“Marcus” wrote:It was amusing to see the Afore define a "book" review (the "book" being a compilation of a handful of articles previously published) as a "review-article," as though the invention of that ridiculous term would convince people that a book review is a peer-reviewed journal article. Spoiler alert, it is not.
Excellent points as always Marcus! Here’s the quotes from SeN:
As happens several times each week, something new has appeared on the website of the nearly-dead and never-changing website of the Interpreter Foundation. It’s a new review-article
A review-article
Into Arabia is a collected reprint of six articles. The first chapter reprints an article that first appeared in BYU Studies. The other five appeared in Interpreter. Both BYU Studies and Interpreter are peer-reviewed academic journals, which means that all these articles were examined and reviewed prior to publication. Thus, my review is more of a synopsis of the importance of each chapter rather than a detailed critique.
So it’s not a review. It’s not an article. It’s a collection of words on a website to keep the Interpreter Foundation Potemkin journal’s all-important publishing streak alive.
Congratulations on another “win” Dan! You’re really showing up all those who predicted Interpreter would be reduced to blog style posts.
(661st) consecutive Friday of publication...At least one article has appeared each week, without interruption, si
This is earth-shaking. A diabolical mastermind at work. It's the 661st consecutive Friday of publication for Interpreter -- which it is independent of whether anything is actually published that day. One day a month is "water delivery" day for me, whether or not any water is actually delivered. He claims only that something is published weekly, without interruption, not necessarily on Friday. Given that Thursday is "reprint day", it makes for a spectacular plan. Put no effort into securing a fresh Friday publication, if it comes it comes, if it doesn't, then recycle Thursday puts something out for sure, and claiming victory is only predicated on something coming out once a week.
That’s a good catch Gadianton. He’s walked back from the “Every Friday” claim but doesn’t want anyone to notice. This could have been avoided had Peterson not fixated on publishing on a specific day of the week, and publicly bragged about it. It’s a self inflicted wound.
Last edited by I Have Questions on Sat Mar 22, 2025 9:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Here’s a question for you: What do you suppose Interpreter will publish for the 666th week? It’s fast approaching….
A most serious question that demands an answer. One possibility is to not risk it, don't publish anything, but resume a couple weeks later as if nothing out of the ordinary happened and continue boasting about the non-stop streak. Another possibility is they will freak out about what they are going to publish and dig their own grave. Like someone who is guilty of something, the more they try not to talk about it the more they talk about it, and the more they notice themselves talking about it the more they worry they've subtly revealed their secret. Another possibility is they get in front of it, throw in an easy acrostic about Doctor Scratch and make it out to be a joke.
I don't have the powers of prediction to call this one. However, if they do publish something, I'm willing to review it for possible Satanic content.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
It seems Dan is more concerned with addressing the blithering nonsense spewing from 2 Cummorah Fraud than defending the integrity of his journal.
I don’t blame him for ignoring the criticism here, it’s pretty damning.
Way too long ago on a long-gone message board, I saw myself loosely aligned with DCP, even though I was out of the Church at that point. My lingering axe to grind against EVs due to mission and other experiences kept me more positive about apologists than their opposition. I had some weird philosophical views at the time and no interest in traditional atheism; well, that's still sorta true. What started bugging me was exactly this. Neither myself nor anyone else that I saw who had good questions and being respectful could get a response on a legit issue. All the attention went towards whoever was considered an easy steamroll. Sometimes these kinds of critics were annoying to me and so I didn't care. But others were just people who were sincere, perhaps broken to a degree, and I'm thinking, "dude, really? You can't just give this person a break?"
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
“DCP” wrote: The savants over on the Peterson Obsession Board have redundantly unveiled still another “pretty damning” specimen (their words) of my depraved idiocy: On Friday last, I mentioned that the article that went up that day on the Interpreter Foundation website represented the 661st consecutive Friday on which the Interpreter Foundation had published at least one article. Why did I make such a claim? Because Friday’s article represented the 661st consecutive Friday on which the Interpreter Foundation had published at least one article. That’s why.
A small handful of the Obsession Board’s small group of active posters claims that I’m lying, and that (of course!) I’m attempting to deceive them (although, of course!, they’re too savvy to be taken in by my ham-handed sophistry). They seem to feel that I’ve been equivocating, that, for instance, I’ve been counting Thursday reprints as Friday articles in order to maintain the illusion that we’ve published an article every Friday for the 661 Fridays since we launched our journal, hoping that nobody would notice my cunning sleight-of-hand. Perhaps even — their reasoning is a bit opaque, to me at least — that I’ve been counting occasional blog entries (or passing sparrows, or broadcasts of Music and the Spoken Word, or whatever) in the total.
But I haven’t been. I said that the article that went up Friday on the Interpreter Foundation website represented the 661st consecutive Friday on which the Interpreter Foundation had published at least one article because it represented the 661st consecutive Friday on which the Interpreter Foundation had published at least one article. For whatever it’s worth, things have simply turned out that way. It was never a goal of ours, and I didn’t even begin to notice our uninterrupted streak until it was quite far along. But I have an important announcement to make: This coming Friday will be the 662nd Friday in a row on which the Interpreter Foundation has published at least one article. That, friends, is how running totals work.
And that is not what this thread is talking about. The reasoning is so opaque!
Interpreter is as regular as a high fibre diet, and produces similar results…
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
“DCP” wrote: The savants over on the Peterson Obsession Board have redundantly unveiled still another “pretty damning” specimen (their words) of my depraved idiocy: On Friday last, I mentioned that the article that went up that day on the Interpreter Foundation website represented the 661st consecutive Friday on which the Interpreter Foundation had published at least one article. Why did I make such a claim? Because Friday’s article represented the 661st consecutive Friday on which the Interpreter Foundation had published at least one article. That’s why.
A small handful of the Obsession Board’s small group of active posters claims that I’m lying, and that (of course!) I’m attempting to deceive them (although, of course!, they’re too savvy to be taken in by my ham-handed sophistry). They seem to feel that I’ve been equivocating, that, for instance, I’ve been counting Thursday reprints as Friday articles in order to maintain the illusion that we’ve published an article every Friday for the 661 Fridays since we launched our journal, hoping that nobody would notice my cunning sleight-of-hand. Perhaps even — their reasoning is a bit opaque, to me at least — that I’ve been counting occasional blog entries (or passing sparrows, or broadcasts of Music and the Spoken Word, or whatever) in the total.
But I haven’t been. I said that the article that went up Friday on the Interpreter Foundation website represented the 661st consecutive Friday on which the Interpreter Foundation had published at least one article because it represented the 661st consecutive Friday on which the Interpreter Foundation had published at least one article. For whatever it’s worth, things have simply turned out that way. It was never a goal of ours, and I didn’t even begin to notice our uninterrupted streak until it was quite far along. But I have an important announcement to make: This coming Friday will be the 662nd Friday in a row on which the Interpreter Foundation has published at least one article. That, friends, is how running totals work.
And that is not what this thread is talking about. The reasoning is so opaque!
Also, DCP went back and changed his phrase "review-article" to "review essay." But he is still counting it as an article.
When it was pointed out a few months back that Interpreter had been posting things on Fridays that (a) were not new, and (b) were not scholarly journal articles, DCP stopped boasting about the "streak." For many weeks, months, and years, he had been bragging about an unbroken streak of publishing "new" "journal articles," thus implying that Intepreter had published original scholarship for X number of Fridays in a row. But this turned out to be totally wrong, and thus either embarrassing ignorance/stupidity or brazen dishonesty on his part.
On a side note, I saw that he had a great quote from Christopher Hitchens on his most recent post. It would seem to be accurate in terms of describing the effect that Mormonism has had on DCP, at least.
Meanwhile, it was interesting to see "Mr. Libertarian" gloating about placing a "shadow ban" on Two Cumorah Fraud.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
