Dr. Peterson's FAIR Conference Talk

[Anonymous]

[Post withdrawn. My apologies to Everybody Wang Chung.]

[_Philo Sofee]

If the so-called stalker is not significantly bright at all according to Peterson, how is it that he/she has continued to remain anonymous in spite of Peterson's best efforts to find out just who it is? After seeing so many silly posts of Peterson's on various subjects, I am beginning to wonder where the dimness really resides. I have noticed there are many things that Peterson does not grasp, and many more he simply refuses to do so. That ain't exactly the brightest bulb in the pack either. I think it's me sending all those thousands of vicious emails, but I have no evidence.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dr. Peterson now seems to be saying that Everybody Wang Chung is the author of the offensive emails

What a bizarre post. Under the pretense of offering some insight about a relatively unknown figure (which he of course just copies Wikipedia and pasts some other bits found with a quick Google search), he is positively indignant, nay raging against Everybody Wang Chung ending with a testimony of the Earth's age.

Wat.

One will note he still hasn't offered any proof of these supposed thousands of emails. Sadly, he hasn't messaged me with any sort of offer to prove his rather empty assertion at this point.

As an aside, I think it's funny that he makes it a point to let everyone know he's traveling to this location or that to give some crappy talk hastily copypasta'd together (you'll note he blamed the transcribers rather than taking responsibility for his amateurish presentation), but he's still obsessively following this board. Lol. Crazy.

- Doc

[_Dr Exiled]

Yes, just disclose the emails and don't go through selected "witnesses" to verify that they exist. Let everyone see them and make them public. That way the supposed perpetrator might be caught as someone, somewhere might recognize them and come forward. However, having a nemesis does make someone maybe a little more important just as god needs the devil.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Dr. Peterson now seems to be saying that Everybody Wang Chung is the author of the offensive emails

What a bizarre post. Under the pretense of offering some insight about a relatively unknown figure (which he of course just copies Wikipedia and pasts some other bits found with a quick Google search), he is positively indignant, nay raging against Everybody Wang Chung ending with a testimony of the Earth's age.

Wat.

One will note he still hasn't offered any proof of these supposed thousands of emails. Sadly, he hasn't messaged me with any sort of offer to prove his rather empty assertion at this point.

As an aside, I think it's funny that he makes it a point to let everyone know he's traveling to this location or that to give some crappy talk hastily copypasta'd together (you'll note he blamed the transcribers rather than taking responsibility for his amateurish presentation), but he's still obsessively following this board. Lol. Crazy.

- Doc

Good grief. Folks, you just can't make this stuff up.

[_Lemmie]

Peterson now seems to be saying that Everybody Wang Chung is the author of the offensive emails...

And, apparently, his basis for this is 'thematic parallels':

and there are some distinct and specific thematic parallels between his online comments about me and the contents of the emails sent to me.

This is why so many elements of Peterson's stories are becoming less and less believable.

Last year, Peterson posted a few samples he has received from this anonymous person. Does any of this thematically parallel the way Everybody Wang Chung posts?

Peterson says he received this in November 2017:

“whine whine whine. baby-duffus-panniculus-shill.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... laims.html

And this in September 2017:

you’re a filthy liar by omission fat f**k. that’s your sorry a**ed mo ya shifty shifting b*ttplug. ya give scholarship a bad name. ya should retire…..slink off and have a year long gorge fest….fatter and fatter till ya pop. a**hole.
[to which was added:]
p.s. i’ m s a t a n y o u m i s e r a b l e p r ** k
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... ilbag.html

Thematically paralleled, my ass.

[_Tom]

From a post by Dr. Peterson in February of this year:

By the way, my fan and frequent correspondent “Nomen Nescio,” writing from his perch over at the atheistic ex- and anti-Mormon “Dr. Shades” board, has shared this important though rather opaque product of his recent thinking:

pasterson-meldrum cult comedy act comming soon to a venue near you.

That’s the entirety of his latest opus. I’m sure that it must be very profound.

[_I have a question]

Why would Peterson:
1. Open and read the e mails in the first place.
2. Keep them. For years.
3. Put the contents into the public domain, giving the perpetrator the satisfaction and notoriety of publicity.

I think you will find the e mails give Peterson something. He wants to receive them. He wants people to know he receives them. If the perpetrator really wanted to hurt Peterson in any meaningful way, they need only ignore him. Completely.

I'd still like to know if people have considered the notion that perhaps Peterson is sending himself these e mails.

[_Lemmie]

In January of 2018, Peterson again said he 'recognized' his anonymous emailer's characteristic style:

"you and your cult acolytes love the word ‘scientism’. that’s cult-speak… [obscene epithet deleted]."

Now, I recognize this fellow’s characteristic style and his, um, reasoning; he’s been sending me similar messages for a number of years now
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... lytes.html

The problem is, I don't see anything similar between the style of the email above and the two I quoted in my previous post.

I don't doubt Peterson receives his fair share of hate mail, just like anyone else who has an online presence, and I agree it is wrong. When he repeatedly changes the story to take dishonest digs at specific posters, it just makes every succeeding version less and less believable.

[_Res Ipsa]

Well, thematically they're all critical of Peterson...

That's all I got.