Page 1 of 1
A Closer Look at FARMS Review 19/1 (2007)
Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:52 am
by _JustMe
Having seen the polemics against the
FARMS Review for worthless information, dutiful dullness, idiotic reasoning, and pure religious bias with no content except character assassination, I am seriously interested in seeing an analysis of the exchange between Michael S. Heiser and David Bokovoy, which I read earlier today while on lunch. Remember, the essence of character assassination is the pure lifeblood of this publication. Be sure and point it all out, especially from that character Bokovoy. And note how utterly trivial, unscholarly, worthless, and no insights whatsoever Heiser shows about Bokovoy, especially in that last rebuttal.
http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=1&id=643http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=1&id=644http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=1&id=645
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 19/1 (2007)
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:25 am
by _Daniel Peterson
I'm reliably informed, from Scartchworld, that the FARMS Review consists essentially of continuous character assassination and ad hominem viciousness, so it seems extremely likely that the Heiser and Bokovoy pieces are of the same defamatory nature.
There's no need to read them.
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 19/1 (2007)
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:49 pm
by _harmony
Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm reliably informed, from Scartchworld, that the FARMS Review consists essentially of continuous character assassination and ad hominem viciousness, so it seems extremely likely that the Heiser and Bokovoy pieces are of the same defamatory nature.
There's no need to read them.
It's more likely that they are the exception that proves the rule.
Re: A Closer Look at FARMS Review 19/1 (2007)
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:06 pm
by _Daniel Peterson
harmony wrote:It's more likely that they are the exception that proves the rule.
That would have to be determined by actually reading a substantial and representative sample of
Review essays.
My sense, though, I being somewhat familiar with the contents of the
Review, is that even that more moderate evaluation can't really be defended on the basis of empirical evidence.
Instead, it's a matter of faith.
But strict Scartchodoxy doesn't actually allow for exceptions. To the Scartchodox, as explained by His Malevolence himself, the
Review is relentlessly horrible.
Perhaps, though, there can be a reformed Scartchodox faith that's at least a bit more in line with reality?