We’re they? I’m certainly not taking your word for it.
And a picture of my scope in the backyard:
You don’t have to take my word for anything. No, you don’t know that that is my scope. I could by lying about all of it. Choose to believe me or choose to let politics ruin your ability for critical thinking. I don’t really care.
Yeah, the slideshow makes it really, really, really, clear you aren’t desperate to not care…
I’m confused, why did you post 3 pictures of Justin Bieber?
Yes, it’s your politics that the problem. Nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you are a known liar and have been caught misrepresenting or flat out not bothering to read your own cites repeatedly. Everyone else are the ones with critical thinking problems, not you.
Because he takes threads you are interested in and completely shits them up where they are no longer identifiable. It would be nice to ignore if he didn’t completely throw feces everywhere. I really enjoyed many threads during his hiatus that I wouldn’t have while he was here. And it’s happening again.
This is limited to the political, climate change, and other topics folks have identified. He’s good in things about John Prine and a couple other topics.
Can you bounce a ball on your nose like the sea lions at the zoo, too?
Yeah, we really should go from
Fighting ignorance since 1973. (It’s taking longer than we thought.)
to
Ignoring ignorance since 2023. (It’s more effort than we thought.)
AmIRight???
Not taking a demonstrated serial liar at face value is not generally considered a failure if critical thinking. Just the opposite, really - when someone lies as often and as easily as you do, the rational response is not to trust them on any subject,
Just keep smearing. Apparently you want to turn ‘reprehensible’ up to the max.
The truth is not a smear, Sam, although given your highly casual relationship with truth, I’m not surprised you’re unaware of that.
Another admission as to why you post crap here. If you get even more reprehensible you have only yourself to blame.
I’ll go even further than that, and declare that for at least twenty years I have not seen any evidence on these boards that Sam_Stone is an actual denier or anti-science “skeptic” regarding the essential facts of climate change. Here, for example, is an observation that he posted back in November 2003:
That was perhaps a somewhat optimistic but not in any way denialist or irrational opinion to hold about anthropogenic climate change twenty years ago. And IMHO it doesn’t qualify as denialist or anti-science even now, although its level of optimism probably wouldn’t be considered justifiable nowadays.
What I object to in many of Sam’s climate-science posts, as I explained in the post GIGObuster linked to above, is not a refusal to acknowledge the basic reality of climate-science findings, but rather his inadequately supported disparagement of certain scientific viewpoints just because they ping his personal “liberal ideology” meter.
It’s not in any way “smearing” Sam to complain when he tries to present speculative anti-liberal wish-fulfillment as an honest methodological critique.
Here’s where I last remember calling Sam out in this thread. Or where that exchange started. If anyone wants context.
We must conclude that Sam is still busy chewing (aren’t Trump steaks the bestest?) since he’d never fail to support his claims and instead choose to fend off “the mean girls” in the Pit.
We should apologize for holding Sam accountable for repeatedly lying in his posts. It is unreasonable to assume he is capable of ever arguing in good faith, given the substantial evidence that he is not. He and many other conservatives on this board in the past have made it very clear time and time again that they are not responsible for anything they say or do, no matter how dishonest, malign or hypocritical.
FFS, we should also apologize to the board’s dedicated centrists who believe it is our solemn duty to overlook some of these “occasional” 
lapses in integrity in the interests of keeping a wide variety of posters around.
I, for one, agree that we should strive harder to simply accept inveterate and pathological liars and trolls on the board for the Greater Good™ and apologize for my strident and perhaps even shrill insistence on bare minimum standards of fact-checking, truthfulness, personal integrity, and basic god-damned human decency /s
I find the board was better when Sam was not posting. Every political thread he jumps into becomes actively worse. It is just him posting crap, and people pointing out (usually for the umpteenth time) that his post is crap. I have him blocked, and I’m definitely 100% not going to unblock him again, so in reality what I see is a bunch of hidden messages, and people proving the content in the hidden message is garbage. It lowers the quality of the threads. I’d love to see Sam get a P&E ban. He adds nothing to the conversation.
This is just getting sad now.
“Here are some actual true pictures, so therefore the crap I posted about Hunter Biden’s laptop and Joe Biden’s imaginary non-existent granddaughter are true.”
Jesus.
As has been said repeatedly, but it does not seem to penetrate: When you (Sam) post inaccurate and wrong “facts”, or citations that say the opposite of what you claim, it is not “picking on you” when this is pointed out.
The first 20 times you did this, it was pointed out, over and over and over. After that (21st time - infinitum), people just get tired and irritated that you’re still doing it, and get upset and insulting.
I’m starting to think that this is actually what you’re going for. You WANT the insults. This somehow makes you feel like a martyr or something, and you get off on it.
Or whatever. You’re boring now. You’re just doing some kind of performance art at this point.
I think he should stick that telescope up his ass and take some pictures of his brain for us.