Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_Trevor]

Pretty strong words from somebody willing to libel anonymously.

Funny, I considered what I wrote a compliment. And, for the umpteenth time, I am using my own first name. Sheesh!

[_rcrocket]

A couple of comments:

1. About the expectation of privacy in a client/psychologist relationship. Unless Tal was a paying client of the SP, APA ethics do not apply. No one is required to keep confidences, if there is no client relationship. So that argument is toast.

2. About the expectation of confidentiality between a SP and a member: Tal broke confidentiality when he posted his comments on the conversation, and the SP has no obligation to keep confidentiality in the face of Tal breaking it. I doubt the SP's superiors are happy with him, because he's not helping the church's position at all, but there was no confidentiality to maintain, once Tal broke it.

And the wife seriously needs to take off those rose-colored glasses. Good grief, she's an embarrassment to thinking LDS women.

I'm in trouble. I agree with this post.

[_Coggins7]

Harmony has, on occasion, actually agreed with me on some things as well.

(Twilight Zone them music begins...)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Oh, I see. A person can have no prior contact with DCP in order to blind submit an article.

What a ridiculous claim. Simply astonishing. A fine case of special pleading, I might add.

[_Mister Scratch]

Oh, I see. A person can have no prior contact with DCP in order to blind submit an article.

What a ridiculous claim. Simply astonishing. A fine case of special pleading, I might add.

No, no---a person could have contact w/ DCP. But, in order for these KC submissions to have been genuinely blind, then we would need to know with absolute certainty that no conversation took place beforehand concerning these articles. (Given the "guidelines" on the FARMS website, I kind of suspect that communication of some kind too place before KC submitted his articles.) Or, perhaps KC sent in additional articles after first contacting DCP and getting one article published---i.e., he was a "friend of the family," so to speak, and so it was okay for him to skip over the normal protocol.

[Guest]

I don't know why we particularly care about FARMS's peer review process. If a journal for UFO believers used a blind peer review process, it would do little to help me think that their scholarship was worth reading. I know that the assumptions they start with are total poppycock!

The UFOlogist Review: A Journal for UFO Believers

This quarter's offerings:

"Revisiting von Daniken: an unfairly maligned thesis?"

"Skeptics: when will the mountain of evidence convince them?"

"Dracos vs. Greys: the coming apocalyptic conflict in the Bermuda Triangle"

"A Neo-Kantian analysis of the revelations of French journalist and intellectual Rael"

"The abductee experience: a post-modernist perspective"

edited for shameful misuse of the genitive and shamefully bad editing

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't know why we particularly care about FARMS's peer review process. If a journal for UFO believers used a blind peer review process, it would do little to help me think that their scholarship was worth reading. I know that the assumptions they start with are total poppycock!

The UFOlogist Review: A Journal for UFO Believers

This quarter's offerings:

"Revisiting von Daniken: an unfairly maligned thesis?"

"Skeptics: when will the mountain of evidence convince them?"

"Draco's vs. Greys: the coming apocalyptic conflict in the Bermuda Triangle"

"A Neo-Kantian analysis of the revelations of French journalist and intellectual Rael"

"The abductee experience: a post-modernist perspective"

Well, under their submission guidelines, they'd need to have something like:

Articles are written by request. If you are a professional scientist, first contact us so we can decide whether or not you are sympathetic to our views. Then, and only then, will we reveal our style guidelines. We are not interested in having straight-up solid scholarship submitted to us blind. We are too busy to bother with that nonsense.

[_Trevor]

Articles are written by request. If you are a professional scientist, first contact us so we can decide whether or not you are sympathetic to our views. Then, and only then, will we reveal our style guidelines. We are not interested in having straight-up solid scholarship submitted to us blind. We are too busy to bother with that nonsense.

I'm not so sure, Scratch. There is plenty of interest among the committed kooks to consign all serious submissions to the circular file. And, don't you think most real scientists leave the kooks alone? Aren't most of the kooky scientists too worried about compromising their reputations and careers? The real key, of course, is finding a thesis, from whatever source (the more outside the better), that forwards your agenda in some way. That is how you end up with Mormon scholars clinging to Margaret Barker like the only lifeboat on a sinking ship.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Oh, I see. A person can have no prior contact with DCP in order to blind submit an article.

What a ridiculous claim. Simply astonishing. A fine case of special pleading, I might add.

No, no---a person could have contact w/ DCP. But, in order for these KC submissions to have been genuinely blind, then we would need to know with absolute certainty that no conversation took place beforehand concerning these articles. (Given the "guidelines" on the FARMS website, I kind of suspect that communication of some kind too place before KC submitted his articles.) Or, perhaps KC sent in additional articles after first contacting DCP and getting one article published---I.e., he was a "friend of the family," so to speak, and so it was okay for him to skip over the normal protocol.

No conversation took place beforehand concerning some of these articles; most notably, the first.