MI employee replies to DCP's rumorspreading over at MDDB

[Guest]

Fair enough. I am certainly not claiming that Carl Griffin is a bad or incompetent person. I am sure that he is a very nice guy. I am claiming that, in his apparently boundless Mormon enthusiasm, he:

- is grossly misrepresenting the situation (intentionally or not), or
- does not know enough about what he is doing in this area to describe the situation accurately, or
- does not respect his audience enough to provide them with accurate information, or
perhaps more than one of the above.

For a newly re-organized entity seeking to build credibility, especially with the academic community, such posts are unfortunate.

I'm sure they'll survive disappointing you.

Indeed.

Seriously though, someone should suggest to Bro. Griffin that, if he is going to be a spokesperson for the new organization, he should tighten things up a bit in the future.

[_sock puppet]

The Maxwell Institute sits on considerable funds that have been raised over the past decades, and I expect that it should be able to do things with those funds.

Translation = "Maxwell has a lot of money thanks to me."

It also has a library of already-produced books and articles and other materials that totals in the tens of thousands of pages, produced since the late 1970s.

Translation= "Maxwell has a huge library thanks to me."

That in itself will make for an impressive on-line presence.

Translation= "Whatever good comes from Maxwell, it is because of me."

[_Kishkumen]

Seriously though, someone should suggest to Bro. Griffin that, if he is going to be a spokesperson for the new organization, he should tighten things up a bit in the future.

Yes, well, I imagine that he will never ever make the unforgivable error of using the phrase "accepted for publication" so loosely again for fear of confusing you. Ye gods! An unforgivable sin and horrible gaffe. Oh the humanity!

[_Kishkumen]

LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING KISH MAY HAVE INTENDED TO PUT UP.

STRANGE INDEED.

WILL LEAVE IT FOR NOW. WILL THE REAL AUTHOR PLEASE CLAIM THIS STRAY?

THANKS.

I have no idea where this came from, who wrote it, or what it is supposed to be.

[_DrW]

LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING KISH MAY HAVE INTENDED TO PUT UP.

STRANGE INDEED.

WILL LEAVE IT FOR NOW. WILL THE REAL AUTHOR PLEASE CLAIM THIS STRAY?

THANKS.

I have no idea where this came from, who wrote it, or what it is supposed to be.

Okay.

Thanks.

The post is history.

[_DrW]

Seriously though, someone should suggest to Bro. Griffin that, if he is going to be a spokesperson for the new organization, he should tighten things up a bit in the future.

Yes, well, I imagine that he will never ever make the unforgivable error of using the phrase "accepted for publication" so loosely again for fear of confusing you. Ye gods! An unforgivable sin and horrible gaffe. Oh the humanity!

Kish,

Noticed that you were just over on Stack's thread concerning the sloppiness in the writings of Mormon apologists. I saw that you agreed with Stack regarding the sloppiness of Hamblin and Peterson. This is the same sort of thing.

The "gaffe" by Griffin was no small typo or mistake. The whole tone and content of this section of his post was over the top. Twenty seven BOOKS in the editorial pipeline and at the accepted for publication stage of production by a small, not for profit religious institute? Give me strength.

This description of the situation in terms of projected publications at MI was (intentionally or not) misleading. Anyone who knows much about publishing would recognize that this guy was simply not credible.

[_Kishkumen]

The "gaffe" by Griffin was no small typo or mistake. The whole tone and content of this section of his post was over the top. Twenty seven BOOKS in the editorial pipeline and at the accepted for publication stage of production by a small, not for profit religious institute? Give me strength.

This description of the situation in terms of projected publications at MI was (intentionally or not) misleading. Anyone who knows much about publishing would recognize that this guy was simply not credible.

DrW, there are publishers with fewer staff that have more titles "in the pipeline." I doubt that Griffin was even mistaken. He was probably perfectly accurate, and the truth of the matter is that you simply don't know what you are talking about.

[_DrW]

The "gaffe" by Griffin was no small typo or mistake. The whole tone and content of this section of his post was over the top. Twenty seven BOOKS in the editorial pipeline and at the accepted for publication stage of production by a small, not for profit religious institute? Give me strength.

This description of the situation in terms of projected publications at MI was (intentionally or not) misleading. Anyone who knows much about publishing would recognize that this guy was simply not credible.

DrW, there are publishers with fewer staff that have more titles "in the pipeline." I doubt that Griffin was even mistaken. He was probably perfectly accurate, and the truth of the matter is that you simply don't know what you are talking about.

"In the pipeline" can mean a lot of things. And I do not doubt that MI could have 27 titles in the pipeline. As you said, this could mean contracts signed, ideas in development, manuscripts in process, etc.

For non-fiction and technical works, "accepted for publication" (which is exactly how Griffin described 27 of his books) means exactly what I said it means. If you think I am kidding, look it up. (As an academic, I would think you would be familiar with this process and the meaning of the term "accepted for publication" in the production of a book or technical article.)

So, what are the chances that they have 27 BOOKS at the accepted for publication stage, when they are years late with the Sorenson single book, for example?

The only way this statement could be true is if they have been stacking accepted, ready for production, projects on the shelves for years. If this is the case, why would one think that the rate of publication and release would increase now, especially since Daniel Peterson has been fired?

[_Kishkumen]

"In the pipeline" can mean a lot of things. And I do not doubt that MI could have 27 titles in the pipeline. As you said, this could mean contracts signed, ideas in development, manuscripts in process, etc.

For non-fiction and technical works, "accepted for publication" (which is exactly how Griffin described 27 of his books) means exactly what I said it means. If you think I am kidding, look it up. (As an academic, I would think you would be familiar with this process and the meaning of the term "accepted for publication" in the production of a book or technical article.)

So, what are the chances that they have 27 BOOKS at the accepted for publication stage, when they are years late with the Sorenson single book, for example?

The only way this statement could be true is if they have been stacking accepted, ready for production, projects on the shelves for years. If this is the case, why would one think that the rate of publication and release would increase now, especially since Daniel Peterson has been fired?

DrW, you are mistaking Daniel Peterson's vision of what NAMIRS does with reality. You have made no allowance for the translations that METI is publishing in book form. Face it, dude: You are uninformed and you are trusting the wrong set of information. Since when did you find Daniel Peterson to be a reliable and transparent source, particularly when it benefited him not to be?

Come on!

Oh, and, by the way, I happen to be an academic too, and I know what "accepted for publication" means by personal experience.

[_DrW]

Oh, and, by the way, I happen to be an academic too, and I know what "accepted for publication" means by personal experience.

Then why continue to argue the point?

Your comment about what might be "in the pipeline" is irrelevant. The issue here is Griffin's statement that MI was sitting on 27 BOOK manuscripts that had been "accepted for publication".

As I stated upthread, if you have evidence that I am mistaken and that, as Griffin claims, MI has 27 BOOK manuscripts stacked up and ready to send to production, I would be glad to re-consider my comments.

Apparently Bill Hamblin, a faithful LDS apologist whose expression of doubt in Griffin's statement appeared on this thread after mine did, would also be interested in such evidence.