Tom wrote:Again, non-responsive.
Directly responsive.
The merit of the essay was such that I decided to run it.
If you want an extrinsic reason (e.g, because his eyes are blue or brown, or because I favor reviewers whose last names end in vowels, or something of that sort), I'm afraid I can't supply it.
Tom wrote:Aside from the latest review, why did you have a marriage and family therapist review a work of Mormon history?
He submitted it. I liked it. I ran it.
The merit of the essay was such that I decided to publish it.
If you want an extrinsic reason (e.g, because his eyes are blue or brown, or because I favor reviewers whose last names end in vowels, or something of that sort), I'm afraid I can't supply it.
Tom wrote:Was a reputable historian such as Thomas Alexander unavailable?
That particular volume is somewhat out of the area on which the FARMS Review typically focuses. Until the Boyce piece arrived, unsolicited, I wasn't planning to review it at all.
Incidentally, we've run reviews of Quinn's work by reputable and trained historians like William Hamblin and Klaus Hansen, by the Yale-trained Egyptologist John Gee, by the local historian Rhett James, and by the government and political analyst George Mitton. (All of them, for what little it's worth, are abominations to Scratchism, stenches in the nostrils of the true-believing Scratchite.)