Shirley Ricks: "Screw Family Night"

[_collegeterrace]

Surely Shirley was a real douche back then. I wonder if Shirley is still a douche?

[_harmony]

You, Harmony, and the others who count themselves among the "holier-than-thous" are free to speak your mind as always. But don't think for one second that the rest of us don't know that you come here to watch the blood flow along with everyone else. :)

But I, for one, forgive you.

I'm waiting for the review of Quinn. And familiar names with the hatchet in their hand. Shirley doesn't interest me.

[_Dr. Shades]

You're pulling out a 17 year old review to mock? Sad. . . It's just silly that you're hopping into the wayback machine to find some obscure article on some marginal issue to bring here to ridicule. I change my mind, though - it's not sad. It's pathetic.

Skippy, is it possible to enjoy a movie that was produced before 1991?

Is it possible to enjoy a book that was published before 1991?

Have you kept any of your family photos that were taken before 1991?

If you answered "yes" to any of the above three questions, please explain how they apply to Gadianton's review of that review.

[_JustMe]

Skippy the Dead

to find some obscure article on some marginal issue to bring here to ridicule.

But Skippy.......SKIPPY! Pay attentional son, I say pay attentional... This is the very cream and essence of ScratchGadpologetics..... Nothing ever substantial, meaningful, or helpful. Always negative, trivial, utterly bereft of any meaning or seriousness. There is never anything substantial, and it is always marginal which they grasp and elucidate upon. All else is beyond them.

[_Ray A]

But Skippy.......SKIPPY! Pay attentional son, I say pay attentional...

That should be "daughter", Kerry.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why did the Review solicit a critique of this particular item? Because the original editorial intent and program of the FARMS Review -- then known as the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon -- was to review every book on the Book of Mormon, whether scholarly, fictional, non-fictional, for children, or for adults.

Surely Shirley was a real douche back then. I wonder if Shirley is still a douche?

I've known Shirley for thirty-four years. She's one of the finest people I know.

The essence of Scartcholepsy is anonymous public mockery and condemnation of named people who are unknown to the Scartcholeptic.

If I thought that Gad were a genuine Scartcholeptic, I would find his performance here pathetic. As it is, knowing that he's doing supersubtle satire, I think it's hilarious.

One of the marks of his pseudo-Scartcholeptic lack of seriousness can be detected in what he's passed over without comment. He's now at FARMS Review 3, and readers here can easily see what he's failed to mention from those three volumes in the course of his mock-Scartchian caricature:

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

[Physics Guy]

Why did the Review solicit a critique of this particular item? Because the original editorial intent and program of the FARMS Review -- then known as the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon -- was to review every book on the Book of Mormon, whether scholarly, fictional, non-fictional, for children, or for adults.

What a dumb response. Was this technically a "book" in the usual sense? Further, you guys have reviewed websites and messageboard postings.

The real reason you printed this review was because it slammed Chapel Mormonism, and, I assume, because you guys were short on material.

If I thought that Gad were a genuine Scartcholeptic, I would find his performance here pathetic. As it is, knowing that he's doing supersubtle satire, I think it's hilarious.

Gee, are you sure? Why don't you ask him? After all, you said that you are unable to tell whether I am joking or not. If I am joking, doesn't that then mean that Gad is doing a satire of a satire? And if that is the case, what does it say about your reactions to it all? That you are completely humorless and can't take a joke? Or that, in stereotypical TBM fashion, you lack a sense of irony? Or that it only makes sense to you when it is salted with a heavy dose of cog-dis?

[_Mister Scratch]

You, Harmony, and the others who count themselves among the "holier-than-thous" are free to speak your mind as always. But don't think for one second that the rest of us don't know that you come here to watch the blood flow along with everyone else. :)

But I, for one, forgive you.

I'm waiting for the review of Quinn. And familiar names with the hatchet in their hand. Shirley doesn't interest me.

Really? You mean you aren't sick of the Quinn discussions? Anyways, I'm sure Gad will get there eventually. Some of the most appalling pieces ever published in FROB were about Quinn.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What a dumb response.

What a dumb response.

Was this technically a "book" in the usual sense?

Don't remember. You tell me.

What difference does it make?

Further, you guys have reviewed websites and messageboard postings.

We've reviewed some web materials. We've never reviewed message board postings.

The real reason you printed this review was because it slammed Chapel Mormonism, and, I assume, because you guys were short on material.

Nonsense.

And very poor mind reading.

If I thought that Gad were a genuine Scartcholeptic, I would find his performance here pathetic. As it is, knowing that he's doing supersubtle satire, I think it's hilarious.

Gee, are you sure? Why don't you ask him?

I don't need to ask him. If he told me that he doesn't genuinely suffer from Scartcholepsy, that would only confirm that he doesn't genuinely suffer from Scartcholepsy -- which I already know. If he told me that he's genuinely Scartcholeptic, though, that would confirm that he's masquerading as a true Scartcholeptic -- which I already know.

And if that is the case, what does it say about your reactions to it all? That you are completely humorless and can't take a joke? Or that, in stereotypical TBM fashion, you lack a sense of irony?

ROTFL!

[_Tom]

One of the marks of his pseudo-Scartcholeptic lack of seriousness can be detected in what he's passed over without comment. He's now at FARMS Review 3, and readers here can easily see what he's failed to mention from those three volumes in the course of his mock-Scartchian caricature:

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

One should not overlook Stephen Robinson's side-splitting satire in volume 3. It begins, "Korihor's back, and this time he's got a printing press."

For family home evening last week, we read Robinson's satirical review and laughed our heads off. Time and again, with tears of laughter flowing down our faces, between telephone calls to share particularly funny passages with friends, we asked ourselves, "Can this fellow be serious? Does he really believe this?"