Harold Bloom: An anti-Mormon?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet or not, but isn't it interesting that given the recently well-established revelation of the Review's cultural devotion to details that include a near fanatical photocopying of source material --- isn't it very odd that something as important -- yea, something nearly paradigm shifting -- as the 2nd Watson letter was not photocopied and properly stored immediately?

We don't photocopy source materials in order to store them.

We verify quotations, and we ask authors to supply us with as much of the source material as they can (sometimes, too, it's a bit arcane or hard to find) so as to minimize the work load on our source checkers. After the sources have been checked -- as this one was -- we return such materials to the library or to the author, discard photocopies, etc.

You're misconceiving the point and function of the photocopying request.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet or not, but isn't it interesting that given the recently well-established revelation of the Review's cultural devotion to details that include a near fanatical photocopying of source material --- isn't it very odd that something as important -- yea, something nearly paradigm shifting -- as the 2nd Watson letter was not photocopied and properly stored immediately?

This would support Dr. Shades's suggestion that the "Big Guns" get a free pass when it comes to photocopying. Bill Hamblin was the one writing the article, and so he probably didn't have to follow the Guidelines.

Another thing I don't really understand is why they would be this fanatical about paper sources, and yet DCP would to provide proper citations for verbatim quotes he lifted off this messageboard. Also, Hamblin and others frequently include gossip or things they heard from so-and-so in their end notes. Obviously, this fanaticism either has limits, or it's merely a smokescreen.

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)

[_ludwigm]

...
The following is a standard response:
...

Dear Mr. Daniel C. Peterson!

I hate personal attacks, as far as I know I did use it on very rare occasions.
If I see such things on these threads, I ignore them (see button "page down").
You know, I am european, if You know what does it mean.

Your "standard response" is boring and tiresome. I didn't, don't and will not use the f/f list. Unfortunately, there is no such function as filter by content.

Please use some code instead, for example TFIASR. It could be more easy to jump over.

Regards
Ludwig, Hungary, Europe, Old World
.

.

.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your "standard response" is boring and tiresome.

That, of course, is partly the point.*

The object is to reduce the gratification that the Scartchmeister derives from his endless assaults on me and on people and things connected with me. When I respond to him, it gives him an unmistakable thrill of satisfaction and simply exacerbates his problem. The theory is that, if I don't engage him in the perpetual and utterly futile back-and-forth that he plainly craves, his level of Scartcholeptic arousal will decline.

It's an experimental treatment, obviously, and this is merely a clinical trial. But I'm cautiously optimistic that, even if the disease itself cannot actually be cured yet, the effects of acute congenital Scartcholepsy can be moderated, without drugs.


* The "standard response" also conveys valid information (e.g., the on-line address of the FARMS Review, to enable populations exposed to Scartcholepsy and therefore at risk for contracting the disease to examine the FARMS Review and to determine for themselves that the Scartchmeister's characterizations of it are wildly distorted and unfair). And it saves me considerable time.


$$$$$$$$$

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet or not, but isn't it interesting that given the recently well-established revelation of the Review's cultural devotion to details that include a near fanatical photocopying of source material --- isn't it very odd that something as important -- yea, something nearly paradigm shifting -- as the 2nd Watson letter was not photocopied and properly stored immediately?

We don't photocopy source materials in order to store them.

We verify quotations, and we ask authors to supply us with as much of the source material as they can (sometimes, too, it's a bit arcane or hard to find) so as to minimize the work load on our source checkers. After the sources have been checked -- as this one was -- we return such materials to the library or to the author, discard photocopies, etc.

You're misconceiving the point and function of the photocopying request.

The point of the request is to make certain that source materials are valid, is it not? Thus, it is highly problematic when the lone copy of this very important Watson letter can no longer be validated. When a footnote is listed in an article, the presumption is that any reader should be able to fairly easily--or with a modicum of effort--locate the source document. Of course, in this case, getting the letter is going to be next to impossible for anyone who isn't "juiced in" with the Brethren.

[_ludwigm]

Your "standard response" is boring and tiresome.

That, of course, is partly the point.*
...

Please meke Your "standard response" shorter.

[Guest]

Please meke Your "standard response" shorter.

If the treatment is successful in reducing the frequency and intensity of Scartcholeptic seizures, it may be possible to reduce the frequency of the Standard Response's appearance here. That would be a very welcome development. Whether it will be possible to reduce the dosage as well remains to be seen.

[_Mister Scratch]

Please meke Your "standard response" shorter.

If the treatment is successful in reducing the frequency and intensity of Scartcholeptic seizures, it may be possible to reduce the frequency of the Standard Response's appearance here. That would be a very welome development. Whether it will be possible to reduce the dosage as well remains to be seen.

I've already told you what would "reduce the frequency". You'd just need to express regret and contrition regarding the past behavior of your choice. Meanwhile, feel free to continue alienating posters with your oh-so hilarious "Standard Responses."

[_Daniel Peterson]

The following is a standard response: Master Scartch has devoted himself since at least 2006 to publicly defaming me while maintaining his anonymity. I flatly deny virtually every allegation Master Scartch has ever made against me, and this one is no exception. 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)

[_ludwigm]

The following is a standard response: ...

Please make Your "standard response" shorter.