FARMS Review 20/2

[_Mister Scratch]

Since we're on the subject of unanswered questions, I guess I'll ask this again:

Dan, are you friends with Boyce? Y/N?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Scratch, I'm not obligated to supply you with a list of my friends, nor to check Y/N on any tentative list of my friends that you might care to generate.

Call on your creepy network of anonymous "informants." Pore over your secret files.

Or, better yet, get a life.

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch, I'm not obligated to supply you with a list of my friends, nor to check Y/N on any tentative list of my friends that you might care to generate.

Get a life.

I assume that the reason you're not answering is that Boyce is, indeed, a friend of yours, and thus your publication of his stupid essay was a kind of favor.

But, hey---I'm fair. You don't need to give me a list of your "friends." I'm just wondering: how many of the authors in the Review *aren't* personal friends or associates of yours? I'm willing to bet that the percentage is extremely small.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I assume that the reason you're not answering is that Boyce is, indeed, a friend of yours, and thus your publication of his stupid essay was a kind of favor.

Actually -- didn't your creepy network of anonymous "informants" tell you this??? -- we're separated Siamese twins.

I'm willing to bet that the percentage is extremely small.

0.0000003%, at last count.

I've never even met most of them.

[_GoodK]

And, of course, since Sam Harris is (in addition to being a demigod) a grad student in neuroscience, it isn't immediately obvious that an M.D./Ph.D. psychiatrist is unqualified to comment upon what he writes.

Either The End of Faith was a book about neuroscience, or this is just more evidence that FARMS reviews authors, not books.

The distracting "grad student in neuroscience" and "demigod" comments aside I really wonder why you would publish a therapist's review of a book of that caliber, especially considering how badly the article was written. Maybe he's a friend of yours, too.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It was a very good review, and quite well written.

But, I grant, Professor Jibson isn't a fan of Sam Harris.

That's life.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm willing to bet that the percentage is extremely small.

0.0000003%, at last count.

I've never even met most of them.

Really? Who are some of the FARMS Review authors you've never met? The "heavy hitters," of course---people like Midgley, Tvedtnes, Hamblin, and Novak---are close personal friends of yours. So who are the people you don't know? This should be pretty eays, since you've "never even met" most of them....

Or, are you using "met" in an equivocal way? Perhaps you've never met G. Novak in person, for example, but obviously you'd "met" him through skinny-l, and Mopologetics more generally. So, what do you mean by "met"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Really? Who are some of the FARMS Review authors you've never met?

The insatiable maw that is Scratchism demands yet another list.

The "heavy hitters," of course---people like Midgley, Tvedtnes, Hamblin, and Novak---are close personal friends of yours.

As I've already pointed out to you, I've met Gary Novak once, as I recall. Many years ago. I can't remember what he looks like.

So who are the people you don't know? This should be pretty eays, since you've "never even met" most of them....

You're a wack job, Scratch.

Or, are you using "met" in an equivocal way?

Are you really a paranoid conspiracy nut, or is it a put-on?

[_Mister Scratch]

The penchant for dodging, for dropping red herrings, and for refusing to answer very simple questions is truly astonishing.

Who are the authors you've never met, Dan? You know perfectly well why it's in your interest to tell us. The presumption among many is that the FARMS Review isn't actually very "scholarly" at all, and that, instead, it is just this "clubby" publication put together by a bunch of very well-funded pals. Well, if you guys are all "buddy-buddy" with each other, or, even if the higher percentage of you guys are that way, then it's pretty hard to see how the Review comes anywhere near achieving the kind of scholarly objectivity and insight that you attribute to it. It's hard to see how/why you could claim with any legitimacy or sincerity that it is "peer reviewed" in any kind of normal sense.

But, then again, maybe you'll enlighten us with this extensive list of FARMS Review authors you've "never met."

[_GoodK]

It was a very good review, and quite well written.

Clearly "well written" is in the eye of the beholder, but in a nutshell, Jibson says:

Harris = Freud, Skinner, Marx, and Lennon (John).

Drug use is a bigger threat to the country then terrorists.

The book is "antireligious diatribe" and "philosophy term paper."

Jibson would "rather not" imagine a world with no religion, because "if we are not accountable to such a being after the end of this life, what will constrain us?”



It really is a bad review. Your review of God is Not Great was much, much better.

Is that why the End of Faith was reviewed again by Greg Smith or does FARMS typically review the same "anti religion" books twice?