Editorial Review at FARMS: New information Comes to Light

[_Daniel Peterson]

Does or does not Hamblin always include little jokes in his pieces that you will be editing for your amusement?

I don't recall ever seeing such a joke in anything he's sent me to edit.

Bill sends me little jokes, though. Constantly. Several already this morning. We've been friends for nearly thirty years. There's continual banter. There have often been jokes accompanying things he's sent me. Usually, in fact. But I don't think I've edited anything of his for several years.

I have consistently tried, on this board, to be candid and to be precise.

If you feel obliged to regard me as acting in bad faith, if you want to try to portray me as self-contradictory and/or self-incriminating, though, have at it.

When people ask me the same questions over and over and over again, they're likely, eventually, to find two answers that aren't formulated in precisely the same way, and then it's off to the races.

I don't see why this game is so important or satisfying to some of you. I hope that you're more charitable, or at least more fair, in your ordinary daily lives.

[_Mister Scratch]

Does or does not Hamblin always include little jokes in his pieces that you will be editing for your amusement?

I don't recall ever seeing such a joke in anything he's sent me to edit.

Bill sends me little jokes, though. Constantly. Several already this morning. We've been friends for nearly thirty years. There's continual banter. There have often been jokes accompanying things he's sent me. Usually, in fact. But I don't think I've edited anything of his for several years.

That's not what he said, though. His statement indicates that he includes these "false footnotes" and other "jokes" within the text of his articles.

And, this is significant. You are right that, yes, this occurred over fifteen years ago, and yet it speaks to the level of professionalism and peer review at FARMS. Critics have long asserted that publications such as FARMS Review don't employ a typical peer review process, and you have always reacted rather explosively to these criticisms, even going so far as to publish a lengthy rebuttal ("The Witchcraft Paradigm"). But, the evidence, as it continues to surface like submerged flotsam and jetsam, demonstrates that peer review at FARMS Review is a long cry from what is usually practiced at serious academic journals. I mean, can you imagine a contributor to JAMA sticking bogus footnotes or sophomoric acrostics into his or her article? This "Butthead Incident," coupled with the very strange fact that you guys apparently commission virtually 100% of your articles, shows that the publication is really little more than a tendentious tool for apologists, and not a rigorous scholarly journal.

[_beastie]

I don't recall ever seeing such a joke in anything he's sent me to edit.

Well, then, Hamblin's the liar. He says he "always" does it, you say you don't recall EVER seeing him do it. There's not much wiggle room there.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't recall ever seeing such a joke in anything he's sent me to edit.

Well, then, Hamblin's the liar. He says he "always" does it, you say you don't recall EVER seeing him do it. There's not much wiggle room there.

You might contact Professor Hamblin and inquire with him. Perhaps he might have something to say. Maybe I'm mistaken.

But calling him a liar immediately is undoubtedly more efficient than waiting to call him a liar later -- it's pretty much a foregone conclusion, I suspect, that he'll be pronounced a liar sooner or later -- and anyway, it seems that doing so is rather gratifying to you. People who don't share your view of theism and Mormonism are, it appears, invariably either mad or dishonest or stupid or some satisfying combination of the three.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And, this is significant.

A watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, no doubt.

Critics have long asserted that publications such as FARMS Review don't employ a typical peer review process,

By "critics" you mean essentially yourself and perhaps two or three mini-Scratches.

and you have always reacted rather explosively to these criticisms

Meaning that I've contradicted them.

But, the evidence, as it continues to surface like submerged flotsam and jetsam, demonstrates that peer review at FARMS Review is a long cry from what is usually practiced at serious academic journals.

Not even your cherry-picked and highly selective little anthill of "evidence" demonstrates that. It's logically irrelevant, for the most part.

I mean, can you imagine a contributor to JAMA sticking bogus footnotes or sophomoric acrostics into his or her article?

Easily.

This "Butthead Incident," coupled with the very strange fact that you guys apparently commission virtually 100% of your articles,

We don't commission 100% of our articles, but the FARMS Review is primarily a book review publication and book reviews in academia are very commonly commissioned. Until just this past year, for instance, when I volunteered a review for a friend's journal, every single academic book review I had ever written (for the International Journal of Middle East Studies, The Medieval Review, al-‘Arabiyya, Muslim World, al-Masaq, Religious Studies Review, the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Hugoye, and the like) had been commissioned.

shows that the publication is really little more than a tendentious tool for apologists, and not a rigorous scholarly journal.

Ignorance militant.

[_beastie]

You might contact Professor Hamblin and inquire with him. Perhaps he might have something to say. Maybe I'm mistaken.

But calling him a liar immediately is undoubtedly more efficient than waiting to call him a liar later -- it's pretty much a foregone conclusion, I suspect, that he'll be pronounced a liar sooner or later -- and anyway, it seems that doing so is rather gratifying to you. People who don't share your view of theism and Mormonism are, it appears, invariably either mad or dishonest or stupid or some satisfying combination of the three.

What need is there to contact Hamblin? His statement was clear.

And no, I don't think people who don't share my views of religion are invariably stupid, mad, or dishonest. But it is convenient for you to pretend that is what I was saying. And typical of you to pretend that it was what I was saying. What I really said was clear - when two people give directly contradictory statements about an event, one of them is either lying or has truly horrific memory problems. If Hamblin genuinely thinks that he "always" inserted these jokes in the articles you would edit for your amusement, and yet the truth is either he never did such a thing or you never noticed, and hence, were never amused by such a thing, then he's either lying or has such a problematic memory he has no grasp of reality. If he really did insert these jokes his articles you were editing and you really were amused by them, you're either lying or have an extremely problematic memory as well (perhaps the passage of time will excuse you from the delusional aspect, but Hamblin's statement was made at that time and he has no such excuse).

[_Daniel Peterson]

QED.

[_Daniel Peterson]

An interlinear translation:

What need is there to contact Hamblin? His statement was clear.

Going directly to the charge of lying is the most efficient course.

And no, I don't think people who don't share my views of religion are invariably stupid, mad, or dishonest. But it is convenient for you to pretend that is what I was saying.

You're dishonest.

And typical of you to pretend that it was what I was saying.

Habitually dishonest.

What I really said was clear

You're either too stupid or too dishonest to get it right.

when two people give directly contradictory statements about an event, one of them is either lying or has truly horrific memory problems.

Either dishonest or psychologically defective.

If Hamblin genuinely thinks that he "always" inserted these jokes in the articles you would edit for your amusement, and yet the truth is either he never did such a thing or you never noticed, and hence, were never amused by such a thing, then he's either lying or has such a problematic memory he has no grasp of reality.

Either lying or mad.

If he really did insert these jokes his articles you were editing and you really were amused by them, you're either lying or have an extremely problematic memory as well (perhaps the passage of time will excuse you from the delusional aspect, but Hamblin's statement was made at that time and he has no such excuse).

Lying or mad, even if not altogether delusional.

And no, I don't think people who don't share my views of religion are invariably stupid, mad, or dishonest.

[_beastie]

Now there's an effective rebuttal.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Now there's an effective rebuttal.

I agree.

You deny that you typically regard believers as mad, dishonest, or stupid, or as handicapped by some deliciously gratifying combination of the three, but I'm not sure that I've ever seen any actual instance of someone escaping that judgment.

Would you care to point to any believer on this board, or at the Maxwell Institute or at FAIR, say, whose belief in Mormonism you regard as rational, honest, intelligent, and informed?