Pot, Meet Kettle: A Master Class in Hypocrisy from a Self-Proclaimed Paragon of Truth

[Marcus]

...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...

So, does this mean he plagiarized repeatedly with an unquiet conscience?

I started that thread in 2017, and posted plagiarisms, along with Tom, Doc, and many others, through 2025. We posted dozens of documented examples, none of which show he has a conscience, quiet or otherwise. The above statement is hypocritical in the extreme.

[I Have Questions]

...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...

So, does this mean he plagiarized repeatedly with an unquiet conscience?

I started that thread in 2017, and posted plagiarisms, along with Tom, Doc, and many others, through 2025. We posted dozens of documented examples, none of which show he has a conscience, quiet or otherwise. The above statement is hypocritical in the extreme.

If I were to guess, I’d say he sees the two things as different. That what he does isn’t “plagiarism” as far as he’s concerned (even though it is). And that’s the most generous interpretation of his behaviour versus his words that I can muster.

[Tom]

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!

The Proprietor (center, wearing green glasses and a cape) and a few of his colleagues from the Interpreter Foundation’s board of directors uncover a slippery stone box buried behind the Provo Training Table restaurant’s grease caddy one moonless night. A pseudonymous Peterson Obsession Board bogeyman appears leering at them from the cliff above.

An email was “passed on to [him]” “[n]early three months ago”? My imagination is running wild. Did our intrepid SCMC informant send the email with the incriminating evidence directly to the Proprietor, or did our intrepid SCMC informant send the email to a third party and the third party forwarded it to the Proprietor? I prefer to imagine that the Proprietor received a mysterious typed note in his mailbox directing him to travel on a moonless night to a drop site behind the grease caddy on the south side of the The Training Table restaurant in Provo to uncover a buried stone box containing the damning email. In any case, this is all very exciting. I regret only that the Proprietor kept this development secret from his readers for nearly three months.

According to the Proprietor, our intrepid SCMC informant claims 88% confidence in correctly identifying one DM participant and a 70+% probability of accurately identifying another DM participant. That’s impressive. I hope Doctors Dale and Dale will provide peer-review of these claims for publication in an upcoming issue of Interpreter: A Journal of Faith and Scholarship.

[malkie]

An anonymous emailer (AE) should, of course, probably be believed, especially when they claim 88% confidence in who they identify, even if the recipient doesn’t know how reliable the claims, apparently analyzed by means of AI, are. Otherwise why bother to mention the email at all? Presumably the AE omitted any evidence to support their claims, otherwise we would expect the recipient to at least allude to receipt of such.

None the less, the recipient ought to be disappointed if AE is accurate in a second case, because the person that AE named is someone with whom — for several years, anyway — the recipient was distantly but respectfully acquainted and from whom he would not have anticipated such unprofessional behavior and such shoddy and biased reasoning. But maybe AE is wrong? One would hope so.

In spite of the doubts and hopes, it appears that the recipient's mind may now be poisoned, by a claim of identification to 70%+ probability, against his distant acquaintance. Otherwise, once again, why bother to mention the email at all?

I wonder if this might count as shoddy and biased reasoning.

OTOH, with a 50% probability, as analysed by NS, perhaps the reason for mentioning the email is as IHQ suggests: it's an attempt to avoid sliding into obscurity.

On the third hand - which one of you folks created this email to yank the recipient's chain? Fess up, so that you don't bring disrepute on the board.

[Kishkumen]

It would be fun to know who the accused are. Not that I would know the accuracy of the accusations, but it is always fun to see the results of someone else's sleuthing. I am also curious to know whether the idea that I have numerous sock-puppets has reemerged. At one point, I was supposed to be Doctor Scratch! Perhaps now I am yet another poster on the board. Honestly, I barely have time to participate these days, so I wouldn't have time to sustain multiple accounts and post a bunch. That statement of fact will doubtless not check speculations regarding my secret, nefarious activities.

[Doctor Steuss]

Word print studies and AI: Not just for giving the probability that angels with flaming swords forced adultery with teenagers anymore.

[malkie]

It would be fun to know who the accused are. Not that I would know the accuracy of the accusations, but it is always fun to see the results of someone else's sleuthing. I am also curious to know whether the idea that I have numerous sock-puppets has reemerged. At one point, I was supposed to be Doctor Scratch! Perhaps now I am yet another poster on the board. Honestly, I barely have time to participate these days, so I wouldn't have time to sustain multiple accounts and post a bunch. That statement of fact will doubtless not check speculations regarding my secret, nefarious activities.

It would, Rev.

But then there would presumably be a need for solid evidence before throwing accusations around, and I doubt that Prof P would be good with proving that.

Besides, without naming names it opens up endless speculation about possible candidates, and offers plausible deniability about any negative effects suffered by the candidates.

By the way, I'm 70+, but still a long way from 88

ETA: If I were Prof P (and I think a couple of board members can vouch for me not being him ), and if I were to make such communications/conclusions/speculations public, I might also feel inclined to state that I'm categorically opposed to doxxing. OTOH, he may be salivation at the thought of outing his nemeses.

[Morley]

Word print studies and AI: Not just for giving the probability that angels with flaming swords forced adultery with teenagers anymore.

Indeed.

[drumdude]

Word print studies and AI: Not just for giving the probability that angels with flaming swords forced adultery with teenagers anymore.

Indeed.

Oh lord!

[Everybody Wang Chung]

It would be fun to know who the accused are. Not that I would know the accuracy of the accusations, but it is always fun to see the results of someone else's sleuthing. I am also curious to know whether the idea that I have numerous sock-puppets has reemerged. At one point, I was supposed to be Doctor Scratch! Perhaps now I am yet another poster on the board. Honestly, I barely have time to participate these days, so I wouldn't have time to sustain multiple accounts and post a bunch. That statement of fact will doubtless not check speculations regarding my secret, nefarious activities.

Yes, I am interested in knowing the accuracy of the accusations, and I sincerely hope he will publicly release names, yet again, like he's done so often in the past. A major reason for my Christmas wish, is that in 2024, Utah, like many other states, criminalized publicly doxxing someone online.

This is covered by two statutes:

Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Information (Utah Code § 76-6-703.1): This statute specifically targets the disclosure of personal information, including online doxxing.

Electronic Communication Harassment (Utah Code § 76-9-201): This statute also criminalizes the public release of names, addresses, and other personal information.

The Afore should be grateful that he didn't (erroneously) doxx Chino Blanco, and several others, after the enactment of those statutes. Had he done so, there is a strong possibility he would be posting plagiarized articles from a jail cell.