Gadianton wrote:Interestingly, Dr. Scratch cited the article properly, including a link to the book and noted the page numbers where the essay could be found. Note that up to just a few hours prior to the B.H. Chair's post, and this is really ironic given all of Midgley's conspiracy theories, the essay was readily available to cite directly at the Maxwell Institute's website, but either due to the faltering infrastructure or the upgrade that was happening (unbeknownst to the rest of the world) the link had become unreliable and led to an error page, otherwise no doubt the B.H. Robert's Chair would have linked to that source, I'm fairly certain. I would ask for those who might feel otherwise, if there are any examples whatsoever elsewhere, where Professor Scratch, who holds a Phd and carries himself in a sophisticated manner, has ever failed to offer citations regarding what he's commenting on, if such citations are possible?
Had the Old Guard taken better care of their data and not put so much effort into blocking the efforts of the New Guard to stabilize the archives, then a link would have been available for all who read the post, and that could have influenced how the OP was understood initially. As it stands, while Everybody Wang Chung's question was asked in quite a provocative manner, it did not rise to an accusation, and even included, twice, "I can't believe he would...", and then after Lemmie found another source somewhere, the issue was dropped entirely. An accusation was never made.
In contrast, for the readers at the 'the blog', there is no link or reference to the source of the controversy, this site, and those in the comment section are left to rely only on how the thread was portrayed by the staff writer. And the Joseph Fielding Smith scissors were brought into service liberally to represent the dialog that went on. I wonder, if those in the comment section so convinced of the unscrupulous nature of critics and their anger and hate; if they were given the opportunity to read source materials for themselves, would their opinions change at all?
Dean Robbers:
I appreciate your exceptionally diplomatic post, but I need to acknowledge that I could have done better. Reading the entry at "SeN," along with my Cassius colleagues' posts, leads me to believe that I could have done a better job of delineating the difference between the material that was authored by Joseph Smith, versus that which was authored by Daniel Peterson.
I have to admit: I was intrigued by the post he wrote. It's interesting that he took the time to pull the actual book off the shelf in order to take pictures of the pages in question. What stands out most to me, however, are his shoes:
If ever you wanted proof of his claims that he's not "making money" off his apologetics, well, there it is, in all it's glory. Grimy, crappy-looking sneakers he's got going on there. (And am I wrong, or is it just the camera angle--but don't his feet look preternaturally *small*? Perhaps this--among other things--will be "corrected" in the Celestial Kingdom?) It's kind of interesting to think about how "learned" DCP claims to be, and yet he apparently never learned anything about job-appropriate male footwear. (Also, in a subsequent image, it appears that he--unsurprisingly--has dirty fingernails.)
Except that my initial impressions were all wrong. DCP later explains, via a caption:
DCP wrote:Thanks to my friend Mike Parker for kindly supplying these images. My own copy of “Expressions of Faith” is in a box somewhere in the basement of my house, in the aftermath of (not one but) two floods, from which I haven’t yet fully recovered.
Ah, okay. So, somebody from southern Utah who feels like a loser, and who has crappy, dirty, bargain-bin-style sneakers (yes, Mike Parker: *you* are the "Sister in Parowan"), is willing to put himself on the line--including exposing his social class and personal cleanliness--in front of the entire world just in the hopes of "earning" the Mopologists' approval. Notice that DCP
waits to tell people who provided the pictures until late in the post. *He*--i.e., DCP--
knows how easy it will be to make fun of these images. Do you think he cares? Peterson got roughly $15,000+ worth of free vacations these past few months. Is *that* why Parker wants to help him?
In any event, I think we ought to "give" this one to the Mopologists. I mean, hey: I admit that I could have been clearer. I don't think that Lemmie or Everybody Wang Chung should be accused of inaccuracy due to anything *I* did. Plus, the score is so lopsided. The thread on DCP's plagiarisms is approaching 50,000 views. Plus, there is Mr. Stak's devastating review of his (DCP's) use of Camus. And the fact that, as Symmachus pointed out, he (DCP) has not published a single peer-reviewed article for a scholarly audience. I'm glad for him to "score" a point.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
