Meet the Mopologists

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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

Thanks for the heads up. I was searching for the alt+ code to make the cent symbol and then I just gave up. .02 it is! Math IS far from my strong suit, I am awful at math, but as far as .02 is concerned, that was more of a hasty mistake. I'm glad we could talk through these things together.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

by the way: I truly hope you're not joking about suicide.

This is manifestly obvious, Scartch. You really hope he isn't joking. And that is what makes it so odd.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

I've never had the slightest difficulty with it.

But you see, Scartch, that it didn't matter whether I accurately represented what you said. It didn't matter whether you said it or not. (Can you really not grasp this?) I could have made up a hypothetical complaint, and could have identified it as such, and that would have been fine, too. The point was simply to lead into a discussion of a topic. Your pseudonymous "identity," your authorship, you -- all were utterly irrelevant. I wasn't using your remark as evidence for anything.

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.

But I didn't do that.

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.

I'll add that to my request to Shades.

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.

It's lucky for you that humorlessness isn't fatal.

[_Mister Scratch]

Dan, I'd like to applaud this post of yours. You deserve credit for calming down enough so that you've managed to avoid name-calling. Good job, big guy.

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.

I've never had the slightest difficulty with it.

You've never had the slightest problem with denying your readers the chance to see the original quote in context? Huh? C'mon. Enough is enough, Professor P.! Think about this for a moment. Do you think it would be right for somebody to, say, lift one of BY's racist statements out of context, just in order to score a point, without citing a reference? Would it it be OK if the reference was being used as a "anecdote"? Would that then make the lack of a reference all right?

But you see, Scartch, that it didn't matter whether I accurately represented what you said. It didn't matter whether you said it or not. (Can you really not grasp this?) I could have made up a hypothetical complaint, and could have identified it as such, and that would have been fine, too. The point was simply to lead into a discussion of a topic. Your pseudonymous "identity," your authorship, you -- all were utterly irrelevant. I wasn't using your remark as evidence for anything.

Wrong. If my specific, verbatim words "didn't matter," then you should not have used them. You should have made up your "hypothetical." The bottom line is that you should have provided a citation.

Anyways, I'd like to pause and note how often you are shifting your position on this matter. What's the matter, Prof. P., you can't make up your mind? At first, you claimed that this wasn't problematic, since you were using the material anecdotally. Later, you argued that you didn't have to follow the rules, since your are The Editor, and you can cite however you please. Later, you suggested that my post was stupid/vacuous, and thus you didn't need to cite it. Now, you are off on some weird tangent about how not citing verbatim text is allowable (???) if "the point [is] simply to lead into a discussion of a topic." Huh? Does that mean I can, in print, completely lift---free of attribution!---one of FARMS's published articles in order to show how slovenly and poor the work of FARMS "academics" is, just so long as the pilfered and unattributed text "leads in to a discussion of a topic"?

[_Pokatator]

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

Thanks for the heads up. I was searching for the alt+ code to make the cent symbol and then I just gave up. .02 it is! Math IS far from my strong suit, I am awful at math, but as far as .02 is concerned, that was more of a hasty mistake. I'm glad we could talk through these things together.

I had my tongue in my cheek.

I'm not sure whether I was:

nitpicking, or
nit picking, or
nit-picking.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan, I'd like to applaud this post of yours. You deserve credit for calming down enough so that you've managed to avoid name-calling. Good job, big guy.

Naaah. You're still a goofball.

C'mon. Enough is enough, Professor P.!

I'm glad to hear you admit it!

Think about this for a moment. Do you think it would be right for somebody to, say, lift one of BY's racist statements out of context, just in order to score a point, without citing a reference?

In order to make a point about Brigham Young?

No.

But I wasn't attempting to make a point about you.

I never mentioned you. Nobody reading the article knows who you are. (For that matter, of course, nobody would know who you are even if I'd mentioned Master Scartch by pseudo-name.) Nobody really cares. And it doesn't matter.

Would it it be OK if the reference was being used as a "anecdote"? Would that then make the lack of a reference all right?

In order to make a point about Brigham Young?

No.

But I wasn't attempting to make a point about you.

I never mentioned you. Nobody reading the article knows who you are. (For that matter, of course, nobody would know who you are even if I'd mentioned Master Scartch by pseudo-name.) Nobody really cares. And it doesn't matter.

If my specific, verbatim words "didn't matter," then you should not have used them.

Why not?

I don't see any problem.

The bottom line is that you should have provided a citation.

The bottom line is that you think I should have and that I don't think it matters one way or the other.

Anyways, I'd like to pause and note how often you are shifting your position on this matter.

As in "never," and "not at all"?

What's the matter, Prof. P., you can't make up your mind?

It's a bit early -- where I am, at least -- for you to have already had so much to drink.

Of course, maybe you're in a different time zone.

At first, you claimed that this wasn't problematic, since you were using the material anecdotally.

I haven't changed on that.

Later, you argued that you didn't have to follow the rules, since your are The Editor, and you can cite however you please.

Bzzzt. No I didn't.

Later, you suggested that my post was stupid/vacuous, and thus you didn't need to cite it.

Though I agree that your opinion was stupid and vacuous, that's not a reason that I've given for not giving your pseudonym its fifteen minutes of fame.

Now, you are off on some weird tangent about how not citing verbatim text is allowable (???) if "the point [is] simply to lead into a discussion of a topic."

Because, poor fellow, in your case it was just a little anecdote, of no substantive value.

Huh? Does that mean I can, in print, completely lift---free of attribution!---one of FARMS's published articles in order to show how slovenly and poor the work of FARMS "academics" is, just so long as the pilfered and unattributed text "leads in to a discussion of a topic"?

Yep. A goofball.

[_Mister Scratch]

Think about this for a moment. Do you think it would be right for somebody to, say, lift one of BY's racist statements out of context, just in order to score a point, without citing a reference?

In order to make a point about Brigham Young?

No.

But I wasn't attempting to make a point about you.

You weren't? Gee, you sure could have fooled me!:

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.

(emphasis added)

Now... Am I wrong here, or were you making about about how I (being your convenient straw man) don't have any "knowledge of academic peer reviewing"?

I never mentioned you. Nobody reading the article knows who you are.

Yes, that's true---thanks to the fact that you omitted the proper citation.

(For that matter, of course, nobody would know who you are even if I'd mentioned Master Scartch by pseudo-name.) Nobody really cares. And it doesn't matter.

They *would* know if you had provided the citation. And, of course: that's why you didn't. You are terrified at the thought of FARMS readers being exposed to my criticism of LDS apologetics.

The bottom line is that you should have provided a citation.

The bottom line is that you think I should have and that I don't think it matters one way or the other.

Oh, I think the reasons matter, too. I think you should have cited since that is what every relevant authority book says should have been done. You, on the other hand, think that you can skirt the rules because.... Well, why do you think it's okay to do that?

Anyways, I'd like to pause and note how often you are shifting your position on this matter.

Lol.

At first, you claimed that this wasn't problematic, since you were using the material anecdotally.

I haven't changed on that.

Good for you.

Later, you argued that you didn't have to follow the rules, since your are The Editor, and you can cite however you please.

Bzzzt. No I didn't.

Let me refresh your memory:

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.

And this:

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.

D'oh! Don't worry---I'm sure Joseph Smith felt much the same way when he ordered the destruction of the Expositor.

Later, you suggested that my post was stupid/vacuous, and thus you didn't need to cite it.

Though I agree that your opinion was stupid and vacuous, that's not a reason that I've given for not giving your pseudonym its fifteen minutes of fame.

No? See below:

Now, you are off on some weird tangent about how not citing verbatim text is allowable (???) if "the point [is] simply to lead into a discussion of a topic."

Because, poor fellow, in your case it was just a little anecdote, of no substantive value.

Ah, okay. So you did cite that as a good reason for shirking protocol.

My, my, Prof. P. Just imagine what all the idle watchers must be thinking right now. You are desperately thumbing through the pages, looking for every last excuse in the book! Why not just admit you were wrong? It's okay, you know, to admit when you are wrong.

[_Jersey Girl]

Or we can view this thread as proof positive that Scratch is a few clowns short of a circus.

I think he may actually have a clown surplus.

How dare you attempt to circumvent my gesture of kindness, Trevor.

Seriously.

[_Jersey Girl]

Daniel,

I need a point in the right direction here. Where did you post/publish a quote by Scratch? I've scanned the thread and I don't see it.

If this is disruptive to the current exchanges, please ignore. I wouldn't want to misdirect this thread with some weird tangent or anything.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

If they are talking about DCP's recent FAIR talk he didn't publish it yet, it was an oration.