(This is our third welcome announcement in as many weeks, so if you’d like to simply offer comments concerning how impressed you are with Millennial Star’s current expansion tear, feel free to do that as well. But now onto important things…)
Naomi Frandsen has agreed to join us as a guest blogger for an unspecified, but certainly too short, number of weeks. Naomi comes highly recommended, having already completed the prestigious Millennial Star Membership Internship Program at our farm site.
Naomi grew up in Southern California, and currently lives in Washington, D.C., where she is gearing up for writing a thesis on the Victorian periodical press for her Master’s program. Naomi is one of 11 kids, who are currently spread out between California, Utah, Missouri, Florida, Washington, D.C., France, and Hungary. She plays the harp, she rides her bike to school, and she recently was passed over on an English teaching job in favor of Orson Scott Card. This makes her a bit of a disappointment. Still, we’re pleased to have her, and we look forward to seeing what she has to share with us, as long as her posts aren’t too Victorian or too periodic.
Welcome, Naomi!
Thanks, Tanya! I’m glad to be posting here.
hrm. grumble.
Naomi, great to have you come up from the M* farm team. Are you ready now for the Big Leagues? But seriously, welcome.
Welcome, Naomi!
Isn’t this the same Naomi that I used to work with in the BYU Writing Center so many years ago?
I very rarely comment (I’d wager no one here knows me because of that, but I’ve been reading for quite some time), but being done teaching Early Morning Seminary will allow me more of such pleasures so I’ll make sure to comment extensively for you.
Congratulations, Millenial Star, on getting a touch of class.
Jarom! Yes, we worked together at the Writing Center. I’m glad to hear from you–congratulations on finishing early morning seminary. Looking forward to your comments. And thanks, Brian G (is that Brian Gibson, of T&S guest blogger/friends with my sister Rosalynde fame?), Davis, Geoff B, and Tanya. Steve, we’re still friends, right?
Welcome Naomi … looking forward to your posts.
You know, Naomi, I’m not sure that your guest-blogging stint at T&S was ever officially terminated, so you may well be in breach of contract here…
But I’m so glad to get to read more of your stuff that I won’t press charges.
Hi, Naomi – Welcome!
Naomi, congratulations! I enjoyed your writing at Times & Seasons and I appreciate your great comments at the Banner. I look forward to reading more great stuff from you here! But they should make you a perma-blogger, not a guest-blogger. 🙂
And we see that the Frandsification of the bloggernacle is following the pattern of the church. At first, there was a gathering to Zion — all Frandsens to T & S. But now, Zion is strong, and Frandsens are being sent out, to the four corners of the nacle. It’s a Frandsen diaspora, so to speak.
Welcome, Naomi. Of course, it was a comment I made to one of your guests post at T&S that contributed to my getting banned over there. My feeling is that if I play my cards right, there may be one fewer blog competing for my attention in the very near future.
DKL,
Do you find it in any way strange that you, a grown man, feel compelled to cite your anti-establishmentbona fides, such as they are, at every turn? Because I do.
I’m not sure how to say this in a way that will make sense to you, but, for the sake of everyone involved, I’m going to try. You do realize that the feat to which you refer with such unmistakeable pride and swagger is that of getting kicked off a Mormon blog, right? I wonder if you do, and here’s why: you give the distinct impression that you firmly believe the fact that you’ve been kicked off some of these blogs is pretty much the same thing as killing a man in cold blood just to watch him die, and then killing his dog for good measure.
But it’s not, and in order for you to come to grips with that, I want you to repeat the following while looking in the mirror, “I was banned from a website run and frequented by Mormon lawyers, academics, and homemakers. While it is true that this makes me more daring and dangerous than said Mormon lawyers, academics, and homemakers (if this isn’t enough to make you burn with embarrasment, keep going), this dubious distinction is not unlike calling one’s self ‘the coolest kid in the high school band’ or ‘the funniest accountant in the firm.'” There’s nothing wrong with being in the high school band, or being an accountant. But there’s something very, very pathetic about the kid in the band who, wanting to be like the linebacker, flicks the ear of the clarinetist and then runs around bragging about it.
It is my considered opinion that the time has come for you to cease to be a double-minded man. Either give in entirely to your desire to be rebellious, and actually do something a little more daring than getting kicked off a Mormon blog (and really, that leaves quite a bit of room), or give it up, put away the black leather jacket you wore when you smoked behind the seminary building all those years ago, and settle graciously into adulthood and normal person-hood. Do we have a deal?
Davis, that was hilarious. I have no idea what DKL has done to deserve your wrath, but remind me never to get on your bad side. DKL (whoever he is) has just been severely dissed.
Three cheers for Davis Bell!
Davis,
That was awesome.
Naomi,
It may be a bad omen that the sidebar is currently showing four different instances where a comment on Elisabeth’s thread comes just under a comment on this thread. That juxtaposition creates the sentence “Welcome Naomi . . . and despair!”
On the other hand…maybe there is something (or nothing) to be said about censorship. I was banned somewhere once for simply following someone else’s analogy to its logical conclusion; which I didn’t think was offense worthy. However, if DKL is simply glorying in being a rebel (which I am not)…that is another matter. Although…is it a matter worth banning over?
No, it’s not banning-worthy, Lyle. DKL hasn’t been banned from M*, and won’t be if all he does is talk about how awesome he is for having been banned at T&S and tell his lame George Smith/Tanners joke.
Davis, you have serious fondue-envy issues.
ROTFLM[CENSORED!]O! That’s beautiful, Davis. My entire office is in stitches! Does it really speak for “everyone involved”? I love it. I think I’m going to print it out and frame it.
One of these days, Davis, you’re going to make the best mormon bishop ever.
DKL,
Don’t fret. I was banned by the T&S idiots as well. What sweet irony it is to have the T&S people ban posters on an anonymous. The learned always think they are wise.
Really funny, DBell. Kudos.
Come on, DKL. You can come up with a cleverer response than that.
What? I never agreed to that!
What was your banned comment, DKL? Do you still remember? Thanks, all, for your vigorous welcome. I’m going to figure out how to post something one of these days.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Adam, but I don’t think it’s your place to decide how clever I can be. Even so, I didn’t realize that Davis’s comment called for a clever response. I really am still laughing about it (as are the folks I work with–they just love mormons). Perhaps I’m reading it wrong?
Naomi, the comment on your first post that contributed to my getting banned from T&S occured after you and your sister had a bonding moment with your mother over the nature of her political convictions, I said something to the effect of, “You crazy Frandsen chicks. You make me wish they all could be California girls.”
And by the way, did you hear how Lou Midgley showed up unannounced at Lighthouse Ministries and rudely interrupted George Smith having fondue with the Tanners?
Laughing at or laughing with? If the former, then, yes, a clever response was called for.
But I haven’t been called and set apart to have that opinion, so . . . let me get back to you after I meet with the Bishop tonight. Just maybe I’ll have some new-minted authority!
DKL’s banning was a matter of salami diplomacy. The culminating offense being the time he showed up unannounced at T&S and rudely interrupted Adam Greenwood having fondue with the Tanners. For that there can be no forgiveness.
In this life or the next.
Davis: I actually think that we ought to encourage DKL’s rebel posturing. If he can get his rebel fix by getting booted from T&S, all the better. I would much rather that he do this rather than engage in something even more silly or even self-destructive. One of the horrible things about defining deviancy down is that it makes the public enactment of rebellion increasingly blaise or — alternatively — dangerous. The DKLs of the world need a safe place to live out their fantasies.
You make an important point, Nate. If DKL/AT has to go searching for boundaries in order to feel like he’s pushing the envelope, then there’s no telling what he’ll do. Keeping him safely constrained by the sensibilities of your co-bloggers may well keep someone from getting hurt.
… showing forth afterwards an increase of love towards him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy.
danithew: You are a better man than I. Any you can read and speak Arabic, which is WAAAY cooler than the mysteries of federal jurisdiction.
Group hug.
Go easy on ’em, danithew. If it pleases them to believe that kicking me out makes me feel cool, then far be it from me to disabuse them.
As always, you ooze gentlemanliness, DKL. Do you want me to delete your last comment, lest some of those T&Sers be smart enough to be disabused by it? I’ll delete it if you want, though its a sly dig and I’d rather leave it up.
I ooze gentlemanliness, eh? You’re a riot, Adam, but you can’t seriously say I’m not a good sport about it all. At any rate, please leave it. If they’re silly enough to believe that I think I’m cool because they kicked me out, then I doubt they’re clever enough to understand my meaning in comment #35.
Davis, I have had a secret bloggernacle crush on you for quite some time now, and this just seals the deal.
Too bad you’re in a different state from me, and that I have a boyfriend…
But DKL, you’re silly enough to think you’re cool because they kicked you out, and yet you’re smart enough to understand your meaning in comment #35. Heck, you wrote the thing.
Break the cycle of disabuse while you can.
LOL, Adam. When it’s so easily shown of a decision that it’s worthy of our thoroughgoing contempt, I will not admit that it has any impact on whether or not I’m cool.
And yet he continues to trumpet his banned status at every opportunity.
Not that I would ever point out how much DKL’s stance resembles classic Mormon passive-aggressive behavior. No, I would never do that.
But if it pleases you to think that I’m calling you passive-aggressive, then go ahead. I wouldn’t want to disabuse you. No, not me.
I’ve written it so many times and in so many ways in this thread, Kaimi, that I’m running out of ways to state it obliquely. At this point, I’m left to conclude that it’s not a matter of whether I disabuse you of your misconception that I think it’s cool to have been thrown out of T&S, but a matter of whether you can be disabused of your misconception that I think it’s cool to have been thrown out of T&S.
This makes me quite comfortable to provide one final hint (and then I’ll leave you T&S and M* folks to revel in having taken some part in somehow establishing my coolness): One needn’t find any connection between himself and some other thing in order to thoroughly enjoy parading his utter contempt for that thing in front of those responsible for it.
Kaimi: Weren’t you just branded passive-aggressive yourself? re: RS & X wives?
DK,
Umm, that’s me and my one comment on the topic, establishing my intractable stubornness. I think you’re confusing me with Nate and/or Adam. Or perhaps conflating us?
But in any case, I know that you’re not really a cool, aloof rebel, so don’t worry about it. I’ve heard a very nice and reliable woman refer to you as being “sweet as pie” in person. I think we all know that, deep down, you’re just a Care Bear. And hey, who can dislike a Care Bear?
Did you ever decide who your favorite Care Bear was, anyway? Last time you commented on the issue, you were having a hard time deciding between Tenderheart Bear and Love-a-Lot Bear, as I recall.
My mistake, Kaimi. I assumed that you’d read the other comments.
Moreover, I refuse to identify my favorite Care Bear because I do not wish to incriminate myself.
Lastly, I see no need at all to respond directly to you accusation that a “very nice and reliable woman” referred to me as being “sweet as a pie.” Readers will surely dismiss this as viscous calumny, since there seems to be no other purpose for you to make the accusation than to defame the character of this “very nice and reliable woman.”
Welcome Naomi! We’re happy to have you here.
(Odd that this comment should feel like a threadjack!)
Naomi, I was so excited by Davis Bell’s brilliant repudiation of DKL’s low-budget values that I forgot to welcome you. DKL just brings out the worst in all of us.
And welcome Naomi! I really enjoyed your first post- it made me reflect on the depth of my own patriotism. How it turned into a discussion on literary theory is beyond me!
Keep up the good work.
A threadjack of sorts, but it’s one that’s encouraged by the original post.
Ryan writes:
Count me as impressed.
A few months back, there was a wave of criticism in the bloggernacle about M*’s female quotient (or lack thereof). A number of the usual suspects participated, including me.
This wasn’t a fatal flaw. You tend to run a good site. I’ve enjoyed a number of the posts here, and I generally like the discussions. You’ve assembled a first-rate group.
And I know how hard it is to find smart women who blog. Mormon women as a group seem to be more inclined to do sensible things (like asking men why they spend so much time at the computer) rather than waste all day blogging.
Nevertheless, I was bugged by the gender imbalance, which seemed just too acute. I kept reading M*, but I had some serious reservations about the ability of a blog to take women’s concerns seriously with minimal permanent female participation.
And now, over the course of a few weeks, you’ve added two strong female voices to the group, Tanya and Elisabeth, and you’ve also picked up a great guest-blogger. (May I offer an unsolicited suggestion? Try to sign her to a permanent slot, too! 🙂 ).
You’ve always had good content. One of the biggest blind spots, until now, has been the lack of women bloggers. You’ve done an admirable job in addressing that area.
So count me as impressed, M* bloggers. Good work.
Thanks, Kaimi. It’s always been something we’ve taken seriously. And so is your ‘unsolicited suggestion.’ Let me know if you have any good ‘hard closes’ for that final invite.
Let me get this straight: M* is taking serious advice on women’s issues from the author of the “Babes in Blogland” post?
Ouch!
To clarify, no, DKL, we’re not. We’ve always had our own agenda and objectives, and have followed them according to our own private discussions. It just so happens that both the development that Kaimi praises, and the one that he suggests, have been topics of internal dialogue for a while now. So no, we’re not “taking his advice,” we’re on a self-determined, parallel track with his advice.
On the other hand, I certainly wouldn’t be ashamed to be caught taking Kaimi’s advice on a host of issues. That’s just not what’s happening here.
Oh, please, Kaimi.
You should try shucking your liberalism for a day or two. You might find it oddly liberating.
Hm…anyone try running a comparative analysis of the participation of male vs. female “permanent” bloggers on the different sites?
Ryan Bell: It just so happens that…
Yeah. “Parrallel goals” Sounds like a load of crap to me.
Ryan Bell: On the other hand, I certainly wouldn’t be ashamed to be caught taking Kaimi’s advice on a host of issues.
Nice. Lest Kaimi feel insulted that “it just so happens…”, you turn around and kiss the ass of someone that has had more of his nutball T&S posts deleted than I have T&S comments. You Bell’s really are principled!
DKL: Do I need to send you some e-soap via e-bay?
I’m not going to argue with you about whether we run our blog according to the dictates of Kaimi’s will, David. There’s little to gain from doing so.
I will, however say that 1) I’m Ryan Bell, not simply a generic Bell, and have never said anything to you to earn your derision, and 2) I have no incentive for kissing up to Kaimi, but I think he’s a decent person and deserves courtesy, and if I’d left off my final sentence, my statement might have appeared uncourteous. I generally think most people deserve to be treated nicely. In fact, that’s a position that might even be called . . . principled.
P.S., if you need evidence that M* feels no need to kiss up to Kaimi, you might start with comment #54 above.
Go it, R. Bell.
Ryan Bell: I’m Ryan Bell.
You sound a bit defensive about this. Are you trying to convince me or yourself?
Ryan Bell: [I] have never said anything to you to earn your derision
Evidently, you think my derision is worth more than it is. You should know that it’s practically free.
Ryan Bell: I have no incentive for kissing up to Kaimi
Yes. I’d hardly feel the need to draw attention to it otherwise.
Ryan, a quote from a T&S permablogger insulting Kaimi is hardly evidence that “M* feels no need to kiss up to Kaimi.”
Wow, despite my having tried to be blandly conciliatory, I note that you seem interested in arguing just to argue, when the issues at stake are beyond trivial, and the history between us is virtually nil. I don’t really know what motivates you, DKL, but I don’t have to to know that this is not worth any more time.
Steve,
1. Yes it is.
2. Are you just making distant pronouncements on the probativeness of the evidence, or are throwing your weight behind the bizarre and irrelevant ome-man “M* is desperate for Kaimipono Wenger’s approval” faction?
Whoa. I think it was just a joke, Ryan. No one thinks you and Kaimi are conspiring to add more female permabloggers to M*.
Aside to DKL: you should really check out this thread before it gets sanitized. I think Kaimi is going to win the bloggernacle “Taking it Too Far” award.
Poor Naomi, her welcome lost in unpleasantness off the subject.
Welcome, hon. I guess 200 welcomes would be boring, but you will probably never forget your introduction to Millennial Star. Life is funny.
Ryan Bell: despite my having tried to be blandly conciliatory…
I hope you don’t take anything I’ve said as an attempt to discourage you from being bland, Ryan. I’m reassured to see that you do seem to understand this, since you’ve changed your tone from one of bland conciliation to bland sulking. Keep it up, Ryan. It definitely works for you.
Ryan, secretly I cannot shake the feeling that M* wants to kiss up to Kaimi.
.
.
.
.
Man, that’s just bizarre a) that anyone would suggest the idea and b) that anyone would care! I just piped in ’cause it sounded funny. And it is! It makes me want to through my weight in behind the notion. Although few people want to kiss up to Kaimi — who knows where those lips have been, esp. following that thread NF linked to.