The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_maklelan]

Why should I? He thinks it isn't rigged; I think that virtually all private journals with a peer review process "rig it." When I was a peer reviewer for a legal publication, the editors "rigged" it with reviewers like me -- big firm, previous experience as editors and litigators.

My experiences with the peer review process has been the same. All academic journals choose reviewers who will uphold and protect the goals of the journal. That's universal. The last time I tried to explain this to Scratch I got no response.

All private journals with a peer review process "carefully select" their peer reviewers as opposed to sloppily select. How silly to suggest that a private journal "sloppily select" peer reviewers.

He has never responded to several identical comments in the past. I doubt he will here, outside of some pithy attempt at deflection.

What particular "slander" (is is "libel", by the way; any writer who publishes for a living knows the term is "libel)

He's been reminded of this several times as well. Scratch doesn't seem to think things through when he posts.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Interesting. If DCP is indeed attempting to make threads about him, could self sacrifice (sealing the breach, as it were) also be something?

[Guest]

Maklelan is right, of course. And, yes, the point has been made to Scratch innumerable times. He's never appeared to grasp it.


.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Now, this is odd. You seem to be saying that the process is *not* rigged. Then, R. Crockett insists that *all* peer review is rigged. Don't you think that the two of you need to get on the same page?

Why should I? He thinks it isn't rigged; I think that virtually all private journals with a peer review process "rig it." When I was a peer reviewer for a legal publication, the editors "rigged" it with reviewers like me -- big firm, previous experience as editors and litigators.

And, having been through FARMS Review's peer reviewing process as a writer, I can see how it was rigged -- peer reviewers who were LDS and university professors.

Well, it goes beyond that. It's not just that they are LDS; it's that they are sympathetic to Mopologetic orthodoxy. Also, the primary mission of the FARMS Review is to smear and attack critics. Mainstream journals tend not to do that. "Normal" journals---as I'm sure you know, Bob---select peer reviewers first and foremost based on expertise. That's not "rigging" the peer review process in the same sense that I mean. FARMS Review does not use expertise as its primary selection criterion. It relies instead on "loyalty to the cause." And let's bear in mind that FARMS Review, in the editor's own words, is "sui generis", meaning that it is likely the only "scholarly" book review journal in existence that is devoted primarily to attacking, smearing, and discrediting critics. I doubt very much that your law journal was stuffed with the same kind of snide, mocking, degenerate attack pieces that litter the pages of FARMS Review. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would try to claim that FARMS Review's peer review process is even in the same ballpark as other journals, since FARMS Review is so patently not "academic" in the usual sense.

You have said this many times before, and it's extraordinarily misleading. It's one thing to solicit scholarly book reviews for an academic journal; it's something entirely different to produce an entire journal that is devoted to "book reviews" that slander, smear, and attack the authors, sometimes over the course of hundreds of pages.

I don't like or agree with everthing I read in FARMS Review. I tend to be more of a liberal, live-and-let live type. But I am very curious. Which "entire journal" is devoted to book reviews which slander, smear and attack the authors?

FARMS Review. That's it's main purpose, Bob. It's pretty obvious, in my opinion.

What particular "slander" (is is "libel", by the way; any writer who publishes for a living knows the term is "libel) in the past few issues do you consider most provocative? I am really curious as to which article you find most offensive.

The "past few issues" have been pretty tame in this regard.

[_harmony]

I can see where Trixie would exasperate you--she doesn't give an inch when she thinks she's right. Neither do you. She presents her argument and expects you and everyone else to address the argument. Then you don't, because she exasperates you... probably because you're so much like her. It's natural that she would exasperate you; I suspect you exasperate her to an equal level. She's still willing to engage you on the topic, though. You're the one who engages her only by saying how exasperated she makes you. Not on topic at all; rather it's an attempt to change the focus of the thread to yourself, instead of the topic of the thread.

Trixiebeastie demands that I converse with her.

No, she asks your opinion. You are, after all, what you are, King of Hill and all that.

I say No.

No, you refuse to discuss anything because that would require that you actually give some substance, some thought to your posts here. So you say "no". And you make it personal. Instead of saying "no, I'm not interested in this subject and couldn't add anything of value to the discussion", you say, "No, I won't discuss anything with you because you exasperate me."

She insists.

You are what you are; you know who you know. Why wouldn't she want to know what you think?

I say No.

And make it personal.

She complains and whines.

What did you expect? You make it personal.

I say No.

And make it personal.

She goes on and on about my lack of interest in conversing with her. I say No, and explain why.

And make it personal. You don't say "I know virtually nothing about Mesoamerican horses/metallurgy/religious rites/etc." You say "I don't want to discuss anything with you because you exasperate me."

Thus, I make the thread about me.

Indeed. You made it personal.

Right, harmony.

You know how much I hate it when you say that, right? Because once again, I am right when I don't want to be right.

Clever. Sophistic, but clever.

Personal again. I never expect anything else. You are, after all, who you are.

[_beastie]

Trixiebeastie demands that I converse with her. I say No. She insists. I say No. She complains and whines. I say No. She goes on and on about my lack of interest in conversing with her. I say No, and explain why. Thus, I make the thread about me.

LOL. I don’t whine and complain about you not wanting to “converse” with me. I do, however, repeatedly point out that you actually converse with me a lot – it’s just all about my personal inadequacies.

As I said, I don’t have any problem if you want to ignore me. The problem is that you don’t ignore me. For some reason, you feel the need to explain, over and over, why you won’t address my points. In fact, one could reasonably say you engage in interminable discussion of my personal inadequacies that lead you to refuse to engage the substance of my points. And yes, that does tend to derail the thread.

[Tator]

This is an inevitable consequence of the differing standards for victory that each side takes. The critic uses probability as his victory line (as in, there was almost certainly no race with Middle Eastern genetics that migrated to the Americas in pre-Colombian times), while the apologist uses plausibility as his (as in, it is still possible under certain conditions that there was a race with Middle Eastern genetics in the pre-Columbian Americas). As Mormons frequently point out, their standard for knowledge is spiritual, and secular research only supplements this knowledge (or maintains its plausibility). Both sides claim victory because both sides have achieved victory according to their own standards

I think this is a very astute observation that deserves attention.

It doesn't seem to matter how unlikely the scenario presented may be - for example, that archaeologists repeatedly ignore horse bones that, if only were dated, would prove to be from Book of Mormon times - as long as it doesn't appear flat-out impossible - like archaeologists miss the horse bones because they sprout wings and fly over the digs, too high up to see the bones - then it's a "victory".

This difference results in the often bizarre and wonderland-like difference in perceptions of the conversation that just took place.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, it goes beyond that. It's not just that they are LDS; it's that they are sympathetic to Mopologetic orthodoxy.

Most, of course. Not all.

The pool of those interested in and competent to review Mormon-related stuff isn't infinitely large -- though it's considerably larger than the entire audience here.

Also, the primary mission of the FARMS Review is to smear and attack critics.

This is straight from the malevolent Scratchist credo, but is, of course, flatly untrue.

"Normal" journals---as I'm sure you know, Bob---select peer reviewers first and foremost based on expertise. That's not "rigging" the peer review process in the same sense that I mean. FARMS Review does not use expertise as its primary selection criterion. It relies instead on "loyalty to the cause."

More Scratchite dogma, palmed off as if it were fact.

Scratch has, of course, never written for the Review and has never edited for the Review. He's never had any access to the confidential process of vetting manuscript submissions for the Review. He's never been the editor of the Review (that's me), and, accordingly, has never actually known who my confidential reviewers are nor seen what they've sent to me. He just makes this stuff up.

And let's bear in mind that FARMS Review, in the editor's own words, is "sui generis", meaning that it is likely the only "scholarly" book review journal in existence that is devoted primarily to attacking, smearing, and discrediting critics.

I have, of course, never said any such thing. Scratch just makes this stuff up.

Or, to be more precise in this particular case, he's misrepresenting the following exchange, from 17 December 2007:

I'm still waiting for you to supply an example of an *actual* academic journal whose "purely academic" reviews carry on for 50+ pages

The length of many of our essays is among the aspects of the Review that are, by my personal decision and design, sui generis. However, many academic journals feature review essays, and not a few feature lengthy article-reviews from time to time.

That's why I suggest some substantial exposure to an academic library's periodical holdings as a remedy for the misimpression you seek to foster.

And this one, from 12 October 2008:

The FARMS Review, formerly known as the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon and then as the FARMS Review of Books, is, in its entirety, a collection of book reviews -- and, very often, of book review essays.

What you are not telling people out there in the "audience" is that the "Book Reviews" section is usually a lesser addendum to the more hardcore, scholarly material. The "real" research and meat of the journal, as it were.

Anybody who's ever looked at a typical scholarly journal knows that the book reviews are generally only a portion of an academic journal's content.

You imagine that I'm somehow hiding this?

No wonder you need a creepy network of anonymous informants to make you aware of easily accessible information.

However, I wouldn't agree that the book reviews in a typical academic journal are necessarily less scholarly than the rest of the journal's content. That simply isn't the case, in my experience.

Are you thus admitting that such material is entirely absent from FARMS Review---i.e., that the journal is, how shall I say... sui generis?

It's a bit atypical, but it's not entirely without precedent. The New York Review of Books, London's Times Literary Supplement, the New York Times Book Review, the Religious Studies Review, the Review of Biblical Literature, the Theologische Literaturzeitung -- there are many quite reputable periodicals devoted entirely to book reviews.

I doubt very much that your law journal was stuffed with the same kind of snide, mocking, degenerate attack pieces that litter the pages of FARMS Review.

"Degenerate"????

LOL. His hatred of the FARMS Review is obviously an obsession on the part of Scratch that has left him in a virtually perpetual state of irrational rage. (Did we perhaps give a negative review to a Book of Mormon novel or game-night book that he self-published a few years ago?) Anybody who wants to examine the FARMS Review for himself or herself can easily do so, and is welcome to do so, at

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/

The "past few issues" have been pretty tame in this regard

So. FARMS Review 11/2 (1999) wasn't representative of our general viciousness. And FARMS Review 14/1 (2002) wasn't representative of our general viciousness, either. And "the past few issues" likewise haven't represented our general viciousness.

"I'm shrinking!" says Scratch, rather pathetically.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Instead of saying "no, I'm not interested in this subject and couldn't add anything of value to the discussion", you say, "No, I won't discuss anything with you because you exasperate me."

That's right. Because, typically, I am interested in the subject, and would be able to add value to the discussion. I just don't want to be involved with Trixiebeastie.

You don't say "I know virtually nothing about Mesoamerican horses/metallurgy/religious rites/etc." You say "I don't want to discuss anything with you because you exasperate me."

Again, correct. I've probably read as much about these subjects as Trixiebeastie has. I've climbed all over Teotihuacán, explored Tikal and Palenque, spent time with archaeologists in the jungles of the Guatemalan Petén, visited Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan, and so on and so forth. I'm not going to lie just to make you happy, harmony.

Incidentally, I'm going out this evening with my wife and some neighbors. To a play. A play that Scratch will find stuffy or stodgy or insufficiently edgy or pretentious or something. (He doesn't really need to know the title in order for his Universal Method to work. My taste will fall short and be condemned.) Anyway, you're entirely welcome to keep this going and going and going, and then to claim that I'm the one who kept it going.)

[_harmony]

I doubt very much that your law journal was stuffed with the same kind of snide, mocking, degenerate attack pieces that litter the pages of FARMS Review.

"Degenerate"????

What about snide and mocking? I'm assuming you don't concede his point on snide and mocking, but you didn't address those descriptors.