Punditfact: a gripe on climate science

[Colibri]

@Debaser

Recently when I saw another pit thread by you, I posted this:
Unfortunately, it looks like I was right.

Y’know, asshole, all this does is make you look like a stalker.

If you actually have some objection to the subject of the Pit thread other than who it was posted by, go for it. But don’t just give someone shit because they start a Pit thread. It just makes you look like you’re obsessing on the guy.

[GrandWino]

@BigT

And if you been paying attention, you’d realize his entire point is that this Pit thread is not stupid, and the only reason you think it is is because you have a hard on for the guy. You even admitted to waiting on him to make a Pit thread just so you could make this response.

The problem with the BP thread you are referencing was not that he was upset about something, but that he was too upset by it. It wasn’t that he brought up something you don’t care about. People did actually think the BP oil spill was bad. BP was just obsessing over it, crying at night about it.

This thread does not have that problem. BPC is complaining about a fact checking website being incorrect. Assuming he is correct, it is spreading ignorance. If you don’t care about that sort of thing, you’re on the wrong message board.

Shut up Big Tard.

[Munch]

@Debaser

If you haven’t been paying attention here’s the deal: Budget Player Cadet has a very long history of posting dumb pit threads. This is widely known and not really in dispute by anybody.

Basically, the SDMB is a better place when he isn’t posting every random thought that crosses his mind when he reads an article online.

The problem is that this statement is so much more applicable to a good number of other posters on this…

@BrainGlutton

If they’re going to evaluate the statement at all, they have a responsibility to get the facts exactly right, that’s their self-assigned job.

…oh, well that didn’t take long.

[Fallen]

@BigT

BPC is complaining about a fact checking website being incorrect. Assuming he is correct, it is spreading ignorance. If you don’t care about that sort of thing, you’re on the wrong message board.

Given the tag line of the site is “Fighting Ignorance Since 1973” and this appears to be anti-cultivation of ignorance, I second the motion.

I for one am on a campaign to quell if not (s)quash the ignorant, rampant misuse of the word “stalker” to include the civil and criminal justice systems. Please note that stalking is in fact a quite serious thing not meant to be trivialized or misused; it means to take actions that put someone in (reasonable v. whackadoo perception) fear of death, serious bodily injury, rape or kidnapping … not online following or lying in wait (to kvetch, ridicule, whatev).

[BrainGlutton]

@Munch

The problem is that this statement is so much more applicable to a good number of other posters on this…
…oh, well that didn’t take long.

You know I’m right and you know it’s thread-relevant.

[Munch]

@BrainGlutton

You know I’m right and you know it’s thread-relevant.

Regardless, debaser’s statement that “the SDMB is a better place when he isn’t posting every random thought that crosses his mind when he reads an article online” is the most accurate sentence that could ever be used to describe you.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@GrandWino

This one.

I have the weirdest sense of deja-asshole…

[Frank]

So the point of this pit thread is for each poster to go off on a different poster that hasn’t yet been gone off on yet? Wait, I’ve got to get my scorecard.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Chessic_Sense

I’m so confused. Are you on Debaser’s side or Rhythmdvl’s? How many backfires is that?

@El_Kabong

For the record, I’m not disputing that; what I was disputing was whether this partiular teapot outrage was worthy of a Pit thread. But hey, that’s just, like, my opinion, man. Carry on.

I dispute that you were not disputing whether the outrage was worthy of dispute!

[Askthepizzaguy]

@Frank

So the point of this pit thread is for each poster to go off on a different poster that hasn’t yet been gone off on yet? Wait, I’ve got to get my scorecard.

I don’t like the shape of your nose! Get a nosejob, Frank!

[kaylasdad99]

@Debaser

If you haven’t been paying attention here’s the deal: Budget Player Cadet has a very long history of posting dumb pit threads. This is widely known and not really in dispute by anybody.

Basically, the SDMB is a better place when he isn’t posting every random thought that crosses his mind when he reads an article online. This certainly qualifies, as does the last pit thread of his that I came across. So rather than retype the same thing as last time I just reposted it. Just saving pixels. I’m an environmentalist.

I guess that I, for one, haven’t been paying attention. It has always been my sense that BPC’s greatest recurring offense was a habit of posting a single link to an article, adding an outrage-filled thread title and (maybe, sometimes) a single derisive sentence, and hitting “Submit.” IOW, not making the effort to elaborate on what he found provocative about the contents of the link, just inviting the rest of us to join him in his outrage.

And when questioned/called out on this behavior, responding with a remark about the activities of his Pit target that are deserving of scorn, and adding (to his interlocutor) “and you fucking know it.”*

He’s a lot more forthcoming than that in this OP.

*Or is that someone else?

@BrainGlutton

You know I’m right and you know it’s thread-relevant.

On second thought, maybe that last part is someone else…

[Ludovic]

@Chessic_Sense

How does that even work? Even if they could hold the racket, there’s no way they’d wear a sweatband.

I’m so confused. Are you on Debaser’s side or Rhythmdvl’s? How many backfires is that?

The latter. Since a lot of people are piling on Debaser, who unsuccessfully himself tried to turn the pitting back on the OP. If everyone had piled on BPC, then it would be just a regular pitting backfire.

Now, if everyone were to pile on me, it would be a pitting backfire backfire backfire.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@kaylasdad99

I guess that I, for one, haven’t been paying attention. It has always been my sense that BPC’s greatest recurring offense was a habit of posting a single link to an article, adding an outrage-filled thread title and (maybe, sometimes) a single derisive sentence, and hitting “Submit.” IOW, not making the effort to elaborate on what he found provocative about the contents of the link, just inviting the rest of us to join him in his outrage.

And when questioned/called out on this behavior, responding with a remark about the activities of his Pit target that are deserving of scorn, and adding (to his interlocutor) “and you fucking know it.”*

He’s a lot more forthcoming than that in this OP.

*Or is that someone else?

I think that’s someone else. I post a lot of threads in the pit, but usually I elaborate on it quite well. Usually the issue is that the content is fairly mundane, or uninteresting. I actually asked a mod to consolidate this thread and the other one, but haven’t gotten a response. I shouldn’t make a new thread every time I see some anti-science bullshit I want to get mad at.

[Jackmannii]

@Debaser

If you haven’t been paying attention here’s the deal: Budget Player Cadet has a very long history of posting dumb pit threads. This is widely known and not really in dispute by anybody.

Basically, the SDMB is a better place when he isn’t posting every random thought that crosses his mind when he reads an article online. This certainly qualifies, as does the last pit thread of his that I came across

If the last pit thread you refer to was the one about republication of the Seralini GMO study, he had a valid and well-expressed beef, which he shares with many other people on this board and elsewhere, who value evidence-based approaches to the subject of biotechnology.

It looks like you’re letting your dislike of BPC color your appraisal of his threads. If you find him such a PITA, I suggest you find an opportune time to express your feelings, rather than crapping all over legitimate discussions.

[GIGObuster]

@Jackmannii

If the last pit thread you refer to was the one about republication of the Seralini GMO study, he had a valid and well-expressed beef, which he shares with many other people on this board and elsewhere, who value evidence-based approaches to the subject of biotechnology.

It looks like you’re letting your dislike of BPC color your appraisal of his threads. If you find him such a PITA, I suggest you find an opportune time to express your feelings, rather than crapping all over legitimate discussions.

Yeah, I was wondering, it may be so that **BPC **is what he claims but it in this case I can see a few good reasons why the OP has a good reason to pit, Besides the FacktCheckers looking at Anthony Watts for false balance, one has to really wonder what balance there is when even Watts has no trust for his own “expert” Steven Goggard.

Steven Goddard

This pit IMHO is a good one because:

1. One should not just trust the fact checkers 100% of the time, they are human too. 2) Many deniers, like the ones I see in the SDMB insist that if one part of a prediction is wrong that then therefore the whole prediction is wrong. If that is the standard then people like Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard are wrong more often and should had been sent on a bus a long time ago.