anticipate seeing all of the friends I’ve lost to death (and whose sins I knew quite well) untainted. I anticipate celebrating what Good Friday and Easter Sunday have meant for us all. I can’t imagine “resurrecting” a conversation that went bad, or rehashing old complaints. That would be like the actor/dwarf in _The Great Divorce_. One of my human challenges is to get beyond any hurts I’ve received or given and simply become better. I loved what somebody said on Oprah—something like “If you don’t forgive, you’re telling the universe you want to relive the event over and over.”
Have you ever seen _Places in the Heart_? I love that movie. The final scene—where ALL are partaking of the emblems of Christ’s offering, including a man who was lynched, a man who was shot to death, a widow, and all of the sinners represented throughout that movie—symbolizes what I long for. A blog-gone-bad is pretty paltry compared to that much larger vision.
(And thanks to whoever posted this for me.)
I want to be just like Margaret Young when I grow up. What a class act.
Tracy M (blogger won't let me sign in)
Maggie, have I mentioned lately how much I love and admire you? And *Places in the Heart* is one of my faves.
I just posted a serious question on T&S. This is an invitation to one particular part of "legion" to add his (or her) insights. I know that this person has studied the scriptures extensively and I would really like their insights. (Or you can just post as "Legion.")
Janet--I love and admire you too (which I think you know).
Tracy--thank you for that extremely sweet compliment. You mame me want to be the person you apparently think I am.
Since we are having a love fest here, I just wanted to say that I think snarkimus prime is adorable. I love the outfit. I love the use of primary colors. It makes me remember a certain song:
Our primary colors are one, two, three--red, yellow and blue. Each one has a message for you and me...
HAH! Now you'll be singing it all day!
I've been distracted recently, but of all things, I actually read that post before it was pulled, and liked it.
Interesting.
Margaret, do you want a place to put the post up again? I'd be glad to host it.
Okay, now I know who you are, Stephen! I even read your blog. Good thoughts. If I can find a minute sometime later today or tomorrow, I'll add a comment there.
I'll have to decline your kind invitation, however. If it were a blog I felt really strongly about, I would accept, but it wasn't a significant blog, just some random thoughts. And from what I've seen, re-posting would likely re-ignite the controversy. I definitely don't want to do that.
Very kind offer, though! I'm touched.
Well, we can differ on what we think is significant. You undervalue your writing, perhaps.
I just wandered over here and found you talking about me. Wow! For the record, I like Margaret and look forward to meeting her in person. I admit I can be as combative with my fellow bloggers as with other readers.
Since Margaret addressed the decision to pull the Prophets post, however, I do want to clarify that I had nothing to do with the decision to pull it. It was Margaret's decision alone. I should also add that I wasn't embarrassed by my comments, even if I would've taken the edge off my combatitiveness, like I would for many other comments, if I had a mulligan.
Oh, and I pulled my "Group Discount at Gold's Gym" post because one of our permabloggers thought it's nexus with Mormonism too tenuous, and despite the growing Mormon waistline, I conceded the point. : )
- Matt E.
Post a Comment