Grouchy Smurf, distant bluish relative of Grumpy Dwarf, doesn't like unsmurfy grace! Doesn't matter that unsmurfy Philip "Gargamel" Yancey's definition agrees with Azrael's concordance, or the LDS canonical usage of the term. It just isn't smurfy!

OK, Grouchy Smurf, go and make up your own definition of "grace", one that neatly fits into your private speculative theology of allegorical Adam & Eve, Multiple Mortal Probations and loopy hermeneutics. Then label it "smurfy" and all the other Smurfs there in Smurfysville can blog about how smurfy it is.


Anonymous said... @ February 25, 2007 at 2:48 PM

In my next MMP I want to be like snarkimus prime.

Mark Butler said... @ February 25, 2007 at 3:38 PM

At least Geoff doesn't take pot shots at everyone and everything he doesn't like under the cover of an anonymous coward.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ February 25, 2007 at 7:27 PM


You already are, you are just in denial, pretending otherwise. Now all you need to do is actually figure out what the heck you are talking about before you post.


Oh, the irony!!!

Thanks for visiting. Feel free to stop by and bravely air your righteous indignation anytime. We, the anonymous cowards at SnarkerNacle, salute you, and all of the rest of the people and things about the Bloggernacle we don't like. If it weren't for people like you, there wouldn't be any SnarkerNacle, and wouldn't that be a great thing?

You see, Mark, the Bloggernacle is largely a vanity project for a bunch of people who want, more than anything else, to promote themselves and their pet ideas, kind of like you did at M*. Defend it at your own risk, smart guy.

Janet said... @ February 26, 2007 at 2:41 AM

Just a curious queston I'm not sure where else to put (can't get your email link to work, possibly because I am a luddite.)

What's the snarkernacle goal? Making fun of bloated ideas or satire, or both? I ask because you seem to range from quite funny posts devoid of vitriol (THe one you did about my mouse-infested house remains a family favorite; we appreciated the humor you offered in our stupid mess so much!) But other times I literally wind up weeping because you've been so venally cruel to an *individual* --not an individual idea, but a person. It's not exactly Jonathan Swift those times when you seem to want to make people cry. Is that the goal? My ambien (whee) is getting to me--drugged FMHer, beware!

I sincerely apologize if this was a rhetorically inappriate place to question your mission as a whole. I just couldn't get the email to work!!!!

the smurfs befuddle me for other reasons :).

Y'all have a lovely week.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ February 26, 2007 at 5:32 AM


We've explained a number of times over the past year or so that the purpose of SnarkerNacle is to provide negative feedback to the Bloggernacle. We generally try to be humorous, but not always. And, since humor is subjective, what some people consider amusing, others may not.

As far as making people cry, we don't intend to hurt people's feelings, although that has happened on occasion. But, in a Bloggernacle where brown-nosing is always welcome and criticism is rarely welcome, hurt feelings are inevitable. Whenever anyone feels like they are being unfairly treated, they should contact us at snarkernacle@yahoo.ca and make their case (NOTE: we will not entertain requests made by someone on someone else's behalf, the offended party must initiate, we don't deal with third parties).

Why do we do it? Because the Bloggernacle is loaded with people who's motives and means are questionable, if not downright preposterous. People are people, and sometimes people do things that are stupid, and point at that and say "That is stupid". And, you know what? People who do stupid things usually don't like it when it its pointed out to them that they just did something stupid. But that doesn't change the fact that it was stupid.

And, as always, if you don't like us and what we are doing, then stop reading. It is just that easy. But, at the same time, it isn't easy. Because blogging is all about vanity. Ah, delicious narcissim, it is what drives the Bloggernacle. Look at me, look at how clever and witty and insightful and scholarly I am. When, really, none of those is the case, and only a precious few realize that.

Does that answer your question?

Anonymous said... @ February 26, 2007 at 7:59 AM

Janet - I think it takes a lot of nerve for you to come into a snarky space and complain about snarkiness. At least the snark does putdowns with a little class, and usually some humor.

Go back and read The Loneliness of the Male Feminst at your blog. Look at the comments between 180 and 205. FMHLisa engages in her customary rudeness and typical snotty little insults, sarcastically mocking somebody - "oh, look, he got his poor little feelings hurt". Really, the sandbox metaphor is appropriate there, because it reminds me of the second grade.

Incredibly, JohnR DEFENDS her, comparing her to MLK. Believe me, There is a hell of a difference between FMHLisa's temper tantrums and the Letter from Birmingham Jail. Nobody on that thread, including you, bothered to challenge the Queen Bee.

This is a problem because when the septic tank at FMH overflows, as it often does, it runs down the street and through the neighborhood. Please try to do a little cleanup around your own place before complaining about how other people maintain their blogs.

Janet said... @ February 26, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Snarkimus, it was really nice of you to answer my late night question and to realize I was sincere (as opposed to surreptitiously criticizing you). I admit that the weird mood-affecting nature of ambien contributed to the comment, and I have some commenter regret! Classy of you to answer, and much appreciated.

Anon--I wasn't criticizing; I asked an honest question where I fessed up to my own hyper-sensitivity. But as for FMH? Maybe I should play peacemaker more often, but I try. And i take accountability for what I do post.

Likewise, I admire that Snarkimus Prime has the integrity to stick with his internet handle when he criticizes others. I might not like everything he writes, but I admire his cajones for taking responsibility for his prose.

Thanks again for responding to what must have seemed an odd and petulant query, SP (at least I don't drive on ambien!). Cheers for a good week!

Janet said... @ February 26, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Oh yeah--I'm really sorry about the Jonathan Swift thing. I mean, none of us write that well. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try satire! Sorry about that--it was cheeky.

Mark Butler said... @ February 28, 2007 at 6:52 AM


You are right, of course, about the primary reasons people write for web logs. Certainly few if any make any money off of it.

However, what is inherently wrong about promoting pet ideas? No one is forced to read them if they are not interested.

Would you you prefer the 'bloggernacle' to be staffed by paid functionaries who express an original thought at their own peril?

What do you hope to gain by mocking everyone you disagree with? Fools mock. How can you be so sure that what you scorn has no independent value, however awkwardly expressed?

Do you think it would improve the missionary effort if you started giving Protestant and Catholic web logs the same treatment you give LDS web logs here? I don't think so - poisoning it would be the more likely effect.

Post a Comment