FARMS Review 20/2

[_Daniel Peterson]

It really is a bad review.

It's a good review.

You missed me!

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

We sometimes review the same book twice. Rarely, even more than that.

For various reasons. Usually just because somebody wrote another piece that I like.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Who are the authors you've never met, Dan?

Scratch, you constantly act as if you're some sort of self-appointed prosecuting attorney. Moreover, you've sought to defame my character for years.

If a normal, reasonable, non-malevolent person asked me one of these harmless questions, I wouldn't hesitate to answer it. But you're not normal. You're not reasonable. You're obsessively malevolent to the nth degree. You seek information always and ever only to help you to construct your bizarre case against me.

Why should I lift a finger to help your weird, defamatory crusade?

Not answering you, from time to time, is an actual pleasure.

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.

You're merely paraphrasing one of the articles of the Scratchist creed. What does it have? Three adherents? Maybe four?

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

Maybe. I suggest that you hold your breath until I do.

[_Mister Scratch]

Who are the authors you've never met, Dan?

Scratch, you constantly act as if you're some sort of self-appointed prosecuting attorney. Moreover, you've sought to defame my character for years.

I don't think your "character" is in any danger. Really, I think that your endless exaggerations and arm-waving are probably more harmful to your own "character" than anything I say or do.

If a normal, reasonable, non-malevolent person asked me one of these harmless questions, I wouldn't hesitate to answer it.

I doubt that you would answer this question for *any* critic. And, since you assert over and over again that you're worried about "onlookers," I think you're going to have to concede that you merely appear evasive on this issue.

You seek information always and ever only to help you to construct your bizarre case against me.

The question has nothing to do with "you," Professor P. It has to do with the authors of the FARMS Review, and whether or not there is a problematic interconnectedness among them.

Not answering you, from time to time, is an actual pleasure.

Seeing you try, rather desperately, to avoid answering is also a pleasure.

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.

You're merely paraphrasing one of the articles of the Scratchist creed. What does it have? Three adherents? Maybe four?

Perhaps. Are you willing to take that risk? Or, do you think that you had better clarify for the sake of the "onlookers." I know that quite a few people who post on other boards tune in to this one, precisely to see what revelations will be forthcoming.

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

Maybe. I suggest that you hold your breath until I do.

In other words, you are suggesting that I kill myself so that my criticism will be silenced.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Maybe. I suggest that you hold your breath until I do.

In other words, you are suggesting that I kill myself so that my criticism will be silenced.

Good grief.