Punditfact: a gripe on climate science

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.

Shut up Big Tard.

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.

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).

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.

I have the weirdest sense of deja-asshole…

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.