FARMS H-bombs the Three Nephites

[_Ray A]

Having just read the review, I think that Hill shows quite clearly that the book deserved a good nuking, regardless of subject matter, for outright plagiarism. The claim that the book is popular makes it quite important to highlight what is essentially fraud. The examples provided show that this is not a case of shonky citations, but deliberate misrepresentation of the work of others.

Just my $0.02.

On a more serious note, was the whole book plagiarised? Or just sections? If so is the label "fraud" deserved? Even with that little, there goes Brother Hill's "creatively imagined" Book of Mormon, courtesy of the Bible. I agree he is right to point out the plagiarisms, but he did give them a good slamming.

I think he could have been more charitable, after all, they are believers. Did he contact them for an explanation first (I don't know, maybe Dan does)? Did he do as the D&C advises that if your brother errs to take him "in private", and ask them for an explanation, and if they denied plagiarism then go ahead and criticise publicly?

That's why I think he was also concerned about the proliferation of "silly Mormon folklore", as if there's a "legitimate Mormon folklore". That in reality why I think this particular review is rather comical. It's like my Santa Claus lives, yours is a fraud".

[_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. 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.


$$$$$$$$$

[_Blixa]

Having just read the review, I think that Hill shows quite clearly that the book deserved a good nuking, regardless of subject matter, for outright plagiarism. The claim that the book is popular makes it quite important to highlight what is essentially fraud. The examples provided show that this is not a case of shonky citations, but deliberate misrepresentation of the work of others.

Just my $0.02.

On a more serious note, was the whole book plagiarised? Or just sections? If so is the label "fraud" deserved? Even with that little, there goes Brother Hill's "creatively imagined" Book of Mormon, courtesy of the Bible. I agree he is right to point out the plagiarisms, but he did give them a good slamming.

I think he could have been more charitable, after all, they are believers. Did he contact them for an explanation first (I don't know, maybe Dan does)? Did he do as the D&C advises that if your brother errs to take him "in private", and ask them for an explanation, and if they denied plagiarism then go ahead and criticise publicly?

That's why I think he was also concerned about the proliferation of "silly Mormon folklore", as if there's a "legitimate Mormon folklore". That in reality why I think this particular review is rather comical. It's like my Santa Claus lives, yours is a fraud".

I have to agree with Ray here. I, too, read the review and thought it a heavy-handed and mean-spirited response to sincere, believing amateurs. Yes, the book appears to have shoddy "scholarship," but it was hardly intended as such. Pointing out that it replicates, even lifts, from previous collections is useful and potentially helpful--but not as carried out here.

Mormon folklore is fascinating, and the generation of Faith-Promoting Rumors is an interesting component of it. All of it is a legitimate topic of study as it helps define aspects of Mormon culture as it is lived.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

You know, Dan, I have a sincere question: you have said that you won't debate, won't hardly acknowledge, and won't respond to Beastie or Kevin Graham. So, why the "Standard Message" responses to me? Why don't you try that with them? Why don't you publish your "Standard Message" in the FARMS Review if it is so accurate a reflection of your Mopologetic views?

[_ludwigm]

Your "standard response" is boring and tiresome.

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

Please meke Your "standard response" shorter.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You know, Dan, I have a sincere question: you have said that you won't debate, won't hardly acknowledge, and won't respond to Beastie or Kevin Graham. So, why the "Standard Message" responses to me? Why don't you try that with them?

They have other topics besides me.

Why don't you publish your "Standard Message" in the FARMS Review if it is so accurate a reflection of your Mopologetic views?

Virtually nobody besides me who reads the FARMS Review has ever heard of you, let alone cares about your crusade to defame me. Thus far, it has no traction beyond this board -- and perhaps not all that much even here. So the Standard Response, while relevant here, would be a bizarre irrelevance (rather the way your crusade is) anywhere else.

[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.

[_antishock8]

The following is a standard response:

Mr. Peterson is a fag.