DCP and Quinn

[_Mister Scratch]

What you neglected to tell the poor person doing the investigation, is that by "peer" you mean, "a loyal TBM who will provide us with a rubber-stamp of approval and who will not, under any circumstances whatsoever, go against Church orthodoxy."

As I've said, I don't traffick in falsehoods. That's your bailiwick.

Oh, so every single peer (or even a majority of them) are chosen exclusively for their academic expertise? If that were so, then we wouldn't hear these baloney refrains from you and Hamblin and others about how conventional scholars aren't appropriate since they don't "know" the Book of Mormon. That has long been your neat little "Get Out of Jail Free Card."

Questioner: Hey, Prof. P, do you guys use peer review?
Prof. P.: Why, yes, we do, as I have elaborated at length---in response to bizarre critics.
Q: So, you sent articles on Book of Mormon archaeology to archaeologists at, say, Harvard?
Prof. P: No, since they don't have expertise on the Book of Mormon.

Face it: you guys employ a stable of loyal, TBM "yes men" who ensure that all the right critics get smeared, and that Church orthodoxy is upheld at all costs.

[_Mister Scratch]

"Plainly tendentious?" Puhleaze. You (and your pals George Mitton and Rhett James) are obviously viewing his work in a reductionist light, and trying to paint the work as being driven totally by this so-called "homosexual agenda," rather than genuine scholarly impulses.

Here is the introductory material from Mitton and James's lengthy article:

It is, as you yourself admit, a "lengthy article."

Your reductionist attempt to pretend that it consists only of its opening paragraph will convince few who actually read it.

What, do you want me to go through the article and list each and every instance wherein these two authors attribute Quinn's book solely to his sexual orientation?

my dear Professor

What a card you are, Scratch One.

I'm afraid I disagree.

So?

As usual, this is all you've got. You supply no evidence. You supply no quotes. You offer no real argument.

The Mitton and James piece was an obvious, extended ad hominem attack.

Flatly untrue. It deals extensively with evidence related to the claims advanced in his book.[/quote]

What do you mean? I'd love to see you clarify this one, my dear Prof. P. Basically, the method of the article is to present an excerpt from the book, and then say, "See? Quinn is twisting stuff in order to advance his homosexual agenda!!" Go on, Prof. P. Please prove me wrong. I would love to see it.

You're an obsessively malevolent loon, Scratch One.

You know, you railed endlessly against your old archnemesis Tal Bachman for calling you something like this. You said you'd want to be set straight if you ever stooped to something like this yourself. Remember that?

by the way: Isn't a new issue of FARMS Review due out any time soon? I can't wait!

[_rcrocket]

You are in no position to give lectures on "accepting responsibility," at least not until you accept personal responsibility for manipulating your sources.

OK. I accept responsibility.

I admit nothing. You have altered my response by omitting my explanation that I had removed material and inserted elipses throughout my article to make it shorter. The elipsed material you think important, I explained, would have made my article even stronger had I inserted it. I didn't, because I wanted my article to be as dispassionate-sounding as possible. Just brief references to the sources.

There has to be some Latin phrase which describes an argument style which repeats a falsehood over and over again, which never acknowledges the explanation offered therefor, and which repeats the falsehood in irrelevant contexts just to bait. I'll look for that; my Latin is spotty. Plus, anonymously. Go figure why people admire you here.

Just remember: You accuse Dr. Peterson of gossip when in fact, Quinn had already come out openly and was making no secret about it. If my lowly self knew about it, then the world knew about it. Ask Quinn yourself. He's still in Rancho Cucomonga, or so my sources report.




rcrocket

[_Daniel Peterson]

You gossiped. Admit it. Lay the matter to rest.

Perhaps it would help if, in addition to repeating your mantra to yourself fifty times every morning as you shave, you also devoted twenty minutes or so to chanting it to yourself every afternoon and evening, too. Focus is important.

And maybe you need to increase your internet commitment to the crusade, as well. On this very congenial message board, you've got something on the order of fifteen avowed supporters. If you were to raise the banner on ten additional anti-Mormon boards and to give your mission consistent and energetic effort, you might, within a month or two, have persuaded as many as 150 other anti-Mormons and bitter ex-Mormons of my villainy. And, after that . . . 160, 180, 200! The sky's the limit! All it will require is a few more hours per day, hours that can easily be subtracted from your sleeping time.

Perhaps, too, you can transform your supporters into donors. Imagine billboards along major interstates, newspaper ads, and, perhaps best of all, a website entirely dedicated to exposing my smear campaign against Mike Quinn. Imagine being able to hire research assistants, even private detectives, to enable you to acquire more and more potential dirt to use against me and others whom you've decided to target!

Scratch One, shall you not go forward in so great a cause?

[_rcrocket]

I keep challenging you, as well as your stooges who PM me, to provide me a reference to just one university publication which purports to publish the works of scholars where:

1. The peer reviewers are not "hand picked" and are picked in some other way.

2. The peer review is not done blindly; i.e., the author knows who is peer reviewing his/her work.

3. Peer reviewers are selected for expertise and interest which does not align with the interest of the journal. I.e., Hindus are selected to peer review selections to Judaica, for example.

I am made this challenge to you several times, as well as to PMers. --- Nothing. Having been a peer reviewer myself, and have published in peer review journals myself. I'm waiting. Surely your friend Guy Sajer, who detests FARMS Review as being the outlet for hacks and the podium for dopes, can answer my questions.

rcrocket

[_Daniel Peterson]

Go on, Prof. P. Please prove me wrong. I would love to see it.

You would never acknowledge being wrong.

The article's been published. It speaks for itself, as does the article by Klaus Hansen that accompanies it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Go on, Prof. P. Please prove me wrong. I would love to see it.

You would never acknowledge being wrong.

The article's been published. It speaks for itself, as does the article by Klaus Hansen that accompanies it.

Ah, sure. Once again, this is all you offer up. C'mon, Prof. P.---I at least provided some quotes to support my argument!

Also, just because you are constitutionally unable to admit to error doesn't mean that I'm the same way.

[_Mister Scratch]

You are in no position to give lectures on "accepting responsibility," at least not until you accept personal responsibility for manipulating your sources.

OK. I accept responsibility.

I admit nothing. You have altered my response by omitting my explanation that I had removed material and inserted elipses throughout my article to make it shorter.

Ho ho ho. Bob, this is classic! "To make it shorter"?? Is that the best you can come up with? You altered the meaning of the text. You have been thoroughly defeated on this matter.

The elipsed material you think important, I explained, would have made my article even stronger had I inserted it.

No, it would have reflected rather poorly on the conclusions you came to.

I didn't, because I wanted my article to be as dispassionate-sounding as possible. Just brief references to the sources.

Nonsense. Do I need to resurrect that old thread, so that everyone can see?

There has to be some Latin phrase which describes an argument style which repeats a falsehood over and over again, which never acknowledges the explanation offered therefor, and which repeats the falsehood in irrelevant contexts just to bait.

Likewise, there has to be some Latin phrase which describes endless denials and refusals to admit when you're wrong.

I'll look for that; my Latin is spotty. Plus, anonymously. Go figure why people admire you here.

I'm unaware of anyone who "admires" me here.

Just remember: You accuse Dr. Peterson of gossip when in fact, Quinn had already come out openly and was making no secret about it.

His mention of Quinn's sexual orientation is not now, nor has it ever been, the issue. The issue is that he and his circle were "chatting" about it, and using it as a means to bash him.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The article's been published. It speaks for itself, as does the article by Klaus Hansen that accompanies it.

Ah, sure. Once again, this is all you offer up.

That's right. The whole article. No carefully culled and spun quotations. No de-contextualized and abused passages.

A primary source. Unmodified, without spin, without agenda-driven commentary.

I'm comfortable with that.

I understand why you're not.

[_Mister Scratch]

I keep challenging you, as well as your stooges who PM me, to provide me a reference to just one university publication which purports to publish the works of scholars where:

1. The peer reviewers are not "hand picked" and are picked in some other way.

2. The peer review is not done blindly; I.e., the author knows who is peer reviewing his/her work.

3. Peer reviewers are selected for expertise and interest which does not align with the interest of the journal. I.e., Hindus are selected to peer review selections to Judaica, for example.

I am made this challenge to you several times, as well as to PMers. --- Nothing. Having been a peer reviewer myself, and have published in peer review journals myself. I'm waiting. Surely your friend Guy Sajer, who detests FARMS Review as being the outlet for hacks and the podium for dopes, can answer my questions.

rcrocket

Your #3 here is where you're off. You say "interest" where I would say "expertise." It would be fine if a Hindu expert on, say, ancient Hebrew were to peer-review an article for Judaica---unless, of course, it is operated in a manner similar to FARMS Review. FARMS Review has a special knack for weeding out any peer reviewers who might sign off on things unfavorable to Church orthodoxy. Go ahead! Pick up the latest issue! See for yourself!