Editorial Review at FARMS: New information Comes to Light

[_Moniker]

Well, at least he makes his granddaughter laugh.... that counts for something.

[_Gadianton]

Well, at least he makes his granddaughter laugh.... that counts for something.

Don't tell me he's even shown her "The God Makers".

[_Daniel Peterson]

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"?

I haven't seen Bill's statement.

I don't remember seeing any such "little jokes."

I don't know what he's allegedly talking about.

[_Mister Scratch]

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"?

I haven't seen Bill's statement.

I don't remember seeing any such "little jokes."

I don't know what he's allegedly talking about.

What about the case of the acrostic? Was this passed along to peer reviewers?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What about the case of the acrostic? Was this passed along to peer reviewers?

Yes. It was (and is) invisible to anybody who hasn't been alerted to its presence.

[_Mister Scratch]

What about the case of the acrostic? Was this passed along to peer reviewers?

Yes. It was (and is) invisible to anybody who hasn't been alerted to its presence.

Ah, okay. Thank you for clarifying. Well, I guess this means that there are serious problems with the editing and peer review process at FARMS. Bill Hamblin is virtually always including "false footnotes", "jokes" and the like in his articles, and, when you happen to notice them, you shrug it off and pass it along to the "peer reviewers," who are supposedly serious-minded scholars who devote serious attention to going over the mss. Actually, editorial review, based on what you are saying, is problematic on two fronts:
1. You sent "jokey," silly texts along to peer reviewers, evidently finding such things to be funny yourself, and---
2. You are apparently oblivious to the many times Bill Hamblin has inserted "false footnotes," or mention of "space aliens" and whatever else into his articles.

Really, I have to say that I am blown away by this, particularly in lieu of your lengthy defenses of the seriousness of FARMS publications. One has to wonder if Dr. Hamblin intended the 2nd Watson Letter as a "joke," and that it merely sailed past your head.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Really, I have to say that I am blown away by this

From what I can tell, you seem to spend much of your life in a state of stunned astonishment at my depravity, my feckless cunning, my many crimes and misdemeanors, and my virtually infinite incompetence.

I'm happy to provide you with such rich entertainment. If my life has no other purpose than this, in the end, perhaps I will still have justified my existence.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Not too long ago I received a very provocative message via PM. Apparently, this material was posted to RfM, though I haven't read the commentary over there. [...]

Just so the propper people/person are/is atributed for their research, all of this is from the June 1994 issue of UTLM's Salt Lake City Messenger (Rabbi Hamblin's "Computer message," Brent Metcalfe's reply, and the "news clipping" [elipses included]).

[_Mister Scratch]

Really, I have to say that I am blown away by this

From what I can tell, you seem to spend much of your life in a state of stunned astonishment at my depravity, my feckless cunning, my many crimes and misdemeanors, and my virtually infinite incompetence.

I'm happy to provide you with such rich entertainment. If my life has no other purpose than this, in the end, perhaps I will still have justified my existence.

So, you are not denying either of the two statements? Wow. That really is unbelievable. Are you now going to go back and comb through past issues of FARMS Review so that you can prepare a lengthy retraction for all the bogus footnotes and jokes that Dr. Hamblin included in his articles? I sure hope you do. Otherwise, this admission amounts to a coup de grace against FARMS---really, a literal death-blow to apologetic respectability.

Steuss: Thank you very much for the source. You rock.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So, you are not denying either of the two statements?

Of course I deny them, silly fellow.

Wow. That really is unbelievable.

A watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics!

Otherwise, this admission amounts to a coup de grace against FARMS---really, a literal death-blow to apologetic respectability.

Which will be yet another watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics!!!