DiscussMormonism.com

Folks, you truly cannot make this up. Over at the largely irrelevant and obscure blog where the Afore and his small claque of crazies hold court, the Afore is feigning shock and outrage at the late Senator Harry Reid's alleged behavior while simultaneously virtue signaling his own awesomeness, integrity and honesty:

But I was genuinely shocked at Senator Reid’s enthusiastic willingness to lie publicly about Mitt Romney, and to refuse either to apologize for the lie or to repent of it, even when it became unambiguously clear that his accusation was untrue.

My own moral framework wouldn’t permit such action to me — not, at least, with a quiet conscience. I value civility and honesty far above politics. And I regard Harry Reid’s conduct in this matter not only as indefensible but as utterly incomprehensible. How could an apparently faithful and committed Latter-day Saint behave in such a fashion? How could he face himself in the mirror? And, while it doesn’t make any essential difference that Mitt Romney was (and, of course, still is) an active member of Brother Reid’s Church, that fact simply makes Senator Reid’s misconduct all the more egregious.

What's beyond bizarre, is the Afore, who has a long, well-documented history of numerous public plagiarisms, incivility, unethical behavior and inventing stories out of whole cloth (holding and witnessing a nonexistent Second Watson Letter, etc.), expresses absolute moral shock and outrage at Senator Harry Reid's alleged political dishonesty. The Afore gushes that his own "moral framework" places civility and honesty "far above politics." The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. The Afore condemns Reid's willingness to allegedly lie while conveniently ignoring his own long, well-documented numerous instances of dishonesty and misconduct.

The Afore seems to revel in his role as a self-appointed unimpeachable judge of truth, honesty and integrity. He seems genuinely bewildered that someone, especially a fellow Latter-day Saint, could behave so "egregiously," conveniently forgetting his own well-documented pattern of deception, ethical lapses and dishonesty.

I have no idea how the Afore can face himself in the mirror. Absolutely incredible......

I chuckled at that line when I read it too. He's completely full of it, as always.

Metcalfe is butthead, 2nd Watson letter, the dozens of documented instances of plagiarism, and those are just the tip of the iceberg of disingenuity that he created with Interpreter...

The quote in the OP could have come from any number of Sic et Non blog posts about Harry Reid that Peterson has posted over the last 10-15 years. It’s one of a number of “filler” topics that Peterson pulls out of the drawer when he’s too busy or too unmotivated to put the effort into writing something new.

Nearly three months ago, an anonymous (and anonymized) email was passed on to me that claimed to identify two of the regular pseudonymous participants on what I call the Peterson Obsession Board. I don’t know who sent it, I didn’t ask for it, I can’t reply to it, and I don’t know how reliable it is. In any case, my correspondent claimed to have based his or her findings upon data that s/he had somehow acquired (presumably from the POB) and analyzed by means of AI. First, my correspondent proposed an identity for my Mini-Stalker for which s/he claimed 88% confidence. My Mini-Stalker is obsessed with me, although the cause of his obsession has never been at all clear; so far as I’m aware, I don’t know the guy and have never met him — and the person identified in the email is nobody that I know. With regard to another of the active participants there, my correspondent suggested an identification for which s/he estimated a 70%+ probability of correctness. I’m disappointed if s/he is accurate in the latter case, because the person that s/he named is someone with whom — for several years, anyway — I was distantly but respectfully acquainted and from whom I would not have anticipated such unprofessional behavior and such shoddy and biased reasoning. But maybe my secret informant is wrong? I hope so.

Turns out, you can make this stuff up!

drumdude wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 18, 2025 12:49 am

Nearly three months ago, an anonymous (and anonymized) email was passed on to me that claimed to identify two of the regular pseudonymous participants on what I call the Peterson Obsession Board. I don’t know who sent it, I didn’t ask for it, I can’t reply to it, and I don’t know how reliable it is. In any case, my correspondent claimed to have based his or her findings upon data that s/he had somehow acquired (presumably from the POB) and analyzed by means of AI. First, my correspondent proposed an identity for my Mini-Stalker for which s/he claimed 88% confidence. My Mini-Stalker is obsessed with me, although the cause of his obsession has never been at all clear; so far as I’m aware, I don’t know the guy and have never met him — and the person identified in the email is nobody that I know. With regard to another of the active participants there, my correspondent suggested an identification for which s/he estimated a 70%+ probability of correctness. I’m disappointed if s/he is accurate in the latter case, because the person that s/he named is someone with whom — for several years, anyway — I was distantly but respectfully acquainted and from whom I would not have anticipated such unprofessional behavior and such shoddy and biased reasoning. But maybe my secret informant is wrong? I hope so.

Turns out, you can make this stuff up!

Is this going to be an echo of the Chino Blanco fiasco? Or has Dr P learned something from that episode, and will now restrict himself to vague suggestions, but with a rather specific stated "confidence" - 88%? Is that how accurate the AI "thinks" the analysis is?

malkie wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 18, 2025 1:06 am

Is this going to be an echo of the Chino Blanco fiasco? Or has Dr P learned something from that episode, and will now restrict himself to vague suggestions, but with a rather specific stated "confidence" - 88%? Is that how accurate the AI "thinks" the analysis is?

The last time he trusted an 'informant' it turned out to be the neo-nazi Stormey (or something), and he had to retract his accusations. Peterson doesn't seem to have much of a sense of discernment about people online.

One silver lining, the anonymous hate emails have seemed to have stopped. Or DCP got tired of that fake story.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 18, 2025 12:49 am

Nearly three months ago, an anonymous (and anonymized) email was passed on to me that claimed to identify two of the regular pseudonymous participants on what I call the Peterson Obsession Board. I don’t know who sent it, I didn’t ask for it, I can’t reply to it, and I don’t know how reliable it is. In any case, my correspondent claimed to have based his or her findings upon data that s/he had somehow acquired (presumably from the POB) and analyzed by means of AI. First, my correspondent proposed an identity for my Mini-Stalker for which s/he claimed 88% confidence. My Mini-Stalker is obsessed with me, although the cause of his obsession has never been at all clear; so far as I’m aware, I don’t know the guy and have never met him — and the person identified in the email is nobody that I know. With regard to another of the active participants there, my correspondent suggested an identification for which s/he estimated a 70%+ probability of correctness. I’m disappointed if s/he is accurate in the latter case, because the person that s/he named is someone with whom — for several years, anyway — I was distantly but respectfully acquainted and from whom I would not have anticipated such unprofessional behavior and such shoddy and biased reasoning. But maybe my secret informant is wrong? I hope so.

Turns out, you can make this stuff up!

Whenever this board goes quiet on Peterson-related topics, he invents something that he thinks will draw back the board’s collective attention. He really craves it. On one level, it’s really quite sad, all that education and this board is the acknowledgment that he wants most.

I think it is perfectly possible that Harry Reid was an asshole. He quite possibly was very unfair to Mitt Romney. If Reid lied about Mitt, then he lied. I don't condone him lying about Mitt, regardless of how I feel about Mitt's shortcomings. I thought Mitt's view of taxation, for example, was risible during the campaign. He showed he really doesn't understand the topic beyond having to pay a lot of taxes and trying to avoid that as much as the law allows. So does that mean he should be falsely accused of not paying taxes? Hell no. The real crime is that our system of taxation burdens those who can less afford to pay more than it proportionally does to the Mitts of the world. We should not view success as a trophy that exempts you from continuing to contribute your share. To whom much is given, much is required, not to whom much is given, give 'em a break.