Novak's Rule

[_Daniel Peterson]

Back to the issue of you as the editor of the Review, every article I've ever seen from FARMS is prefaced with:

The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I think it's pretty clear you are covered here. Since the Review denies any connection between the authors of the pieces I've criticized and yourself, and since I've never criticized you in those articles I wrote criticizing the authors of FARMS, you'll really need to be inventive in order to call my articles on FARMS pieces by others as personal attacks on you.

Scratchism doesn't care very much about the substance of views.

It's all about my supposedly vicious tone, and my lack of ethics, and my viciousness, and my dishonesty -- all of which is supposed to flow from me and my fellow thugs, and to permeate the Review.

Mister Scratch does bring up a good point though, and to rephrase what he wrote, would you disagree with this preface I've cited above? Are you personally responsible for what others have written in the Review?

To an extent, yes.

I'm not answerable for their views -- some of which, in fact, I've disagreed with. It's a journal of opinions.

But if I were to allow the Review to become a platform from which slanders are disseminated, careers are destroyed, characters blackened, lives ruined, etc., and etc. -- as Scratch claims I actually have -- I would be responsible for that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It strikes me, absent any requested clarification that would speak to the contrary, that what you're saying is that since I have supported Scratch on many points he's made, and since I've never openly repudiated any points by Scratch you read as personal attacks on you, that this means you have reason to believe that my personal condemnation of you can be found in Scratch, in whom you think I am in full agreement with.

It's not your mere failure to "openly repudiate" any of Scratch's incessant personal attacks on me.

It's your explicit tributes to the sanctity of his character, the peerless brilliance of his prose, and his Christlike walk among the unworthy children of men that have struck me as either tongue-in-cheek spoofs or . . . well, rather icky. (And I know I'm not the only person here who has reacted this way.)

[_Mister Scratch]

It strikes me, absent any requested clarification that would speak to the contrary, that what you're saying is that since I have supported Scratch on many points he's made, and since I've never openly repudiated any points by Scratch you read as personal attacks on you, that this means you have reason to believe that my personal condemnation of you can be found in Scratch, in whom you think I am in full agreement with.

Don't worry, Gad. He cannot point to *my* ever having "personally condemned" him either. I have "condemned" some of his actions and behaviors, but, so long as these things do not constitute the whole of his character, then I fail to see what he's whining about. If Mopologetics constitutes his entire life, and defines his character, and pays his salary, then he might have a point. But, I don't think this is true, and in any case, I've certainly never threatened him with gun violence.

[_Gadianton]

It's true that I think highly of Mister Scratch. It's also true that you apparently think highly of Novak and others whom I think have operated very juvenile campaigns against critics in the past. I will condemn you, if I feel I ever should, for what you argue for, and I guess I'll have to be complacent with you condemning me for what you perceive Scratch to be arguing for.

I guess I've grown used to this kind of thinking. I mean, my family for instance, all hold Joseph Smith up as a prophet of God, as the best or second best person to ever live. I think he's one of the worst people to have ever lived, however, I don't hold my parents and siblings accountable for all the bad things I believe Joseph Smith to have done.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's true that I think highly of Mister Scratch.

Some of your posted comments about him have almost made me want to call out "Get a room!"

It's also true that you apparently think highly of Novak and others whom I think have operated very juvenile campaigns against critics in the past.

I've met Gary Novak once, I think. I can't remember what he looks like.

But I've had a fair amount of contact with him via e-mail. He seems a nice fellow, he has a good sense of humor, and he's written a handful of fine essays for the FARMS Review.

http://farms.BYU.edu/authors/?authorID=221

Still, I don't think I've ever published anything comparing him to Christ, expressing awe at his sanctity, or making people nearby blush with embarrassment at my fulsome sentimentality.

[_Gadianton]

And I know I'm not the only person here who has reacted this way

And niether Scratch nor myself, are the first people to ever react negatively to the apologetics of SHIELDS. In fact, Scratch's recent shocking article makes it clear that niether Scratch nor myself are original at all when it comes to publically rebuking the antics of SHIELDS. Others, even other apologists whom I always thought previously did nothing other than toe the party line, have similarily condemned the antics of SHIELDS.

[_Mister Scratch]

It's true that I think highly of Mister Scratch.

Some of your posted comments about him have almost made me want to call out "Get a room!"

Really? Wow, I'm....flattered, I guess. Gadianton has been extraordinarily kind to me, but I have never thought that his comments came anywhere near the sort of praise you routinely get from the TBMs over at MAD. Interesting where your mind went on this issue, though. (I.e., the "get a room" thing. Quite distasteful, Prof. P.)

It's also true that you apparently think highly of Novak and others whom I think have operated very juvenile campaigns against critics in the past.

I've met Gary Novak once, I think. I can't remember what he looks like.

But I've had a fair amount of contact with him via e-mail. He seems a nice fellow

I would advise you to read his writings at SHIELDS. Also, look up the screenname "Opie Rockwell" here on this board. See if you notice any similarities in writing style.

Or, better yet, invite him to join us here!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Interesting where your mind went on this issue, though. (I.e., the "get a room" thing. Quite distasteful, Prof. P.)

I sometimes wonder whether you're really humor-impaired, or whether it's just an act.

Of course, I wonder that about the paranoia and the perpetual indignation, too.

I would advise you to read his writings at SHIELDS.

Maybe I'll do that. I've always found him funny.

Also, look up the screenname "Opie Rockwell" here on this board. See if you notice any similarities in writing style.

Oh, I doubt very much that he posts here under that name or any other. In all the years I've seen internet traffic from him, I've never seen anything that would even hint that he participates on any message board of any kind.

I do know, though, that he loves hiking in the Pacific Northwest. And harvesting wild berries.

Or, better yet, invite him to join us here!

What a colossal waste of time.

I shouldn't be here. I'm certainly not going to try to drag anybody else down.

[_Gadianton]

Dr. Peterson,

I think you are exaggerating my admiration for Mister Scratch. Sure, I feel like I've learned a lot from him. But I've never compared him to Jesus. At most I mentioned him following in the footsteps of Jesus. Isn't that what Jesus asked us to do? I think we should have more faith in ourselves and others, it's very common for LDS people to be self-deprecating. To announce their inadequacies to the world. So if people say, "Did he just....did he just say someone is trying to follow Jesus?!" as if such an observation is blasphemous and sickeningly complimentary, then that's their problem. And I think it's a very serious problem, since for 2,000 years this is what we've been taught we're supposed to do.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I hope you'll pardon me for my inadequacy on this point, but I haven't noticed anything particularly Christlike in Scratch's unceasing anonymous campaign over the past few years to defame me as a vicious, anti-Semitic, slanderous, cowardly, vindictive, bigoted, greedy, callous, homicidal, racist, homophobic, exploitative, mercenary liar and gossipmongering degenerate.

Nor have I seen even the slightest trace of anything in his on-line treatment of me to support your remarkable claim from last year that "Scratch . . . always tries to see the good in people."

That's simply beyond ridiculous.