Cast your vote!

March 3, 2007

Voting has begun!  Listen up, Florida: the ballot is in TWO PARTS. 

Click here to vote: Part 1.

There is a link to Part 2 at the end.  If you get lost, click here for Part 2.

Voting will be open for about 1 week.  Bloggernacle Niblet Award policies strictly encourage dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads.  In such cases, the intent of your vote will be determined by disgruntled election staffers. 


114 Responses to “Cast your vote!”

  1. Ann Says:

    I can’t believe Rosalyde Welch got left off of “Sorely missed.”

    You should retire Wilfried.

  2. Ann Says:

    Are we allowed to comment on why we voted for certain things here? Or is that campaigning too close to a voting site?

  3. Anonymous Says:

    Rosalynde posted in November. Surely “sorely missed” means more than a month or two.

    I’d campaign for votes, but that would seem too forward. I’ll just say vote for the cool guy!

  4. Janet Says:

    I agree that Rosalynde should have been included in the “most missed” catagory. Her absence, while fairly recent, is nontheless noticeable and acute.

    At least the infamous “breasts and beards” comment made it in! 🙂

  5. Susan M Says:

    I wish we could’ve voted for more than one on a lot of those.

  6. Ann Says:

    And I meant that Wilfried should be retired after he wins the best blogger category hands down.

  7. ldsniblets Says:

    Rosalynde has been added to “sorely missed” on the poll. Niblet officials regret this most egregious omission.

  8. Ryan Says:

    Oh, Rosalynde wasn’t on the poll? Strange.. I must’ve missed that.

  9. Ronan Says:

    Apparently not even my wife voted for me, so I guess that’s me out then.

  10. annegb Says:

    DKL was robbed. He deserved to be nominated for best blogger a heck of a lot more than Brad Pitt deserved to be nominated for best actor.

    As for my nomination, I abstain. Nobody vote for me. Seriously. Strictly speaking, I’m a blogger now. I am one of you :). I won’t be hurt if you take my name off, but I don’t want to give it more attention.

    Wilfried, I hope you read this. I want you to know that I often print your stories off for my visiting teaching ladies. Two Ladies was wonderful and I used it last month to emphasize the message about serving by becoming closer to Christ. When I’m looking for a profound thought, I go to T & S and type in “wilfried.”

    I hadn’t read most of the ones nominated for best post. I was working my way through them when I came to gst’s greatest hits. I’m so glad I clicked on them. gst, you are a treasure. Although I thought you were a girl. Are you? A girl lawyer?

    “you’re making a mockery of the sanctity of imaginary gay marriage” I wet my pants. TMI? Everyone should read this.

    It’s odd, funny, whatever is the good adjective how important this little “awards” process is, to me and I assume, everyone else.

    You guys, I am about to get sentimental and maudlin, which I seldom do, even with my husband. Thank you, thank you for being here. You have saved me in more ways than you can imagine. I thought I was the only one. Ponder the significance of what “one” means. 🙂 heh,heh.

  11. HP Says:

    I’m just upset that there weren’t more opportunities for me to vote for myself.

  12. a random John Says:


    Don’t worry, I voted for myself for you!

    Well, actually, I voted for some other people too, to my own detriment. But if I don’t vote for me, who will?

  13. Anonymous Says:

    So are comments on this post kinda like the exit poll data we get on election day?

    Leverage the election! Skew the early returns!

  14. fMhLisa Says:

    I do appreciate you all for setting this up. I’m sure it has involved a lot of work on your parts, so please take this comment in a spirit of friendship.

    First, I think you must be unaware that fMh is significantly larger than both T&S and BCC. So I admit it bothers me that we are not considered a “big” blog.

    Second, I think that there should be transparency in this process. It’s not clear to me who is running and administrating this site. I think this should be clear, Especially considering the above mistake. So basically, who built this site, who is running it, and who is involved in making the significant decisions? I think you have great intentions, but I think transparency is always a good idea.

  15. fMhLisa Says:

    It occurs to me that this may be my fault (doh) since I have never made fMh stats public (though I didn’t design the site, really, I could have figured out how to add a public stat counter had I been motivated to do so).

    Anyhow, for the record, Acccording to the public T&S stats, they average 1677 visits a day. The BCC stats are a little more tricky because they just show a running total, but as luck would have it, I keep track. On 1/31/07 their visit counter read 634,700, Today 2/28/07 it reads 673,684, Making an appoximate total of 38,984 visits in Feb. Dividing that by 27 (since today is not yet over) you get an average of 1443 visits per day. fMh averaged in Feb about 2262 visits per day. (and no, I’m not confusing visits with page views. Also in feb at fMh: 63358 visits, 185003 page views, 722262 hits)

  16. Kurt Says:


    FMH is nowhere near the caliber of either BCC or T&S, and any attempt to equate FMH with them is absurd. Comparing them based on daily hits doesnt hold water, as there are better means of defining “big” than that. FMH drives traffic based upon salacious and inflamatory content, while T&S and BCC drive traffic based upon substantive material and generally intelligent conversation. While Rebecca does her best there, FMH is a dim bulb compared to T&S and BCC.

    And, frankly, pitting FMH against T&S and BCC would result in FMH turning in single digit results, so you are being spared the humiliation. Be grateful you have a fighting chance in the group blog category.

  17. fMhLisa Says:

    Wow Kurt, that was some very pure cruelty. I’m struggling on how to even respond sincerely and respectfully. I do agree that Rebecca is a gem, and I do adore her. But I also sincerely love and admire all the bloggers, and so many of the commentors at fMh. They are intellegent women, they are also very sincere in their desires to live the gospel, and to provide a quality blog that can help people who have stuggled as we have. We do have our flaws, we are human. But we also matter, God loves us, our feelings matter, and your random cruelty toward us is probably not a shining moment for you.

    We blog about things that sincerely concern us, about issues that weigh heavy in our souls. Perhaps you do not find those things substantive nor intelligent (a whole lot of people seem to disagree). Therefore I urge you not to visit, lest you artifically drive our “bigness”.

    I also urge you not to make illogical arguments in the heat of your vitriol. It would be far more convincing to simply argue that there is not necessarily any connection between quality and popularity (a very defensible argument)(but kinda silly still, in defence of an award that is essencially another popularity contest), than to try to argue that “big” means something other than “big”.

  18. Kurt Says:


    You yourself posted a piece entitled “Sex sells” to FMH some months ago. Therein, you admit that FMH is driving traffic owing to salacious content. How is it then you now take umbrage at that? FMH welcomes and encourages inflamatory discussions on Women & Priesthood, Blacks & Priesthood and race, Feminism & the LDS Church, Polygamy, and every other contentious issue, where post-mos and ex-mos are welcome to freely air their complaints.

    At no point do I make any suggestion that God doesnt love you and your permabloggers, or that your feelings dont matter, or that you arent being earnest in your endeavors, or that you arent addressing heartfelt issues that help people. And I am not suggesting that now.

    What I am saying is FMH drives traffic based upon salacious and inflamatory content, which is obviously the case, and by your own admission.

    Porn sites have high hit counts too, Lisa. So if someone starts a m0rmon pr0n blog and gets a lot of hits, more than FMH, then does that make them big? No. FMH is not on par with BCC and T&S.

  19. ECS Says:

    Kurt – both BCC and T&S have hosted “inflammatory discussions on Women & the Priesthood, Blacks & the Priesthood and race, Feminism & the LDS Church, Polygamy, and every other contentious issue.” In fact, BCC hosted the comment that is now in the running for the “most inflammatory comment” of 2006. You may not appreciate FMH’s style or emphasis, but I agree with Lisa that FMH deserves a place on the Niblets ballot as a big blog.

    Niblet Administrator: While I’m flattered that people even remember who ECS is, could you please remove my full name from the list? Elisabeth is fine. ECS preferred 🙂 Thanks!

  20. Anon Says:

    I like girls with big….blogs.

  21. Kurt Says:


    Sure, BCC and T&S have had their moments of unbridled contention and stupidity, I will not defend them on that point. However, that is not how they butter their bread like FMH does. Both T&S and BCC have a rock-solid base of consistently substantive posts and comments, FMH does not. FMH frequently, not occasionally, posts salacious and inflamatory material, and is populated with a significant number of postmos and exmos who frequently drive comments. This is not a matter of taste, it a matter of content and substance, and FMH doesnt measure up, hitcount notwithstanding.

  22. ldsniblets Says:


    Thanks for stopping by. You bring up a valid point concerning the definition of “big”. There was considerable discussion last year regarding what was a big blog, what was not a big blog, etc. The (unwritten/undefined) intent of the “big blog” category, so far as we understood it, was to include blogs that have a wide appeal to a general audience. T&S and BCC both neatly fit into this category. The focus of FMH’s target audience is more narrowly defined.

    If we were to use web traffic as a gauge of “big blog”, then we would also need to include Ken Jennings’ blog (which was nominated, btw). Ken’s traffic far exceeds anything that T&S, BCC or FMH see. If traffic is the meter, then surely Dooce should be in that category.

    If you would like to add FMH to the “big” category, we will gladly do so. However, Kurt makes a valid point that it is unlikely to result in any significant results against BCC and T&S. Plus, most people have already voted.

    At this point, voting is nearly completed. If you are disatisfied with the way FMH was categorized, and would like FMH withdrawn, we will be happy to oblige.


    ECS it shall be. 😉 Good to see you alive and kicking.

  23. danithew Says:

    Just for the record, I think FMH should be added to the “big” category. It sounds biased to me, to decide ahead of time that a blog won’t garner many votes, ahead of time.

    Professional pollsters get surprised sometimes.

    Plus, we all know that behind the scenes, blogs encourage their permabloggers and buddies to vote for them in certain categories. If FMH did that at all, it would probably be all over.

  24. danithew Says:

    FMHLisa wrote:

    I think that there should be transparency in this process. It’s not clear to me who is running and administrating this site. I think this should be clear, Especially considering the above mistake. So basically, who built this site, who is running it, and who is involved in making the significant decisions? I think you have great intentions, but I think transparency is always a good idea.

    I agree entirely with what FMHLisa is saying here. If this awards process is going to have legitimacy, we have to know who the people are behind the scenes.

  25. Kurt Says:

    Plus, we all know that behind the scenes, blogs encourage their permabloggers and buddies to vote for them in certain categories. If FMH did that at all, it would probably be all over.

    What? Like BCC and T&S arent doing the same?

    FMH was done a favor to be given a chance at winning the best blog category.

    Dont you people get it? Nobody would stand a chance against BCC and T&S, that is why they were isolated, to protect everyone else from being swamped by them. Semantics over who is big and who isnt is meaningless. The reality is no other blogs could stand a chance of winning against BCC and T&S. Capice?

  26. a random John Says:

    Looking at the nominations process it seems that there was a simple oversight: there was no “big blog” category. It has come about after the fact and thus we have this contention.

    I’ll admit that I pretty much never visit FMH, so I can’t comment on the content there. I do know that I hear the phrase “the big three blogs” a lot and “the big two blogs” not at all. So I think that the conventional wisdom of the bloggernacle is that FMH is a “big blog” whatever that means. And they clearly have a dedicated fan base.

    I have to say that this year BCC has been head an shoulders above the rest and I can’t see how they wouldn’t win, but maybe it is more important for FMH to get nominated in the big category than to potentially run away with the group category.

    Maybe next year there can be a three step process:
    1. Nominations of categories – with definitions!
    2. Nominations of candidates within those categories.
    3. Voting within the categories used in #2.

    In any case I’m just happy that someone is clearly taking all of this more seriously than I am. I was afraid that I’d look like a real putz having proclaimed my willingness to both nominate and vote for myself. Now I’m not nearly so worried.

  27. danithew Says:

    Kurt, I don’t think FMH needs “protection” or even wants it. I’m sure FMH is better qualified to fend for itself and would not want to hand that responsibility over to an anonymous person or group of people.

  28. Anonymous Says:

    I thought the entire Niblets thing was just for fun, but I based on this thread I guess it is just childish and stupid. It’s a popularity contest, people. You get pigeonholed and categorized. That’s what happens.

    Why don’t you just make a category, “Best blog EVER (big, small, group, solo, feminist, non-feminist, etc):
    a) FMH
    b) FMH
    c) FMH

  29. danithew Says:

    Actually, if you think about it, FMH has continually built its base and its group of permabloggers. Also, FMH actively promotes the Bloggernacle (including T&S and BCC:) with its blogroll.

    That’s two reasons why I’d be willing to vote for FMH.

  30. I daresay if next year you open nominations for “best big blog” FMH will find its way on.

    Let the people decide!

  31. Kurt Says:

    arJ, the “Big Three” were BCC, T&S and M*. M* obviously no longer is one of them, hence now the “big two”. Do you see any of the M* guys complaining about not being in the nomination? No. Because it is obvious to everyone they dont belong there, anymore than FMH does. FMH does what it does and a lot of people are happy that it does. Thats fine and well. FMH absolutely does not do well what BCC and T&S do. How is that even up for debate?

    danithew, it isnt a matter of protecting someone, its a matter of common sense. Comparing FMH to BCC and T&S makes no sense. How are hitcounts even relevant? They arent, they are almost meaningless statistics.

  32. danithew Says:

    FMH is one of the big Mormon blogs. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise is ignoring reality. I can recognize the reasons that some people don’t like FMH so much and would prefer BCC: and T&S to be the definition of all-that-is-Mormon-blogging … but we’re still talking about Mormon blogs and which Mormon blogs are “big” and FMH should be a contender.

    Overall traffic is significant and it seems pretty obvious that FMH draws more traffic than any other Mormon blog. FMH draws more traffic than BCC and T&S and FMHLisa shouldn’t have to say so over and over again until she’s blue in the face to get recognition.

  33. Kurt Says:


    The traffic FMH gets is from Mormons, ex-mormons and post-mormons, and a lot of search engine traffic from sex-related words. Please explain to me how that is a good means of determining what a “big blog” is.

    I am not sitting here saying BCC and T&S rock. I dont think they do. Everyone knows I think T&S is populated by a bunch of pretentious jerks and BCC is a clique of self-promoting bone heads. I have never beat around the bush about that. But, the fact is, they do what they do very well and generally and consistently keep quality high and contention low and volume up. Nobody else in the Bloggernacle touches this. Not M*, not FMH, not anyone else.

  34. danithew Says:

    By the way, when I say I understand why some people don’t like FMH so much, I’m simply saying that I understand why it’s not their brand of choice. I didn’t mean that as a slam of FMH.

    Frankly, in my mind, it’s like an argument about whether you prefer orange soda, root beer or Dr. Pepper. People can argue about the virtue of certain ingredients all day long, but it’s pretty much subjective as they are all talking about soda. At least that’s the analogy I’m choosing to throw out there right now.

  35. Kurt Says:

    Enough Daniel, I am saying its apples and oranges, and you are saying its all fruity and good.

  36. danithew Says:

    Kurt, I have no idea how much of FMH’s traffic is merely due to people googling sex-related words.

    However, I believe T&S and BCC: have had enough posts about issues such as same-sex-marriage, pornography, etc. that they are able to draw keyword searches as well. It’s not entirely clear to me that FMH would dominate them for those kind of draws, though admittedly some FMH posts might ultimately titillate more than anything over at the other sites we’re talking about.

  37. a random John Says:

    Actually Kurt, I used to hear about “the big four” for a while but I wasn’t going to bring that up. FMH was in the big three before M* existed and continues to be now that we seem to be back to three.

  38. fMhLisa Says:

    Dear Mystery Nib,

    I’ve thought about this and I think I would be most comfortable if you just removed fMh from the voting. I’m sorry, I really don’t want to create contention. And I don’t mean this as any kind of niblet boycott, I hope people still participate and I want the winners to celebrate. I’m even willing to write a post to drive some of our (copious) traffic here. I wish all the other blogs the best. I doubt we would have won in a competition against T&S and BCC, however, the blogs in the group category are also really worthy blogs, and I don’t think it’s fair to pit my behemoth against them. The result in that contest wouldn’t really mean anything.

    I disagree that a blog about women, by women, and for women is too narrow an audiance to qualify as big, or “appeal to a wide audience”. But I know that since this is clearly an issue that should be debated and decided on by our community, YOU (whom ever you are) should not have exclusive rights to make that decision. I also agree with arJ that given general and pervasive “Big Three” talk, the community seemed to have already decided which blogs are big, and your decision goes against nearly a year of general community understanding (Kurt seems to have missed the last year of bloggernacle history).

    Also, I still think it is vital you reveal who you are. If you do not this competition will lose all legitimacy.

  39. Kurt Says:

    arJ & Lisa,

    M* got inducted into the Big Islands at Mormon Archipelago long before FMH did, right? Or is that not the case? Oh, yes it is. Lets take a look at the wayback machine (see the ‘worst thing’ entry), shall we? OK then. Who doesnt have their history right?

    The legitimacy of the competition does not hinge on who the administrators are, it hinges on who voted and whether those votes are fairly tallied and presented. Nobody has descriminated against you, Lisa, so give it a rest. People were trying to do FMH a favor by giving them a fighting chance at actually winning, and you sit there and whine and moan about how unfair it is. Yeah, you are right, next year FMH shouldnt have a snowball’s chance at winning, then you will be happy.

  40. Rusty Says:

    As someone who has done a few surveys on surveymonkey I know that you can’t make any changes once the first person has voted. So don’t hold your breath that the administrator is going to start all over again and ask everyone to vote again.

    I personally am a bit surprised that FMH, a blog I semi-regularly read, wasn’t in the big blog category. But what I don’t understand is why it matters enough to make a fuss about it and talk about transparency and all that. This is someone’s pet project, a survey on surveymonkey. When I read that the “changing BCC headers” was listed I fell over laughing (because my headers change every other week and are much, much better (sorry Steve) than BCC’s). I guess I should have written in and demanded transparency and threatened illegitimacy if my banners weren’t listed as an option. That would have made the whole community realize how cool my banners REALLY are!

    Oh yeah, I forgot. I don’t care.

  41. danithew Says:

    Surveymonkey. Just reading the word “surveymonkey” makes me want to laugh.

  42. fMhLisa Says:

    I haven’t actually taken the quiz yet (I’m waiting for fMh to be removed first)(they seem to be able to make changes: Rosalynde), so I’m not really sure what you’re talking about specifically, but I do agree that your banners rock, really gorgeous every time.

    Nevertheless, even before this error I was bothered by the lack of transparancy. I went to the about page on my very first visit fully assuming that the creators of this site would be listed. Perhaps I should have said something then. I thought about it, but assumed that it was an oversight and it would come out on its own, I didn’t want to make a fuss over nothing. But now it seems that it is a not an oversight but a REAL secret. So what is there to hide? Probably nothing, but how can we know?

    And as to how much it matters? Transparency even in small things is an essencial part of a healthy community of any type, we have to be accountable to each other, especially in things like this that involve our relationships as a community. Just because something is small in significance in the overall picture, the fall-out of secrets and lack of honesty can infect a community with a lot of anger and distrust (think BoH).

  43. a random John Says:


    Now you’re declaring the MA to be the leading authority on blog worthiness? Hmmmmm…

    I’m happy to admit that it is a judgment call that could go either way. It doesn’t bother me at all which way it falls.

    I do hope that fMhLisa’s comments about the unfairness of her behemoth versus the other blogs was meant in jest. This whole thing seems to be taken way too seriously.

  44. Susan M Says:

    I nominate this thread.

  45. Janet Says:

    Kurt, wow, you sound really angry. Why can’t FMH possibly serve actual Mormons by allowing non-mormons or the vacillating to speak, now? I have nothing against you, but wow. We do delete vitriolic anti comments, or ignore them, but deleting the comments of anyone who isn’t mainstream or who we disagree with strikes me as a really fraidy cat thing to do. Do any of the blogs do that? (I don’t really know). I know i’ve never erased any of your comments.

    Hey, I love T&S and BCC and thought nothing sexist about our exclusion until I read your comments here. But T&S isn’t really mainstream either. Most Mormons don’t care about intellectual inquiry. Yet, I still value it highly and enjoy reading it and am thus grateful for T&S and BCC. They aid my testimony–just as oodles of people say FMH helps theirs, albeit by slightly different means.

    Anyhow, we’re all taking this a bit too seriously, dontcha think?

  46. Janet Says:

    I don’t know who sets up the niblets, but thanks for offering a potentially fun and amusing little back-pat. The animosity on this thread shouldn’t cast asperion on an otherwise fun endeavor–so thanks! I know I really enjoyed voting for Ros’s infamous “breasts and bears” comment 🙂

  47. Kurt Says:

    Yeah, Lisa, its a big secret, that is why the people running it are doing a Niblet cast, because they dont want you to know who they are. Big secret!!! Oooo, dont tell anyone!!!

    ARJ, is MA the authority? Of course, not, talk about another self-promoting clique. But, when it comes to serving culturally normative definitions, if it was good enough for miss LisaB, and nobody else complained about it, then I guess its good enough for me. And if it shuts Lisa up about FMH being one of the original big three, then I will defer.

    Yes, Janet, the whole thing is being taken way too seriously. Am I angry? Sure, I am absolutely livid with rage, cant you see me frothing at the mouth? My eyes are positively crossed. Actually, I just think Lisa’s reaction, and danithew’s as well, to this thing is complete nonsense. People go out of their way to give FMH a chance at actually winning, and Lisa gets pissed off about it. The whole thing is asinine. Yeah, Lisa, please do go on some more about your awesome, huge, mammoth, behemoth blog and massive traffic patterns that eclipse the very sun and threaten to take down the very internets. Get off your high horse and go do another Poop Chronicles installment.

  48. Janet Says:

    Kurt–Mouth frothy? Well then, do spit out your toothpaste ;). You just seem a bit focused on something you claim to find remotely interesting, that’s all. But then, I’m typing to avoid research, which supposedly does interest me.

    And you gotta admit, if you’ve EVER spent a good deal of time around small children, the poop chronicles are funny. Or tragically true, depending on how proximal the event is to your temporal moment. If niblet winners could be guaranteed a life filled with children but free of poop (an impossibility), then I’d stuff the ballot box for myself.

  49. Janet Says:

    Dang, why don’t my emoticons ever work? I’m am emoticon cursed.

  50. gst Says:

    annegb (#10): “Although I thought you were a girl. Are you? A girl lawyer?”

    Sorry, not a girl. Maybe I should play one on the internet. Like those guys on Dateline. I could set up a rendezvous with Steve Evans and bust him on tape for a BCC podcast.

    Thanks for your support.

    I waive my secret ballot privileges and disclose my votes here: BCC as best big blog (apologies to my friends at Times & Seasons, but BCC was due!); Nine Moons as best group blog (they’re the only group blog with enough sense to expel me as a blogger); Viva Ned Flanders and Mormon Mentality in their categories (they’re the only ones that I had seen) (and they’re not bad); Kevin Barney as best blogger (I like Ardis and Ronan too but I like their comments better than their posts); Matt Evans as best commenter (he’s right); Rusty is the unsung hero (I owe him); best new thing is LDS Elect (I had never read any other moblogs besides the three leaders and 9M before LDS Elect); worst thing are the political discussions; best post was Susan M’s (honestly I didn’t remember any of the nominated posts but I dig some of her work so this was a sort of “lifetime achievement” vote); Greenwood is sorely missed (when Greenwood and Evans were recently arguing about art it scared me in a “why are mommy and daddy fighting?” sort of way); JDC deserves his notice in the write-in category.

    Finally, if the “gst’s Greatest Hits” post wins, I will play Al Gore to Steve Evans’ Davis Guggenheim at the awards ceremony. Theme song by Melissa Etheridge too.

  51. Kurt Says:

    Janet, I am waist deep in kids and wading through dirty diapers, sizes 4 and 1. Poop Chronicles gets a D-. I would give it an F if it werent for that one about the improvised hand warmer.

  52. Melissa Says:

    “The whole thing is asinine. Yeah, Lisa, please do go on some more about your awesome, huge, mammoth, behemoth blog and massive traffic patterns that eclipse the very sun and threaten to take down the very internets. Get off your high horse and go do another Poop Chronicles installment.”

    Kurt, I’m not sure why this discussion has elicited such scornful disdain from you.

    If I understand your criticisms of FMH correctly, you resist categorizing FMH as a “big blog” not because it doesn’t meet a certain requirement of size (which then calls into question the modifier “big”), but rather because it doesn’t meet some undisclosed (assumed?) criteria regarding content and commenter activity level.

    Whether FMH belongs in the “big three” seems rather uniteresting, in my opinion. (My own “big three”—i.e. the blogs I read at least weekly are BCC, FMH, and ZD). What is more interesting from a sociological and cultural standpoint is that FMH seems able to appeal to a wide variety of people on the Mormon activity spectrum. That in and of itself sets FMH apart in interesting ways, but it’s not enough to malign or exclude it. It’s actually worth asking why that might that be the case. What accounts for its popularity? What need is FMH meeting? “Salacious content” doesn’t count as a reflective answer to the question and here’s why. If someone were interested in looking at the Mormon virtual community from a perspective of cyberethnograpy, FMH would be much more interesting and useful than T&S, for example, because of the lengthy descriptions of the lived religious experience of real Mormon women.

    I would therefore argue that what counts as important Mormon blogging is entirely subjective and has everything to do with what your purposes in the bloggernacle are, your opinion on who’s voices matter and why. While I think that the work of a number of the BCC bloggers (Sam Brown jumps immediately to mind) has been really excellent this year, they are doing something that is very different than what FMH bloggers do.

    What’s more, I don’t think that you can take the question of gender out of this discussion (you know this was coming, right?). T&S and BCC are largely male-driven blogs. Does this play a role in the topics and themes of posts and the way conversation threads take shape? Not always, but certainly sometimes. We should be wary of a quick and easy dismissal of what is preponderantly female experience, reasoning, approaches, interests, etc. simply because it differs from the dominant (read male) perspective.

    When you claim that “substantive material and generally intelligent conversation” distinguishes T&S and BCC from FMH, it raises the question of subjectivity again. Either you have not read FMH very regularly (and that might very well be the case since you seem to have a bias against it) or your definitions of “substantive” and “intelligent” are different from mine and a lot of other readers.

    This comment does not mean that I endorse every post or discussion on FMH, but I’m really surprised at Kurt’s reaction, which seems not only out of touch, but not very self-reflective.

  53. jessawhy Says:

    Kurt, are you administering this survey?

  54. Janet Says:

    Kurt, since I am (very sadly) kidless, can you tell me what a size 4 diaper is? It sounds so….big. And thus scary. Baby poop, not scary. Big kid poop, terrifying! How far apart chronologically is a size 1 kid and a size 4 kid? (not sized like the clothes, are they?)

    Hey, maybe I find the poop chronicles funny, yay, hilarious, because I don’t have kids right now! But I do remember nannying twins and goodness, the fright. Cuteness made up for it, though. Swapping terror tales helped keep me from sobbing on bad kid days back then, though.

    Done with my diaperesque threadjack. I’m so avoiding work.

  55. fMhLisa Says:

    Jessawhy, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Kurt running the Niblets, hum. No bias there.

    arJ, for the record, I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek at least about the behemoth thing, it is a rather cheeky word. Nevertheless it really did seem really unfair to pit a blog that gets several thousand visits a day against blogs that recieve several hundred. Not that it matters since it’s all a sad secret farce now anyway.

  56. fMhLisa Says:

    Janet, size 4 diapers usually fit a large toddler, between 25-35 lbs. The poops are huge, frightening, and copious. And worse still because 25-35 lbs children are generally perfectly capable of removing poopy diapers that are annoying them, and leaving them lying around for the dog to eat, and then to sit with their bare poop covered behinds on your precious furniture before you notice.

  57. Janet Says:

    Do we ever get to find out who runs these, exactly? Is there an envelope reveal of the creator(s)when the results get posted? (This is my first year–I don’t know how it’s been done in the past.) I think the transparency suggestion really is quite astute. Sure, the Niblets aren’t the Nobels, but aren’t y’all curious?

  58. I have 8 children and I detest the Poop Chronicles. I have my own poop stories which I keep to myself. I promise you will never read them on my blog.

    As for FMH, Kurt says: “The traffic FMH gets is from Mormons, ex-mormons and post-mormons, and a lot of search engine traffic from sex-related words. Please explain to me how that is a good means of determining what a “big blog” is.

    I think one can simply scroll down the comments on any one of the recent posts to see that there are many who are seriously interested and involved in FMH. The last 5 blogs in Feb got the following number of comments:
    41, 21, 121, 52, 43.
    (Sure doesn’t look like search engine traffic to me.)
    At T&S:
    28, 13, 13, 90, 7.
    At BCC:
    32, 55, 155, 15, 15.

    To fmhLisa, please don’t back off on this. As women, we tend to withdraw in times of conflict. Kurt is making this a power struggle and it feels uncomfortable. Niblets should be all in fun!! But I hope you will stand your ground, the stats are on your side.

  59. Kurt Says:

    Melissa, I used to read FMH, now I dont. Their whole foray into all things prurient, circa the Sex Sells post and Kaimi and Mardell’s multiple O comments, indicated to me that Lisa valued quantity over quality and had sold out. If everything is subjective, then everyones opinions are irrelevant, so we may as well end the discussion now. I never appealed to the Big Three thing, that was Lisa and ARJ who were trying to use it argue FMH into the same category as BCC and T&S. Cyberethnography? Did you just make that up? Not self-reflective? Forgive me for not gazing at myself in the mirror more often, I do try to avoid narcissism, unlike most bloggers. It isnt about quantity, its about quality, and FMH hasnt got it when it comes to playing in the same league as BCC and T&S. They work hard to maintain a certain level of quality and decorum, FMH doesnt. When was the last time you saw a half-baked, stream of conciousness post at BCC or T&S?

    Jessawhy, No.

    Janet, size 4 = typically around 18-24 months, size 1 is typically 0-3 months. Size 4 is the real deal when it comes to output containment, size 1 isnt. The people behind the Niblets will be doing a Nibletcast, as they said right from the very start. That is why all of this whining about transparency is a load of hooey, suitable for a size 4 diaper.

  60. annegb Says:

    Kurt, I don’t like some of those poop posts, either, but women deal with poop. Men mostly don’t and it’s easy to set yourself above it and say it’s a “half-baked stream of consciousness.”
    I disagree. I think your decision to exclude FMH reflects a myopically masculine point of view. It’s discrimination. The same league, give me a break. If BCC and T & S were as high minded as they think they are, they’d’ve been translated.

    FMH addresses the real world. Men go fishing or read their scriptures. Women clean up the poop.

  61. ldsniblets Says:

    Rusty (#40):
    Gold star on your forehead for the best comment on this thread. And yes, your banners are pretty cool.

    Janet (#57):
    Do we ever get to find out who runs these, exactly?

    Yes. Stay tuned.

    Bored in Vernal (#58):
    It’s a mystery why this controversy continues, since fmhLisa asked to be withdrawn from the poll. When it was clear that many people agreed with Lisa, the decision was made to add FMH to the “big blog” category. By that time, however, Lisa had asked to have FMH withdrawn. And so it has been done.

  62. Kurt Says:

    AnneGB, in referring to “half-baked stream of conciousness” I was referring to some of Lisa’s posts to FMH where she just gets on and blathers, not the poop chronicles. Nobody at BCC or T&S use their forum in the manner Lisa uses hers. And as far as a masculine point of view, when I am home, I change lots of diapers, and I dont fish. I do read my scriptures on occasion. So dont pull this sexist crap, that isnt what this is about. I cook, clean, bake, wipe butts and wash dishes, so step off. FMH is what it is, and what it isnt is on par with BCC and T&S. That is all that this is about, and nothing else. Every stupid accusation and argument Lisa has dredged up has been shot down, so now we play the sexism card? Give it up.

    FMHLisa, I am not running the Niblets, I am not admining the ldsniblets blogsite, I am not admining the surveymonkey survey, I have no direct involvement in it. Got it?

    Bored in Vernal, how is it a power struggle when they give FMH a chance to win? This is so stupid. It is beyond stupid, and now making accusations of sexism is just idiotic. Yeah, BCC and T&S represent the “MEN” and FMH represents the “WOMEN” and this is all about MEN excluding WOMEN and crushing them under their masculine feet. Quick, someone page Quimby and get her in here to grab this ball and run out the stadium with it. And while you are at it, please inform Kristine, Amri, Julie, Ardis, Margaret and all the other women at BCC and T&S that they are now men. What complete nonsense. After this fails, then the Niblets will be accused of being racist too, right?

  63. Melissa Says:

    “When was the last time you saw a half-baked, stream of conciousness post at BCC or T&S?”

    Two days ago.

  64. HP Says:

    People! Can we set aside our gender wars and instead focus on when the voting ends? I really want to find out just how vitriolic my vitriolic nonsense is. Also, the tone on this thread is starting to give my post a run for its money and I don’t want no competition.

  65. Kurt Says:

    HP, did you just call me a tonist?

  66. Susan M Says:

    gst, thanks for the vote. I can’t remember exactly, but I’m pretty sure I voted for the thread of all your comments. So we’re even.

  67. annegb Says:

    Okay, Kurt, you are not a sexist. However, I believe that leaving FMH out of is sexist in nature. It doesn’t matter that the other blogs HAVE women, FMH is FOR women and their issues.

    To be honest, there are posts that I avoid. I don’t need to talk about poop or sex. But many young women do. My daughter loves to discuss things I would never discuss.

    FMH provides a valuable service that goes beyond pontificating on the nature of God. I call that quality. I don’t read all the posts on BCC or T & S either, but that doesn’t mean I can decide how valuable they are to someone else.

    You don’t like Lisa’s posts, no one likes everyone. That’s not the issue.

    And since she’s withdrawn, I’m fighting a non-issue.

  68. manaen Says:

    FMHLisa should win something for counterposting herself as “Kurt”

  69. fMhLisa Says:

    It is really sad to see this award, and this thread destroyed by someone who values secrecy and bias over building a strong bloggernacle community. The question was Very simple, who are you?

    I think the only way to recover the wreak is to take it back from the mystery niblet and start over. Perhap next year since this years competition is probably compromised beyond salvage.

    The new niblets should be run by a group of people willing to be honest from the begining about their identities, and from different parts of the bloggernacle. I think arJ’s suggestion of voting on the categories and defining them clearly before taking nominiations is also an excellent one.

  70. manaen Says:

    It’s now probably too late to correct it, but the first selection in the second category actually belongs in the first category.

  71. Kurt Says:


    You have to be kidding, right. How can you even take yourself seriously anymore? You have gone so far off the deep end on this you make reason stare.

    Oh, and thanks for banning me from your blog over doing absolutely nothing that violates FMH policies and directly addressing your preposterous accusations. Toxic mystery corn? What in the world are you talking about?

  72. Matt Thurston Says:

    Is Kurt for real, or is he someone’s made-up alter ego? About a half-dozen of his sexist and elitist comments here made reason stare, and then he used the phrase himself to describe Lisa in #71. Wow.

    Lisa is absolutely correct to wonder why FMH is not being considered one of the big blogs. FMH is definitely part of the Bloggernacle (Dooce and Ken Jennings are not even in the same time zone!), and FMH is the biggest blog of them all. Any argument against this obvious fact is ridiculous. The only argument I’ve heard so far is that Kurt doesn’t like FMH, therefore it isn’t a “big blog.” Huh?

    Second, Lisa’s request for transparency is perfectly legitimate. We aren’t talking about national secrets here. If everyone is right — that people are taking this much to seriously — why all the secrecy?

  73. Christian Says:

    I found this argument completely persuasive:

    “The (unwritten/undefined) intent of the “big blog” category, so far as we understood it, was to include blogs that have a wide appeal to a general audience.”

    My response was, well of course! That’s fair. Maybe you should make it more clear in the category name that you’re talking about Big GENERAL Blogs. But that makes a lot of sense.

    Then I read Lisa’s response:
    “I disagree that a blog about women, by women, and for women is too narrow an audiance to qualify as big, or “appeal to a wide audience”.”

    I can’t believe I missed that. Women make up the majority of church members, and a vast majority of the rest of the church members have at least some compelling interest in women. Why is it that we talk about “women’s issues” as some sort of specialized sub-topic?

    Wicked traditions of the fathers, that’s why.

    I no longer call myself a feminist, but obviously I’ve still got a lot to learn from them if I could be duped into agreeing that women’s issues were some sort of a specialty discussion.

    Shame on Kurt for comparing fMh to a porn site. What a vicious and unfair accusation. If there was anything on fMh that deserves that kind of comparison, Kurt could link to it. As for inflammatory, I’ve written some of the most inflammatory remarks on fMh, and there’s nothing there that I’d not have felt comfortable saying on T&S or on CC. Sure, I didn’t feel comfortable with John R starting a thread on how he and his wife left the church, but I thought that was less potentially dangerous than the thread on CC that preached the doctrine that you could either go with the Iron Rod or with the Liahona, as if following the scriptures and following the holy ghost were ALTERNATE ways of getting to heaven rather than two essential tools we should use in conjunction.

  74. Kaimi Says:

    (Cross-posted on FMH)

    For what it’s worth, I think that FMH is a fine blog, and that Lisa and her crew are fine bloggers and worthy to compete on any stage. Please, don’t take Kurt’s comments as evidence that anyone at T&S (or BCC, I presume) agrees with the repeated assertions that FMH is “not in our league” or any similar sentiment.


    Normally, I’m happy to hear positive reviews of my blog. Your own nasty comments here and on the Niblet site (suggesting that T&S is a bunch of “pretentious jerks,” but that we’re more _substantive_ jerks than FMH) is, alas, just the sort of backhanded, venom-infused compliment that I’d really rather not accept.

  75. Paula Says:

    I note that I can now vote again from this computer, when before I couldn’t go back to the first part of the survey after I had voted once– only the second part. Is that just a problem at my end of things, or can everyone just go back and revote now? Does that mean that all the votes before the change won’t count? Is that because of the change for feministmormonhousewives? (Which should have been in with the big blogs in the first place, btw.)

  76. Kaimi Says:

    Anne, Bored, and Melissa,

    I hope that it’s possible to counter Kurt’s anti-FMH screeds without resorting to negative remarks about other blogs or bloggers. Or, if you have complaints or negative impressions of T&S or BCC (or any other blog), to air them in an independent context of discussion, rather than as counter-evidence in Kurt’s attempt to turn this thread into discussion of whether FMH sucks.

    I don’t think that countering “FMH sucks” with “T&S sucks too” is a line of argument that’s likely to convince Kurt (or any of his fellow-travelers). Rather, I suspect that it’s a line of argument that is only likely to generate added negativity.

  77. Melissa Says:


    Why did you include me in your reprimand? I didn’t make any negative remarks about other blogs or bloggers.

    What I did say was,

    “If someone were interested in looking at the Mormon virtual community from a perspective of cyberethnograpy, FMH would be much more interesting and useful than T&S, for example, . . .” and I think this claim stands.

    Further, since Kurt is making comparisons about blog content—specifically, making claims that T&S and BCC never publish certain kinds of content but FMH does—-then it seems reasonable to produce evidence to the contrary if there be any, don’t you think?

    That’s not the same thing as saying “T&S sucks too” especially since I’m strongly disagreeing with his assertion that “FMH sucks. This was not my line of argument. I do not have general “complaints or negative impressions of T&S or BCC” so there is no reason why I would “air them in an independent context.” Kurt set up a comparison between BCC/T&S and FMH and then evaluated those blogs based on a loose comparison of content. I responded by saying that I thought the blogs were doing different things, things which made them difficult to compare, let alone evaluate them as “good” or “big” especially when no criteria had been specified. I offered one criterion for why someone might think FMH is “good” (I think I said interesting or useful) and Lisa had given reasons why some might believe FMH is “big.” Meanwhile I noted Kurt’s inconsistency since the kinds of posts he pointed to as reasons for excluding FMH (or finding it distasteful, which seems to amount to the same thing here) can be found on blogs he thinks very highly of.

    Given that my comment was a direct response to the comparison Kurt set up, this is exactly the forum where such an objection should be made.

    I’m sorry if you took my comment personally somehow as a blogger at T&S or felt the need to step in as an administrator of the Niblets (?), or felt duty-bound to say something in your sometime role as would-be peacemaker of the bloggernacle. The truth is that I have no dog in this fight. I’m not a permablogger at any of these sites and have little time to even comment much these days anywhere. Nevertheless, the venom displayed towards FMH coupled with the uncritical praise of (i.e. the apparent inability to honestly assess) T&S or BCC drew me out of my semi-retirement.

    And, I don’t much care about convincing Kurt. I never thought that was a likely possibility.

  78. Christian Says:

    I’ve just discovered the bloggernacle in the last few weeks, and I’ve been particularly drawn to fMh. Had some really transforming conversations. But while fMh has so far been my hands down favorite, not a week’s gone by that I haven’t read something on T&S that I didn’t email or print off for someone else.

    Maybe this whole “who is the best” thing isn’t helping things. This isn’t LDS behavior. I don’t idealize member behavior, mind you, we’ve got our cultural flaws as well as our strengths, but this argument has brought out some weaknesses that I don’t usually see in LDS communities.

    Kudus for Kaimi in #73 for setting us all back on track.

  79. manaen Says:

    Somebody has to do it — RE: “I disagree that a blog about women, by women, and for women is too narrow an audiance to qualify as big, or “appeal to a wide audience”.”

    … or as Westley told Fezzik, “Sleep well, my friend, and dream of large women.”

  80. annegb Says:

    #72 Christian, thank you.

    #75 Kaimi, Kurt made the comparison, I was countering it. Poorly, but still. It was a defensive position, not an offensive one. Actually, I have no clue who Kurt is, I thought he was on your blog. I apologize for offending you.

  81. Kaimi Says:

    Hi Anne,

    No offense taken, really. I know from experience that it’s easy to respond to insults with the same. And your comment was very tame, in response to Kurt’s numerous hyperbolic comments. I was just trying to head off any arms race before it began, really. And thanks for your response, too. I always enjoy your comments, and I enjoy my interactions with you as a blogger and a commenter.

  82. DKL Says:

    Kurt, I used to say that you’re just a nut. I’m still convinced that you’re a nut — seriously, it’s not just that you’re good for a laugh for how wacky you act, it’s that you really need help. Now, I must also state there is no place in the bloggernacle for people of your ilk.

  83. Kaimi Says:

    (The same goes for Melissa and Bored. I don’t mean to imply that their mild comments were anything like Kurt’s vitriol. I’m just trying to stop any kind of tit-for-tat arms race, before it really begins.)

  84. Kaimi Says:

    [I just realized that my opening line of #81 could be read the wrong way, following #80. In case, it’s not clear, my #81 is meant as a continuation of my own #79.]

  85. HP Says:

    People, there are clearly a lot of wounded feelings here. What we need to to is to get together…maybe at a party.

    I know, let’s all get together and have fondue.

  86. m&m Says:

    This thread is truly unbelievable.

  87. Eric Russell Says:

    Believe it, m&m.

    gst, your parenthetical aside near the end of comment #50 has got to be the funniest thing I’ve seen in weeks.

  88. Janet Says:

    Fondue? I’d bring fondue! But then, you might have to pry the pot out of my cheese-enamored clutches. Cheese fondue–or chocolate–surely constitute the finer foods of peacemaking.

  89. jessawhy Says:

    M&M, what do you find unbelieveable?

    And, yes, let’s party with Fondue (83 &86), and Princess Bride (77), of course.

    If Kurt is still reading this, I have a question. If you are not administering this survey, then why were you asnwering Lisa’s question to begin with? What authority do you have to explain why fMh is not a big blog (regardless of your reasons)?

  90. manaen Says:

    In what category will this thread be nominated in Niblets.3 ?

  91. m&m Says:

    I think it’s unbelievable because there has been a lot of unkindness and misunderstanding (in kind of a vicious cycle), and mostly because this was all (I thought) just a fun little “contest” to let people share what they like in the nacle — and has turned out instead to be nearly like a scandal. This thread has been downright unpleasant (some comments have been pretty mean, even), and it seems that people’s feelings have been hurt. It’s just been all taken way too far, IMO. Out of control, really. Like, please, can’t we all just get along? 🙂

    So, my vote is that fondue be served. Immediately.

  92. Kurt Says:

    Dear DKL,

    I wouldnt have you feel any other way about me. You liking me would mean I am…well…like you, and, believe me, I want to be the antithesis of you. Why dont you go ahead and preemptively ban me there at MM, and save us all the time and effort. Oh, and thanks for jumping on the “I hate Kurt” band wagon, its so in vogue now. You are really scoring yourself some points with the T&Stards. Keep up the good work, David. Nothing like getting in some petty cheap shots as revenge for getting your butt kicked on your own blog.

    Dear Kaimi,

    Your only motives here are to attack me and defend your crap blog from me, so stop pretending to be Mr. Diplomat. You idiots double-secret banned me from T&S because you hated the fact that I was stomping your permabores into the mud and because I am affiliated with SnarkerNacle. And that is all. I never broke any of your T&S rules, any more than I broke any FMH rules. You dont want to hear what I have to say, just like Lisa doesnt want to hear it. So you stick your fingers in your ears and ban me. Lame. Just like DKL, who now wants me to be banned from the entire Bloggernacle. Wah. Get over yourselves, sometimes you are wrong, just like everyone else. You just dont like people to point it out, so you ban them (and organize secret boycotts). But that doesnt change the fact that you are wrong.

    Dear Christian,

    I never compared FMH to porn. But, thanks for distorting my position in an effort to defame me.

    Dear Jessawhy,

    I never claimed any authority. And, for the millionth time, I am not administering the Niblets or any part of it. I appeal to common sense, which is sorely lacking in this idiotic festival of stupidity. FMH is not like BCC and T&S, and wouldnt stand a chance against them in the voting, anyone with functioning gray matter can see that. But there doesnt appear to be all that much of it around at the moment.

    Hit counts mean almost nothing, and appeals to that as evidence of “big” are equally meaningless, for reasons previously stated. And that is FMH’s best and most persistent appeal to “bigness”. Lame. And here is why. By Lisa’s own admission, her stats are inflated by what? Sex talk. Good work, Lisa. You rock, and so does your blog. But T&S and BCC rock for different reasons. They drive their traffic by substantive LDS-related content, that isnt a prurient sellout for statistical glory.

    Dear everyone,

    Child psychologists everywhere agree that the best way to deal with a 3 year old who is throwing tantrums is to ignore them. Guess what? FMHLisa is throwing a temper tantrum and you are all enabling her. She is pitching a fit and trying to take the entire Niblets hostage, shutting it down until next year and taking control of it for herself and the people who agree with her. You people are enabling her and encouraging her bad behavior. Why? Just because she wants to be “big”, like BCC and T&S. Someone get her a pacifier, would you?

  93. annegb Says:

    #82 DKL, I disagree. I think there’s room for everybody and Kurt is entitled to his opinion. The fact that I disagree and don’t respect it does not invalidate his right to be here.

    #89 good question

    #91 What’s unbelievable about it? It’s what I love about blogging, we are strong, opinionated. We sure can’t have this kind of discussion in church. There’s that quote about friends being able to talk freely without worrying how it will be taken. It’s sort of a Mormon, coed, The View. I think it’s a good thing.

    “Dear Kurt”: bite me

  94. Kurt Says:

    Dear AnneGB,

    I’ll pass, since I am a vegetarian. Appreciate the magnanimity of the invitation though.

  95. HP Says:

    What’s that I hear…a chupacabra?

  96. Heather O. Says:

    “Is Kurt for real, or is he someone’s made-up alter ego?”

    That’s really the $20,000 question, isn’t it?

    I like to pretend he’s Languatron’s long lost twin.

    What exactly do winners of the niblets get, anyway? Are we talking cash, cars, new houses, what? If we’re all going to get our knickers twisted in a knot, let’s at least know what we’re competing for.

    I’d even settle for the fondue that was mentioned earlier.

    And I like talking about poop. It makes me happy to know I’m not alone.

  97. The Wiz Says:

    Why, Lisa do you track BCC’s stats? Just curious.

    Also, my stats on the sitemeter and the stats pulled right off the server for our blog are completely different. Which one is more accurate?

  98. Kaimi Says:

    HP (or can I call you JDC?),

    You are an astute observer. Indeed, it looks like the chupacabra has been active for some time on this thread.


    You are clearly part of the CONSPIRACY that seeks to prevent BATTLESTAR GALACTICA from receiving its proper recognition. You might as well ADMIT it! I will not be silenced!

  99. Janet Says:

    Heather darling, you should definately come to the snacker in April, for fondue will abound! Of both the chocolate and cheese varieties, I think. But I insist that everyone gets fondue, not just nominees or winners. Even the irrascible may have fondue, for fondue (as all good Mormons know) is truly the opiate of the masses. And who can’t use a decent opiate from time to time?

  100. Seth R. Says:

    Kurt, knock it off. You said everything you really have to say on like your second or third post. You’re just repeating yourself with semi-creative variations.

    I’d suggest everyone else do likewise.

    This conversation serves no meaningful purpose. I have no desire to wallow in hurt feelings and pick at old online scabs.

    Good grief! I can’t tell you all how grateful this thread makes me that I didn’t take up the offer to MC the Niblets this year (note, it wasn’t out of any sort of principled stance – I just got busy/lazy).

  101. DKL Says:

    Seth R: This conversation serves no meaningful purpose.

    Yes. That statement included.

    Look Seth, it’s just not your place to decide whether a conversation serves a “meaningful purpose.” I suggest you knock it off.

  102. Janet Says:

    Fondue always serves a purpose.

  103. Thomas Parkin Says:

    On the Usenet group that used to be my primary online haunt, we had something called “the forbidden post.” Believe me, that anything might have been forbidden with that crew was something quite unusual. (Of course, there was long tedious argument over whether or not it should actually be forbidden – which exploded everytime someone skated near it – but the inclination of enough people that it should be forbidden, or at least strongly discouraged, stigmatized it permanently into the margins.)

    The forbidden post was any variation on “who are your favorite posters on alt.gothic?”

    You people are, speaking broadly, nicer than we were. (Much nicer.) But you’re not that nice. It’s one thing to alienate a friend or potential friend because there is some deep rift in belief on personality that just can’t be overcome. It’s another thing to alienate people over whose ego is or isn’t getting a stroke.

    And while we’re at it – let’s have the bishopric sit on the first row instead of on the stand. Because, you know, as it is written and all, some people do things because they love to be seen of men, and verily verily they have their reward!



  104. annegb Says:

    Maybe we could all just line up and slap each other.

  105. Seth R. Says:

    I’d gladly allow myself to be slapped by DKL just for the chance to slap him too.

  106. Doc Says:

    Can’t we all just get along 😦

  107. HP Says:

    You can call me anything you want; just not late for dinner. 😉

  108. danithew Says:

    Chupacabra and fondue mentioned in the same thread.

    That is a dangerous mixing of unstable elements.

  109. fMhLisa Says:

    So, if it is true (from what I have heard from various sources) that the snarker-bloggers are the ones running the Niblets this year (I take it Kurt is or was a snarker, I don’t actually remember Kurt from before this)(though he clearly remembers me) . . . How do we all as a community feel about that?

    I for one am disturbed by it. But I do not mistake my opinion for the correct course we should take as a community.

    The Wiz asks:
    “Why, Lisa do you track BCC’s stats? Just curious.
    Also, my stats on the sitemeter and the stats pulled right off the server for our blog are completely different. Which one is more accurate?”

    I only recently started tracking them as I’ve discoved a previously deeply buried competative streak. I never much cared if I won monopoly or volleyball, I don’t much care for gambling even when I win, but suddenly as my stats got closer and closer to the big guys, I found I wanted to “win”. (Although how one “wins” is totally subjective of course.) And so I started to keep track (actually just a few months ago) because while Steve and I do sometimes swap stats, I didn’t want to be the annoying sister constantly asking, so am I beating you yet, huh huh?

    Which brings me to your second question, I don’t know which is more accurate, but as I been trying to figure it out, it’s is clear that it really is an apples and oranges comparision, in other words, the figures I give above compare my JaguarPC apples with sitemeter oranges. I used sitemeter on the old fMh blogspot site, but J (who built the wordpress site) claimed that the Jaguar stats were more accurate so it was unnecessary to transfer the sitemeter stats, which he thought (back then) were quite inflated, but after talking to him now I don’t think he is still of this opinion. I don’t know, the whole thing is very confusing. Apparantly BCC has another counter and their stats on it are significantly higher than the sitemeter stats, and the results would make BCC a bit larger than fMh, but he wasn’t specific. Anyway the thing I should do now, if we want a valid comparison between all three is probably to add a sitemeter counter to fMh, and if I can stop being flaky long enough and cross off of some of these to-dos, I might just do that. Anyway the rambling point being that the BCC guys are of the opinion that BCC is actually larger, and they’re probably right because they do know more about it than I do. I don’t know what the T&S folks think, as none of them have brought it up to me.

  110. annegb Says:

    “What I am saying is FMH drives traffic based upon salacious and inflamatory content, which is obviously the case, and by your own admission.”

    “You yourself posted a piece entitled “Sex sells”

    “Porn sites have high hit counts too, Lisa. So if someone starts a m0rmon pr0n blog and gets a lot of hits, more than FMH, then does that make them big? No. FMH is not on par with BCC and T&S.”

    Sounds like you compared FMH to porn to me.

    Were we once friends and you’ve turned into your evil twin?

  111. Kurt Says:


    I repeat, I did not compare FMH to porn. FMHLisa, by her own admission, drives traffic to her site with salacious material. That is a factual observation supported by clear first-hand evidence, not my opinion.

    The third quote above identifies a type of blog which would clearly not be on par with T&S and BCC but which would have high statistics: m0rmon pr0n. The argument being made here is not that FMH is porn, but that high stats do not constitute a means of comparison with BCC and T&S. A m0rmon pr0n blogsite with stats that exceed FMHs would not be “big” even though it had “big” stats like BCC and T&S. In other words, stats alone do not qualify as “big”, whereas content, style and substance do. That has been my clear and consistent argument.

    If the presentation of plain, obvious facts and a well-reasoned position to support my opinion ruins our friendship, then so be it, Ms. Anne. I never held differences in opinion against you in the past. If you want to hold them against me, that is your prerogative. I hold my opinions regardless of popularity. And, quite frankly, among this crowd of petulant narcissists, popularity is not something to strive for. As Kaimi noted above, he is only “happy to hear positive reviews of my blog”, in other words, he is not interested in anything but praise and adulation.

    If you can convince me FMHLisa does not in fact drive up her stats using salacious material, and that stats are all it takes to constitute “big”, then be my guest. Take a whack at it, Ms. Anne.

  112. Doc Says:

    Is it too late to list the FMH big blog Niblet debacle for the worst thing to hit the bloggernacle.

  113. […] occurred to me after reading some discussion of what constitutes a “big” blog during voting for the 2006 Niblets. That discussion focused on traffic and type of content, but it inspired me to think that […]

  114. […] where have I heard this silly debate about “whose blog is bigger” before?  Oh yeah, it was here, where fMh got all bent out of shape over not being included in the category of “big” […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: