Dr. Jekyll Peterson and Mr. Hyde Peterson???

[_harmony]

Am I doing this incorrectly, harmony?

Of course you are. That's your point, isn't it? To be as disagreeably agreeable as possible.

I do so want to get it right.

No, you don't. You're miffed because 1) Seth, a critic, thought enough of your publication to offer a small suggestion, and 2) because I, the uninformed, irrational, usually ignored idiot in your eyes, told you that your insufferable stiff neck was keeping you from accepting a valid suggestion simply because it came from a critic.

I thought I understood you to be saying that it was scandalous, on an internet message board, for me to hold opinions and to defend them, or, at least, to hold too many opinions that I think are correct and am willing to defend.

You thought/think nothing of the kind. You're outraged/pissed/bemused/incredulous that someone of my inferior status would care enough about you and your publication to attempt to show you the error of your ways. And your trademark exaggeration is the method by which you seek to punish me.

Is that wrong?

Yes, and you know it is.

Is my error to hold to too many opinions that you think are incorrect and should not be defended?

My opinion has nothing to do with it at all, and you would immediately discount it, were it to be even tangently relevant. We all know you think you're superior to everyone here, with the exception of maybe Trevor or Addict.

If so, could you please indicate to me, either on the board itself or by PM, which opinions I need to jettison and which criticisms I need to accept? I will, needless to say, accept your dictation in these matters on this board.

PM? Good grief. *sigh*

I have a reputation to uphold, Daniel. Surely you are jesting.

In the meantime, I shall endeavor to be less predictable.

No, you won't. You want to be as annoying as possible, because you just can't get past even the mildest criticism/suggestion of your precious publication.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're miffed

No I'm not.

Don't give yourself airs.

I'm laughing at you.

because 1) Seth, a critic, thought enough of your publication to offer a small suggestion, and 2) because I, the uninformed, irrational, usually ignored idiot in your eyes, told you that your insufferable stiff neck was keeping you from accepting a valid suggestion simply because it came from a critic.

I like suggestions.

I listen to them.

I had never before realized, though, that I was obliged to accept all of them, or some particular percentage of them, and that failure to do so represents a character flaw.

You've been my teacher on this, and I value your instruction

You're outraged/pissed/bemused/incredulous that someone of my inferior status would care enough about you and your publication to attempt to show you the error of your ways.

Have you cared enough to read much of it?

Come on. Be honest. What percentage of those 10,000+ pages -- I would have to count, but I suspect that the actual total may be between 12,000 and 15,000 -- have you actually read?

And your trademark exaggeration is the method by which you seek to punish me.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Logic 101.

you just can't get past even the mildest criticism/suggestion of your precious publication.

As a close student of the Review since its launch, you know that's not true. I've accepted numerous suggestions and have profited from numerous criticisms.

I, the uninformed, irrational, usually ignored idiot . . . my inferior status

Am I obliged to agree with you?

If it makes you happy, I will.

[_harmony]

You're miffed

No I'm not.

Of course you are. It's exactly as accurate for me to say you are miffed as it is for you to say Trixie is angry.

See how that works? Sauce, goose ... sauce, gander.

Don't give yourself airs.

As if I would... or could.

I'm laughing at you.

Of course you are. Did you think no one would catch it? It's just one more manifestation of your predictableness. Does it bother me? Hell, no. If you were serious, I'd be afraid, but you mocking me is par for the course for any conversation with you.

I like suggestions.

I listen to them.

I had never before realized, though, that I was obliged to accept all of them, or some particular percentage of them, and that failure to do so represents a character flaw.

You've been my teacher on this, and I value your instruction

Bullsh*t. You don't like suggestions from critics, and you sure as hell don't like value anything I write. You only like suggestions from your friends, people who worship at your feet, and those you consider your equals. In your eyes, none of us here is your equal (at least, no one in the particular conversation... which is you and I).

Seth gave you a valid suggestion; he's a reader of your publication. You brushed him off, not because the suggestion wasn't valid, but because of who gave it to you. He told you how your excessive use of [sic] reads to him (ie, not one of your closest friends), and you brushed him off like a particularly annoying insect.

Have you cared enough to read much of it?

Come on. Be honest. What percentage of those 10,000+ pages -- I would have to count, but I suspect that the actual total may be between 12,000 and 15,000 -- have you actually read?

Try to keep within the context of the conversation, Daniel. You have a reader, Seth, who had a suggestion. A real live honest to goodness reader, who had a small suggestion to improve your publication. He's a critic, though, so you're safe in discounting any suggestion he may have.

My experience with your publication is totally outside the context of this conversation, since my only suggestions are for you, not your publication. And I've read you for years.

And your trademark exaggeration is the method by which you seek to punish me.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Logic 101.

You've perfected the absurd, agreed.

you just can't get past even the mildest criticism/suggestion of your precious publication.

As a close student of the Review since its launch, you know that's not true. I've accepted numerous suggestions and have profited from numerous criticisms.

From critics? I'm sure your answer will be "of course", but the mind just boggles at the idea of The Great One accepting that a critics suggestion might be valid.

Good grief.

I, the uninformed, irrational, usually ignored idiot . . . my inferior status

Am I obliged to agree with you?

If it makes you happy, I will.

As if my happiness is germane to this conversation.

Good grief.... again.

[Guest]

I'm laughing at you.

Of course you are. Did you think no one would catch it? It's just one more manifestation of your predictableness.

But that brought a tear to my eye.

I'm crying now.

Great heaving sobs.

Bullsh*t.

In a word, yes.

You . . . sure as hell don't like value anything I write.

That's not quite true. As you know, I sent you a very complimentary PM the other day.

But, on the whole, you're right. I can't deny it.

You only like suggestions from your friends, people who worship at your feet, and those you consider your equals.

Our years of close personal acquaintance have, it's clear, equipped you to peer deeply into my soul.

In your eyes, none of us here is your equal (at least, no one in the particular conversation... which is you and I).

You seem to regard yourself as inferior. You've said so many times today.

That's sad.

Seth gave you a valid suggestion

And you know that it was valid . . . how, exactly?

I'm guessing -- what a shocker! -- that you're not intimately acquainted with, and a close student of, the 10,000-15,000 pages that the FARMS Review has published over the past twenty years?

You're of the I-don't-need-to-have-read-it-in-order-to-state-my-opinion-of-it school of stylistic criticism and literary analysis? (That's pretty common around here, from what I can tell.)

he's a reader of your publication.

As am I. As you aren't.

You brushed him off, not because the suggestion wasn't valid, but because of who gave it to you.

And you know that . . . how, exactly?

I deny it.

It's your word against mine, regarding my internal mental states, thoughts, and motivations.

Your word about my thinking Trump's mine . . . why, exactly?

He told you how your excessive use of [sic] reads to him (ie, not one of your closest friends), and you brushed him off like a particularly annoying insect.

I said that I disagreed.

Pretty horrible, that.

Have you cared enough to read much of it?

Come on. Be honest. What percentage of those 10,000+ pages -- I would have to count, but I suspect that the actual total may be between 12,000 and 15,000 -- have you actually read?

Try to keep within the context of the conversation, Daniel.

You don't think it somewhat . . . er, curious for someone (you, in this case) to declare a criticism valid when the endorser of the criticism (you, in this instance) has little or (more likely) no first hand knowledge of the thing being criticized?

You have a reader, Seth, who had a suggestion. A real live honest to goodness reader, who had a small suggestion to improve your publication. He's a critic, though, so you're safe in discounting any suggestion he may have.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you there.

My experience with your publication is totally outside the context of this conversation

LOL. This kind of nonsense would be hard to make up.

I've read you for years.

With little comprehension.

[_Trevor]

But that brought a tear to my eye.

I'm crying now.

Great heaving sobs.

OK. That does it. Have you people no shame? Can't you see that you have reduced the evilest man in Mopologetics to tears? Are you proud of yourselves? Are you? Are you!?!?!?!?

[_harmony]

I'll say one thing, no one makes me laugh like you do, Daniel.

Bullsh*t.

In a word, yes.

I'm glad you recognize the composition of your contributions today.

You . . . sure as hell don't like value anything I write.

That's not quite true. As you know, I sent you a very complimentary PM the other day.

But, on the whole, you're right. I can't deny it.

Maybe I'll frame it and hang it where I can see it, for when you're being exceptionally boorish.

Our years of close personal acquaintance have, it's clear, equipped you to peer deeply into my soul.

It's a good soul. Do you deny that? A little eccentric, with a sense of humor that tilts a bit off center, and a dislike of suggestions about your beloved publication from critics... but still, essentially a good soul.

You seem to regard yourself as inferior. You've said so many times today.

That's sad.

Just pointing out your opinion of me. You've given it often enough.

Seth gave you a valid suggestion

And you know that it was valid . . . how, exactly?

I'm guessing -- what a shocker! -- that you're not intimately acquainted with, and a close student of, the 10,000-15,000 pages that the FARMS Review has published over the past twenty years?

Daniel, I'm not "intimately" acquainted with anything coming out of BYU, with the exception of my Sweet Pickle. I forgive him for that lapse in judgment so many years ago, and have managed to keep all of my children from making the same mistake.

I'm tolerably acquainted with your publication, and I know the tone Seth refers to, but I am not a subscriber or a regular reader. I prefer to do my best to lessen the stress in my life, and I am well aware of what happens to my blood pressure when I read it. Seth, however, obviously cared enough about the publication to make his suggestion.

You're of the I-don't-need-to-have-read-it-in-order-to-state-my-opinion-of-it school of stylistic criticism and literary analysis? (That's pretty common around here, from what I can tell.)

There you go again, assuming.

he's a reader of your publication.

As am I. As you aren't.

Then he has valid credentials. And since I never claimed to be a subscriber or even a regular reader, your comment has no foundation.

You brushed him off, not because the suggestion wasn't valid, but because of who gave it to you.

And you know that . . . how, exactly?

I deny it.

It's your word against mine, regarding my internal mental states, thoughts, and motivations.

I'm assuming you treat your friends' suggestions better than you treated Seth's suggestion. (perhaps that is an erronous assumption but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt) You gave his suggestion no respect, even though it was very respectfully given. You didn't even consider it; you handed down your decision without a second thought. Hopefully you treat your friends more respectfully.

Your word about my thinking Trump's mine . . . why, exactly?

Not my words; yours.

He told you how your excessive use of [sic] reads to him (ie, not one of your closest friends), and you brushed him off like a particularly annoying insect.

I said that I disagreed.

Pretty horrible, that.

A short, pointed put down, as if you thought he'd threatended your cat at knifepoint.

You don't think it somewhat . . . er, curious for someone (you, in this case) to declare a criticism valid when the critic (you, in this instance) has little or (more likely) no first hand knowledge of the thing being criticized?

Daniel, people link to your publication here all the time. I read the links; I've seen the [sic] used to put people down, as if the reviewer is mocking the author. You aren't naïve enough to actually expect anyone to believe that isn't intentional?

You have a reader, Seth, who had a suggestion. A real live honest to goodness reader, who had a small suggestion to improve your publication. He's a critic, though, so you're safe in discounting any suggestion he may have.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you there.

Uh, Daniel? You already did it. No matter what else you're afraid of, you've already gone past the point where you can disagree with me on that point.

My experience with your publication is totally outside the context of this conversation

LOL. This kind of nonsense would be hard to make up.

As I said... a sense of humor somewhat off tilt.

I've read you for years.

With little comprehension.

Unfortunately, with altogether too much comprehension.

[_ScottLloyd]

For what it's worth, as a not-infrequent reader of the FARMS Review, I don't recall a single instance when I had the impression that that use of "sic" in the journal's content was a gratuitous attack on the author being quoted. I think Sethbag and others are entirely off-base in that perception, and it's a criticism that strikes me as inconsequential carping.

So we have offsetting opinions here. Though I doubt harmony holds my opinion in any higher regard than she says Daniel Peterson holds a critic's. And so it goes.

[_Trevor]

For what it's worth, as a not-infrequent reader of the FARMS Review, I don't recall a single instance when I had the impression that that use of "sic" in the journal's content was a gratuitous attack on the author being quoted.

Iron-clad proof that Sethbag was absolutely right.

[_harmony]

For what it's worth, as a not-infrequent reader of the FARMS Review, I don't recall a single instance when I had the impression that that use of "sic" in the journal's content was a gratuitous attack on the author being quoted.

Iron-clad proof that Sethbag was absolutely right.

*snort*

[_Daniel Peterson]

Daniel, I'm not "intimately" acquainted with anything coming out of BYU, with the exception of my Sweet Pickle.

I'm not surprised.

And that's yet another (redundant) example of your zest for pronouncing negative judgment on things of which you know little or nothing.

I'm tolerably acquainted with your publication, and I know the tone Seth refers to, but I am not a subscriber or a regular reader.

Meaning what, I wonder?

Fifteen pages read, out of, say, fifteen thousand? That would be a tenth of one percent.

A hundred and fifty? I doubt it very much. That would be one percent.

I prefer to do my best to lessen the stress in my life, and I am well aware of what happens to my blood pressure when I read it.

Poor thing.

Of the following FARMS Review writers, which one do you think raises your blood pressure the most?
(a) Blake Ostler
(b) James Allen
(c) David Paulsen
(d) Alyson Skabelund Von Feldt

Then he has valid credentials.

As do I.

When our opinions differ, why am I obliged to accept his? You've never clearly explained the rationale behind this rule.

You gave his suggestion no respect, even though it was very respectfully given.

I respectfully disagreed.

Should I have included smiley faces?

You didn't even consider it; you handed down your decision without a second thought. Hopefully you treat your friends more respectfully.

He stated his view very concisely. Just an opinion, no syllogistic reasoning or deployment of evidence. I stated mine in return.

Horrible!

A short, pointed put down, as if you thought he'd threatended your cat at knifepoint.

Here are the two relevant passages, quoted in full, in all their brazen cruelty. (Warning: Those with a history of heart problems should not look at the following quotations.)

Dan, can you deny that the use of "[sic]" in FARMS reviews is never intended in a sneering way at the person being quoted? And please, let's not parse "sneer" here and nitpick it, I think we both know what I'm talking about. That is, the use of "[sic]" in quotes of LDS critical writing with the intent to highlight the fact that the error is there, and sneer at the person being quoted. Will you agree or disagree that it is ever used this way in FARMS reviews?

The FARMS Review, by this point, totals well over 10,000 pages of printed matter. Do I wish to deny that the term sic is sometimes used, in those 10,000+ pages, as a shorthand way of indicating that a given author is not particularly good and/or that a given publisher is not very careful or reputable? No. Do I deny malice? Yes. Absolutely. Do I deny "sneering"? Yes, on the whole I do. (And, sorry, "parsing" is not a bad thing. Equivocation is.)

And now comes the one that really set harmony off. It's breathtakingly brutal, but I feel I need to quote it nonetheless:

I would regard the insertion of "[sic]" in a quote "... as a shorthand way of indicating that a given author is not particularly good and/or that a given publisher is not very careful or reputable" as a sort of sneer. It's a cheap shot, sort of like fart jokes in a movie are cheap laughs. In a review of material one is hostile to, I think it's a form of poisoning the well.

I don't.

Gasp!

You don't think it somewhat . . . er, curious for someone (you, in this case) to declare a criticism valid when the critic (you, in this instance) has little or (more likely) no first hand knowledge of the thing being criticized?

Daniel, people link to your publication here all the time. I read the links; I've seen the [sic] used to put people down, as if the reviewer is mocking the author.

Uh huh. How many hundred carefully critic-selected pages of the Review do you think you've read? Remember, three hundred pages would represent a whopping 2% of the Review. And, seriously, you haven't read anything remotely like three hundred pages, have you?

You aren't naïve enough to actually expect anyone to believe that isn't intentional?

Not at all. I believe that authors are conscious agents.

Do I believe that the use of sic generally, or in the Review in particular, typically or even commonly represents a "sneer"? No, I don't.