I'm forced to say it's 'remarkable'

[Doctor Scratch]

We have been given a gift here, and once again we are reminded why Dr. Robbers is The Dean.

[Dr Moore]

I look forward to reading this review, Dean Robbers.

Your title reminds me that, of all human inventions, the dry erase board is the most remarkable.

[Kishkumen]

For Midgley to include the link in his footnote, but not be clear about the details, and then to conclude with this, below, is not scholarship in any way.

"Gee was obviously evil, and those opposed to him were happy — almost gleeful — to tell us why. The online book-burning was a rousing success, and fun was had by all."


Still no peer review at the Interpreter, clearly.

It looks like we are well on our way to a volume of quality reviews that do more justice to the conversation than Interpreter ever could! Kudos, Professor Marcus!

[Doctor Steuss]

No Ma'an, That's Not a Book Review

[Marcus]

No Ma'an, That's Not a Book Review

clever.

[Analytics]

...And so, my biggest criticism of his essay is that he doesn't sell me on his belief that Dr. Gee's book is 'remarkable.' It feels like he was forced to write it.

I have tossed out several earlier attempts to address the contents of each of its excellent chapters...

Let me get this straight. In 2020, an Egyptologist publishes a book about sociology, but BYU thinks it is substandard or otherwise problematic and "pulls it from publication" (whatever that means). It is now out of print, but if you look you can find a used or unsold copy somewhere.

Meanwhile, Dr. Midgely spends three years writing book reviews about it, despite no expertise in sociology and no basis to judge the strength of the book's arguments, other than counting footnotes.

These earlier attempts at book reviews were all rejected by Interpreter. But after three years of editing and rewrites, a review that meets Interpreter's standards of scholarly excelence is ready for publication.

And this is it.

Do I have that right?

[drumdude]

...And so, my biggest criticism of his essay is that he doesn't sell me on his belief that Dr. Gee's book is 'remarkable.' It feels like he was forced to write it.

Let me get this straight. In 2020, an Egyptologist publishes a book about sociology, but BYU thinks it is substandard or otherwise problematic and "pulls it from publication" (whatever that means). It is now out of print, but if you look you can find a used or unsold copy somewhere.

Meanwhile, Dr. Midgely spends three years writing book reviews about it, despite no expertise in sociology and no basis to judge the strength of the book's arguments, other than counting footnotes.

These earlier attempts at book reviews were all rejected by Interpreter. But after three years of editing and rewrites, a review that meets Interpreter's standards of scholarly excelence is ready for publication.

And this is it.

Do I have that right?

And people wonder why we find DCP and his enterprises so fascinating.

[Tom]

...And so, my biggest criticism of his essay is that he doesn't sell me on his belief that Dr. Gee's book is 'remarkable.' It feels like he was forced to write it.

Let me get this straight. In 2020, an Egyptologist publishes a book about sociology, but BYU thinks it is substandard or otherwise problematic and "pulls it from publication" (whatever that means). It is now out of print, but if you look you can find a used or unsold copy somewhere.

Meanwhile, Dr. Midgely spends three years writing book reviews about it, despite no expertise in sociology and no basis to judge the strength of the book's arguments, other than counting footnotes.

These earlier attempts at book reviews were all rejected by Interpreter. But after three years of editing and rewrites, a review that meets Interpreter's standards of scholarly excelence is ready for publication.

And this is it.

Do I have that right?

I haven’t seen evidence that he wrote previous versions of the review that were rejected. I do wonder if the draft review went through substantial revision prior to publication. (I also wonder why a revised version of Gee’s book hasn’t been published.)

[Marcus]

Let me get this straight. In 2020, an Egyptologist publishes a book about sociology, but BYU thinks it is substandard or otherwise problematic and "pulls it from publication" (whatever that means). It is now out of print, but if you look you can find a used or unsold copy somewhere.

Meanwhile, Dr. Midgely spends three years writing book reviews about it, despite no expertise in sociology and no basis to judge the strength of the book's arguments, other than counting footnotes.

These earlier attempts at book reviews were all rejected by Interpreter. But after three years of editing and rewrites, a review that meets Interpreter's standards of scholarly excelence is ready for publication.

And this is it.

Do I have that right?

I haven’t seen evidence that he wrote previous versions of the review that were rejected. I do wonder if the draft review went through substantial revision prior to publication. (I also wonder why a revised version of Gee’s book hasn’t been published.)

Well, he did say this, about elements of his review that are curiously missing:

I am, however, pleased that I have managed to have my review of a really excellent book by my friend, John Gee, finally in print. And also to have some of the story of how his excellent book was unpublished by the BYU Administration told with most of the ugly details set out, My essay sets out some of the silly and disgusting things that the current BYU Administration allowed or facilitated when they unpublished Professor Gee's wonderful book

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 6207610302

On the other hand, just because Midgley wrote it doesn't mean it really happened (see a few of his whoppers) so I would have to agree with your assessment that evidence, as people understand the word, is not available.

[Analytics]

I haven’t seen evidence that he wrote previous versions of the review that were rejected. I do wonder if the draft review went through substantial revision prior to publication. (I also wonder why a revised version of Gee’s book hasn’t been published.)

He did say, "I have tossed out several earlier attempts to address the contents..." Maybe he tossed them before submitting them. Or maybe not.