Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

[_Ray A]

My in-box alone contains more than ten thousand e-mails at the present moment.

And here I am worrying about 1,500 in mine. You made my day.

[_Mister Scratch]

You asserted earlier that "friendly" authors (e.g., yourself) have been given harsh treatment in the pages of FROB.

I didn't assert that we had been treated "harshly." I don't grant your accusation that we give "harsh treatment" to anybody.

Go ahead. You'll just look like even more of a dishonest buffoon. The proof is in Gadianton's OP. Anybody failing to acknowledge the rather obvious harshness of Hamblin's language is either illiterate or deliberately dishonest.

I defy you yet again you prove that this is so.

All of the reviews are up on line. All of them have been published in hard copy.

It's not surprising that you're unfamiliar with this, since your knowledge of what we've published is obviously quite superficial and spotty, but that's not our fault. The reviews are all easily accessible.

Yes, you're quite right. Unfortunately for you, I"m quite familiar with this issue. So, in order to save face, my dear Professor P., you are actually going to have to show where Hamblinesque language was used to criticize the "friendly" pieces, because, frankly, I'm just not seeing it.

Could it be that you, the editor of FROB, aren't as familiar with it as *you* claim? Oh, this is just too sweet. I am rubbing my hands together with glee. Go ahead, Dr. Peterson! Prove me wrong! Show me were the "friendly" pieces were treated in a Hamblinesque manner! I will be waiting for you to enlighten me!

[quote[

LOL! What an embarrassing slip up for you!

In your fevered and fantastical dreams, Scartch. [/quote]

According to a number of PMs I've received, plenty of other folks find amusement in this latest embarrassment of yours.

Here, you state that you have no problem deleting "posts about Midwestern winters, Oregon blueberries, Aotearoa, Mt. Hood" and so on, and yet when I've asked you about your "archive" of emails in the past, specifically in regards to messages from critics---SusieQ and Infymus, for example---you claimed that you saved *ALL* of your emails!

I absolutely don't save all of my e-mails.

Right. You just save the ones which you can later use in your assaults on critics.

It is as I suspected all along: you vindictively hang on to messages from critics in the hopes of someday being able to use their own words against them.

The standards of proof in Scartchworld have always been remarkably low.

Do you deny that this is what you do?

"Creepy dossiers" indeed, Professor P.!

Yes, Scartchmeister, "creepy dossiers," indeed.

You have them. I don't.[/quote]

I do? Where? Can you cite from even one of them? Can you provide a link?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Go ahead. You'll just look like even more of a dishonest buffoon.

"The truth of the matter is that there is literally no way that this [as yet unseen] letter is not damning in some way." (Scratch, 7-30-08, MDB) "Actually, you lose either way." (Scratch, 7-31-08, MDB) "Why not admit defeat. . . ? There'd be more dignity in it." (Scratch, 8-12-08, MDB)

"Scratch . . . always tries to see the good in people." (Gadianton, 7-11-08, MDB)

Unfortunately for you, I"m quite familiar with this issue.

Oh, I'll just bet you are.

So, in order to save face, my dear Professor P., you are actually going to have to . . .

I haven't "lost" any "face," Scartch. Get over yourself.

Could it be that you, the editor of FROB, aren't as familiar with it as *you* claim?

I've read everything in the Review at least twice prior to its publication. Every single thing. At least twice.

Oh, this is just too sweet. I am rubbing my hands together with glee.

You're a loon, Scartch.

Do you deny that this is what you do?

Of course I deny it.

Come on, Scartch. Even you can't possibly believe all the idiotic nonsense you allege on this board.

According to a number of PMs I've received, plenty of other folks find amusement in this latest embarrassment of yours.

I suppose it's possible that you're telling the truth.

But I don't believe you.

[_Mister Scratch]

Go ahead. You'll just look like even more of a dishonest buffoon.

"The truth of the matter is that there is literally no way that this [as yet unseen] letter is not damning in some way." (Scratch, 7-30-08, MDB) "Actually, you lose either way." (Scratch, 7-31-08, MDB) "Why not admit defeat. . . ? There'd be more dignity in it." (Scratch, 8-12-08, MDB)

"Scratch . . . always tries to see the good in people." (Gadianton, 7-11-08, MDB)

Yep. Your "creepy dossier" collection in all its glory. Yet another embarrassment for you. (See below.)*

Unfortunately for you, I"m quite familiar with this issue.

Oh, I'll just bet you are.

Feel free to prove me wrong. (And what is this, the fifth time I have asked you? Gee, I wonder why you won't pony up the evidence???)

So, in order to save face, my dear Professor P., you are actually going to have to . . .

I haven't "lost" any "face," Scartch. Get over yourself.

Asked five times or so, and still no evidence. Yep, I'm sure you are seeming like a hero to onlooking TBMs at the moment. While I would imagine that they were anxiously waiting for you to crush Dr. Gadianton Robbers and myself with your overwhelming evidence that "friendly" authors are given the same "treatment" in FARMS Review, instead you've been....remarkably silent.

Could it be that you, the editor of FROB, aren't as familiar with it as *you* claim?

I've read everything in the Review at least twice prior to its publication. Every single thing. At least twice.

Well, then, you should have no difficulty proving a point concerning its tone. Feel free to enlighten me.

Do you deny that this is what you do?

Of course I deny it.

*<Ahem> You just don't seem to be on your A-game today, Professor P. As to whether or not you save quotations in order to later try and score points, I'll simply refer readers to the top of this post, and your....well, your series of saved quotations.

You shouldn't try to take me on, Prof. P. I have defeated you yet again, and the pain of it is showing in your disciples. Poor JustMe is practically frothing at the mouth over the beating I have given you.

[Guest]

Feel free to enlighten me.

And, no doubt, while I'm enlightening you I should also scratch my ear with my elbow, produce a 210 degree triangle, invent a married bachelor, and change the outcome of the Battle of Antietam.

As to whether or not you save quotations in order to later try and score points, I'll simply refer readers to the top of this post, and your....well, your series of saved quotations.

Wow. You've demonstrated that I actually do something that I've always said that I do and have demonstrated that I do on numerous occasions. What a dynamo! What a sleuth! The Sherlock Holmes of our time! I'll bet you've already received thousands upon thousands of PMs expressing admiration for this titanic achievement.

Of course I save quotations from time to time. I've used them in signatures. I've used the ones I cited above in my signature. I have a collection of perhaps thirty or forty such quotations, typically no more than a single sentence or even a single phrase long. I've pointed this out to you several times.

You shouldn't try to take me on, Prof. P. I have defeated you yet again

You're a loon, Scartch.

and the pain of it is showing in your disciples. Poor JustMe is practically frothing at the mouth over the beating I have given you.

ROTFL!

The image in my mind is of a gorilla beating his chest in the jungle.

[_Jersey Girl]

Scratch:

You shouldn't try to take me on, Prof. P. I have defeated you yet again, and the pain of it is showing in your disciples. Poor JustMe is practically frothing at the mouth over the beating I have given you.

Fiction writer, right?

Y/N

[Guest]

Well, I don't know about the rest of you, like that poseur Peterson, but I have scientifically analyzed the contents of the FROB and have found it to be a cauldron seething with hatred and frustrated intellectual ambitions.

Let me share my method for posterity's sake:

1) I compiled a list of all emails attached to memberships at the Recovery from Mormonism Board.

2) I constructed a scientific survey, which had the following questions. a) How many times have you heard of the FARMS Review? b) Have you heard anything negative about it? c) How negative were the things you heard about the FARMS Review? d) Do you think FARMS is a silly acronym? e) If so, why? f) Do you get angry when you think about the things you heard about the FARMS Review? g) On average, how many times a week would you estimate that you think negative things about the FARMS Review? h) Have you heard of all the authors persecuted by the FARMS Review? i) Why do you think the Morg allows a hateful publication like the FARMS Review to exist? j) How much responsibility does the FARMS Review and its polemicists bear for the stupidity of Mormons? k) Without asking you to do the unthinkable--i.e. read the propaganda of the FARMS Review--place your hand on one of its issues and tell me how negatively you feel about it.

3) I emailed the survey, and after receiving the replies, tabulated the answers and came up with the following, astonishing results:

The good people at Recovery have heard and read about the FARMS Review many times, and the things they heard were really bad. They generally agreed that FARMS is a silly acronym because it reveals the hicks who run it for the true dolts they are. Who but an ignorant rube would want to do that? Overall, the people polled were seething with anger over the things they heard were printed in the Review, especially all of the truth-seeking, unbiased authors who were offered up as sacrificial lambs there. Without a doubt, the Recovery folks have concluded that the stupidity of Mor[m]ons is due in large part to the obfuscations of FARMS writers. And the acid test--when placed in the same room with a copy of the Review, rage, violent vomiting, and spitting ensued.

4) From this scientific study I have concluded that the FROB lacks all merit. If the leaders of the LDS Church were prophets, they would stop the presses on this dangerous publication quicker than you can say "Nauvoo Expositor."

[_JustMe]

Scratch

Poor JustMe is practically frothing at the mouth over the beating I have given you.

I am too. I have never laughed so long and so loud at how utterly idiotic your logic, your information, and your gossip is. How grounded in total fiction and story telling with not a fleck of reality behind it. But I sincerely have to thank you for the entertainment. It gives me an enormous amount of grist with which to imitate your loonacy here. It is great fun.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Trevor, I'm dazzled by the science.

I'm speechless. There's nothing I can say.

You've just handed Scartch the ultimate weapon. Life as I've known it is over.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But what the hey . . . I'm resilient.

Along with the chest-thumping jungle gorilla, here's another image that comes to mind:

"I'm the king of the world!"
-- Jack, in Titanic

"You shouldn't try to take me on, Prof. P. I have defeated you yet again and the pain of it is showing in your disciples. Poor JustMe is practically frothing at the mouth over the beating I have given you."
-- The Scartchmeister, in Fantasyland