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

[_harmony]

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.

There you go again, assuming. I didn't say I wasn't acquainted. I said I wasn't "intimately" acquainted, which is the word you used in reference to your publication. I'm not intimately acquainted with anything out of BYU (except my Sweet Pickle), but that doesn't mean I have absolutely no knowledge of doings at BYU. I've been there many times, attended conferences there, talked with many people there (strangers and friends alike), have friends who teach there. So it's not like I'm a total stranger to any of the BYU campuses, just because I'm not "intimately" acquainted with it like you are.

You might remember that very few if any of the rest of us here deal in the absolutes that you do.

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.

*sigh*... immaterial, Daniel. A red herring. Try to stay on subject. The subject of our discussion is not how many pages of FROB I've read; the subject is Seth's suggestion and your response to his suggestion.

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

That would be the editor.

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.

He's a reader. That's not what you are. You're the editor. He's giving you his perception, something you can't conjure up on your own. And you brushed it off as inconsequential. He pays to read your publication and you brushed him off. Not good form. Pretty bad form from a business perspective, actually. He's your target audience, after all.

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

I respectfully disagreed.

No, you didn't. Had you wanted to respect his suggestion, you'd have asked him for more input, solicited comments on some examples so you could see his point of view, and asked him how he thought his suggestion would improve the tone of the publication.

Instead, you were abrupt and defensive.

You really don't get it, do you? This stuff is basic good customer service, and you really don't get it.

Should I have included smiley faces?

Not unless you wanted Shades to enter the conversation.

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!

As the recipient of his suggestion, it's your task to invite further discussion. How can you not know this stuff? Do you run a dictatorship or what?

[snip previously material. If the reader wants to see it again, they can find it on the thread]

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.

Then maybe... just maybe you should find out why Seth thinks it does!

.
.
.
.
.

[_Daniel Peterson]

*sigh*... immaterial, Daniel. A red herring. Try to stay on subject. The subject of our discussion is not how many pages of FROB I've read; the subject is Seth's suggestion and your response to his suggestion.

My subject is and has always been your standing to pronounce his suggestion valid and necessary-to-accept when you don't seem qualified to declare such a judgment.

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

That would be the editor.

Who has written probably considerably less than 10% of the Review's contents.

Are you familiar with the FARMS Review writings of Ostler, Allen, Paulsen, or Von Feldt?

I'm guessing that you're not.

Yet the FARMS Review, as a whole, raises your sensitive blood pressure?

He's a reader. That's not what you are. You're the editor. He's giving you his perception, something you can't conjure up on your own.

So the rule is that editors are required to accept and comply with all suggestions from readers.

Have I got that right?

And you brushed it off as inconsequential.

By saying that I didn't agree?

Horrible.

He pays to read your publication and you brushed him off. Not good form. Pretty bad form from a business perspective, actually. He's your target audience, after all.

Do you know for certain that he pays to read my publication?

Do you imagine that one has to pay to read it on line?

You say that you've often linked to it and read it on line?

LOL.

You really don't get it, do you? This stuff is basic good customer service, and you really don't get it.

You're right. I don't.

Your position seems, as your positions often seem to me, incoherent and ill-informed.

[_Trevor]

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

I'm gonna have to go with d. Feriners always makes my blud boil.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm gonna have to go with d. Feriners always makes my blud boil.

You chose wisely.

Harmony should have followed the same sound principle. It would have obviated any perception at all that actually reading the materials might be required for judging them.

[_harmony]

My subject is and has always been your standing to pronounce his suggestion valid and necessary-to-accept when you don't seem qualified to declare such a judgment.

Ah ha! Finally!

I never said you had to accept it! I said you should respect it, explore it, try to get a sense of what he was saying, but I never said you actually had to implement it. (although I think he's right, and I think you're being stubborn to not even consider it).

Who has written probably considerably less than 10% of the Review's contents.

So? It takes very little raise my blood pressure. And you write the introductions, right? And some little gems that Scratch constantly derides (not that I'm agreeing with Scratch, but he does seem to have a vested interest in you).

So the rule is that editors are required to accept and comply with all suggestions from readers.

Have I got that right?

I didn't say that! Why can't you get off your absolutes, your all? It was one suggestion from a reader.. a customer. You dismissed it out of hand. You didn't even take the time to ask him for more input, just in case what he said could improve your publication.. No, you dismissed it immediately.

And that's poor business practices.

And you brushed it off as inconsequential.

By saying that I didn't agree?

Horrible.

By not pursuing his suggestion, by not asking for further input, by showing him respect. He's your customer, for heaven's sake! Show him some respect.

He pays to read your publication and you brushed him off. Not good form. Pretty bad form from a business perspective, actually. He's your target audience, after all.

Do you know for certain that he pays to read my publication?

Do you know he doesn't? No, you don't.

You really don't get it, do you? This stuff is basic good customer service, and you really don't get it.

You're right. I don't.

Your position seems, as your positions often seem to me, incoherent and ill-informed.

You might want to seek some input on customer service from BYU's School of Business. A refresher course probably wouldn't be amiss.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I said you should respect it, explore it, try to get a sense of what he was saying, but I never said you actually had to implement it. (although I think he's right, and I think you're being stubborn to not even consider it).

I'm in a pretty good position to know, quite directly, whether I and my friends typically use sic in order to sneer at people in things that I write or edit.

What is there in the claim that's difficult to understand? What would I need to "explore"? What further "input" could I possibly require? What could Sethbag possibly tell me that would convince me that he knows my motivations and attitudes better than I do? What data would I have to gather, what surveys would I need to conduct, in order to know what my thoughts have been?

Do you know he doesn't? No, you don't.

This way lies madness.

A: X.
B. How do you know that X?
A. How do you know that not-X? Hah! You don't!
B. Have a nice day, A.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And you write the introductions, right? And some little gems that Scratch constantly derides (not that I'm agreeing with Scratch, but he does seem to have a vested interest in you).

Well, if you want to get a good picture of the FARMS Review, Master Scartch is certainly your best source.

He can be relied upon to provide representative materials unaccompanied by any spin.

It surely beats looking directly at the FARMS Review itself!

"I exist," says Master Scartch, "to put an end to your 'campaign of slander, spin, and defamation' which goes by the name of FARMS Review." Now there's an objective voice.

[_harmony]

I said you should respect it, explore it, try to get a sense of what he was saying, but I never said you actually had to implement it. (although I think he's right, and I think you're being stubborn to not even consider it).

I'm in a pretty good position to know, quite directly, whether I and my friends typically use sic in order to sneer at people in things that I write or edit.

No, I'm sorry, but you aren't. You aren't a reader; you aren't a customer. You're the editor, the boss, the owner for all intents and purposes. You will never know how anything you publish reads to a reader; you can't... you're the editor. You may know what you intend, but you won't know how it actually comes off unless you listen to a reader. Thus, Seth's input is valuable simply because it's a perspective you don't have. But he's not your friend, so you immediately dismiss what he has to say, which he offered in good faith, and that shows you really have no care about how your publication is viewed by a reader, a customer.

Geez, even the church asked their readers for their input into the Ensign. (I filled out the survey. I figured they might be interested, since they were interested enough in their readers to ask.)

What is there in the claim that's difficult to understand? What would I need to "explore"? What further "input" could I possibly require? What could Sethbag possibly tell me that would convince me that he knows my motivations and attitudes better than I do? What data would I have to gather, what surveys would I need to conduct, in order to know what my thoughts have been?

You could quit personalizing his suggestion as a criticism of you, for starters.

You could ask him what he thinks would be an appropriate level of use of [sic]. You could ask him if he sees that tone (snide, etc) as pervasive throughout the whole publicaiton or in only a few articles or certain authors. You could ask him if he's a regular reader or only intermittant. You could ask him if the tone is enough for him to cease reading your publication, so you could gauge his loyalty. You could thank him for his input. You don't have to impliment his suggestion, but disrespecting him the way you did won't win you any awards in customer service.

This is basic customer service stuff, Daniel. I don't understand why you wouldn't automatically do this as a matter of course.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, I'm sorry, but you aren't.

Nonsense.

My mental states and intentions are available to me in a direct way to which even you, as a non-reader who doesn't know me, have no access.

You aren't a reader; you aren't a customer. You're the editor, the boss, the owner for all intents and purposes. You will never know how anything you publish reads to a reader; you can't... you're the editor. You may know what you intend, but you won't know how it actually comes off unless you listen to a reader.

The question wasn't how it comes across to a reader. That's not the question Sethbag raised.

The question was what was intended. He expressly raised the issue of "intent." (He used the word. Check for yourself.)

On this question, I know better than Sethbag does, and more directly than Sethbag ever can.

Thus, Seth's input is valuable simply because it's a perspective you don't have. But he's not your friend, so you immediately dismiss what he has to say, which he offered in good faith, and that shows you really have no care about how your publication is viewed by a reader, a customer.

You're being judgmental and ignorant, harmony. You don't know whether or how much I care about that. You've misread the issue, and you're (mis)reading me without the slightest competence to do so.

I do take reader feedback seriously. But no reader is going to convince me that he or she knows my intent better than I do. It simply won't happen. It won't even happen in the case of a non-reader like yourself.

[_harmony]

The question was what was intended. He expressly raised the issue of "intent." (He used the word. Check for yourself.)

On this question, I know better than Sethbag does, and more directly than Sethbag ever can.

Well, if you didn't intend for the publication to come off like Seth obviously think it comes off, then you've got an even bigger problem than I thought. Because no matter what your intentions are, your publication isn't reflecting them. So maybe you should work on getting your publication in line with your intentions.

I do take reader feedback seriously. But no reader is going to convince me that he or she knows my intent better than I do. It simply won't happen. It won't even happen in the case of a non-reader like yourself.

I find that hard to believe, given the shortness of your response to Seth. What Seth is telling you is that whatever your intent may be, the publication comes off as sneering and malicious (things you emphatically deny are intended). So you might want to find out from him exactly the context of his remarks, why he thinks an article or articles has a sneering or malicious tone, so you can get the publication in line with your intentions (if you really want your publication to be as good as you claim)!

Good grief, I feel like I've been holding a seminar on communication in customer service.