Cite ?
You still haven’t posted a cite for this.
I’ve seen him do so a number of times.
I’m curious as to why you singled out Bricker in that thread, since a number of other people made erroneous statements that they did not come back to retract after they were corrected.
In my experience, it’s pretty uncommon for someone to come back and apologize for some erroneous fact they posted in GQ after being corrected. At a rough guess, I would say it happens maybe one in every 20 to 100 times. There often is little point, since it’s obvious the person correcting the error knows much more about the subject than the person who made it. I don’t even always do it myself (on the rare occasions I make a mistake 
) I don’t see any reason why Bricker would necessarily need to do so in that thread.
Much more of a problem, I think, is when someone comes back to defend some erroneous statement even when it’s obvious they didn’t know what they were talking about. If Bricker had come back to argue particle physics with Chronos, say, then a pitting might be in order.
Gay marriage. He used to oppose it, until he was convinced otherwise in a pit thread some two, three years ago. Now he supports in unreservedly.
Are you really curious or are you just trying to score “even-handed” points? I only ask because, like I said, it’s not the first time Bricker’s lack of “Oops, sorry” has come up.
eta:
“In my experience, it’s pretty uncommon for someone to come back and apologize for some erroneous”
And how common is it to post about 16, 000 posts or 6 times per day?
Under our careful tutelage and instruction, friend Bricker has made halting progress in freeing himself from political error. We have great hopes for him.
Here you go (entire thread posted for reference; see post #20 for Bricker’s retraction).
Your turn to apologize.
I genuinely am curious as to why Cartooniverse decided to single out Bricker alone in that particular thread, when several other posters did pretty much the same thing.
What does that have with anything at all?
Well, my response has to do with the bit I put in quotation marks. I don’t see where the confusion could be…
eta: to further explicate: posting tonnes per day takes away from the “i didn’t bother” or “I had better things to do” argument.
I had to jump in there to say that I think that is super cute.
If my math is right, he has 6 older sisters, so I am not surprised.
6 older sisters! What did you guys do, go outside and pee on a tree?
Well, I don’t know which one is correct. I heard it rather than viewed it in print, so just covering all my bases.
Y’know, I don’t usually post to Pit threads, but as the party allegedly slighted, I feel rather obligated to step in. Let me say officially that I’m not in the slightest bit offended. There are a great many reasons why Bricker might not have responded to that thread after my comment. Maybe he felt it was unnecessary. Maybe he knew that there was enough slack in the different interpretations of the laws of physics that he could be considered right, anyway (strictly speaking, there’s no such thing as an “ancient” photon, as photons are ageless). Or maybe, most likely, he just didn’t come back to that thread at all. Og knows that I’ve been known to post to a thread that was outside of my primary interest, and then not check in on it again. I would suspect that the same is true of most other posters. Now, if Bricker had been unambiguously corrected in a thread about some aspect of the law, and if the thread stayed active for a week afterwards, while Bricker continued to post elsewhere, but he didn’t acknowledge his mistake, then maybe – maybe – he might deserve some criticism for that. But this? I just can’t see it.
Did someone ask for a cite? Monty Python’s Argument Clinic.
It is not clear from his text whether his response was prompted by this pitting or not. Did he read the pitting and decide to revisit the original thread to redeem himself? The magic quarter lands on ‘tails’, so no.
I am shocked and appalled that in the 70 minutes since that post, cartooniverse has not yet apologized.
Well, maybe he’s busy with his, umm, life. Yeah, that’s it!
Hilarious. However, Cartooniverse has TRULY not been online since that post (unlike the same excuse given to Bricker earlier in this thread).
And as I mentioned, this OP was probably a straw&camel back situation that made for the over-reaction. ( reference: 1,1(a),1(b) )
Your remark was a complete non sequitur to the part of my post you quoted. It’s uncommon for someone to apologize for a mistake in GQ no matter how frequently or infrequently they post. If you don’t understand why there might be confusion, you need to hone your communication skills.
Well, **Bricker ** himself hasn’t made that argument.
He’s probably too busy.
Good. Because I wasn’t talking about you. Everybody’s having so much fun frothing at the mouth that they left their reading comprehension skills in the car. Let’s try this, okay? It’s called " A quote" and I will even help you out by telling you that it is Post # 29 from the thread in my OP. M’kay? Now, if you see your name in Post # 29, you get to be the party allegedly slighted.
The poster he was such a dick to is named The Controvert. For those posters in here who continue to insist I was saying that Bricker was treating Chronos that way, well. What can I say. You can’t read for jack shit.
The personal stuff, it is to laugh. Where did I say Bricker was intentionally ducking that thread? I did not. I just said ( in so many words ) that he wouldn’t be going back in there to apologize for shitting on a poster. Did I spend any time attacking what he might or might not be doing in his off-boards time? I did not.
CarnalK is entirely correct. Some of you are leaping to cut Bricker slack by saying he has a life ( unlike myself ) and therefore was not online after he posted. In fact, this is not true. He was online for more or less 3 hours, perhaps more according to cites provided by others.
rhubarb, I hate to prove you right since no doubt your post was supportive and understanding and not the least bit sarcastic. I was at the movies last night.
Now then. I pitted Bricker for reasons I’ve already gone over a handful of times. I went to a 7:30 movie ( EST ) . He posted his apology at…lemme see here. 7:23 pm EST.
I’m glad he realized how completely wrong he had been- and yet it amuses me to no end that he came back in there to mea culpa all over himself regarding the facts that he had misstated so woefully. Not about the snarky tone that he took with the poster.
Well, what can you do. Some Dopers delight in being supercillious. At least he did go back in there and admit he was wrong, which is 1/2 of what I was hoping he would do. And to be honest, that is 1/2 more than I could have imagined that he would do. Gee. Wonder who tipped him off ?
Ricky 'ole boy, it shows reall class on your part that you went back in there and admitted you were full of shit and speaking so far out of your area of expertise as to come off as a rube. Nicely done !
Hope this is the beginning of a new pattern of behavior on your part. 
Lastly, I am well aware that a quote within a quote is very much discouraged. There was not other logical way to prove my statement at the top of this post without showing the post that caused me to OP this pitting. So, apologies for doing a post within a post.