That seems to be the question – at least over at BCC.
I’m hesitant to add my two-cents to a post that has already been Snarked, but some things were said in the BCC comments that cried out to be snarked upon.
The basic questions posed by Ronan are:
Can snark ever be civil? Should the ‘nacle support Snarkey? Was the Mormon Archipelago right to boot them? Should the curtain be pulled back?These questions suggest an air of arrogant supremacy (speaking of 'nacle bigwigs generally, not Ronan specifically) in all things Bloggernacle related. It assumes the ability of the ‘nacle bigwigs of BCC, T&S, M*, et al to curtail "support" for the Snarker in addition to the capability of said entities and/or individuals to expose those of us associated with Snarking. I submit that if such exposure were possible, it would already have taken place. The frustration of ‘nacle bigwigs in this effort must be maddening.
As for civility – there are those among us in the ‘nacle who will take offense if any contrarian views or comedic fun are had at their expense. They believe they have a God given right to express their views – however warped or misguided they may be – in a public forum for all to see, hear, read, and enjoy.
You know what? To do so is their right and they have the ability to pontificate to the limit allowed by the collective bandwidth available to them. That said, my ability to poke holes in ever-expanding egos is governed under the same tenets under which the ‘nacle bigwigs post their thoughts.
There is an ever raging debate about what exactly is Snarkworthy. The Snarker/Snarkette and I have, at times, disagreed on this standard. Most of the time, I don’t snark people relating their personal trials and tribulations – unless they happen to be related in a manner which causes me to spew my morning Diet Coke on my computer monitor because the story is so frigging hilarious. Yes, Tracy M., I’m talking about you. I try, and often fail, to keep away from snarking the FHM’ers more than once a week. Believe me, this takes a discipline which I have not yet entirely mastered.
Basically, if you’re going to take pot-shots at the Brethren, claim that your personal opinion is more valid than established Doctrine, or trumpet the Sunstoned Symposium over General Conference – and I have the time, energy, and disposition to do so – you’re going to get snarked. Sometimes I’ll take a comedic course, other times I’ll just point out what I find to be ludicrous.
What will most likely drive the ‘nacle bigwigs even further nuts is the fact that I don’t need or require ‘nacle support to participate in this blog. Read if you like. Comment if you feel so inclined. Either way, my ego is secure. Sorry to disappoint, Kaimi.
For the record, I do not know the Snarker/Snarkette. Neither Dazzle nor I have ever met or spoken with any other member of the Snarker Team. If the ‘nacle bigwigs desire to "expose" me, I invite them to take their best shot.
So, to answer Ronan’s question – yes, the fact that no one is forced to read the Snarker is relevant. Far more relevant, however, is fact that his ability, and the ability of other ‘nacle bigwigs, to control what is Snarked is, in fact, non-existent.
That’s the way the ‘nacle turns.