Meet the Mopologists

[_Mister Scratch]

As you can see, you are clearly referring to an Internet post.

Was that ever in dispute?

Verbatim quotes need to be cited, Professor P.

Why not allow your readers to view the post for themselves?

Why wouldn't I bother to identify Faulconer Gaylord Biddington III?

For one thing, it was a casual, spoken anecdote, and not composed text.

Were you trying to hide something?

Quite honestly, the thought of sparing you embarrassment never once entered my mind.

But the fact remains that you (deliberately) deprived your audience of the opportunity to see the quote in context.

In any event, the bottom line is that you ignored the rules of your own style manual.

They weren't relevant.

So, you are picking and choosing which rules to follow based on whim? How professional of you!

There's no need to document anecdotes that serve no function in an argument and bear no weight as evidence.

This is a faulty argument. There is a "need" to document verbatim text, Professor P. End of story.

Is that really the best argument you've got?

It's sufficient.

Sufficient for the TBMs, maybe. I doubt very much that other professional writers and academics would be convinced, however.

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)

No thanks. I'm quite familiar with Chicago, as well as with MLA and APA. So is my production editor, and so is the director of publications for the Maxwell Institute. Both of them are professional editors.

What's your point? That you had all these folks on board, and they still fudged the rules? If ten doctors all agree to cover up a case of malpractice, does that somehow dampen the crime, just because they are medical professionals?

In your obsessive combing of the Review for ammunition to use against me, you've no doubt encountered several quite proper references to on-line materials. We know how to do this.

Gee whiz. On the one hand, you accuse me of never having read any FROB. Now, you are claiming that I "obsessively comb" it. Well, which is it?

Anyways, if you know how to correctly cite Internet material, then you should have done so this time.

what you did was deprive your audience of the chance to examine context.

No argument rested upon those quotations. They served as evidence for no proposition. They served, simply, as anecdotal introductions to a topic that I wanted to address.

Dan, come on now. Anecdotes *are* a type of evidence. Don't play dumb. It just makes you look dishonest.

If you ever write anything substantive, and I'm inclined to quote it, your pseudonym will get full credit.

Whether or not my writings are "substantive" is beside the point. The point is that you carelessly quoted me verbatim without proper attribution. In some quarters, they call this "plagiarism."

This is, you have to admit, a pretty lame argument, Prof. P.

I admit nothing of the sort. I made an editorial decision, and I feel perfectly fine about it. So, apparently, did the two professional editors who reviewed the piece and the two academic editors who reviewed it.

I don't need any "argument" at all, and I have no obligation to justify myself to you. If you want to edit your own journal differently, providing you edit one at all, do so. I really couldn't care less.

I can tell you that I sure wouldn't ditch professional ethics in order to score a point. I would have properly cited the source, even if it meant giving readers the opportunity to place things in context (God forbid!).

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.

I'm happy to provide literary citations so that, if somebody likes the quotation, he or she can find it and use it.

Well, if somebody liked my quotation, no one would be able to find it, thanks to the fact that you ignored citation protocol.

Do you think such a practice would fly in the typical BYU freshman comp class? Methinks not.

I agree. But you see, Scartch, that, in my book, you're more on the level of Faulconer Gaylord Biddington III than on that of Shakespeare.

It doesn't matter what you think, since you do not determine the rules.

Quoting you was mere anecdotal fluff to introduce a topic. You're not all that important, intrinsically speaking.

Then you should not have lifted my text verbatim. You are a plagiarist. I would urge you to issue and apology in a future issue of FARMS Review.

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.

You seem a bit desperate for pseudonymous recognition. It seems more than a bit weird.

I just think that the standards should be followed. Odd that you don't.

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?

Very perceptive!

I think you should change your avatar descriptor from "God" to "Seething Cauldron of Hate."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Verbatim quotes need to be cited, Professor P.

Usually they require reference support. Sometimes they don't.

Yours didn't.

For one thing, it was a casual, spoken anecdote, and not composed text.

I judged your message board comment to be more like a remark made in conversation than a formal published text.

You're welcome to disagree. But you're not the editor. I am. Tough luck. Too bad.

But the fact remains that you (deliberately) deprived your audience of the opportunity to see the quote in context.

And I'm guessing -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that you actually imagine that they missed out on something of intellectual substance?

ROTFL!

!!!!!!!!!!!

So, you are picking and choosing which rules to follow based on whim? How professional of you!

I was fulfilling my role as an editor.

If I had realized, though, how very, very much public recognition of your Master Scartch pseudonym would have meant to you, I might have decided differently. I'm not entirely without compassion.

There is a "need" to document verbatim text, Professor P. End of story.

Not in every case there isn't.

Sorry. Your wooden application of rules in this case is simply silly, and not even slightly convincing to me.

I would feel perfectly fine citing a comment made to me in a private e-mail without supplying full references for it if it didn't function as evidence but only served as a way to lead into a discussion. Your comment merely provided me a way to introduce a topic I wanted to discuss. In itself, it wasn't particularly significant. (Which is being generous.)

Sufficient for the TBMs, maybe.

Sufficient for reasonable people.

I doubt very much that other professional writers and academics would be convinced, however.

That's my world, and I have a pretty good feel for it. My sense is that there are far more people like me in it than there are like you, at least as you present yourself in your malignant, obsessive, and, now, apparently rigidly legalistic persona of Master Scartch.

What's your point? That you had all these folks on board, and they still fudged the rules?

That I had all these people on board, academics and professional editors, and it apparently didn't bother them a bit.

Your apparent obsession and indignation over this entirely minor issue make you the outlier.

If ten doctors all agree to cover up a case of malpractice, does that somehow dampen the crime, just because they are medical professionals?

"Medical malpractice"? "Crime"?

Wow. If you're serious in this comparison, you really do need help. Are you off your lithium?

In your obsessive combing of the Review for ammunition to use against me, you've no doubt encountered several quite proper references to on-line materials. We know how to do this.

Gee whiz. On the one hand, you accuse me of never having read any FROB. Now, you are claiming that I "obsessively comb" it. Well, which is it?

It was irony, poor fellow. I need to remember that irony usually flies right past you. Whooooooosh!

Anyways, if you know how to correctly cite Internet material, then you should have done so this time.

If I ever write for anything that you edit, I'll try to remember that you're hyper-obsessed with footnoting even anecdotes, jokes, and quoted idle remarks. Weird, but an editor's prerogative.

Dan, come on now. Anecdotes *are* a type of evidence. Don't play dumb. It just makes you look dishonest.

LOL. So far as I can tell, I've never done anything in my life that, in your demonology, hasn't made me look dishonest!

Anecdotes can be a kind of evidence. Or not. It depends on their role in the writing.

These weren't.

The point is that you carelessly quoted me verbatim without proper attribution. In some quarters, they call this "plagiarism."

In some quarters, they would call your bizarre fixation on this extremely odd.

In fact, off hand, I can't think of any quarters where they wouldn't.

I can tell you that I sure wouldn't ditch professional ethics in order to score a point.

LOL. As if, having been on the receiving end of your malice for the past two years, I would believe that.

It doesn't matter what you think, since you do not determine the rules.

It doesn't matter what you think. I determine their application.

You are a plagiarist. I would urge you to issue and apology in a future issue of FARMS Review.

You are a goofball.

Apologize on this thread. Or not. I really don't care.

I think you should change your avatar descriptor from "God" to "Seething Cauldron of Hate."

An excellent suggestion. I'll see what I can do.

[_Mister Scratch]

Verbatim quotes need to be cited, Professor P.

Usually they require reference support. Sometimes they don't.

According to your style manual, online writings require citation.

For one thing, it was a casual, spoken anecdote, and not composed text.

I judged your message board comment to be more like a remark made in conversation than a formal published text.

You're welcome to disagree. But you're not the editor. I am. Tough luck. Too bad.

I do disagree. So do the editors of The Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA Handbook, and the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. According to those authoritative sources, you are guilty of plagiarism.

But the fact remains that you (deliberately) deprived your audience of the opportunity to see the quote in context.

And I'm guessing -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that you actually imagine that they missed out on something of intellectual substance?

Just what, exactly, constitutes "intellectual substance" is debatable. For example, I would think that most journals dealing with MesoAmerican history would think that, intellectually-speaking, Book of Mormon theories are complete hogwash.

Likewise, I am sure there are many scholars working in the field of cultural studies who look at things such as the National Enquirer or UsWeekly.

Does the fact that some arrogant and deeply angry editor finds these things to be "lacking in intellectual substance" mean that the protocol for proper and respectful citation can be tossed out the window? No; at least not if that editor wants to continue maintaining the appearance of having editorial ethics.

So, you are picking and choosing which rules to follow based on whim? How professional of you!

I was fulfilling my role as an editor.

If I had realized, though, how very, very much public recognition of your Master Scartch pseudonym would have meant to you, I might have decided differently.

Another red herring. The point was in allowing readers to find the quote in its original context---which was within a debate over the legitimacy of FARMS's peer review process.

There is a "need" to document verbatim text, Professor P. End of story.

Not in every case there isn't.

Sorry. Your wooden application of rules in this case is simply silly, and not even slightly convincing to me.

Oh, what? Are you referring to some case such a citing the Constitution, or the national anthem, or something like that? Come on. Those items are also covered by the three big style manuals.

What's your point? That you had all these folks on board, and they still fudged the rules?

That I had all these people on board, academics and professional editors, and it apparently didn't bother them a bit.

I asked around a bit---I have friends who are journalists, academic editors, and professional copyeditors---and they all vote that you should have erred on the side of caution.

If ten doctors all agree to cover up a case of malpractice, does that somehow dampen the crime, just because they are medical professionals?

"Medical malpractice"? "Crime"?

Wow. If you're serious in this comparison, you really do need help. Are you off your lithium?

I don't take medication for any mental illness, Dan. I'll just note, once again, that insults like these (by your own admission) cover up far more profane and vicious thoughts.

Anyways, if you know how to correctly cite Internet material, then you should have done so this time.

If I ever write for anything that you edit, I'll try to remember that you're hyper-obsessed with footnoting even anecdotes, jokes, and quoted idle remarks. Weird, but an editor's prerogative.

You know, this really is a better line of argument for you. Of course, it is yet another blow to the credibility of FARMS Review. You guys make up your own rules for citation.

It doesn't matter what you think, since you do not determine the rules.

It doesn't matter what you think. I determine their application.

Yes, you sure do.

Hey, I'll just wind up by saying that all the "casual observers" who watch the board have seen your responses here, Dan. You can huff and puff, claiming that your failure to cite was "no big deal," or that it's your "editor's prerogative" to bend the rules whenever you like. Corrupt cops do precisely the same thing.

But what I think is clear is that you abused your power as editor. You like to use straw man arguments and ad hominem attack in your FARMS articles, and this is yet another instance of it. Rather than just saying, "You know what, Mr. Scratch? Although I feel this is debatable, I'm going to err on the side of caution this time. I *should* have correctly cited that verbatim text I used." Instead of this more humble approach you have:

---Dismissed my posting (which you liked well enough to lift verbatim from this board) as being "without intellectual substance"
---Claimed that, because you are Editor, the Rules do not apply to you
---Called me a "goofball"
---Called me a "buffoon"
---Insisted that I apologize for being a "goofball"
---Claimed that the only reason that I might think following the rules is good is because I somehow want to be "famous."

Is this really the impression you want to leave with all those "casual readers"? You can fall back on your old, tired excuse, claiming that you are being "ironic," and nobody gets it.... But, isn't that the problem? If "nobody gets it," then you are going to be left looking like a tyrannical editor who casually tosses aside citation protocol for the sake of ridiculing, demeaning, and mocking your rhetorical opponents.

Boy, I sure wouldn't want to be in your shoes right now. You must feel awful about this.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

She is the best dong in the whole world, and I love her!

You like dongs?

Oh, my. What an unseemly but hilarious typo! haha thanks for the notice!

[_LifeOnaPlate]

But what I think is clear is that you abused your power as editor. You like to use straw man arguments and ad hominem attack in your FARMS articles, and this is yet another instance of it. Rather than just saying, "You know what, Mr. Scratch? Although I feel this is debatable, I'm going to err on the side of caution this time. I *should* have correctly cited that verbatim text I used." Instead of this more humble approach you have:

---Dismissed my posting (which you liked well enough to lift verbatim from this board) as being "without intellectual substance"
---Claimed that, because you are Editor, the Rules do not apply to you
---Called me a "goofball"
---Called me a "buffoon"
---Insisted that I apologize for being a "goofball"
---Claimed that the only reason that I might think following the rules is good is because I somehow want to be "famous."

Is this really the impression you want to leave with all those "casual readers"? You can fall back on your old, tired excuse, claiming that you are being "ironic," and nobody gets it.... But, isn't that the problem? If "nobody gets it," then you are going to be left looking like a tyrannical editor who casually tosses aside citation protocol for the sake of ridiculing, demeaning, and mocking your rhetorical opponents.

Boy, I sure wouldn't want to be in your shoes right now. You must feel awful about this.

Just as a heads up, Scratch, you are posting under a pseudonym. I'd honestly consider attributing something to a real person, but as it stands you are an anonymous Internet personality. For all I know you are some joker trying to make noise. You might be a fully active member in good standing for all I know, or you might be someone posting from a mental institution. There is no reason you have given for me to actually take you seriously in any academic field aside from an interesting psychological or sociological example. That's pretty much it. Just my .2

[_Pokatator]

You like dongs?

Oh, my. What an unseemly but hilarious typo! haha thanks for the notice!

And dong is a typo for what word? Please fill in the sentence.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I changed it; it was supposed to say "dog."

[_Daniel Peterson]

I do disagree.

That's nice. We disagree.

Does the fact that some arrogant and deeply angry editor finds these things to be "lacking in intellectual substance" mean that the protocol for proper and respectful citation can be tossed out the window? No; at least not if that editor wants to continue maintaining the appearance of having editorial ethics.

Perhaps you're talking about me. But it's not clear.

I'm not "deeply angry." And I'm certainly not "deeply angry" at you.

Delusions of grandeur.

I think you're ridiculous.

So, you are picking and choosing which rules to follow based on whim? How professional of you!

I was fulfilling my role as an editor.

I asked around a bit

You should get a life, Scartch.

they all vote that you should have erred on the side of caution.

If I trusted you, either to accurately represent the situation to others, or to accurately represent what they said, or even to have really done any of this at all, I might be slightly interested.

But I'm still the editor. I make the decisions, in the end, and I don't do it by majority vote -- and certainly not by majority vote of an unknown number of unknown people of unknown reality of unknown qualifications of unknown familiarity with the actual case as polled by an obsessively hostile person of unknown name and unknown location and unknown veracity and unknown stability.

I don't take medication for any mental illness, Dan.

That may or may not be reassuring.

I'll just note, once again, that insults like these (by your own admission) cover up far more profane and vicious thoughts.

Sheesh! What would you expect from a seething cauldron of hate?

You guys make up your own rules for citation.

Plainly false. As anybody who reads the Review will easily recognize, we follow the 15th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style.

Corrupt cops do precisely the same thing.

Medical malpractice? Crime? Corrupt cops?

You need to sit down, put your head between your knees, breathe slowly, and count to ten.

But what I think is clear is that you abused your power as editor.

That's nice.

We disagree.

You like to use straw man arguments and ad hominem attack in your FARMS articles, and this is yet another instance of it.

Failing to give your Master Scartch pseudonym the publicity you crave for it is a "straw man argument" and an "ad hominem attack"?

That's just bizarre. It's neither an argument nor an attack. So it can't be a fallacious argument or attack. Logic 101, first week -- in at least some course designs.

Rather than just saying, "You know what, Mr. Scratch? Although I feel this is debatable, I'm going to err on the side of caution this time. I *should* have correctly cited that verbatim text I used."

Dang it. You mean I've disappointed you yet again?

How am I ever going to be able to live with myself after this?

Instead of this more humble approach you have:

Dismissed my posting (which you liked well enough to lift verbatim from this board) as being "without intellectual substance"

Yup. I have.

Claimed that, because you are Editor, the Rules do not apply to you

Nope. Gutterball.

I haven't done that.

Called me a "goofball"

True.

Called me a "buffoon"

Yep. I did.

Insisted that I apologize for being a "goofball"

Nope. Not really. I suggested that it might be nice, but said that I didn't really care.

Claimed that the only reason that I might think following the rules is good is because I somehow want to be "famous."

Again, nope. I'm afraid you're wrong on this one.

Is this really the impression you want to leave with all those "casual readers"?

I would expect all those "casual readers" to notice the difference between a malignant and obsessive personal critic who is always relentlessly, grimly, on the attack, and a target of two years of such attempted defamation, slander, libel, and insult who takes it all rather lightly and in good humor.

you are going to be left looking like a tyrannical editor who casually tosses aside citation protocol for the sake of ridiculing, demeaning, and mocking your rhetorical opponents.

To you, anyway. If you're really serious about any of this.

Boy, I sure wouldn't want to be in your shoes right now. You must feel awful about this.

You don't know the half of it.

I've got a razor blade by my left hand, and a loaded revolver by my right. The only real question is which of them to use. And I had so looked forward to going out to dinner tonight with some of my neighbors! But I guess it's not to be.

Farewell, cruel world!

[_Pokatator]

But what I think is clear is that you abused your power as editor. You like to use straw man arguments and ad hominem attack in your FARMS articles, and this is yet another instance of it. Rather than just saying, "You know what, Mr. Scratch? Although I feel this is debatable, I'm going to err on the side of caution this time. I *should* have correctly cited that verbatim text I used." Instead of this more humble approach you have:

---Dismissed my posting (which you liked well enough to lift verbatim from this board) as being "without intellectual substance"
---Claimed that, because you are Editor, the Rules do not apply to you
---Called me a "goofball"
---Called me a "buffoon"
---Insisted that I apologize for being a "goofball"
---Claimed that the only reason that I might think following the rules is good is because I somehow want to be "famous."

Is this really the impression you want to leave with all those "casual readers"? You can fall back on your old, tired excuse, claiming that you are being "ironic," and nobody gets it.... But, isn't that the problem? If "nobody gets it," then you are going to be left looking like a tyrannical editor who casually tosses aside citation protocol for the sake of ridiculing, demeaning, and mocking your rhetorical opponents.

Boy, I sure wouldn't want to be in your shoes right now. You must feel awful about this.

Just as a heads up, Scratch, you are posting under a pseudonym. I'd honestly consider attributing something to a real person, but as it stands you are an anonymous Internet personality. For all I know you are some joker trying to make noise. You might be a fully active member in good standing for all I know, or you might be someone posting from a mental institution. There is no reason you have given for me to actually take you seriously in any academic field aside from an interesting psychological or sociological example. That's pretty much it. Just my .2

Did you mean 20 cents or maybe math isn't your strong suit. Try .02 next time.

[_Mister Scratch]

they all vote that you should have erred on the side of caution.

If I trusted you, either to accurately represent the situation to others, or to accurately represent what they said, or even to have really done any of this at all, I might be slightly interested.

There you go, Professor P.! You do understand after all! Bravo! *That* is precisely why we use citation in academic writing. You want to assure your readers that you are "accurately representing" what's been said. And, you see, when you totally and completely omit the citation, you prevent readers from doing that. I'm glad to see that, at long last, you actually grasp this concept.

You guys make up your own rules for citation.

Plainly false. As anybody who reads the Review will easily recognize, we follow the 15th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style.

Well, you don't follow what it says about citing online sources. At least you didn't this time.

But what I think is clear is that you abused your power as editor.

That's nice.

We disagree.

Is that the best you got? Wow! I'm just cowering beneath the power of your irony!

You like to use straw man arguments and ad hominem attack in your FARMS articles, and this is yet another instance of it.

Failing to give your Master Scartch pseudonym the publicity you crave for it is a "straw man argument" and an "ad hominem attack"?

That's just bizarre. It's neither an argument nor an attack. So it can't be a fallacious argument or attack. Logic 101, first week -- in at least some course designs.

When you dismiss someone's point due to that person's pseudonymity---rather than the faultiness of the point itself---that it can reasonably be called an ad hominem attack.

Rather than just saying, "You know what, Mr. Scratch? Although I feel this is debatable, I'm going to err on the side of caution this time. I *should* have correctly cited that verbatim text I used."

Dang it. You mean I've disappointed you yet again?

How am I ever going to be able to live with myself after this?

Apologizing and/or admitting your error would be a good place to start.

Is this really the impression you want to leave with all those "casual readers"?

I would expect all those "casual readers" to notice the difference between a malignant and obsessive personal critic who is always relentlessly, grimly, on the attack, and a target of two years of such attempted defamation, slander, libel, and insult who takes it all rather lightly and in good humor.

Wait a second... I can't tell what you're talking about here. Are you describing me and you? Or are you describing the FARMS Review and all the various critics it has reviewed? Oh, the irony!

you are going to be left looking like a tyrannical editor who casually tosses aside citation protocol for the sake of ridiculing, demeaning, and mocking your rhetorical opponents.

To you, anyway. If you're really serious about any of this.

I've presented my case. I'll let the readers be the judge. (It will be obvious that I didn't find it necessary to resort to petty name-calling, for example.)

Also, I have changed my mind about the "Seething Cauldron of Hatred" thing. It is too long, after all. I vote that, instead, you put "Plagiarist." Nice, succinct, and fitting.

by the way: I truly hope you're not joking about suicide. If you are having such thoughts, I urge you to contact the appropriate people.