Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

[Physics Guy]

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.

Well, I guess this makes six times that the Editor of FARMS Review was unable to back up his (now obviously bogus) claims about the content and tone of said journal.

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.

Again: this is baloney, Professor P. You obviously saved emails which you later passed along to SHIELDS. Why not just admit the truth, which is that you save and archive these things in the hopes of being able to later "ding" critics you don't like? C'mon: Lou Midgley was able to admit that he had saved emails from Tal Bachman for precisely this reason. Why can't you do the same?

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.

Hey, whatever helps you. In the meantime, those of us who like actual evidence would be interested in seeing you demonstrate that "friendly" authors are given equal treatment in FARMS Review. But you won't do it. You cannot do it. You lose again.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Huh? I have no idea how you got from here (as in, posting on MDB) to reason to exist (as in, being alive). Of course they are not connected. Why would you think I said they were?

Because you used my post about Scartch's raison d'être as a jumping-off point for your post about my reason for being here.

If you agree with me that the one has no connection with the other, then I can't quite see why you thought your comment relevant to what I said.

When I say "here", I mean here, on MDB, not here, on earth.

I know.

But I was talking about a "reason for being" alive on earth.

As you just did when you intentionally moved the goalpost from "here" on MDB to "here" here in earth.

Your post came after mine, harmony. Not before.

(Am I on Candid Camera?)

But not wholly incorrect. Got it.

No, you didn't get it.

When I say that I have no strong feelings about x, that means that I neither love nor hate x.

Now you've got it. I hope.

(Your slip was showing.)

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

I appreciate your honesty, "JustMe." Perhaps you can show me where "friendly" FARMS authors have received the same "treatment" in FARMS Review? I'll be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.

by the way: By which name do you post on MAD? Or are you afraid to tell me?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, I guess this makes six times that the Editor of FARMS Review was unable to back up his (now obviously bogus) claims about the content and tone of said journal.

I'm impressed, Scartch. You're onto the fingers of a second hand!

What possible value could there be in attempting a conversation with you about the content and tone of the FARMS Review?

Again: this is baloney, Professor P.

I can see why Gadianton admires your prose style so much.

You obviously saved emails which you later passed along to SHIELDS. Why not just admit the truth, which is that you save and archive these things in the hopes of being able to later "ding" critics you don't like? C'mon: Lou Midgley was able to admit that he had saved emails from Tal Bachman for precisely this reason. Why can't you do the same?

I've never denied that I've saved a few especially moving passages from some posts and e-mails.

In fact, I've said that I do so. A number of times.

You lose again.

LOL. "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)

[_harmony]

Huh? I have no idea how you got from here (as in, posting on MDB) to reason to exist (as in, being alive). Of course they are not connected. Why would you think I said they were?

Because you used my post about Scartch's raison d'être as a jumping-off point for your post about my reason for being here.

Oh. Well. Hmm. That's not what I meant.

If you agree with me that the one has no connection with the other, then I can't quite see why you thought your comment relevant to what I said.

I'm famous for loosely connected random appearing comments that actually are quite relevant. Except when I have a headache, and then I'm more random than usual. My apologies for opening the gate to the garden path (I didn't mean to give the appearance of leading you astray).

When I say "here", I mean here, on MDB, not here, on earth.

I know.

But I was talking about a "reason for being" alive on earth.

I wasn't.

As you just did when you intentionally moved the goalpost from "here" on MDB to "here" here in earth.

Your post came after mine, harmony. Not before.

(Am I on Candid Camera?)

No, you're conversing with a somewhat more random than usual harmony.

But not wholly incorrect. Got it.

No, you didn't get it.

When I say that I have no strong feelings about x, that means that I neither love nor hate x.

Now you've got it. I hope.

Yes, thank you.

(Your slip was showing.)

I'll keep that in mind.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, I guess this makes six times that the Editor of FARMS Review was unable to back up his (now obviously bogus) claims about the content and tone of said journal.

I'm impressed, Scartch. You're onto the fingers of a second hand!

What possible value could there be in attempting a conversation with you about the content and tone of the FARMS Review?

Simple: to save face and help prove that the FARMS Review is not the utterly tendentious, "clubby" piece of garbage that many think it is.

Again: this is baloney, Professor P.

I can see why Gadianton admires your prose style so much.

Of course. It is straightforward and to-the-point. I don't mince words and deal in equivocations as you so often do.

You obviously saved emails which you later passed along to SHIELDS. Why not just admit the truth, which is that you save and archive these things in the hopes of being able to later "ding" critics you don't like? C'mon: Lou Midgley was able to admit that he had saved emails from Tal Bachman for precisely this reason. Why can't you do the same?

I've never denied that I've saved a few especially moving passages from some posts and e-mails.

In fact, I've said that I do so. A number of times.

Another equivocation. "Moving passages"? I'd be interested in hearing you explain how and why the saved passages from Infymus, SusieQ, or others were "moving." Sure, sure---I know. You think that you were using irony. But, as I ably demonstrated some time ago, you clearly don't understand what "irony" actually means. So typical of the TBM.

In the meantime, I will note (again) that you've failed to support your claim that FARMS Review is in any way fair in its treatment of authors.

[_Jersey Girl]

Being here and existing are not entirely the same thing.

The mentally ill just might not know the difference.

Well said, Trevor.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Simple: to save face and help prove that the FARMS Review is not the utterly tendentious, "clubby" piece of garbage that many think it is.

To you? Impossible. Not worth the effort to try.

To anybody else? The best argument is to invite them to read it. It's not hidden. Every article ever published in it is available on line. (If they're not convinced by actually reading substantial portions of it, nothing that I could conceivably say would suffice to persuade them.)

Another equivocation. "Moving passages"? I'd be interested in hearing you explain how and why the saved passages from Infymus, SusieQ, or others were "moving." Sure, sure---I know. You think that you were using irony.

Yup.

But, as I ably demonstrated some time ago

LOL. More chest-thumping!

"I am the king of the world!"

you clearly don't understand what "irony" actually means.

I guess I wasn't persuaded by your able demonstration. Sorry.

So typical of the TBM.

Not into generalizations, are you?

In the meantime, I will note (again) that you've failed to support your claim that FARMS Review is in any way fair in its treatment of authors.

Where do you come up with this nonsense, Scartch?

Where have I ever pretended that the FARMS Review didn't have a particular slant? All I said here was that various "friendly" authors -- including Jack Welch, Hugh Nibley, and The One You Love to Hate -- have been criticized in the pages of the Review. And that's the simple fact of the matter. As you know full well.

[_Mister Scratch]

Simple: to save face and help prove that the FARMS Review is not the utterly tendentious, "clubby" piece of garbage that many think it is.

To you? Impossible. Not worth the effort to try.

To anybody else? The best argument is to invite them to read it. It's not hidden. Every article ever published in it is available on line. (If they're not convinced by actually reading substantial portions of it, nothing that I could conceivably say would suffice to persuade them.)

Lovely cop-out, Professor P.! Let's review: You were given a very simple task---namely, to identify text in which "friendly" authors are given the same treatment as critics within the pages of FARMS Review. And you have failed at this. "Go read the articles!" you mumble. And, what will readers discover after having read the articles? Simple: that they have wasted their time. They won't find anywhere near the harsh language in articles dealing with "friendly" parties.

Again: I defy you to supply text demonstrating that any reviews of "friendly" parties are anywhere near on the same order as the previously cited Hamblin text.

you clearly don't understand what "irony" actually means.

I guess I wasn't persuaded by your able demonstration. Sorry.

For a very long time, you referred to RfM as the "ironically named Recovery Board." When I pointed out that, in fact, there was nothing "ironic"---strictly speaking---about RfM, your use of that label....mysteriously stopped.

Aw. Caught again. Poor, poor Professor P.

So typical of the TBM.

Not into generalizations, are you?

I am when they're accurate. Such as, "LDS apologists are gossipmongering degenerates."

In the meantime, I will note (again) that you've failed to support your claim that FARMS Review is in any way fair in its treatment of authors.

Where do you come up with this nonsense, Scartch?

Where have I ever pretended that the FARMS Review didn't have a particular slant?

Oh, man, oh, man! My sides hurt! LOLOLOLOL!!!! It is like pulling teeth with you.

All I said here was that various "friendly" authors -- including Jack Welch, Hugh Nibley, and [Dr. Peterson] -- have been criticized in the pages of the Review. And that's the simple fact of the matter. As you know full well.

Oh, I do? I thought that I didn't know diddlysquat about the Review. Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!.

In any event, this "criticism" is not the same as the kind of criticism doled out to "unfriendly" parties. As you know full well.

Or do you? Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. Which you really ought to. Because if you didn't, it would reflect very badly on the Review. As you know full well, despite your reluctance to admit it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Lovely cop-out, Professor P.!

Inviting people to read the Review for themselves hardly seems a "cop-out," Scartch, though I can readily understand why encouraging them to go the Review itself -- without your spin and without your careful selection of passages -- wouldn't exactly suit your weird agenda.

Let's review: You were given a very simple task---namely, to identify text in which "friendly" authors are given the same treatment as critics within the pages of FARMS Review. And you have failed at this.

Why on earth should I feel any obligation to defend an assertion I've never made?

"Go read the articles!" you mumble.

I mumbled it?

How did you know!?!?!?

I thought we agreed that you weren't going to plant any more listening devices around my house.

And, what will readers discover after having read the articles? Simple: that they have wasted their time. They won't find anywhere near the harsh language in articles dealing with "friendly" parties.

I've asked this before, Scartch: Do you have problems with short-term memory?

On this very thread, Scartch, I've said that I don't grant that we've treated anybody "harshly." I certainly haven't claimed that we've treated our friends "harshly."

Why, again, should I be obliged to supply examples of something the existence of which I've never asserted but have, in fact, denied?

Again: I defy you to supply text demonstrating that any reviews of "friendly" parties are anywhere near on the same order as the previously cited Hamblin text.

And I defy you to supply text demonstrating that I've ever made the claim you're now asking me to support.

Good grief, Scartch.

Really.

This is very, very sad.

For a very long time, you referred to RfM as the "ironically named Recovery Board." When I pointed out that, in fact, there was nothing "ironic"---strictly speaking---about RfM, your use of that label....mysteriously stopped.

I don't even remember that episode. It apparently didn't make much of an impression on me. Sorry.

I have no problem whatever with referring to "the ironically named Recovery Board."

Aw. Caught again. Poor, poor Professor P.

You're a loon, Scartch.

LDS apologists are gossipmongering degenerates.

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

Oh, man, oh, man! My sides hurt! LOLOLOLOL!!!! It is like pulling teeth with you. . . . Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!

Another superb passage from the greatest prose stylist of our time, as that droll wag Gadianton has portrayed you.

All I said here was that various "friendly" authors -- including Jack Welch, Hugh Nibley, and [Dr. Peterson] -- have been criticized in the pages of the Review. And that's the simple fact of the matter. As you know full well.

Oh, I do? I thought that I didn't know diddlysquat about the Review. Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!.

You know full well that that's all I said here.

Splat!

In any event, this "criticism" is not the same as the kind of criticism doled out to "unfriendly" parties. As you know full well.

Where have I ever said that the Review was neutral or non-partisan?

Or do you? Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. Which you really ought to. Because if you didn't, it would reflect very badly on the Review. As you know full well, despite your reluctance to admit it.

I see no reason for me to defend propositions that you've advanced and I've denied.