Daniel Peterson wrote:Mister Scratch wrote:You used verbatim text and failed to properly cite it. Your own style manual---Chicago---states that you are supposed to properly attribute messageboard posts. End of story.
If I were using such posts as evidence in any sort of argument, or if anything really depended upon them, yes, I would be obliged to provide references.
You were. Here, let me refresh your memory:
When I referred to the confidentiality of the FARMS peer-review process during a recent Internet discussion, my comment provoked the following fascinating response from a vocal critic of FARMS and of the church (who, ironically, posts under a pseudonym):
I take this . . . as tacit admission on DCP's part that FARMS peer review consists of a bunch of Church "yes men" giving the rubber stamp of approval. Here is also further confirmation of DCP's desire to keep the FARMS peer review process a big secret, probably because he knows that "exposure" would reveal the small, cabal-like group that does the reviewing.
Like other vocal critics of the FARMS peer-review process, this person, so far as I can tell, has absolutely no personal experience with or knowledge of the workings of FARMS and appears to lack any personal experience with or knowledge of academic peer reviewing of essays and books.
As you can see, you are clearly referring to an Internet post. Why not allow your readers to view the post for themselves? Were you trying to hide something? (I'll go ahead and note that you engage in some ad hominem attack here as well, which sort of aggravates your offence.) In any event, the bottom line is that you ignored the rules of your own style manual.
But if I'm simply using them as anecdotal illustrations on which nothing really rests and which aren't at all unique in and of themselves, I see no real need. I'm sorry that Master Scartch didn't get his fifteen minutes of fame.
Is that really the best argument you've got? Don't you think you'd be better off saying something like, "Well, I just wasn't familiar with the protocol for online stuff"?? In case you need a "refresher course", here is what Chicago says to do (yes, we can go through MLA and APA too, if you still don't get it):
Weblog entries or comments may be cited in running text (“In a comment posted to the Becker-Posner Blog on March 6, 2006, Peter Pearson noted . . .”) instead of in a note or an in-text citation, and they are commonly omitted from a bibliography or reference list as well. The following examples show the more formal versions of the citations. If an access date is required by your publisher or discipline, include it parenthetically at the end of the citation, as in the first example below.
N:
8. Peter Pearson, comment on “The New American Dilemma: Illegal Immigration,” The Becker-Posner Blog, comment posted March 6, 2006,
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archi ... ml#c080052 (accessed March 28, 2006).
B:
Becker-Posner Blog, The.
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/.
T:
(Peter Pearson, The Becker-Posner Blog, comment posted March 6, 2006)
R:
Becker-Posner blog, The.
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/.
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/too ... guide.htmlNot a single reference to MormonDiscussions.com is to be found
anywhere in the article!
If, in an article, I were to relate a humorous comment made by a friend about the subject I was going to address, I would feel absolutely no need to insert a footnote along the lines of "My friend's name is Faulconer Gaylord Biddington III, of 2613 Oak Circle, Scarsdale, New York 10583. His telephone number is 914-336-2107; his e-mail address is
FaulconCrest@harvardclub.com. The comment was made at approximately 7:13 PM on Thursday, 7 October 2005, in the presence of my poodle Jacqueline, while the three of us were standing under a light drizzle at the corner of Oak Circle and Phillips Exeter Lane. Mr. Biddington is available from 9 AM to 5 PM on weekdays and from 10 AM to 3 PM on Saturdays and Sundays to confirm the accuracy of my quotation of his witticism."
To do so would be to make a ridiculous fetish of the entirely sound idea of academic documentation.
I agree that your above example is a complete caricature, and is absurd. But, what you did was deprive your audience of the chance to examine
context.
Documentation practices have been developed to permit readers to evaluate evidence for themselves so that they can judge the cogency and soundness of arguments.
Which, of course, is what you failed to do. Boy, it sure is fun to dangle context-free caricatures around within the pages of the
FARMS Review, isn't it Prof. P.?
Neither Master Scartch nor any of the others cited offered anything by way of evidence. Mention of their antics played no role in any argument. Nothing was hanging upon them.
Then why use them? This is, you have to admit, a pretty lame argument, Prof. P. It's like saying that the lengthy quote you used from Shakespeare "played no role in any argument," and thus didn't need to be cited. Do you think such a practice would fly in the typical BYU freshman comp class? Methinks not.
Your hopes for stardom would be considerably enhanced if you ever posted anything substantive.
Hey, like I said---I am willing to forgo stardom if it means you will throw away your ethics and standards all for the sake of trying to score a point.
Mister Scratch wrote:Man, you just hate the attention given to this board, don't you?
Honestly, I don't care at all, not even the slightest tiny little bit.
Yup. And I'm sure that's why you conveniently ignored academic protocol and neglected to provide the URL for this site in your article.
Mister Scratch wrote:Dare I say it? Yes, I shall! This is a watershed moment in the history of online Mopologetics!
Dare I say it? Yes, I shall!
What a buffoon!
Um, yeah. Anyways---I forgot to take note of the fact that, in "Pt 5" of the videos, you state something to the effect that behind every little insult or barb is some far, far more worse epithet which you are suppressing. So, am I to therefore assume that when you say "buffoon", you actually mean something far nastier?
