Our Enemies List

October 18, 2005 | 56 comments
By

Like Nixon, Times and Seasons maintains a detailed “enemies list.” It includes many notables. Such as (web addresses disabled from actual links):

The fine folks at www . online – casinos . us
The proprieters of all – gay – porn . us
The fellows at satelite – network – tv . com
And thousands of others who run websites containing words like “sex” and “porn” and “poker” and “blackjack” and “casino,” and/or websites offering to enhance the size of various body parts.

Also, we get random drive-by comments from angry anti-Mormons every few weeks. Someone will drop in and say “joseph smith was a frad u mormns r all dum!!!!” And we’ll delete it, of course, and add that fine specimen to the Enemies List, also known as the list-of-those-whose-comments-will-never-again-see-the-light-of-day.

Finally, there are a few persistent souls who have actually been banned from commenting, generally due to persistent violations of our comment policy.

Other than that, you’re not on the list. Sorry. I know, it was a huge badge of honor to be on Nixon’s list. Unfortunately, the T&S list is a lot harder to get onto, unless you run an online casino. It’s sort of like being cast into outer darkness; it only happens to a lucky few.

That doesn’t mean that you’ll never have a comment deleted. Excessively off topic comments sometimes get the boot. Ditto with personal attacks. And of course, anything positive about Canada will be yanked immediately. We’ve got to have some standards around here, after all.

But those deletions don’t affect our general opinion of you. And if you have any questions about whether we hate you — rest assured that we don’t. (Except for you, Mr. Online Casino.)

We run a website that pulls in 200+ comments a day. We do what we can to police comments appropriately. We also have real jobs, and lives, and families, so we give no implied promise of perfect comment control, and we make no claims of infallibility.

So no, you’re not on our enemies list.

This includes you, Ronan — your comments are generally good, even if you do live on the wrong side of the pond and probably have a funny accent. (Why do people sound so funny when they speak American over in England, anyway?)
This includes you, John D. (but please try to avoid lengthy off-topic rants).
This even includes you, Flandidlyanders. (And unlike some people who shall go unnamed, I know that Ned Flanders is not your real name. “Ned,” after all, is clearly a nickname. You can’t hide from me, Mr. Edward Flanders.)
This includes all of you, even the folks commenting at Ronan’s blog. Even John Fowles.

(All but you, Steve Evans. Trying to post the words to “O Canada” in a comment! The nerve of some people . . . )

n.b. Comments to this post may take a while to show up — if your comment includes parts of the original post with words like “casino” or “poker” it is likely to be sent to moderation.

Tags:

56 Responses to Our Enemies List

  1. Aaron Brown on October 18, 2005 at 9:17 pm

    WWJD?

    I don’t think Jesus would have refused to listen to purveyors of online smut or have given a cold shoulder to the vocal inhabitants of gaming establishments. After all, those with vices have feelings too! Maybe they’re just crying out for help. But I guess that doesn’t matter to the Pharisees over here at T&S. I thought T&S was a hopital for sinners, not a museum for the Saints. I guess I was wrong.

    So, are you all better than Jesus?

    Aaron B

  2. Aaron Brown on October 18, 2005 at 9:17 pm

    :)

  3. jp in lv nv on October 18, 2005 at 9:44 pm

    But, my best friend is Canadian, and she is investigating the gospel….does this mean I’m out? :)

  4. gst on October 18, 2005 at 10:09 pm

    Flanderses’ full first name is actually Nedward.

  5. Seth Rogers on October 18, 2005 at 10:10 pm

    Actually there was one person even Christ wouldn’t associate with or acknowlege: King Herod. The man who holds the dubious distinction of being the only recorded case of Jesus using a personal epithet (“tell that fox …”).

  6. Howie on October 18, 2005 at 10:39 pm

    having killed John the B is probably what provoked that epithet

  7. Derek on October 18, 2005 at 10:54 pm

    You mean my Support for Parents of Sextuplets web site is now banned? Think of the children!

  8. danithew on October 18, 2005 at 11:14 pm

    I’m amazed the notorious cheese spammers haven’t hit this site yet.

  9. NFlanders on October 18, 2005 at 11:57 pm

    Thank you, gst. Nedward is indeed my full first name.

    Kaimi, it is interesting that it falls to you to be the peacemaker, but at least you got a mention in the Sermon on the Mount.

  10. Soyde River on October 19, 2005 at 4:04 am

    Kaimi, would it bother you to read the old Pogo cartoon?

    We have met the enemy, and he is us.

    Please don’t feel too bad. You too can be forgiven. (lol)

  11. RoAnn on October 19, 2005 at 6:59 am

    Interesting that as I post this comment, every one of the “Recent Comments” listed in the sidebar seems to be a comment from an “enemy.” I guess they strike during the night, and you administrators have to clear them from the site when to come to it early in the morning.

  12. Wilfried on October 19, 2005 at 7:06 am

    Indeed, RoAnn, I just deleted 105 “phatmacy” and other goodies. Morning exercise.

  13. Mark IV on October 19, 2005 at 9:37 am

    Kaimi, how did you get elected to be the guy who carries a scoop shovel and walks behind the horses on the parade route? Just lucky or what?

    I don’t think anybody expects perfection, but even a feigned appearance of fairness would be nice. When permabloggers don’t seem to take the comment policy seriously, why should they expect anyone else to?

    Anyway, thanks to you and Wilfried and anyone else who performs the routine maintenance and spam deletion around here.

  14. Bill on October 19, 2005 at 10:09 am

    What I want to know is, who are the enemies “within” Times and Seasons? You’re obviously not just a bunch of happy campers. Are you broken up in to rival tribes? Who is on whose side? I guess Kaimi is the official go between..

  15. Bryce I on October 19, 2005 at 10:20 am

    Bill, all will be revealed next fall when CBS airs “Survivor: Times and Seasons”.

  16. Bryce I on October 19, 2005 at 10:24 am

    On the topic of spam, Kulturblog and M* have recently received spam aimed at polluting centralized blacklists. The evil spammer submits a comment that looks like (and actually is) spam that links back to a legitimate blog, with the intent that the linked blogger be banned from the spammed site. If the blogger is unlucky, he or she will find that they are persona non grata all over the blogosphere for no good reason.

    So be careful when you hit that “delete” key.

  17. Adam Greenwood on October 19, 2005 at 10:48 am

    “Blog Apprentice” is also in the works.

  18. Susan M on October 19, 2005 at 11:06 am

    This blog will never be able to compete with Banner of Heaven at this rate.

  19. Mark IV on October 19, 2005 at 11:12 am

    But, Susan M., now this blog will have to rename itself. It will now be known on the records of the bloggernacle as The Banner of Ronan.

  20. Kaimi on October 19, 2005 at 11:16 am

    I thought we had agreed that the Fall season was “who wants to be a bloggernacker?” — complete with Nate Oman in a matching tie and shirt, solemnly intoning “is that your final answer?” — and the Spring would be “America’s next top bloggernacker” (with Steve Evans the hands-down favorite to take the evening-gown competition).

  21. Russell Arben Fox on October 19, 2005 at 12:05 pm

    I still don’t know how the T&S Survivor turned out, Bill; no one will tell me. I voted myself off the island in the very first round, because I strongly believe that such commercialized, competitive, media-driven, profit-minded spectacles degrade the moral value of community by entrenching even further the economic, social, and supposedly “merit”-based divisions between us, as well as subjecting us all to debasing pseudo-events designed to reduce us to cheap cogs in an elite and immoral entertainment regime. That, and because I figured Nate, our resident Machiavellian, would win.

  22. Chad Too on October 19, 2005 at 12:33 pm

    May one assume that after the evening-gown competition there will be updates made to the pictures used for the bloggernacle trading cards? *crossing fingers*

  23. Adam Greenwood on October 19, 2005 at 12:41 pm

    ” I figured Nate, our resident Machiavellian, would win.”

    I thought KHH was our resident Machiavellian? Her, or MP. No one who talks like Machiavelli really is, you know.

  24. Russell Arben Fox on October 19, 2005 at 12:48 pm

    “No one who talks like Machiavelli really is, you know.”

    Egads, you’re right! Nate’s constant pose of the amoral strategizer is obviously a cover for…for the real Machiavellian, the one who is manipulating us all from behind the scenes! How could we have been so blind! But who could it be? Someone seemingly easy-going…a peacemaker…hmm…

  25. Nate Oman on October 19, 2005 at 1:06 pm

    Russell: Machiavelli was not an amoral strategizer and you know it. He was classical republican. I am trying to figure out whether I should feel honored or insulted for being called a classical republican…

  26. Adam Greenwood on October 19, 2005 at 1:11 pm

    Nate Oman:
    “Machiavellian” does not mean “a disciple of Machiavelli,” as you well know. Why would you come and deliberately try to muddy the waters when . . . Oh. No. I just figured it out, Russell Fox. Nate acts like a Machiavellian to cover up the fact the he really is a M . . .
    Excuse me, there’s a knock at the door.

  27. Frank McIntyre on October 19, 2005 at 1:18 pm

    Adam, you don’t fool me, you’re not dead. You just didn’t want to type the whole M-word out again.

  28. John Dehlin on October 19, 2005 at 1:28 pm

    Thanks for the clarification. In all seriousness, it’s been really interesting dropping into the bloggernacle as I did–from relative nowhere. I’m not sure you guys/gals all realize what it’s like entering the bloggernacle today–for those of us who want to engage, but don’t share the history, or the awareness of protocol, or the reputation. It does feel like there’s this community of insiders (including those who get linked to in the blogs, and who get the inside jokes)–and then the rest of us on the outside. It’s not bad–it’s just how it is, I guess. But it does feel lonely and isolating at times to the outsider (I know…booo hoooo).

    I am not angry about this now–I think it’s totally healthy. I admire your community. But I can’t say that I’ve felt very welcome. Though at times, folks like Aaron Brown, or Jonathan Stapeley (sp?), and Steve Evans have been helpful. Russ sent me a nice email once, to be fair.

    I guess it takes a while to learn the ettiquette (sp?) involved. (i.e. Don’t link to other sites, Don’t resurrect old threads, Don’t make long posts). Obvoius to you guys…but not to a newcomer. It would be nice if you let a guy know why he’s banned, or his comments were deleted….I only got feedback after I emailed a bunch of folks to request feedback. I actually was trying to engage with good will.

    I do realize now that identity is very important in the bloggernacle, and that I suffered from a HUGE dose of “Who’s he?”. That’s probably the most important lesson.

    Anyway, thanks for allowing me to comment here. It’s nice to know I’m not as marginalized as I once thought.

  29. Nate Oman on October 19, 2005 at 1:49 pm

    John: Often times the fact that one does not get an immediate response to an email has more to do with the fact that the recipient is extremely busy or an email forwarding program is on the blink than it does with indifference or some desire to marginalize anyone.

    For what it is worth, I see no problem with trying to resurrect old threads, you just have to realize that most the commenters who were active on that thread in the past may well have moved on. Also, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with long comments per se, but there is something a little odd about someone you have never heard of before landing on the site and immediately posting long manifestos in marginally related threads. Not that there is anything wrong with manifestos per se. I have written one or two of my own (although this may be further evidence against them). On the other hand, the internet attracts a fair number of nuts and one doesn’t want them to take over a site. Also, you don’t want your site to turn into an advertising device. No one likes to read then.

    Now that we have some sense of who you are, we think you are just dandy.

  30. Russell Arben Fox on October 19, 2005 at 2:00 pm

    Nate: for wrongly associating you with Machiavelli-the-author-of-the-Discourses-on-Livy, as opposed to restricting my reference to Machiavelli-the-author-of-The-Prince, my deepest apologies. To you. And to Niccolo Machiavelli. (It’s not that long of a name, Frank.)

  31. Nate Oman on October 19, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    Russell: Now I know that I am supposed to feel insulted… ;->

  32. Adam Greenwood on October 19, 2005 at 2:18 pm

    OK, I’m back.

    . . .ormon.

  33. Aaron Brown on October 19, 2005 at 3:30 pm

    “Though at times, folks like Aaron Brown, or Jonathan Stapeley (sp?), and Steve Evans have been helpful.”

    John, there is a simple “wickedness” vs. “righteousness” distinction that explains why some bloggers are helpful (read righteous) and others are not (read wicked). As you can see, being a permablogger at BCC is a proxy for the former, while as for the latter …..

    :)

    Aaron B

  34. Frank McIntyre on October 19, 2005 at 4:36 pm

    Memo to Kaimi:

    A. Brown’s emails are still getting through the filter. Anything we can do about this?

  35. Aaron Brown on October 19, 2005 at 4:50 pm

    If you would prefer Ms. McPrude, Frank, all you have to do is ask!

    Aaron B

  36. gst on October 19, 2005 at 7:50 pm

    I’m naming my next child “betting baccarat online signup bonus code.”

  37. Bryce I on October 19, 2005 at 8:45 pm

    Better make that “b e t t i n g b4cc4r4t 0n1ine signup b0nus c0de”, gst.

  38. Ryan Bell on October 19, 2005 at 10:19 pm

    Lol, gst, you’re killing today.

  39. John Dehlin on October 19, 2005 at 10:31 pm

    This is all good for me to hear/learn.

    Thanks for the post.

    P.S. What is the protocol for earning a link at T&S? Is it bad form to ask?

  40. John C. on October 20, 2005 at 10:47 am

    John,
    I only had to beg to get on BCC’s blogroll (and I am still not on asoftanswer’s Mormon and LDS blog site). Most of the rest came from me linking to people and making comments on other blogs. So, I don’t know why you haven’t made it. Just be patient. And beg Steve.

  41. Nate Oman on October 20, 2005 at 10:49 am

    “Is it bad form to ask?”

    No. The thing to remember about T&S, however, is that it is administratively much less professional than it looks.

  42. Kaimi on October 20, 2005 at 11:04 am

    “The thing to remember about T&S, however, is that it is administratively much less professional than it looks.”

    Yes, yes, yes.

    A thought exercise: Imagine a generic university department, with a bunch of academic types of somewhat different philosophies, who often disagree among themselves. There is somewhat frequent internal debate and disagreement, but the department is held together by the administrative infreastructure, the dean, etc.

    Now imagine what that department would look like without a dean or central administration. . .

  43. Russell Arben Fox on October 20, 2005 at 12:29 pm

    “Now imagine what that department would look like without a dean or central administration. . . ”

    Or a secretary. Or, for that matter, an e-mail program that always works. Oh, and also–everyone comes into their offices at a different time of the day, meaning at any given moment, there may be only one person, or no one, around.

  44. John Dehlin on October 20, 2005 at 12:55 pm

    Makes sense. Hey…did you guys like my Mark Twain quote in reference to you…or were you able to catch it?

  45. Mark IV on October 20, 2005 at 12:58 pm

    Now imagine what that department would look like without a dean or central administration. . . ”

    Or a secretary. Or, for that matter, an e-mail program that always works. Oh, and also–everyone comes into their offices at a different time of the day, meaning at any given moment, there may be only one person, or no one, around.

    Yup, sounds like where I work.

  46. John Dehlin on October 20, 2005 at 1:00 pm

    P.S. Thanks for the links. If I can ever be of service to you guys (via SunstoneBlog or Mormon Stories) please let me know.

    I’d love to do a MS podcast on “The people and story behind T&S”, or something like that, if any of you are interested.

    I’d also love to moderate a panel between the big 3, if any of you are up for that. We could do it easily via Skype.

    Just let me know.

    John

  47. Frank McIntyre on October 20, 2005 at 1:04 pm

    I don’t think there is an efficiency loss from not having a dean. But a secretary would be great.

  48. Ryan Bell on October 20, 2005 at 1:10 pm

    Frank, hire a secretary. I admit, the idea of an admin. secretary for a blog is fascinating. I bet you could get one for cheap. I believe in markets, Frank. Do you?

  49. Melissa on October 20, 2005 at 1:12 pm

    John,

    Your Twain reference was clever and probably accurately describes the situtation.

    A panel between the “big 3″ could very well be challenging for some since so many players are polyblogamous.

  50. Adam Greenwood on October 20, 2005 at 1:41 pm

    I thought you guys said I was the Dean.

  51. Jim F on October 20, 2005 at 1:46 pm

    Frank (#47) As a former dean, I resent the implications of your remark. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t true, only that I resent them.

  52. Russell Arben Fox on October 20, 2005 at 2:05 pm

    Adam = “The Dean”
    Kaimi = “The Big Kahuna”
    Gordon = “The Head Cheese”

    I was going to try to come up with a catchy title for the rest of us, but I ran out of ideas. Help?

  53. Adam Greenwood on October 20, 2005 at 2:09 pm

    Russell Fox=”one part of an integrated community”

  54. Davis Bell on October 20, 2005 at 2:10 pm

    “I’d also love to moderate a panel between the big 3, if any of you are up for that. We could do it easily via Skype.”

    That would be . . . .interesting.

  55. Frank McIntyre on October 20, 2005 at 10:04 pm

    Jim, Duly Noted.

    Ryan, all I said was the benefit was positive, not that it was worth the wage we’d have to pay!

    Russell, Judging from past comments, I’m pretty sure that Matt Evans is a spawn of Hades. You can use that in your list.

    Adam, I prefer to think of Russell as “part one of an integrated community” It has a nice “first among equals” feel to it.

  56. Adam Greenwood on October 21, 2005 at 10:36 am

    I like to think of Russell Fox as ‘Sugar Beet No. 1 in an integrated tariffs and subsidy scheme.’, ‘S. B. Nolitts’ for short.