Bryan Ekers, you are a thread-pissing dumbfuck

The BBQ Pit
1

According to the “Advanced Search” function of SDMB, you, Bryan Ekers have only started one single, solitary, lonely, little thread in Great Debates:

Violent Media, Violent Crime.

In fact, you have started only 30 threads in toto in your existence here on SDMB. If you were just a lurker or occasional participant, that might make sense, but your post count is currently well over 13,000.

Further, there is the nature of your participation, its quality. I’ve found you to be an ignorant thread-pisser, a person always ready to snipe and bitch but never stick your own neck out with an original thought or opinion (hence your miniscule original thread count).

In my thread about Edward O. Wilson, you say,

A bias? Try a “hardon.” Only rarely have I started a thread or participated in one to a great extent without you sticking your dick in with a full bladder behind it.

And if you were any good at thread-pissing, that would be one thing. But overall you’re just an ignorant, angry, little bitch with nothing clever or interesting to say. No knowledge of philosophy whatsoever, superficial knowledge of science only, and not even a clear or interesting political perspective. In a word, you’re pathetic.

Dude, really, go fuck yourself. And I say that from the heart.

2

You’re pitting someone for not starting enough threads? That is beyond lame.

I always enjoy Bryan’s contributions to threads.

3

Then I’m glad I’ve never noticed yours.

4

You can read better than that, right?

5

Oh man, someone on the internet dissed me! I am traumatized. Traumatized, I say!

6

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Aeschines’ point seems to be that Bryan would rather make snarky comments in existing threads than start new ones. I just don’t see that that’s a pittable offense.

7

what’s further out than ‘beyond lame’?

8

Call the waambulance, etc. etc. The prognosis for recovery is good.

9

Hey Aeschines: go fuck yourself. I’ve been on this board twice as long as you have and I’ve written less OPs than Brian. So what?

Maybe phrasing OPs makes me nervous - after all, they have to be perfect.

Maybe I have an irrational fear of my thread disappearing.

Maybe I have problems initiating conversations IRL, too.

Maybe I just don’t like starting threads.

Who cares? It’s my mental scratch, not yours, and it’s none of your business. I like it this way. Considering how something like 25% of all OPs on this board are boring crap, I’m probably ahead of the curve.

I think I add enough to the board to justify any bandwidth I’m taking up. And even if I ain’t, I’m bringing $15. So fucko off.

10

Dude, you’re totally missing the point. I’m not pitting Ekers because he doesn’t start threads (indeed, I’m glad he doesn’t). I’m pitting him because he pisses all over other people’s threads without sticking his neck out with original claims and observations which would in turn be open to counterattack. This cowardly nature of his is evidenced by his low count of original threads (because if you start a thread, people can agree or disagree with it; you are open to attack).

I don’t think this type of parasitical personality adds anything to the board. People should be here to give and take, not just snipe from behind a concrete wall.

11

If ever a Pit thread is going to turn against the OP, this is it. Anyone who starts a GD thread claiming one of the greatest living scientists is “not too sharp” has no business calling anyone but himself a dumbfuck.

12

If you don’t have any examples of Ekers’ supposed threadshitting, then your pitting is a little bit fucking lame. Given the quality of your “contributions”, Aeschines, and the fact that you can’t back up what you’re saying here, I think it’s fair to decide that this is sour grapes driven by your own lameness.

13

It takes all kinds, including your kind and including Bryan Ekers’ kind. People habituate the SDMB for their own reasons and purposes. Get over yourself.

14

Well, there are actually two issues Bryan is being pitted for. One is not starting enough threads, the other is “pissing” in other people’s threads. The problem with the first is that it’s hardly a pittable offence, and the problem with the second is that the OP has provided zero evidence that he actually does that. The snippet he quoted was actually relevant to a side debate that had started in that thread over wether posters were unfairly giving Wilson more leeway than they were giving Aeschines. All Bryan is doing is pointing out that reasonable people can disagree about the reletive merits of two different arguments, and while admitting that personal bias can play a role in that disagreement, that does not necessarily mean that the disagreement is invalid. Seems an eminently sensible statement to me.

Further, the idea that by not starting one’s own threads, one does not open oneself up to attack is utterly without merit, of which this thread itself is ample proof. The only way to make your opinions immune to attack on this board is to not post at all. Even a drive-by post provides an opportunity for engagement.

15

Thanks for the cite of the thread, in which you thoroughly embarrassed yourself.

16

Says who?

17

Here is a pretty typical Ekers post, for those who crave examples:

Great stuff.

18

Not opening oneself to attack is no sin when one is not a dickhead.

But there is a certain type of Internet personality that likes to snipe at others’ opinions without really ever having an opinion of one’s own. They also like to participate in pileons, as Ekers has done when people on my side of the debate have been lynched in the Pit (SnakeSpirit et al.).

Sometimes they are good at it, get in their zingers, and never get called on the sum total of their posting. Ekers is pretty shitty at the strategy, does from time to time get blasted back, and now I’m calling him out for his overall narcicisstic strategy.

In general, Ekers is a mean, negative little pitbull who hits and runs in threads.

19

Here he gets his zinger in about abortion and is gone from the thread:

20

Yes. Wilson can be wrong but to dismiss his comments as ignorant or worse is foolish. I start with the assumption that anything a rigorous thinker with a reputation, like Wilson, says in public usually has been thought about beforehand and isn’t just a case of winging it.

That’s why, in the thread involved here, I suggested that Wilson himself be contacted at Harvard and told about his many failings in the Salon interview. That way, if he chooses to do so, Wilson can defend himself. Personally, I would feel a little (OK a lot) ill-equipped to defend E.O. Wilson.