Talk:SCEPCOP

Heh. First browse & what do I get? A Scientology (ads by Google) advert. say no more! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 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? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 05:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, shirley there is a mistake there. ħuman 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? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 05:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"the believers - the 'sheep' - and the non-believers - the 'goats'" No, just her ESP in full force. Or... ħuman 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? ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ No comment 01:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 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. ħuman 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? ħuman 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 McWicked^{Model 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.

1. "1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement."

Analyzing by a loose definition, maybe. Mostly ad hominem. No refutations whatsoever.

1. "2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas."

Very vague on their crank ideas.

1. "3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism."

Does not apply.

1. "4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media."

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)