The FROB Submission Guidlines

[_Mister Scratch]

I have to wonder why this is the case. Most journals are not this hardcore in terms of collecting quotation information. Usually, graduate students---or other office assistants---are sent out to confirm quotations. So, why is the FROB asking authors to do all this extensive photocopying?

I honestly don't know if this is standard practice for most academic journals, but it is the accepted practice in book publishing. Check the submission guidelines for Deseret Book or Cedar Fort and you'll find the same thing. I have a project with a publisher right now for which I had to make a metric ton of copies for my sources. In this electronic age, they thankfully accepted scanned copies all compiled on a disk rather than hard copies.

I suspect that most journals require the same thing.

Mike Ash
http://www.ShakenFaithSyndrome.com

Dear Mike:

No, actually it is not "the accepted practice in book publishing." Citing two examples (including Des. book) hardly supports your rather sweeping claim. I would guess that Des. Book and Cedar Fort are merely looking to cut costs. Further, as Harmony (by way of Beastie) has pointed out, it seems clear that Turley & et al. did not have to fork over photocopies of F Vault material to Oxford U. Press.

[_Dr. Shades]

Something I found rather unusual was this:

Sources
You are required to submit photocopies of your sources along with your essay. This is a condition of publication. [SNIP!]

(bold emphasis ibid)

I have to wonder why this is the case. Most journals are not this hardcore in terms of collecting quotation information. . . why is the FROB asking authors to do all this extensive photocopying?

I have a couple of theories why this might be:

1. Some time ago FARMS reprinted an entire series of old Hugh Nibley books. Maybe someone decided to check up on Martha Beck's accusations and discovered that many of Hugh's sources were indeed more or less invented or otherwise said something completely opposite from what he claimed they said? This new submission requirement might be a way to ensure that that never happens again.
2. Getting a little more speculative and/or conspiratorial, maybe the requirements are a way to discourage "outsiders" from contributing. Take Midgley's review of Palmer. Are we to believe that he went through and submitted photocopies of all those esoteric references? I trow not. I imagine that this requirement only applies to outsiders, as a way to keep FARMS's ranks pure.

[_Mister Scratch]

[
Who cares what it seems to you. We know your mission is to smear FARMS. It seems to me FARMS Review meets the goal it states here and my opinion is as valid as yours.

Actually, it's not, Jason, since you never supply any concrete evidence. You merely show up, bleating like a goat, complaining about posts no one is forcing you to read. Why not join the discussion, man? Why not post some quotations from FARMS articles which show that it "meets the goal it states here"? I feel I've done a rather thorough job of reviewing the various articles that don't meet this goal. You can look back over several of my threads to see where I've done this. It's only fair to ask that you do the same.

[_Gadianton]

Many years ago I was driving down the freeway with a relative. This relative told me that a friend of his, a police officer, said that one can always tell who the drug dealers are by the way they drive. Not because, as I had expected to hear, they have no regard for the rules, but rather quite the opposite. The drug dealers, according to him, fanatically obey all traffic rules. They'll be the one car on the freeway driving not one mile per hour over the speed limit, signaling every turn, and allowing extra following distance. The principle seems to be: fanatically keep the rules you need to keep in order to ensure maximum leeway to break the rules you wish to break.

[_Mister Scratch]

I have to wonder why this is the case. Most journals are not this hardcore in terms of collecting quotation information. . . why is the FROB asking authors to do all this extensive photocopying?

I have a couple of theories why this might be:

1. Some time ago FARMS reprinted an entire series of old Hugh Nibley books. Maybe someone decided to check up on Martha Beck's accusations and discovered that many of Hugh's sources were indeed more or less invented or otherwise said something completely opposite from what he claimed they said? This new submission requirement might be a way to ensure that that never happens again.

Yes, I think that is a very real possibility / likelihood. I also think it is meant to serve as insurance against the many "footnote assaults" that FARMS authors launch against critics. (Think, for a moment, of how many times rcrocket has boasted about pursuing Bagley's footnotes.)

Getting a little more speculative and/or conspiratorial, maybe the requirements are a way to discourage "outsiders" from contributing. Take Midgley's review of Palmer. Are we to believe that he went through and submitted photocopies of all those esoteric references? I trow not. I imagine that this requirement only applies to outsiders, as a way to keep FARMS's ranks pure.

Huh. That is a very interesting theory. I think you are absolutely right that this "big guns" don't have to do the same kind of photocopying as, say, Russell McGregor, or Mike Reed. Indeed, it would seem that FARMS has folks like J. Tvedtnes and Matt Roper on staff precisely so that they can make photocopies of sources for Bill Hamblin and Lou Midgley.

And, to clarify: I don't think it is a bad thing, necessarily, that FARMS would attempt to be scrupulous in this way. As I noted above, it *is* standard practice at academic journals to track down sources and quotations. The thing that is unusual about FARMS Review is that they are asking the authors to do it. And, of course, it is impossible to overlook the bolded, "THIS IS A REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICATION". Why such strong emphasis?

Given everything we know about apologetics and FARMS, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they are acting out of paranoia and/or that they are overcompensating for certain self-perceived "lacks."

[_Mister Scratch]

Yet much of what is reviewed is not connected to the Book of Mormon. So how does that help serious students?

I don't know, Harmony. I found these guidelines to be quite puzzling, and thought that others would be interested in reading them.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've never cared at all, in principle, about the length of the reviews. When reviewers ask me, I tell them to write as much as they think necessary to say what they want to say.

However, we have, on several occasions, decided that reviews needed to be trimmed, and in some cases substantially so. In a very few cases, with the review author's permission, we've offered to send out unedited versions of the original, much lengthier, reviews to any readers who might be interested.

I have a couple of theories why this might be:

They're both wrong.

Some time ago FARMS reprinted an entire series of old Hugh Nibley books.

The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley are still appearing.

Maybe someone decided to check up on Martha Beck's accusations and discovered that many of Hugh's sources were indeed more or less invented or otherwise said something completely opposite from what he claimed they said?

No.

You seem to be unaware, but we've actually published at least one quite strong response to Martha Beck's claim (written by Professor Kent Jackson). And we'll publish a critique of a recent reiteration of the claim sometime early next year. We do not grant Martha Beck's accusation.

Getting a little more speculative and/or conspiratorial, maybe the requirements are a way to discourage "outsiders" from contributing. Take Midgley's review of Palmer. Are we to believe that he went through and submitted photocopies of all those esoteric references? I trow not. I imagine that this requirement only applies to outsiders, as a way to keep FARMS's ranks pure.

This little conspiracy theory provides a nice illustration of the perils of baseless speculation.

Again, you're wrong.

But there's something to be said for consistency, I suppose.

And, needless to say, Master Scartch, who has absolutely no direct knowledge of any of this, supports your speculation for ideological reasons.

What a wonderful place this is.

I feel I've done a rather thorough job of reviewing the various articles that don't meet this goal.

A subtle but unmistakable admission of the Scartchmeister's selective use of evidence to further his spin.

Many years ago I was driving down the freeway with a relative. This relative told me that a friend of his, a police officer, said that one can always tell who the drug dealers are by the way they drive. Not because, as I had expected to hear, they have no regard for the rules, but rather quite the opposite. The drug dealers, according to him, fanatically obey all traffic rules. They'll be the one car on the freeway driving not one mile per hour over the speed limit, signaling every turn, and allowing extra following distance. The principle seems to be: fanatically keep the rules you need to keep in order to ensure maximum leeway to break the rules you wish to break.

Priceless!

Scartcholeptic A: The FARMS Review is dishonest in its use of sources. Peterson and company are therefore to be condemned.

Speaker for Truth: But, in fact, the FARMS Review is extremely scrupulous in its source-checking, perhaps even quite unusually so.

Scartcholeptic B (a.k.a. Pseudo-Scartch): This simply demonstrates the fundamental dishonesty of the FARMS Review. Peterson and company are therefore to be condemned.

Speaker for Truth: This is total nonsense. The proposition that the FARMS Review is dishonest and that Peterson and company are therefore to be condemned appears to be unfalsifiable according to this ridiculous and transparently rigged approach. Whether the evidence is X or its opposite, not-X, the proposition remains true.

[_Mister Scratch]

I have a couple of theories why this might be:

They're both wrong.

Then what is the correct one?

Maybe someone decided to check up on Martha Beck's accusations and discovered that many of Hugh's sources were indeed more or less invented or otherwise said something completely opposite from what he claimed they said?

No.

You seem to be unaware, but we've actually published at least one quite strong response to Martha Beck's claim (written by Professor Kent Jackson). And we'll publish a critique of a recent reiteration of the claim sometime early next year. We do not grant Martha Beck's accusation.

Was this the same Kent Jackson who was "called on the carpet" for criticizing Nibley?

Getting a little more speculative and/or conspiratorial, maybe the requirements are a way to discourage "outsiders" from contributing. Take Midgley's review of Palmer. Are we to believe that he went through and submitted photocopies of all those esoteric references? I trow not. I imagine that this requirement only applies to outsiders, as a way to keep FARMS's ranks pure.

This little conspiracy theory provides a nice illustration of the perils of baseless speculation.

Again, you're wrong.

Meaning that Midgley and others like him (Hamblin, say) did all their own photocopying? You've said that Matt Roper and other "research assistants" or "research fellows" (or whatever their official title is) are around in order to do photocopying and track down quotations. So, is this not what they do?

And, needless to say, Master Scartch, who has absolutely no direct knowledge of any of this, supports your speculation for ideological reasons.

What a wonderful place this is.

The simplest thing for you to do would be to explain why FARMS has this rather unusual submission requirement. Instead, you attack Dr. Shades, myself, and MDB as a whole.

I feel I've done a rather thorough job of reviewing the various articles that don't meet this goal.

A subtle but unmistakable admission of the Scartchmeister's selective use of evidence to further his spin.

Just one, single example is all I would have needed to demonstrate this particular flaw in the submission guidelines. Instead, I have got many examples.

Scartcholeptic A: The FARMS Review is dishonest in its use of sources. Peterson and company are therefore to be condemned.

No one said this.

Speaker for Truth: But, in fact, the FARMS Review is extremely scrupulous in its source-checking, perhaps even quite unusually so.

But *why* is this so? In contrast to other, far better known, far better respected journals? *That*, it seems to me, is the point of Gadianton's analogy. Would you care to explain? Or are you just going to play more games? Why don't you just run another of your "Standard replies"? It would be the same as what you are doing here.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Happy to oblige.

The following is a standard response:

Master Scartch has devoted himself since at least 2006 to publicly defaming me while maintaining his anonymity. A particular focus of his hatred is the FARMS Review, which I founded and edit.

The FARMS Review has been appearing, now, for very nearly twenty years. The entirety of every issue of the Review is available on line, at

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

Anyone interested in inspecting the FARMS Review for himself or herself, without Scartch’s defamatory spin, without Scartch’s hostile selection and editing, without looking through the distorting Scartchian lens, is entirely welcome to do so.

I regard Master Scartch as an obsessive and malevolent loon, and have decided to refrain from further gratifying his weird fixation on me and those connected with me. Attempting conversation with him over the past many months has accomplished precisely nothing, and is, plainly, a complete waste of my time -- especially given the fact that it's his self-described "mission" and "amusement" to be "perceived" by "Mopologists" as "full of hate." (Scartch, MDB, 1 October 2008)

[_Mister Scratch]

Happy to oblige.

[b]The following is a standard response:

LOL!! Yep, that's what I thought. It's a pity that you threw in the towel so quickly.

Edited to add: by the way, Dan, I may be in Utah soon. Would you care to meet for lunch? You can bring along LoaP, if you'd like. Heck, you can even bring your assault rifle, if that would suit you.