Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Just curious: do you disagree with that one example? If you were harboring a Jew way back when would you lie to save said Jew or not?

Godwin's law

So are you going to answer the question? It is pretty straight-forward. It is a simple question now, it is not related to any Godwin's law violations, it is a simple question. Either you'd lie or you wouldn't.

Tell you what. I'll make you a deal. You answer my question, and I'll answer yours.

Do think you lying, in any form*, about the Mormon church is acceptable?

I'll let you go first. ;)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Isn't there an "ignore" feature on this site?

No.

Nuts. Well, sorry, harmony. You'll have to be subjected to my awful rants for a little season.

[_rcrocket]

I know it's a lot to ask of a Mormon and a lawyer, but it would be helpful. Please address his questions without any game-playing.

But, I prefer game-playing. You obviously just can't play very well.

[_Mister Scratch]

I looked at those sources, LoaP, and I've got to say, I just don't see how your argument has any merit. Would you care to elaborate, or are you cashing in your chips?

Then I am forced to say that we see things differently. I think it is a very open/shut case in favor of Coe not being aware of what the Book of Mormon text actually says.

If it is so "open/shut," then why not provide a simple explanation>

No, not really. I think Bushman's feelings towards the bulk of what turns up in FARMS Review are rather lukewarm. He seems far more positive about *other* areas of LDS scholarship, but with respect to FARMS Review, his attitude seems lukewarm at best.

I see you didn't read the Bushman transcript to which I linked you. This damages your credibility in my eyes.

You don't "see" anything. You are merely being presumptuous again.

Why? Because in that very link I provided above Bushman praises FARMS and then offers his take on what he'd like to see in Mormon intellectual attention for the future. Had you read the article this would be patently obvious. As it is, you show a lack of knowledge on the subject, even when a link is expressly provided for your perusal.

Go ahead and quote the material in which he directly and obviously "praises FARMS Review", LoaP. If it is so "obvious," then it should be no problem for you.

Enough to know that FARMS Review's "submission process" is highly irregular. C'mon, LoaP. All you need is one contrary example. We all know how much you love coming up with the one example that topples the whole argument. Go for it! What have you got to lose?

In this case we have already discussed how different journals have different submissions guidelines. One contrary example in this case does not topple anything, other than that the FR guidelines differ from one particular journal or another. Not all, as we have agreed. (Actually I think you are hedging on that now, despite all of your "most" comments earlier.)

Waiting, still waiting, for just one lil' ol' example, LoaP.

It may be simple, but it is also strange, and it suggests that the Powers that Be are finagling with the process. FARMS Review wants to be seen as a respectable, reputable publication, and yet they are unwilling to be transparent about their submission process. I wonder why that is?

I was under the impression you understood the submission process. Is this not the case?

Speaking of which: Are you ever going to fully explain the Kevin Christiansen articles, and how/why they proved your point about blind submissions? Or do *you* actually know nothing about the submission process?

Except that the strangeness of this submission process bespeaks to an additional layer of "screening." It suggests that they are trying to ward off anything critical or contrary.

This argument would hold some water if we had some actual examples of that happening. As it currently stands, it's mere speculation.

Lol. Right.

And the fact that it goes against typical academic practice. (And the fact that this is a journal which gets attacked frequently for being "unscholarly".) Really, if everything is on the up-and-up, then what have they got to hide?

Again, aren't you familiar with the process? And you use the word "typical." Do you think there are any reputable journals which require one to contact an editor or to submit an abstract before submitting a complete article? IF there are, then your argument is mere special pleading. In this case, one counter-example introduces the special pleading aspect. You use words like "most" and "typical," which suggests there are "some" and "atypical" reputable journals that may have similar submission guidelines; right?

Hey, LoaP: Do you know of any journals which have this bizarre, secretive screening procedure woven into their submissions guidelines? 'Cause I sure don't!

Yes, that's true, and we can also observe what kinds of articles never seem to make it into FARMS Review, and which kinds of vicious smear pieces are allowed to stand.

Compared to what, though? What other articles are being struck down? To me, the overriding purpose of the FR seems to be reviewing books. I've seen the FR laud books written by LDS and non-LDS alike. I've seen it completely pan books written by LDS and non-LDS alike, as well.

Meanwhile, what peer review process is being used?

Which is what? Please be as descriptive as possible.

I apologize, but I don't have the interest. I don't memorize your posts, or save them on my computer. I don't analyze each and every one looking for little clues. The simple truth is you come across as a woman to me. It's a personal view.

Well, you clearly have some reason. Please feel free to share. Or are you afraid?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

If it is so "open/shut," then why not provide a simple explanation>

Tell you what. You say you've also read the material. Feel free to provide a simple explanation from your view. Have fun!

You don't "see" anything. You are merely being presumptuous again.

It's a pretty good guess, though. Either you didn't read it or your reading comprehension is severely lacking. And again, rather than answering with a simple "actually I did read it," you come back with some ambiguous nonsense. Par for the course for Ms. Scratch.

Go ahead and quote the material in which he directly and obviously "praises FARMS Review", LoaP. If it is so "obvious," then it should be no problem for you.

Already did. Even provided a second source, which you clearly didn't research, either.

Waiting, still waiting, for just one lil' ol' example, LoaP.

But you can't prove otherwise. It seems we are at a bit of a standstill here.

Speaking of which: Are you ever going to fully explain the Kevin Christiansen articles, and how/why they proved your point about blind submissions? Or do *you* actually know nothing about the submission process?

It's pretty basic. K. Christenson gets an idea to do a review or article. He then sends it to DCP. From what I know most of the time he gives DCP a heads up on it beforehand. And speaking of which: you don't know anything about the FR submission guidelines?

Lol. Right.

Nope. Not the "lol" part; just the "right."

Hey, LoaP: Do you know of any journals which have this bizarre, secretive screening procedure woven into their submissions guidelines? 'Cause I sure don't!

What is bizarre and secretive about it? Apparently, a person calls the editor, gives a brief over the phone abstract, and then sends in an article.

Meanwhile, what peer review process is being used?

See the "Second Sight" article. It's pretty clear.

Well, you clearly have some reason. Please feel free to share. Or are you afraid?

Yes, clearly I am afraid.

Or it's simply that you come across as feminine.

Off to the Dentist!

Take care, everyone. :pirate:

[_skippy the dead]

I looked at those sources, LoaP, and I've got to say, I just don't see how your argument has any merit. Would you care to elaborate, or are you cashing in your chips?

Then I am forced to say that we see things differently. I think it is a very open/shut case in favor of Coe not being aware of what the Book of Mormon text actually says.

Well then it should be quite easy to provide a couple of examples. Otherwise your argument is 100% meaningless. Pounding more loudly on the table does not add any support.

[_skippy the dead]

and then you say you do these things because you think he "comes across as a woman"

No, I occasionally call her "Ms. Scratch" because I think she "comes across as a woman." Making fun, or viewing arguments with contempt (or what I like to call, disagreeing and pointing out why) has nothing in the least to do with Scratch's gender.

and we're not supposed to think that being a woman is a bad thing in your eyes?

You can think as you please.

And thus LoaP demonstrates just how lame he is. He is obviously intending to denigrate Scratch and his arguments by referring to him as a woman. Scratch has made it clear that he is male. LoaP's insistence on calling him by the feminine title and pronouns can only mean that it is meant to be an insult - there is absolutely no other reason for it. And thus it is logical to infer that LoaP sees women as inferior to men. Not surprising.

[_Mister Scratch]

If it is so "open/shut," then why not provide a simple explanation>

Tell you what. You say you've also read the material. Feel free to provide a simple explanation from your view. Have fun!

But, LoaP: I have maintained all along that Coe would make an adequate--indeed an better than adequate--peer reviewer. You have countered this by stating that he's "unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon." Based on his PBS interview, it seems clear that he has read the Book of Mormon. You say that his comments in this interview prove that his notion of Book of Mormon geography does not square with Sorenson. But how so? How, to return to the original question, has Coe's ability to function as a good peer reviewer in the area of his expertise (i.e., archeology / anthropology) been affected in any way?

You seem to think that you've got really great, stupefying evidence which makes this a clear "open/shut" case, and yet you won't provide an "open/shut" example.

I find it deeply ironic (and hypocritical) that you and your fellow TBMs on MAD jump up and down ecstatically whenever a critic fails to provide you with your endless "CFRs", and yet now, when you are asked to provide what you yourself claim is an "open/shut" bit of proof, you duck out of the discussion. I'm sorry, LoaP, but you lose on this one.

You don't "see" anything. You are merely being presumptuous again.

It's a pretty good guess, though. Either you didn't read it or your reading comprehension is severely lacking. And again, rather than answering with a simple "actually I did read it,"

Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't. It would have been easy enough for you to just cite text proving that I did not read it. But did you do that? Nope.

you come back with some ambiguous nonsense. Par for the course for Ms. Scratch.

Speaking "ambiguous nonsense" is indicative of femininity, in your eyes? It seems Harmony had you pegged.

Go ahead and quote the material in which he directly and obviously "praises FARMS Review", LoaP. If it is so "obvious," then it should be no problem for you.

Already did. Even provided a second source, which you clearly didn't research, either.

No, LoaP: nothing in that quote constitutes clear and obvious "praise" of FARMS Review. Bushman praises LDS scholarship generally. If you've got contrary evidence, feel free to provide it. Again: you claim it is "obvious." Well, if that's so, then you should have no problem spelling it out.

Waiting, still waiting, for just one lil' ol' example, LoaP.

But you can't prove otherwise. It seems we are at a bit of a standstill here.

Waiting, waiting for you to demonstrate, via one---just one!---counterexample, that FARMS Review's weird, "hidden" submission process is a-okay.

Speaking of which: Are you ever going to fully explain the Kevin Christiansen articles, and how/why they proved your point about blind submissions? Or do *you* actually know nothing about the submission process?

It's pretty basic. K. Christenson gets an idea to do a review or article. He then sends it to DCP. From what I know most of the time he gives DCP a heads up on it beforehand.

In other words: No, nothing gets submitted blind. FARMS Review is 100% commissioned. I wonder what other (if any) "academic" journals do that sort of thing?

And speaking of which: you don't know anything about the FR submission guidelines?

Sure I do! Bob has told us all sorts of things, and moreover, you can read about them on the FARMS webpage!

Hey, LoaP: Do you know of any journals which have this bizarre, secretive screening procedure woven into their submissions guidelines? 'Cause I sure don't!

What is bizarre and secretive about it? Apparently, a person calls the editor, gives a brief over the phone abstract, and then sends in an article.

Why aren't the full submission guidelines printed on the site, as they are for pretty much every other academic journal? Why do the editors insist upon being "contacted first"? Further, what makes you think that this "over the phone abstract" is what actually takes place? Isn't it far more likely that DCP (or whomever else) would use this opportunity to parse through the (potential) submissions?

See: here's what I think is going on. In the case of a "normal" academic journal, a prospective author submits his or her piece, via snail mail or email, to the editor in question. This editor will then decide whether or not the article is suitable for the given publication. If not, then said editor provides a clear explanation as to why the article didn't pass muster.

By not listing submission requirements, and by insisting upon this "first contact," or "forced phone call," or whatever, DCP & Co. get to skip this explanatory step in the rejection process, and they get to avoid having to send out physical, textual evidence of their biases and tendentiousness. I mean, can you imagine what these rejection letters (provided that they were honest) would say? E.g., "Sorry, but your refusal to acknowledge NAHOM as a bullseye damns your paper. Furthermore, you did not include enough ad hominem derision in your article, so we had no choice but to reject it. Best of luck in placing it elsewhere."

Meanwhile, what peer review process is being used?

See the "Second Sight" article. It's pretty clear.

Actually, it's not. It's quite evasive. I assume you read those two links I gave you a few days ago? You know, since you like to (falsely) accuse others of having not done their reading?

Well, you clearly have some reason. Please feel free to share. Or are you afraid?

Yes, clearly I am afraid.

Or it's simply that you come across as feminine.

And why is that? Because of "ambiguous nonsense"? That sure doesn't sound very charitable!

Off to the Dentist!

Take care, everyone. :pirate:

Toodle-oo! It was fun kicking your butt.

[_moksha]

Even if that were the case, it does not change the fact that the process essentially involves "commissioning" every single article.

Okay Scratch, if you already know what you want, what would you have to gain from a traditional submission process? A field of directionless scholars could produce who knows what about items that may not be quotable to shore up the castle walls, no?

[_Mister Scratch]

Even if that were the case, it does not change the fact that the process essentially involves "commissioning" every single article.

Okay Scratch, if you already know what you want, what would you have to gain from a traditional submission process? A field of directionless scholars could produce who knows what about items that may not be quotable to shore up the castle walls, no?

Lol. Yes, you've got it exactly right, Moksha (as usual). FARMS Review (and its submission process) represent a scholarly close-mindedness. They know what they want (or perhaps more accurately, what the *don't* want), and have rigged all of their processes to reflect this fact. That said, I continue to protest the false claim that FARMS Review is in any way a serious, "academic" publication. It is, above all, an attack journal, and an apologetic organ.