Daniel Peterson Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Again, what standing do you have Bill?I saw no claim from Professor Hamblin that he had legal standing to sue.I don't think you did, either.we know . . . that Greg wrote the essay in complete isolation without anyone at the MI knowing about it until it ended up in your inbox.I'm sure that there must be some value in constructing straw men. But I confess that I've never seen it.There is no evidence Scratch copied or distributed anyone's unpublished work. Only that he read Greg Smith's work. Which means he is on equal footing with you, in terms of access to the document in question.Professor Hamblin, if I'm not mistaken, read the paper with the permission of its author, whereas I'm betting that Scratch, if he's read it, read it without the author's permission. That seems to be a difference.Some would say he actually displayed integrity by revealing evidence that he read the piece, rather than just claiming he read the piece.Indeed, some might. And I suspect that you would be one of them.Did Smith get Dehlin's permission to include very quote from every FB post, mormon stories podcast, staying lds forum post, etc etc etc that he included in the piece? Some how I doubt it.They're in the public domain in a way that an unpublished manuscript seems not to be.Complaining about Scratch rather than making your case simply confirms suspicions and leaves standing the evidence of dishonesty on the part of the claimants.There's no objective, scientific test for "hit-piece-hood." There will be disagreements. This specific issue isn't a matter of honesty or dishonesty, but of differences of opinion. I've always been serenely confident, for example, that both "Kishkumen" and my Malevolent Stalker will view it as a "hit piece." But I don't.I think you owe the board more than that, Bill. You have spent pages and pages talking about how this essay was not a "hit piece." Who cares what Scratch did or did not do?I don't, very much. But I do think it borders on the unethical, and that publishing a manuscript without the author's permission -- should it come to that -- would absolutely be unethical. And, though I'm neither a lawyer nor inclined to litigation, very possibly illegal. I'd like to hear what you have to say about the portions of the essay that have been made public. On second thought, you have said a lot about its contents already so I suppose we can just compare what you have said in the past with what is now known. Reasonable people can draw their own conclusions.Can they? Scratch claims that Dr. Smith cherry-picked quotations in order to make John Dehlin look bad. Without actually seeing the paper, you can't know that to be true. And, without seeing the entire paper, you can't judge whether Scratch himself hasn't cherry-picked quotations in order to make Dr. Smith look bad.. Edited February 22, 2013 by Daniel Peterson 2
Calm Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Wouldn't it blow all of our minds if Greg Smith is Scratch's source? Funny man.
nealr Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 neither is it in any way unethical. several of the actors in this seedy drama have nontransparently claimed that Dr. Smith's article was not a hit piece, and Scratch has laid out primia facia evidence that to be not true, quoting less than 1% of the article. Now it's time for the "not a hit piece" claimants to demonstrate their case in rebuttal. Complaining about Scratch rather than making your case simply confirms suspicions and leaves standing the evidence of dishonesty on the part of the claimants.Surely people here realize that a work can be made to look however one wants to make it look with such small snippets, right? Also, surely no one is surprised that Scratch read "hit piece" into it, right?Scratch's "review" is full of spin, and I would hope anyone can see that. The way he turns perfectly legitimate use of "apostate" as a sociological term, used in a perfectly legitimate case-study of religious leave-taking, into "lip-service to academic definitions of the term, but is going to be quite liberal in the way that he exploits LDS cultural meanings of the word" without any evidence whatsoever is telling. Surely, if Greg was using the term in a way that "exploited LDS cultural meaning" a quote from the paper could demonstrate as much -- yet none is provided. I certainly hope that no actually trusts Scratch to give the paper a fair trial and then to present the evidence even handily. Please, wait until the paper is published and then see for yourself. 1
William Schryver Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) I find it somewhat curious that Scratch only presents a handful of quotes, and all of them are drawn from the first 1/4 of the article. Not only that, but the 3/4 of the article he ignores in his review contains material that I can't believe did not draw the particular attention of his reviewer's pen. That is, knowing how Scratch is and what kinds of things he would be likely to seize upon in his continuing propaganda campaign against LDS apologists, I find it extremely odd that he commented on the things he did while completely ignoring other things that I can't believe would have escaped his attention.In my opinion, Scratch has not read Smith's paper, but only a few selections from the first part of the article. Edited February 22, 2013 by William Schryver
Calm Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 They're in the public domain in a way that an unpublished manuscript seems not to be.Why did this bring to mind "it hung in the air in exactly the way that bricks don't".
sethpayne Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 I saw no claim from Professor Hamblin that he had legal standing to sue.The "stay tuned" bit threw me off.I don't think you did, either.Huh? When did I ever even hint at that? Honestly, I'm confused by this statement.I'm sure that there must be some value in constructing straw men. But I confess that I've never seen it.Dan, please correct me if I have misspoken but between all the FB threads and the threads here I understood that this essay was completely unsolicited and that you, as editor, were unaware of its existence until it was sent to the MI.The reason this is important, I think, is because if the MI were aware of the essay and did agree to publish it then the MI has a copyright on the piece and would thus be in a position to take action. Again, I'm not a lawyer but this is the little I do understand of copyright law.I'm honestly not trying to construct straw men. I've repeated the situation as I understood it. If I have erred, you have my sincere apology. I mean that.Anyway, enough of my opinions..... I'll head back into lurker mode.
sethpayne Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) For the record, I never said:Some would say he actually displayed integrity by revealing evidence that he read the piece, rather than just claiming he read the piece.I believe it was the Grimace who said this and that quote boxes went screwy in Dan's reply above. Edited February 22, 2013 by sethpayne
nealr Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Wouldn't it blow all of our minds if Greg Smith is Scratch's source? Not as much as it would blow our minds to find out that Greg Smith was Scratch all along! 1
Daniel Peterson Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 The "stay tuned" bit threw me off.Plainly, it did.Huh? When did I ever even hint at that? Honestly, I'm confused by this statement.You raised the question of "legal standing" to file a law suit. Professor Hamblin didn't.Dan, please correct me if I have misspoken but between all the FB threads and the threads here I understood that this essay was completely unsolicited and that you, as editor, were unaware of its existence until it was sent to the MI.It was unsolicited, but I knew it was coming before it arrived.The reason this is important, I think, is because if the MI were aware of the essay and did agree to publish it then the MI has a copyright on the piece and would thus be in a position to take action. Again, I'm not a lawyer but this is the little I do understand of copyright law.You may have a point here. Before my agreement with Gerald Bradford to yank the piece from the Review, at least one Maxwell Institute editor had put in considerable editorial time on the piece, preparing it for publication. I doubt that the current Maxwell institute regime would seek any damages on this, but, if they did, they might well, as you suggest, have a case. And perhaps someone else would have standing, too.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Stay Tuned means, as I've said many times, that the article will be published and then all will be made known. I am not planning any legal action. I have no standing to do so. It would be a tremendous waste of time. I simply stated my opinion that I believe that Scratch's actions are unethical, and probably illegal.
Daniel Peterson Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 I believe it was the Grimace who said this and that quote boxes went screwy in Dan's reply above.You're right. My apologies. I've corrected it.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 It would be rather amusing, however, if Greg Smith chose to pursue legal action. I bet he could find a pro bono lawyer to take the case. If nothing else, we could unmask Scratch's real identity in discovery.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.Given the value of green energy wind power under the Obama regime, I wouldn't mind inheriting the wind.
emarkp Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Yes, but Scratch, etc. illegally obtained copies without the author's permission.It would seem to me that would be a breach of contract / nondisclosure, etc. by the person who shared it with Scratch.I think it's poor form for Scratch (or anyone) to purport a review of the review until we can all read it in the open. I think it's reasonable for you and Daniel to continue to stick simply to "no it's not" to respond to Dehlin's "it's a hit piece". Edited February 22, 2013 by emarkp
sethpayne Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Plainly, it did.Indeed. Not the first time I've been very very confused.You raised the question of "legal standing" to file a law suit. Professor Hamblin didn't.Ahh... I see what you were saying now.It was unsolicited, but I knew it was coming before it arrived.You may have a point here. Before my agreement with Gerald Bradford to yank the piece from the Review, at least one Maxwell Institute editor had put in considerable editorial time on the piece, preparing it for publication. I doubt that the current Maxwell institute regime would seek any damages on this, but, if they did, they might well, as you suggest, have a case. And perhaps someone else would have standing, too.Thanks, Dan.Seth Edited February 22, 2013 by sethpayne
Daniel Peterson Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) It would be rather amusing, however, if Greg Smith chose to pursue legal action. I bet he could find a pro bono lawyer to take the case.I'll bet he could. Meet his father in law, Robert WhiteIf nothing else, we could unmask Scratch's real identity in discovery.That would, I admit, be amusing. And it would put an end to his cowardly anonymous slander, even if it didn't actually make him a decent person.Greg Smith's father in law is, by the way, also a member of the Utah State Bar, and the author of, among other legal treatises, The Art of Discovery.If it goes that direction, I'll bring the popcorn.. Edited February 22, 2013 by Daniel Peterson 2
Glenn101 Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Ethics, respect, and legality. It may be that a court would find Scratch in error if he were to be sued, or maybe not. I don't know any of the details, so I will have to wait until I can determine if Scratch the paper legally, with Greg Smiths permision. If he did not, he is at the very least, guilty of unethical conduct and disrepsect for the author and his wishes. Greg had already forgone publication, even self publication of his paper at the request of others. Can anyone really condone Scratch's behavior?Glenn
Daniel Peterson Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Between Bill's, Will's, and Dan's tacit admissions, I think it is safe to conclude that; yea verily these quotes are from the not a hit piece hit piece.I've been out all evening, since my class ending at 5:30, for dinner and a movie. I haven't checked the quotations for accuracy, but wouldn't be surprised if they're authentic.And I don't agree that it's a "hit piece." But you're welcome to believe that, if you prefer. There's no more point in arguing about it than there would be in arguing whether broccoli tastes good or tastes bad.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 I'll bet he could. Meet his father in law, Robert WhiteThat would, I admit, be amusing. And it would put an end to his cowardly anonymous slander, even if it didn't actually make him a decent person.Greg Smith's father in law is, by the way, also a member of the Utah State Bar, and the author of, among other legal treatises, The Art of Discovery.If it goes that direction, I'll bring the popcorn..I'll bet we could also find out who's been leaking stuff from the Maxwell institute. I like this idea better and better!
Daniel Peterson Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 It certainly has its charms, doesn't it?
Scott Barton Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 I thought it was already well known who Scratch is. Chino Blanco or some such. I seem to recall reading that somewhere.
Daniel Peterson Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Burn her she's a witch!Is anyone and everyone allowed to join your witch hunt is is it a "members only" kind of thing?It's a "members only" kind of thing. Scram.
Nathair/|\ Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Greg and his dad are both friends of my parents. (Not trying to name drop, just giving my standing to ask this.) I want in.
Calm Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Greg had already forgone publication, even self publication of his paper at the request of others.Excellent point. Greg was respectful of others' wishes and refused to publish the paper even with the personal cost, including refusing to sell the paper to those willing to buy it for their personal viewing after it was refused for publication by the MI. He did not choose to go the route of leaking it either where he could have blamed the leak on others while still claiming to respect the directive from Dr. Bradford. Edited February 22, 2013 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts