Meet the Mopologists

[Guest]

For those who're puzzled by Master Scartch's day-long hyperventilating, he's indignant about my failure to immortalize his pseudonym in my Editor's Introduction to FARMS Review 18/2 (2006), entitled "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist":

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=621

At one point in that essay, I say the following:

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.

Master Scartch correctly declares that this pseudonymous critic is none other than hisself, and he's mightily indignant that his pseudonym didn't get credit for the cited contribution to English letters. In fact, he's been steaming over this horrific injustice for very nearly two years now.

Master Scartch takes his stand on the principle that quotations should be properly referenced. And, of course, he's essentially right. They generally should be.

My response is that this true principle can be made into a pedantic fetish, and that, in fact, Scartch is doing just that in this case. There are situations where it would simply be overkill and rather absurd to provide footnote references.

Consider, for example, the following hypothetical paragraph:

In this essay, I shall consider the contributions to philosophy, theology, and history of Master Philastus Q. Scartch. I shall also justify my choice of subject, demonstrating his importance in the development of Western thought in the early twenty-first century, partly because I recognize that some may still dispute his centrality to modern civilization and question my decision to devote the rest of my life to explicating and championing his internet oeuvre. As a matter of fact, as I was sitting down to my computer to commence this essay, an old friend commented on my newfound vocation in a post on a small internet message board, saying, "It's a ridiculous waste of Peterson's life for him to spend so much time on a complete non-entity like Master Scartch. He's squandering scores of hours that he could be spending on Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Maimonides, Ibn Sina, and al-Kirmani, instead." But I'm resolute, and time will vindicate me. Long after pathetic poseurs like Plato and the rest are forgotten, the work of Master Philastus Q. Scartch will be a beacon to humankind, as well as to rocks, rodents, and small desert reptiles. Ironically, in fact, my old friend himself doesn't spend much time with Plato and the boys, preferring to concentrate, rather, on study of the operas and symphonies of the later Talmage Bachman.

It strikes me that it would be pedantic and fetishistic to demand that a footnote be appended to the paragraph above, along these lines:

My old friend's name is Diabolos P. Hamblin-Midgley. His comments appeared on The Sinister Skinny-L Mopologist Control Center Board, http://www.liesandslandersforprofit.com ... &f=1&p=666, on 31 June 2005, at 8:53 PM, on a thread entitled "We [Heart] $$$$$."

There would be nothing really wrong with including such a footnote, but nothing much gained, either. It would be unnecessary, and no great loss if omitted. It simply doesn't matter much who made the comment. It's just a little story lead-in to the central topic, which is "Master Philastus Q. Scartch: Titan of the Twenty-First Century."

Gee, you sure could have fooled me!

And, manifestly, I did!

The article isn't about you, Master Scartch.

Sorry.

Just as the hypothetical essay "Master Philastus Q. Scartch: Titan of the Twenty-First Century" wouldn't be about Diabolos P. Hamblin-Midgley, let alone about his passion for Canuck Postmoderne #13, Opus 274, by Bachman fils.

I used your rather silly little remark as a segue into a serious discussion of a topic that had nothing to do with you.

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"?

That's scarcely the theme of the essay, nor even of that portion of the essay. You just weren't that important.

You are terrified at the thought of FARMS readers being exposed to my criticism of LDS apologetics.

LOL. You seem to be, as the saying goes, a legend in your own mind.

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

There goes Peter Cottontail, hopping down the bunny trail. Hippity hoppity, Scartch is on his way!

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

Are you really so completely clueless, or are you just feigning it?

There was nothing in your remark that was particularly important beyond its value as an illustrative lead-in. This isn't rocket science, to coin a phrase.

My, my, Prof. P. Just imagine what all the idle watchers must be thinking right now.

Tens of thousands of them, no doubt, are surging into your camp. Most, though, I suspect, are out having fun on a Saturday night. (I've just returned from an evening with friends at a neighbor girl's remarkably lavish wedding reception.)

You are desperately thumbing through the pages, looking for every last excuse in the book!

No I'm not. I judged that the passage from you functioned on the level of a little story or anecdote in the article, and I think it's fetishistic, on the whole, to footnote comments made in conversations that serve no evidentiary function in an argument. And, to my mind, message board conversations are essentially that: conversations.

I'm the editor. I didn't think a rather inane and pseudonymous internet jibe really demanded bibliographical apparatus. That was my decision, and I'm still entirely at peace with it. I'm impressed by the fact that it's caused you two years of heartburn, angst, and roiling indignation, but I note that neither my two academic editors nor my two professional publication editors appear to have seen even the slightest problem with it. And yet, as anyone can readily see who carefully inspects Maxwell Institute publications, we plainly go by the book -- Chicago 15.

Why not just admit you were wrong? It's okay, you know, to admit when you are wrong.

I guess you're never going to grasp the concept that I won't lie simply to gratify your bizarre cravings,

[_Jersey Girl]

Thanks for the backstory, Daniel. If you quoted him and he finds the lack of attribution irritating/frustrating/whatever, why doesn't he just begin copyrighting his posts?

Then you can copyright yours.

Then both of you can claim fair use.

Then both of you can return to the same boat.

Yes, that's the way to go.

I'm sure of it now.

© 2008 Jersey Girl. All rights reserved. Copying, quoting, or citing this copyrighted work in whole or part without the written permission of the author is prohibited. Violation of this copyright, even for personal or not-for-profit use, is a serious criminal offense and is subject to federal prosecution.

[_beastie]

Since it was a direct citation, it would have been good taste to provide a link to the original comment so readers could see it in context, along with citing the author. However, some of the earliest posts on Shades' board weren't archived, so perhaps a link wasn't possible. I know that when I cited board comments made by internet apologists on my website, I tried to provide a link to the original comment whenever possible. It really is the fair thing to do.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Good idea, Jersey Girl.




© 2008 Jersey Girl. All rights reserved. Copying, quoting, or citing this copyrighted work in whole or part without the written permission of the author is prohibited. Violation of this copyright, even for personal or not-for-profit use, is a serious criminal offense and is subject to federal prosecution.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

aw crap

[_Mister Scratch]

For those who're puzzled by Master Scartch's day-long hyperventilating, he's indignant about my failure to immortalize his pseudonym in my Editor's Introduction to FARMS Review 18/2 (2006), entitled "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist":

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=621

At one point in that essay, I say the following:

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.

Master Scartch correctly declares that this pseudonymous critic is none other than hisself, and he's mightily indignant that his pseudonym didn't get credit for the cited contribution to English letters. In fact, he's been steaming over this horrific injustice for very nearly two years now.

No, I just think it would do you well to properly cite this source.

Master Scartch takes his stand on the principle that quotations should be properly referenced. And, of course, he's essentially right. They generally should be.

Thanks, Professor Peterson. Your candor and honesty on this matter are greatly appreciated.

My response is that this true principle can be made into a pedantic fetish, and that, in fact, Scartch is doing just that in this case. There are situations where it would simply be overkill and rather absurd to provide footnote references.

Consider, for example, the following hypothetical paragraph:

In this essay, I shall consider the contributions to philosophy, theology, and history of Master Philastus Q. Scartch. I shall also justify my choice of subject, demonstrating his importance in the development of Western thought in the early twenty-first century, partly because I recognize that some may still dispute his centrality to modern civilization and question my decision to devote the rest of my life to explicating and championing his internet oeuvre. As a matter of fact, as I was sitting down to my computer to commence this essay, an old friend commented on my newfound vocation in a post on a small internet message board, saying, "It's a ridiculous waste of Peterson's life for him to spend so much time on a complete non-entity like Master Scartch. He's squandering scores of hours that he could be spending on Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Maimonides, Ibn Sina, and al-Kirmani, instead." But I'm resolute, and time will vindicate me. Long after pathetic poseurs like Plato and the rest are forgotten, the work of Master Philastus Q. Scartch will be a beacon to humankind, as well as to rocks, rodents, and small desert reptiles. Ironically, in fact, my old friend himself doesn't spend much time with Plato and the boys, preferring to concentrate, rather, on study of the operas and symphonies of the later Talmage Bachman.

It strikes me that it would be pedantic and fetishistic to demand that a footnote be appended to the paragraph above, along these lines:

My old friend's name is Diabolos P. Hamblin-Midgley. His comments appeared on The Sinister Skinny-L Mopologist Control Center Board, http://www.liesandslandersforprofit.com ... &f=1&p=666, on 31 June 2005, at 8:53 PM, on a thread entitled "We [Heart] $$$$$."

There would be nothing really wrong with including such a footnote, but nothing much gained, either. It would be unnecessary, and no great loss if omitted. It simply doesn't matter much who made the comment. It's just a little story lead-in to the central topic, which is "Master Philastus Q. Scartch: Titan of the Twenty-First Century."

Well, you gave it the good college try. Anyone can see that your example is hyperbolic and absurd. Also: it is a false analogy. The Internet poster you are "citing" in this silly example would have needed to make a point about "Master Philastus Q. Scartch" and his work. After all, it is perfectly reasonable to question the validity of the peer review process at FARMS (which is what I was doing in the original thread).

The article isn't about you, Master Scartch.

Sorry.

Yes, I know---it was about the "rigged" peer review process at FARMS, which is what I was criticizing in my post.

I used your rather silly little remark as a segue into a serious discussion of a topic that had nothing to do with you.

My remark was on-topic, which was why you used it.

You are terrified at the thought of FARMS readers being exposed to my criticism of LDS apologetics.

LOL. You seem to be, as the saying goes, a legend in your own mind.

Prove me wrong, then, Dan. Put your money where your mouth is. I'd be willing to bet that you would never, ever put a "correction" in the FARMS review which directs readers to this message board. It would involve to much risk for you, and for the Mopologetic agenda.

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

Are you really so completely clueless, or are you just feigning it?

There was nothing in your remark that was particularly important beyond its value as an illustrative lead-in. This isn't rocket science, to coin a phrase.

You have been extremely sensitive to my criticism of the FARMS peer review process from day one. In fact, this was the issue that got me booted off the old FAIRboard.

You are desperately thumbing through the pages, looking for every last excuse in the book!

No I'm not. I judged that the passage from you functioned on the level of a little story or anecdote in the article, and I think it's fetishistic, on the whole, to footnote comments made in conversations that serve no evidentiary function in an argument. And, to my mind, message board conversations are essentially that: conversations.

You mean that serve no pro-apologetic function in an argument, right?. I mean, you have been perfectly okay allowing gossip into the footnotes of FARMS articles. Check out this footnote from Prof. Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic":

21. In personal conversation I asked Peterson if, when he used the word polemical to describe some FARMS writings, he was thereby trying to imply that FARMS studies were eager to use any insult, distortion, mislabeling, deletion, false analogy, semantic trick, and logical fallacy, as Quinn claims. He laughed uproariously and at great length before answering emphatically that he did not.

Why, oh, why, Prof. P., does this merit a footnote? It is, after all, a "conversation", and a literal, *verbal* conversation, not verbatim text. Or consider this, from the same article:

69. These numbers represent rough figures obtained by personal conversations with the bookstore managers. They do not represent precise numbers. I did not contact all the bookstores in Utah County, so the total figures are undoubtedly low.

Or, this truly torturous, now infamous, example:

381. I once used Quinn's first edition of Early Mormonism as an assigned reading in my undergraduate senior seminar in history as an example of how not to write history. Even those undergraduate students were easily able to discover the flaws of evidence and analysis that abound in Quinn's book.

I am really curious to know what mysterious rule you follow, Dr. Peterson, which allows for footnotes such as these, and which allows you to ignore the usual citation protocol for online verbatim texts.

I guess in the end that Quinn *was* right: you guys are interested mainly in polemics, and only follow the rules when it suits your interests.

I'm the editor. I didn't think a rather inane and pseudonymous internet jibe really demanded bibliographical apparatus. That was my decision, and I'm still entirely at peace with it.

Obviously not that "at peace," since here you are, doling out juvenile insults and stooping to ad hominem attack and the like. I'm glad, though, that you have evolved to such a state of being whereby you think the rules everyone else has to live by don't apply to you.

Ultimately, Dan, you are bending the rules. I'd like to point out that you have failed to do the obvious thing, which would be to cite a passage from Chicago justifying your editorial decision. Of course, you already know that you violated the Chicago rules, so of course you won't be supplying anything but your own blather to support your faulty argument.

[_beastie]

© 2008 Jersey Girl. All rights reserved. Copying, quoting, or citing this copyrighted work in whole or part without the written permission of the author is prohibited. Violation of this copyright, even for personal or not-for-profit use, is a serious criminal offense and is subject to federal prosecution.

_________________

Gee, this sounds familiar:

By posting on Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board you agree to the terms and conditions of this service, and assign the copyright and use right in the material posted to MA&D. Materials posted on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of MA&D and the materials' posters. Participation on these boards is at the sole discretion of MA&D administration and can be revoked at any time.

MADrules

[_Mister Scratch]

© 2008 Jersey Girl. All rights reserved. Copying, quoting, or citing this copyrighted work in whole or part without the written permission of the author is prohibited. Violation of this copyright, even for personal or not-for-profit use, is a serious criminal offense and is subject to federal prosecution.

_________________

Gee, this sounds familiar:

By posting on Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board you agree to the terms and conditions of this service, and assign the copyright and use right in the material posted to MA&D. Materials posted on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of MA&D and the materials' posters. Participation on these boards is at the sole discretion of MA&D administration and can be revoked at any time.

MADrules

Yes, you're absolutely right. There is a similar "disclaimer" over at SHIELDS. The funny thing is that these Mopologists are so anal about fair use and copyright and following the rules when it applies to their own stuff, or when it supports their agenda. But, when it comes to critics, or the actual protocol governing use of verbatim texts, they think the rules can be bent.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I just think it would do you well to properly cite this source.

I'm aware of your opinion on this matter.

You've reiterated it on numerous occasions over the past two years.

Anyone can see that your example is hyperbolic and absurd.

I intended it to be hyperbolic and absurd, so I'm gratified that you noticed.

Also: it is a false analogy.

No it's not.

The Internet poster you are "citing" in this silly example would have needed to make a point about "Master Philastus Q. Scartch" and his work.

He did.

Prove me wrong, then, Dan. Put your money where your mouth is. I'd be willing to bet that you would never, ever put a "correction" in the FARMS review which directs readers to this message board. It would involve to much risk for you, and for the Mopologetic agenda.

The Review routinely provides references to Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Bertrand Russell, Grant Palmer, Walter Martin, Ed Decker, and numerous other atheists, anti-Mormons, countercult "ministries," etc.

You can either imagine that you pose a more potent threat to The Mopologetic Agenda than such people do, to the extent that we're simply too terrified to name your intimidating pseudonym, or you can face the rather deflating reality.

You have been extremely sensitive to my criticism of the FARMS peer review process from day one. In fact, this was the issue that got me booted off the old FAIRboard.

Perhaps. However, I thought it was your apparent lying about the disgusting item you posted regarding me on RfM.

I am really curious to know what mysterious rule you follow, Dr. Peterson, which allows for footnotes such as these, and which allows you to ignore the usual citation protocol for online verbatim texts.

I don't ignore the usual citation protocol for online verbatim texts. As you're no doubt aware, we've cited quite a few of these, and have done so entirely by the book -- Chicago 15.

However, if you really can't distinguish between footnoted comments and footnoted references, you've got problems on this issue that I hadn't even guessed at.

Obviously not that "at peace," since here you are, doling out juvenile insults and stooping to ad hominem attack and the like.

No, I'm entirely at peace regarding you as a goofball.

I'm glad, though, that you have evolved to such a state of being whereby you think the rules everyone else has to live by don't apply to you.

I hold no such view.

Ultimately, Dan, you are bending the rules. I'd like to point out that you have failed to do the obvious thing, which would be to cite a passage from Chicago justifying your editorial decision. Of course, you already know that you violated the Chicago rules, so of course you won't be supplying anything but your own blather to support your faulty argument.

I've explained my position. We apply the Chicago rules quite faithfully when we think they're applicable. I didn't think that an on-line jibe by a pseudonymous critic that played no role in any argument and served no evidentiary function rose to the level of significance that it required a bibliographical reference. I still don't.

If you would have chosen differently, that's your prerogative.

I've had a very nice sabbath day thus far. I hope you have, too.

[_skippy the dead]

Gee, this sounds familiar:

By posting on Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board you agree to the terms and conditions of this service, and assign the copyright and use right in the material posted to MA&D. Materials posted on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of MA&D and the materials' posters. Participation on these boards is at the sole discretion of MA&D administration and can be revoked at any time.

MADrules

Yes, you're absolutely right. There is a similar "disclaimer" over at SHIELDS. The funny thing is that these Mopologists are so anal about fair use and copyright and following the rules when it applies to their own stuff, or when it supports their agenda. But, when it comes to critics, or the actual protocol governing use of verbatim texts, they think the rules can be bent.[/quote]

And might I point out for probably the billionth time (because that stupid claim irritates me to no end) - this assertion of copyright is void and not valid under current copyright law. You cannot assign a copyright to a person or entity via a "click through" - it must be a signed writing. This has been pointed out to MADB, but they ignore it and proceed.