FARMS and the Invention of Evidence

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh. Never mind.

I thought you had a substantive question regarding the evidence for a Florida horse.

No, I don't.

I realize that now. After my long experience with you, it's astonishing that I could still have been so naïve.

My initial post spoke to the fact that the Maxwell Institute has a bogus, totally fabricated assertion on its website. So far, instead of addressing the point of the OP, you have done nothing but dodge and obfuscate.

I've invited you to contact the person or persons at the Maxwell Institute who were responsible for the little piece to which you refer and to ask them what their justification or evidence for their assertion is.

That seems a pretty reasonable thing to do. Or, at least, it would be the reasonable thing to do if the substantive issue of the alleged Florida horse find were really of any interest to you (more, that is, than as an instrument for your usual dirt-digging).

No... I was never interested in this non-existent "subject" (I.e., a 100 B.C. Florida horse) in the first place. Seriously, why would I be interested in pursuing the underlying science behind what is very clearly a fabrication? Or do you have some real evidence that the Florida horse is legit? You don't. Neither does Matt Roper. Neither does anyone.

Proverbs 18:13.

If obtaining a list of names and their responsibilities in order to create some more of your ridiculous "dossiers" is all that you're after, contact the Maxwell Institute and ask them for an organizational chart, or for a list of personnel, titles, and assignments. I'm sure they'll give your request the attention it merits. Perhaps you should also ask for Social Security numbers.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm sure they'll give your request the attention it merits. Perhaps you should also ask for Social Security numbers.

Yes, heaven forbid FARMS should actually have to back up what they say, Scratch! Don't be ridiculous!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yes, heaven forbid FARMS should actually have to back up what they say, Scratch! Don't be ridiculous!

You miss the point, SS. Scratch One says himself that he's not interested in the horse issue. (He's already decided that one, at least to his satisfaction.) He's interested in the names and assignments of personnel at the Maxwell Institute. For all I know, he'd probably like the routes their children take to and from school, as well.

It's really quite bizarre.

[_Ray A]

Hey Ray--- Who do YOU think is in charge of overseeing the content on the FARMS website?

I'm not even sure what you mean by "overseeing". What do you mean? Controlling? Back in the 80s I felt FARMS was not addressing issues in anti-Mormonism forthrightly enough, and I said this to Jack Welch in a personal letter. When Dan became editor of the Review he took much different approach, which is what brought me back to reading it. Previous to Dan's editorship there seemed to be denial of some problems, or excluding and putting them into the "too hard basket", effectively ignoring them (in my opinion)

I think some reviewers felt "constrained", nevertheless, but this was more of a personal perception, perhaps, and maybe some personal censorship involved. The bottom line, however, I think, is that good writing and evidence of sound critical analysis, even if negative to Mormonism, is what counted. I think I know Dan fairly well (since I've read his editorials since 1990), and I don't believe he would censor a review if it was cogently argued, and even if it was detrimental to LDS claims. He would be looking for replies, but I don't believe he would engage in censorship of any kind. The fact that he's even here on this board is evidence of that. If anything, Dan may be sensitive to what his fellow Mormons think, to some degree, but I don't think he's afraid to put his hand in the "too hard" basket. He has, for example, been very frank in some of his statements, which is reflected in Polygamy Porter's sig line, even if he actually doesn't believe that himself.

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, heaven forbid FARMS should actually have to back up what they say, Scratch! Don't be ridiculous!

You miss the point, SS. Scratch One says himself that he's not interested in the horse issue. (He's already decided that one, at least to his satisfaction.)

Yes, that's right. I cannot find anywhere any reference whatsoever, in any of the academic literature, any reference to this horse. Can you? Believe me: I, along with countless scholars in archaeology and other fields, will be very, very, very interested. Perhaps you can dig up a reference for me? Pretty pretty please?

He's interested in the names and assignments of personnel at the Maxwell Institute. For all I know, he'd probably like the routes their children take to and from school, as well.

It's really quite bizarre.

That's ridiculous, and quite a cheap shot, Professor P. I only asked who was in charge of overseeing/editing the content on the website. That's it.

[_Gadianton]

Why would any corrections be in order? The target audience of the study, surely, has no interest in the truth.

p.s. guys, pool party, 04/16/2008, vault F.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps you can dig up a reference for me? Pretty pretty please?

Contact the Maxwell Institute. If, within a reasonable period of time, they have not responded, let me know on this thread, and I will personally put the question to somebody there.

I only asked who was in charge of overseeing/editing the content on the website. That's it.

Contact the Maxwell Institute, if they feel like telling you, that's up to them. If they don't, that's also their prerogative.

I personally have no desire to help you with your already bulging files and "dossiers" on various people. The whole enterprise seems exceedingly weird to me, and I know from abundant personal experience that it's not well-intentioned.

[_Mister Scratch]

Perhaps you can dig up a reference for me? Pretty pretty please?

Contact the Maxwell Institute. If, within a reasonable period of time, they have not responded, let me know on this thread, and I will personally put the question to somebody there.

I only asked who was in charge of overseeing/editing the content on the website. That's it.

Contact the Maxwell Institute, if they feel like telling you, that's up to them. If they don't, that's also their prerogative.

Actually, Tarski, whom you described as "fair minded" on another thread, has volunteered to do the asking. Probably best that it is a somewhat "neutral" party anyhow.

I personally have no desire to help you with your already bulging files and "dossiers" on various people. The whole enterprise seems exceedingly weird to me, and I know from abundant personal experience that it's not well-intentioned.

Huh? You apparently have no problem supporting the "dossiers" that Stan Barker maintains over at SHIELDS.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Yes, heaven forbid FARMS should actually have to back up what they say, Scratch! Don't be ridiculous!

You miss the point, SS. Scratch One says himself that he's not interested in the horse issue. (He's already decided that one, at least to his satisfaction.) He's interested in the names and assignments of personnel at the Maxwell Institute. For all I know, he'd probably like the routes their children take to and from school, as well.

It's really quite bizarre.

Dan???

Are you accusing Scratch of being a child molester?

Dude, you need help. You just posted something that might bite you in the ass buddy.

Either that, or you can't take the pressure that Scratch has you under... like a cornered cat lashing out...

Would the FARMS staff approve of your remarks here?

[_richardMdBorn]

I personally have no desire to help you with your already bulging files and "dossiers" on various people.

Fortunately, the LDS church does not do this.