Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Yes, it is a cop-out. They can go ahead and read the Review. Certainly, I'm not advising that anyone not read the Review. But this is a trap set by you. These readers won't find the condemnatory language that was found in Bill Hamblin's review. So it *is* a cop out on your part. You are the Editor of this journal, and when asked to perform what ought to be a very simple task (you boasted that you'd read everything "at least twice"), you cannot and/or will not do it. You won't cite a mere sentence of two or text.

What you are saying is, in effect, like a hospital administrator who has been accused of letting patients die. When asked about this, the administrator says, "We don't let people die! Just go into the hospital and ask all of our patients! None of them are dead!" Of course, if the investigating parties wander down to the correct area, they will, indeed, find that people have died. In this case, the administrator would reply, "Well, those aren't patients, are they?"

Nice work, Professor P. Nice work. I'm sure you've saved multiple TBM testimonies with your very persuasive performance here.

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?

You mean you've never claimed that "friendly" parties were treated in a fair and equal fashion vis-a-vis "critics"? Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

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?

You asserted that "friendly" parties were also "criticized." Are you now admitting that "criticism," when it comes to "friendly" authors, is rather different than it is with "enemy" authors?

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.

Sure, I'd be glad to. Observe the following juxtaposition:

In all likelihood, the "friendly" texts on Mormonism do not get reviewed in FROB because the FROB Mopologists (and the editorial staff) don't know how to do anything other than rip into people.

The gullible Master Scartch, who has recently revealed that his knowledge of FARMS publications is severely limited and very superficial, illustrates that fact again here by exhibiting his lack of awareness of the fact that the FARMS Review has often reviewed "friendly" texts on Mormonism and has often been critical of them -- e.g., of works by Hugh Nibley and Jack Welch and yours truly.

You are clearly trying to claim that you give equal treatment to both "friendly" and critical texts. But, of course, you have no evidence that you do so.

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?

Thank you for admitting the polemical and tendentious nature of the publication.

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.

No need. You've admitted that the FARMS Review is highly tendentious in nature. I'm grateful for your honesty.

[_JustMe]

In response to Daniel Peterson's claim that the FARMS Review is not neutral and non-partisan, Scratch ridiculously interpreted this as meaning

Thank you for admitting the polemical and tendentious nature of the publication.

LOL! You are so wacked out in understanding it is truly breathtaking. That is nowhere near what Daniel Peterson is saying. I have read every review, and I certainly do not come away with that impression. As opposed to your rather obvious non-reading of the vast majority of information the Neal A. Maxwell Institute has produced over the decades, I believe I will stick with my own understanding of the nature of the review rather than your ignorant rants against something you know oh so very little about.

[_Gadianton]

You've read every Review, have you JustMe? I wonder if that would explain your rather extreme aggression as of late. You know what they say, "Garbage in, Garbage out." I honestly had to set the Review down for a couple of days because I felt such a dark, menacing spirit come upon me as I read it.

[_Ray A]

I honestly had to set the Review down for a couple of days because I felt such a dark, menacing spirit come upon me as I read it.

Your avatar chased away the Holy Ghost :)

[_Daniel Peterson]

But this is a trap set by you.

It's a "trap" to suggest that people who want to get a feel for the Review read the Review?

Put your tinfoil helmet back on, Scartch. And go indoors. The black helicopters are out.

These readers won't find the condemnatory language that was found in Bill Hamblin's review.

Did we hide it or something?

You are clearly trying to claim that you give equal treatment to both "friendly" and critical texts. But, of course, you have no evidence that you do so.

I've never made any such claim, and I feel absolutely no obligation to provide evidence to support a claim that I haven't made.

Thank you for admitting the polemical and tendentious nature of the publication.

I've done nothing of the kind, of course.

You've admitted that the FARMS Review is highly tendentious in nature. I'm grateful for your honesty.

You're a loon, Scartch.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I honestly had to set the Review down for a couple of days because I felt such a dark, menacing spirit come upon me as I read it.

You're astonishing, Gad. You're almost outscartching the Scartchmeister himself.

[_Mister Scratch]

But this is a trap set by you.

It's a "trap" to suggest that people who want to get a feel for the Review read the Review?

No, it is a "trap" to suggest that readers examine the Review looking for something they will never find. But, of course, this is a common tactic with you. "Go read the material if you want to see who's right!" Well, readers will go and look for evenhanded treatment of both "friendly" and "enemy" authors, and they won't find it. You will have wasted their time. You'd be better off just admitting that "friendly" authors get a free pass, and "enemy" authors get skewered.

These readers won't find the condemnatory language that was found in Bill Hamblin's review.

Did we hide it or something?

No; it doesn't exist in reviews of "friendly" authors' work.

You are clearly trying to claim that you give equal treatment to both "friendly" and critical texts. But, of course, you have no evidence that you do so.

I've never made any such claim, and I feel absolutely no obligation to provide evidence to support a claim that I haven't made.

Sure you did. You clearly asserted---via juxtaposition---that FROB has "criticized" the work of "friendly" authors (such as yourself) in the same manner as the Gadianton-cited Hamblin piece.

Thank you for admitting the polemical and tendentious nature of the publication.

I've done nothing of the kind, of course.

If "friendly" authors are given a free pass, and "enemy" authors are lambasted... Well, Professor P., that is the very definition of polemical tendentiousness.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, it is a "trap" to suggest that readers examine the Review looking for something they will never find.

If they want a sense of the tone and approach of the Review over two decades -- without spin, without biased selection of passages -- there is no better way to get it than by reading a representative selection of the Review.

It's available on line, for free:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

But, of course, this is a common tactic with you. "Go read the material if you want to see who's right!"

I happily plead guilty to the charge. That's exactly what I typically say. In fact, it's a common theme of mine here on this board.

You'd be better off just admitting that "friendly" authors get a free pass, and "enemy" authors get skewered.

But that would be false.

"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)

If "friendly" authors are given a free pass

They aren't.

[_Mister Scratch]

If "friendly" authors are given a free pass

They aren't.

Then prove it, big guy.

[Reflexzero]

Then prove it, big guy.

Mr. S, although the above is addressed to "big guy" and I'm rather dainty, I hope you don't mind if I chime in here...

What would constitute not receiving a "free pass" in your book? Would having mistakes pointed out, or methodology questioned count? If so, I have a review I read one or two years back in mind that points out the errors of the author** (a rather well-known author in LDS apologetic and scholarly circles who arguably made a fairly important Book of Mormon discovery). My memory of the review might be flawed, but I thought it was rather critical of the author (more than what was warranted, although in many regards it was rather conciliatory).



**Edited to add: The author I have in mind is George Potter (I guess it would be good if I included that).