Will DCP Keep His Promise To BYU?

[Lem]

Since this thread has now reached the increasingly common "so are you but what am I" stage, it seems appropriate to wrap up by quoting what I think is easily the most interesting, motivating and useful post-- an extremely well written exposition on how NOT to plagiarize, publish frivolously and attack all who disagree:

As to DCP and his failure to produce the promised books, his primary hindrance seems to be a florid case of NPD. From my foxhole, he spends too much time on vanity writing and self-promotion to get much real academic work done. His shining example on the internet as a Mormon academic* is but one among many reasons why I no longer identify as Mormon and have as little to do with the LDS Church as possible.

When writing books, just as when writing review papers or even publishing original research, the best approach in my opinion is to form a team. Interested and qualified individuals, involved in the chosen field, who are motivated to contribute something substantial to the literature can make a big difference in the quality and timeliness of technical books. For such projects, in my line of work, it always seemed best to have a at least one academic on the team.

Our teams would meet as a working group, in person, for two or three days, away from our normal workplace at a retreat or even on a boat. A few hours of free time each day would be spent on other than than work activities. Work time was used to think and discuss the aspects of our work and how best to describe it to the intended audience. We would come to agreement on an overall objective, the scope and a rough outline, elect an editor or two among the group, make writing assignments, and go our separate ways to work.

As the work began to take shape, we made arrangements with a publisher, set milestones, exchanged drafts often, and had some friendly competition. When the time came, we would involve a good professional copy editor before final submission. With this approach, many hands made light work. The product of this process reflects a variety of view points, and when done right, conveys a well rounded treatment of the subject matter.

Forming up in different teams, colleagues and I have written half a dozen such books. Our premier work, published in 1990, became a best seller for a technical book, was purchased by certain concerns in case lots, led to a few nice consulting jobs, was eventually published in paperback, and is still available (and apparently still selling occasionally) on Amazon 30 years later.

Although these books were multi-authored, the academics we worked with valued them as career boosting publications. What they also valued was the experience gained in working closely with comparatively well funded government researchers. We felt likewise working with them. And our work got read and cited.

All this is to claim that if one enjoys their research and believes that it is important, then publication to let others know what one has discovered, and to help others in the field along, can be a real pleasure - as well as a duty. Some of the most enjoyable days at work were spent writing books. If DCP ever did take such a attitude toward his work, it seems to have vanished a long time ago.
____________________________

*There are several BYU professors with whom I have worked and for whom I have a great deal of respect and even admiration. A few of these individuals are internationally well respected, and one is recognized as peerless in his field. None of these accomplished individuals spend their time bragging about their lives on on the internet or trying to be internet influencers. Their reputations are built on hard work, peer-reviewed publications, classroom teaching, and active participation in their professional associations.

Thank you, DrW. You are a positive example for all of us.

[Symmachus]

That all sounds very lovely.

None of it explains why Daniel Peterson's weight matters; why this very thread contains suggested inscriptions for his tombstone, suggestions which don't even have enough wit to classify as being morbid; or even why our very noble Dr W has taken it up himself to offer a tin-foil-hat diagnosis of someone he has never even met. Peterson is a bad researcher...therefore we are going to make fun of his weight? I don't follow.

Your own approach to Peterson has been consistent and focuses on things he actually writes (or rather copies and pastes), and I have found it illuminating to the extent that it highlights a feature of classical FARMSian apologetic that is less noticeable, namely, its overall intellectual bankruptcy. Beyond that, we probably disagree on how significant it is, but I can understand where you are coming from at least; plagiarism and academic integrity are issues that are larger than Daniel Peterson, and you have a stake in them.

I have a really hard time understanding where some posters are coming from, however. They don't have to explain it to me (I have already put my theory forth, which may be wrong), and it is neither my way nor my place to tell anyone what they should do instead. The thread has gone in this direction, and I am just expressing my view that it is a bit baffling sometimes, particularly because, as the Reverend pointed out, it doesn't reflect the nature of what they otherwise post except in a few cases (and those few cases I just chalk up to this being the internet).

[Lem]

Your own approach to Peterson has been consistent and focuses on things he actually writes (or rather copies and pastes), and I have found it illuminating to the extent that it highlights a feature of classical FARMSian apologetic that is less noticeable, namely, its overall intellectual bankruptcy. Beyond that, we probably disagree on how significant it is, but I can understand where you are coming from at least; plagiarism and academic integrity are issues that are larger than Daniel Peterson, and you have a stake in them.

Thank you. Perhaps if my husband kept me locked up I would post even less like an adulterous whore.

None of it explains why Daniel Peterson's weight matters...

Or why our dear Reverend has mentioned said weight more times than anyone else in this thread, but that is neither here nor there. He did offer up the following, however, after an especially poignant piece of Wasatch Front passive aggression:

... I believe we can all share this space without being nasty to each other about these differences of opinion...

If only. Bless all our faux-obtuse hearts.

[Symmachus]

Perhaps if my husband kept me locked up I would post even less like an adulterous whore.

Um, ok.

[Lem]

Perhaps if my husband kept me locked up I would post even less like an adulterous whore.

Um, ok.

? You don't recognize your own joke from another thread? I thought it was damn funny. Of course, I never know whether to continue participating when you boys break out these hilarious quotes, but if I've learned nothing else in my professional life, I've at least had plenty of practice learning to be a good sport.

Urbani, servate uxores: moechum calvom adducimus.
Aurum in Gallia effutuisti, hic sumpsisti mutuum.

In this case, of course people meant men back then and of course menpeople locked up their wivespossessions, or called them tarts and adulterous whores. Trust me, this Moon Goddess doesn't blush, but if you can't take a joke back, then I'll respect your sensibilities and back off.

[Symmachus]

? You don't recognize your own joke from another thread? I thought it was damn funny. Of course, I never know whether to continue participating when you boys break out these hilarious quotes, but if I've learned nothing else in my professional life, I've at least had plenty of practice learning to be a good sport.

"you boys" isn't your finest moment here.

And I don't recognize it because you apparently didn't get it in spectacular fashion, and it looks like you sped read the poor Graves translation provided by Chap, zeroing in on a couple of keywords that boiled your blood.

Urbani, servate uxores: moechum calvom adducimus.
Aurum in Gallia effutuisti, hic sumpsisti mutuum.

In this case, of course people meant men back then and of course menpeople locked up their wivespossessions, or called them tarts and adulterous whores. Trust me, this Moon Goddess doesn't blush, but if you can't take a joke back, then I'll respect your sensibilities and back off.

I have no sensibilities in need of respect.

Here's a translation that is more accurate, if not more poetic than the one you sped-read: "Men of the city, protect your wives: we bring with us here a balding adulturer [using a Greek word with associated with head-shaving as a form of public shame]. You f***ed away the gold in Gaul that you borrowed here!"

The last line is a reference to the manner by which Julius Caesar, perpetually in debt, had to fund his campaigns in Gaul. But for anyone who is interested in the actual meaning of those lines that offended Lem and to understand them in the context of that thread, the word moechus does not mean "adulterous whore" but rather "adulterer" and grammatically it refers to a man, not a woman: it's a pejorative applied to Julius Caesar. And the verb used (servate) does not mean "lock up" at all but rather "protect" (as in the English derivatives "conserve" and "preserve"). The idea that Roman men locked up wives as some kind of cultural practice is preposterous, and the implication here (and in many rumors of the time) is that Caesar was a sexual predator. I can't prove that no Roman ever called his wife a "tart" or "adulterous whore," but no one is doing so in these lines (even in Graves's translation that's clear).

That was a part of thread about a certain apologist's rather impressive hair and the not-so-subtle suggestion of Wang Chung that there might be less than meets the eye. That apologist also presents himself as well versed in languages in a scholarly way, as Wang Chung joked about in the previous post on that thread, and as I and others had discussed. So I posted this rather hard to translate lampoon of Caesar, a balding lech who was self-conscious about his lack of hair, not least because it made him the butt of jokes (the word "caesar" means "hairy") of the kind offensive to his high status though permissible in certain ritual contexts like the post-war triumph through the city: the joke of the first line relevant in this context is about the hair. It has nothing to do with "locking up" any "adulterous whores" or anybody else for that matter. There's a lot in these two lines, and Ostler’s scholarly pretensions had been part of that thread; I posted it not only for the hair but as an example of something Ostler probably wouldn't get because it's not as simple as just translating the words. One has to know something about them.

[Chap]

... the poor Graves translation provided by Chap

It is not a literal translation, certainly.

But as I have said above, it is clearly designed to render the soldiers' Latin words during Caesar's triumphal procession (as recorded/imagined by Suetonius) into English words with a rhyme and metre that could represent something that a bunch of celebrating soldiers might sing at a time when they were given licence to mock their general.

I think most people would say that Graves succeeded pretty well, not poorly, in achieving that aim.

[Kishkumen]

It is not a literal translation, certainly.

But as I have said above, it is clearly designed to render the soldiers' Latin words during Caesar's triumphal procession (as recorded/imagined by Suetonius) into English words with a rhyme and metre that could represent something that a bunch of celebrating soldiers might sing at a time when they were given licence to mock their general.

I think most people would say that Graves succeeded pretty well, not poorly, in achieving that aim.

Robert Graves was a genius and a prodigious talent. I credit his works, including his translations and historical fiction, with making many people fall in love with antiquity. I am grateful you quoted his translation. I think it speaks very well of your taste.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hrm. I read the original Latin to be more like:

"There once was a whoremonger from Nanustucus,

Who went to Gaul because “F” us,

He spent all your gold ,

And now France is Rome's,

They even dress like Brutus."

- Doc

[Kishkumen]

Hrm. I read the original Latin to be more like:

"There once was a whoremonger from Nanustucus,

Who went to Gaul because “F” us,

He spent all your gold ,

And now France is Rome's,

They even dress like Brutus."

- Doc

LOL!!!!