Editorial Review at FARMS: New information Comes to Light

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm the person who eliminated the acrostic.

I hate to say it, Prof. P., but this is bizarre. Let me see if I have the chronology correct:

1. First you laugh at Dr. Hamblin's acrostic.
2. You laugh so much, in fact, that you approve of it going into print.
3. Rumors about the acrostic are leaked to the Tanners, and you start to have second thoughts.
4. The book has already gone to print at this point, and you are forced to seriously backtrack, thus costing the printers an undisclosed amount of donated monies in order to correct this "joke".

Is that correct? Actually, I have a feeling that No. 3 is wrong on some level. Did you *personally* decide to remove the acrostic, with no outside pressure whatsoever? And if so, why? Especially given how "clever" and "deliciously irreverent" you seem to regard Bill Hamblin's sense of humor?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yes, Scratch, I'm the one who eliminated it.

A hidden private joke is one thing. A public insult is quite another. When the hidden private joke became public and began to be mischaracterized, publicly, as a public insult, I thought its nature had been fundamentally transformed, and that it had to go. Even at some expense.

It began as a private spoof of those who say that chiasmus appears by happenstance. Oddly though, nobody ever imagined, even for a moment, that an acrostic spelling out Metcalfe is Butthead had occurred as a result of random chance. Go figure.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I hate to say it, Prof. P., but this is bizarre.

LOL. Oh yes. How you hate to say it! What excruciating pain it causes you!

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, Scratch, I'm the one who eliminated it.

A hidden private joke is one thing. A public insult is quite another. When the hidden private joke became public and began to be mischaracterized, publicly, as a public insult, I thought its nature had been fundamentally transformed, and that it had to go. Even at some expense.

How much expense?

It began as a private spoof of those who say that chiasmus appears by happenstance. Oddly though, nobody ever imagined, even for a moment, that an acrostic spelling out Metcalfe is Butthead had occurred as a result of random chance. Go figure.

Oh, for crying out loud. This has got to be about the lamest excuse I have ever heard. Tell me: What other Hamblin "jokes" have turned up in the very scholarly pages of FARMS-produced text? How many false footnotes were passed along to peer reviewers as "jokes"?

[_moksha]

Tell me: What other Hamblin "jokes" have turned up in the very scholarly pages of FARMS-produced text? How many false footnotes were passed along to peer reviewers as "jokes"?

Even if they were to leave the fake footnotes, comments about space aliens and the golden plates, etc. intact for inclusion within the FARMS Review, what would be the harm?

[_Daniel Peterson]

How much expense?

I don't know.

I think it was fairly minimal.

It began as a private spoof of those who say that chiasmus appears by happenstance. Oddly though, nobody ever imagined, even for a moment, that an acrostic spelling out Metcalfe is Butthead had occurred as a result of random chance. Go figure.

Oh, for crying out loud. This has got to be about the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

It's the truth.

How many false footnotes were passed along to peer reviewers as "jokes"?

None that I'm aware of. Not a single one.

[_Mister Scratch]

How much expense?

I don't know.

I think it was fairly minimal.

$200? A "wad of bills"? $2000? How much?

How many false footnotes were passed along to peer reviewers as "jokes"?

None that I'm aware of. Not a single one.

Are you saying that you edit articles before they are sent out for peer review? Or, are you saying that Bill Hamblin's articles are given a "free pass", peer-review-wise?

[_Daniel Peterson]

$200? A "wad of bills"? $2000? How much?

Closer to the former, I think. A complete reprinting wasn't required.

Are you saying that you edit articles before they are sent out for peer review?

I always read new submissions before I decide whether or not they're worth continuing with.

Or, are you saying that Bill Hamblin's articles are given a "free pass", peer-review-wise?

No articles are given a "free pass." By anybody. Including my own.

[_Mister Scratch]

ting wasn't required.

Are you saying that you edit articles before they are sent out for peer review?

I always read new submissions before I decide whether or not they're worth continuing with.

That's not what I was asking. My apologies if I wasn't clear. Bill Hamblin stated in his message that he "always" includes little jokes in his articles that are meant for print. My question is: Do you edit out these "jokes" before you pass his articles along to the peer reviewers? Or, do you pass his articles along "as is", with the tacit understanding that the reviewers will be amenable to Dr. Hamblin's "sense of humor"?

[_Tarski]

Bill Hamblin has a wicked and supremely irreverent sense of humor.

..and supremely inane.

That makes two jobs he was wise to avoid:
Logician and Comedian.