So in case you are missing the latest contention in the Nacle, its over who is in the Nacle and who is just a "Mormon Blogger", or a "Blogger about Mormons", or a "Mormon Blogging about Mormons", or a "Blogger who isn't Mormon but like talking about Mormons", or a "Blogger blogging about blogging Mormons", or...um...you get the idea. The debate is raging so fiercly that a bunch of DAMUs (Disinfected Anti-MormUn s) are weighing in, which is kind of odd since they pretty much hate the Bloggernacle and all it stands for.
Rather than you having to drudge through all the drek, let me break it down for you to the four opposing definitions of what the Bloggernacle is:
1) If you use Blogging software and are "true and faithful" or innofensive to the "true and faithful" you are the Bloggernacle.
2) If you are in any way, shape or form Mormon or used to be or distantly, tangentially related to one you are the Bloggernacle, even if you don't like Mormons and would kill one if you could get away with it.
3) If you hate DKL and revile him, you are part of the Bloggernacle clique.
4) If you generally like Mormons and blog nice things about them that they like to hear and make them feel warm fuzzies, you are the Bloggernacle.
Well, that is all a load of nonsense. These navel-gazing dorks! They don't have anything else to blog about, so they create controversy to distract people from what is totally, painfully, abundantly obvious to anyone who isn't totally blind and stupid! We know what the real determining factor is for whether you are in the Bloggernacle is! Its whether you have been mocked by the Bloggernacle Snarker! Ha! End of controversy.
Snarked by
Response to Jodi Stoddard
13 comments
I think you are right, the Snark! defines the bloggernacle.
;)
Brings tears to my eyes, buddy. Because once, long ago, in a post not even in the archives, I was snarked.
Its still there Ann.
http://snarkernackle.blogspot.com/2005/11/bloggernacle-snarker-receives.html
Wow. Sadly, Snarkette, you may be right.
I've never been snarked, so does that mean that I am in the bloggernacle but not of the bloggernacle?
I hope so, because that means I can join Snarkette in outer snarkness.
Hey, I've been snarked plenty of times and, somehow, I doubt many of those snobs consider me part of the nacle.
Steve EM, you dingbat, you don't even have a blog!
I was snarked and I didn't have a blog. It was when I was trying to marry off Jessie to Septimus, who doesn't exist.
I'm totally with Dave on this one - we need to carefully define who is or who is not the "bloggernacle". The problem is, some of these new blogs seem to think they can call themselves part of the community of the bloggernacle, but they do not really hold to the true creeds of the bloggernacle. It's blasphemous the way they co-opt our language and twist it into something else entirely. The sad thing is, all of those naive newbies will be drawn away into false bloggernacality, lost forever from the graces of the true bloggernacle, and burn in hell.
To combat this blight on our community, I am publishing a book, due out this fall, called Is the Sunstoner my Bloggernacle Brother?, to be followed in the Spring by a larger, more penetrating book called:
MORMON STORIES UNVEILED;
INCLUDING THE REMARKABLE LIFE AND CONFESSIONS OF JOHN DELIHN;
(As Told by Himself.)
(Illustrated.)
Oh, those are going to sell like hotcakes. Put me down for one.
snarkette,
By your logic none of us are LDS because we only visit chapels and temples and don't live in them. Just as a church can't exist without parishioners, blogs wouldn't exist without readers/commenters. We are the nacle. Get over it.
And that's why ban happy T&S sucks so bad.
I didn't get snarked, but I did get linked when Tracy popped out her kid. Does that mean I'm a naccler twice removed?
Post a Comment