Daniel Peterson wrote:Mister Scratch wrote:Is it as you suggested above--i.e., that you desired to maintain the "polemical" tone of the review, and you worried that BYU and/or the Brethren would put a stop to it?
I was worried about micromanagerial interference with our editorial decisions.
Why, though? Given other things you've said about BYU and the Brethren, it seems kind of odd that this sort of concern would arise in the first place. What was it, specifically, that led to to worry that such "micromanagerial interference" might happen?
Mister Scratch wrote:Well, I assume it was Prof. Hamblin's "Metcalfe is Butthead" gaffe? Did the Brethren tell you that that sort of thing was unacceptable?
You misunderstand. I referred to a quip made in the course of the affiliation negotiations. It was the only mention of the
Review during those discussions, so far as I remember.
What was the quip?
You've been seeking to portray the Review as a major reason for the affiliation, and as a principal source of my mythical anxiety an stress over the affiliation. But, though you're as determined as ever in your bizarre theorizing, you're completely wrong. As you typically are.
No, that's not really correct. Particularly in light of this new information, I believe that the Review didn't really have that much to do with the affiliation. In fact, I said as much in my earlier posts on this thread. That said, I do think that the
Review represents the heart-and-soul of LDS apologetics. Would you disagree with that?
Mister Scratch wrote:Why don't you track it down? You'd have a far easier time locating it than I would.
Because I don't know what you're talking about, don't care, don't intend to devote additional energy to your Scratchoscopies, and see no important issue here.
You said repeatedly that you'd be interested in seeing it. I guess you've changed your mind?
Mister Scratch wrote:You said that you considered resigning completely from BYU. That seems to extend well beyond garden-variety "frustration."
It was just a passing mood. And I've already explained, several times, what it involved: The affiliation process was so time-consuming and so terribly complex that it brought my research and writing essentially to a halt for a period of two to three years.
If you're not going to believe anything I say, why do you continually pester me with your interrogations?
I believe plenty that you say, Professor P. There's no need to get upset, or to assume that I have ill-intent. I just get the feeling that there was more to your anxiety than you're letting on. Based on what you've said about yourself over the years, it just seems odd that something like this would rattle you to the point that you'd consider resigning---which, it's worth pointing out, probably would have had an even more deleterious effect on your writing and research.