Talk:SCEPCOP

Heh. First browse & what do I get? A Scientology (ads by Google) advert. say no more! 04:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Argument # 2: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Says: "there are nevertheless 7 problems with it to keep in mind". Err... number 2's missing, or at least not numbered. Shum mishtake shurely?  05:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, shirley there is a mistake there. 05:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Forum topic: BLASPHEMY: taking the name of the GOAT in vain. - note, the author compares "believers" to sheep - Freudian slip?  05:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "the believers - the 'sheep' - and the non-believers - the 'goats'" No, just her ESP in full force. Or...  05:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who wasted half an hour on that homeopathy site just playing with the mouse following thingy? 01:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup! 01:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I "ran" it for a minute or so to see what the algorithm was. Interesting that a website would provide an irritating "game" that utterly distracts visitors from the content.  I forget what the site was about or if there were any links, I was too busy herding blue dots.  03:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

minor edit war
Fifth H'man, calling "Winston Wu" a schizophrenic twice in the article is really lame. And let's use the name he uses for himself, k? 05:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hell I am using the fucking kid's gloves so far...the guy abandoned his kids, exploits women in third world countries, and is in general a total womanizing, fraudulent twit. Seriously look at this shit. Fifth Horseman 05:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pffffft what a lame edit war - even for a minor one. Someone fuck the other guy up. I'll leave you guys to it. I have a slinky pillow-fight to attend to. Ace McWickedModel 500 05:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am laughing too hard at the fact that the best the woo community can muster is a schizophrenic pimp hiding in the Philippines because of the cheap prostitutes and the ability to avoid being forced to support his child and wife. I am sure once the smoke clears I can fight a proper battle. Fifth Horseman 05:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There Are No Rebuttals
This seems like a simple attack. There are no refutations or anything here as well. Analyzing by a loose definition, maybe. Mostly ad hominem. No refutations whatsoever. Very vague on their crank ideas. Does not apply. Isn't the focus of the article, so not that important here. I may sound like somebody simply complaining, but why is this not fixed? This fuels their positions on "Pseudoskeptics". I am not very familiar with the site (SCEPCOP) so it would be best if somebody else did this, somebody who is more knowledgeable on them. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) "1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement."
 * 1) "2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas."
 * 1) "3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism."
 * 1) "4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media."