It’s not like I’m trying to prove the reasons for GIGOBuster’s behavior.
Cheers
This is the most pathetic pitting I’ve ever read.
‘Beat me! Beat me! I’m loving it!’
Mm-hmm.
“He tried that crap with Rorshach once.”
“What happened?”
“Well, it was Rorshach. What do you think happened?”
“Dropped him down an elevator shaft?”
“Dropped him down an elevator shaft that was on fire, actually.”
You do realize how childish this is, right?
I mean, I’ve got a pretty decent-sized ignore list, but it never crossed my mind to hold a thread where I officially announced “I can’t hear yooooou.”
I gotta say, man … I agree with a goodly amount of what you say, on a variety of issues; I agree that you catch a lot of shit because your opinions are unpopular; but even having said that … you’re increasingly behaving like a dick.
It is “Nevertheless” BTW.
Your stupidity in any case is demonstrated in this thread, I already mentioned that I **rejected **your temperature point, and I explained why, the fact that you are also ignoring the evidence that I’m having more fun here is a demonstration that you are incapable of detecting cites with trashy evidence for discussions like this one.
Here’s a little head’s up, pal.
I have no idea who the fuck you are. I clicked on your link, tried reading a few posts, and don’t understand a word of it - too many acronyms (my work life is filled with acronyms, and I don’t want to risk having any of those be knocked out with replacements).
So I come to this pretty neutral (sorry - I don’t know who GIGObuster is either - but he does have a sweet username, so he has that going for him), and have this to say:
You’re a fucking jackass. Every post you’ve posted in this and your other petty piece of shit thread are absolutely pathetic. People don’t like you because you’re tiny, and playing the goddamn martyr is a tired, weak excuse of a defense. This strategy of “you’re wrong, but I’m not here to talk about the merits of my argument” is dishonest douchebaggery. If I understood either side of this debate, I might feel differently - but I don’t. But I do know assholish behavior when I see it - and you fit it to a fucking T.
Go pound sand.
[Not So Irrelevant Aside] So, we can post who we have on our ignore lists (a juvenile temptation if ever there was one), yet we cannot express ourselves in an immature way (ie swearing at other posters)? [NSIA]
Ok.
Back to the spring beating of brazil84. Take that!
I don’t think I’ve ever seen you post anything nice about… well, anyone really. Color me shocked. Also, impressed.
FWIW, I’ve been reading GB’s posts for years and never noticed anything odd or lacking about his command of English.
Are you kidding me? More than once I have mentioned that my grammar is a crime against nature.
brasil84 OTOH is just happy to continue to deny crimes against nature. 
Sure. As they say, arguing on the internet is a bit like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Does it occur to you that his opinions may not be the reason he “catches a lot of shit”? I get so sick and fucking tired of people claiming martyrdom for “unpopular” opinions, when the truth is they are just stupid assholes.
P.S. Now that the President has done it, we’re allowed to joke about the Special Olympics, right?
I agree that Brazil84 is a stupid asshole. Being forced to be on his side is the main reason I avoid the global warming debates these days.
However he did get one thing right. GIGObuster’s posts in that thread are completely unintelligible. I can’t even make out what his position is, and he keeps posting “cites” that seem to be non sequiturs.
I’ve noticed before that GIGObuster has a… characteristic, posting style, but I’ve never before seen him that incomprehensible. I’d almost think he was doing it on purpose to avoid being called out for the ridiculous bullshit he has posted in tha thread.
Seriously? Try this:
“So I’m happy just to let others see how you only would prefer to say to others that I do not contribute anything, of course it is easier than to deal with evidence that your say so that “they haven’t been able to prove that nature isn’t causing the climate change” was baseless.”
What does that mean? I honestly can’t figure it out. It seems to start out saying that claims of non-contribution were false, but then rambles off into some quote totally unrelated to that subject, that might be a request for a reference.
And the whole thread is like that. He quotes me. Then he posts something that has no bearing on the quoted section but that agrees with something I posted earlier that he didn’t quote. Then when I ask whether the agrees with m me or disagrees he posts some other non sequitur reference to nuclear testing or something.
The whole thread fells like I’m talking to the time cube guy. It’s not just a lack of English language skills. It’s alack pf ability to formulate a coherent argument, and a total refusal of all calls for clarification.
I think the man’s just being a dick.
While I’ve not seen the language to be a problem in my exchanges with him, this touches on the problem I do have with him. I think he takes a position and that’s that. Conversing with him after that point is beyond useless. He lacks the ability or desire to try to understand the other side. Give him a “think about it this way” and it’s as if you never typed what came after it. It’s just the same response as if you didn’t give a new example or an analogy. I do hope he reads this and thinks about it. It has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of his position, it just makes me want to avoid going through the preset computer program. He’d do better in debates, and come off better, if he’d endeavor to truly comprehend the opponent’s position, not caricaturize it, and respond appropriately to what is written.
Like I said, his style is generally unusual but decipherable. In that thread he’s just gibbering. Seriously, can you tell me that:
So I’m happy just to let others see how you only would prefer to say to others that I do not contribute anything, of course it is easier than to deal with evidence that your say so that “they haven’t been able to prove that nature isn’t causing the climate change” was baseless.
makes sense in any way at all?
I agree, this is probably the problem. But he now seems to be trialling a tactic of posting incomprehensible drivel to cover up for the fact. If he gets away with things good, but once he’s called he posts meaningless tripe and pretends that it’s everyone else’s fault they can;t understand him.
I’ll see if he keeps it up in future, or if he’s just smoked a few too many cones this evening.
Ha! Yes exactly.
And to give a perfect example from that thread:
Gah. The witless knuckle fucker totally ignored my analogy and simply repeated the same flawed, illogical fucking assertion.
It doesn’t ducking matter if the first evidence was based on impartial evidence collected 1000 years ago using funding from the Dalai Lama. It can still be hijacked and subverted by partisan clowns using shitty evidence this week. That’s the point. That’s what the analogy shows.
But this drooling nimrod simply repeats the same argument with the same faulty logic that the analogy highlighted.
I may as well not have bothered posting the analogy.
Seriously GIGObuster. Read this. Comprehend this. Take it on board. You do a disservice to your own team with your behaviour. You come across as rude, with no respect for other posters and with a totally irrational and unsupportable belief system. If someone presents an argument that purports to refute your position then respond to it. Acknowledge that you have read it, and explain why you disagree with it.
Simply ignoring it as you have done above si just witnessing. It’s not a coherent position, it’s an inflexible religious stance.
Well, You did say I did not contribute, and that you could understand why brasil84 pitted me, as you can see, it did not work as brasil84 wanted.
And indeed it was baseless from you to insist that scientists “haven’t been able to prove that nature isn’t causing the climate change”
I was tired too, and in any case it is “comes” not “cones”
But I have the impression that in in this case I do know more from your side, the current emphasis is in the C of CAWG, that is for catastrophic, the problem is that there is no logical reason to jump to discredit AWG (that has the evidence on its side) when CAWG that is full of controversy.
[I did reply here pointing out that the IPCC was not in the historical cite mentioned]
I have to confess I did miss that one, but this “witless fucker” knows that there was a recent discussion on the accusations that Darwin was a racist and most of it was found to be also baseless.
In any case it was a ridiculous analogy.
And my position is totally supportable.
This, being an Omnibus pit, I have to point to this thread:
As Lightnin’ says to Blake: “It’s pretty clear that you don’t really care about any of the arguments we’re presenting- no, for you, it’s all about painting AGW proponents as maliciously misguided.”
Your tactics are noticed even by other posters.
And if there is something else to be glad for this reverse pit, is that I found evidence that **Blake **just resorts to boiler plate creationism points (Racism as the base of Darwin’s evolution) in a sorry attempt to make an example.
So yes, I was right on noticing that AGW deniers are just reaching now for creationism tactics to get their point across.
Although I’m not wearing my 101st Fighting Keyboardists T-Shirt today, I would like to add the following comment:
Dear brazil84;
After giving your responses careful consideration, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’ve jacked off better kids into my bunk sock than you’ve turned out to be.
Thanks,
rhythmonly
Psst the nation of Brazil called. They’re tired of the slander man. They want want you to change your nick or they’re gonna sue.
Here is a post from that thread:
brazil84 I have no idea who you are but I do know you are using dishonest tactics, Sage Rat posted this excellent rebuttal to your graph and your only response is to Pit him? Counter his argument man, show us how he is wrong! Much better tactics than a Pit thread.