A question for David B, Gaudere, and MEBuckner

Agreed that the rudeness/hostility is the problem, but the profanity doesn’t help. The occasional swear-word for emphasis, fine. The fucking use of fucking every fucking other fucking word simply makes him sound like a fucking idiot.


Fenris and I agree again!

It’s happening more and more, dude. We are actually * morphing into each other! *


Theres a scary thought

Maybe so, but I’ve been reading this board for a couple years now, and it does seem that Collounsbury is receiving special treatment.


True, and in this case, I question their judgment.


Maybe so, but it’s hard to imagine what “backstory” would excuse Collounsbury’s conduct. The only one I can think of is that the guy has some mental problems. But here’s the thing - Collounsbury shows a consistent pattern of being abusive and disrespectful towards many other posters. So, this is not like the case of another well-known poster who is bipolar and, once in a blue moon, posts something totally outrageous. In short, I don’t think that the “insanity defense” flies here (assuming that’s what’s going on).

Someone has let Collounsbury know he’s the subject of this discussion I suppose? Seems fair to let him know y’all have a problem with his posting style.

And what istara said.

In the case of the converse, Collounsbury would have been banned so long ago no one would even remember him.

That’s the rub, I think - his appalling treatment of others is balanced by his amazing knowledge.

But in my mind, the tradeoff is not worth it. Obviously others, including the administration, disagree.

Oh, he probably knows, Kal. This is by no means his first Pit thread, nor the first question about his heavy-handed and belligerent posting style.

FUCK, do not use the “Search” so much. It prevent posters from beeing connected with the site. Sometimes the site can’t be reached for hours, and as I have understood, the “search” is “eating quite a lot of band-width”.
And it is not only because of my Russian pedal-driven computer, with some squirrels helping…

I am totally out when it is about computer-systems, but maybe someone can tell if I am right?

Well lucwarm, what can I say? Yes, there are a few people who do seem to get away with murder, and I wonder sometimes in the heat of the moment if they are unbannable. This is especially baffling when frequently the person is clashing openly and with much vitriol with Staff Members.

However - because I know from personal contact with some of the SDMB Staff that they are intelligent, sane, and reasonable people, I trust that there is always a good and well-thought reason for actions - or inactions. So I know that the person is here, and remains here, for a reason. And if I don’t like them, I either attack them when they attack me or others, or, if they are truly disgusting people, I Ignore them. While I would never say or hint who is on my Ignore list, even if it were not against the Rules, I will say that I have at times 40 to 50 regular posters on it. And it works.

It could be too that the Staff is simply not aware of how badly someone is behaving, and how badly they are really making others feel. I think that reasoned complaints via e-mail which include links and examples are taken with far more weight and seriousness than flames in the Pit. I hope I’m not going over the edge here…but in one notable case of a banning, it was expressed to me at the time by a Staff Member that the reason the person stayed around so long was that it was honestly unclear if the person’s atitude was really making others on the Board feel as uncomfortable and disgusted as they actually were. But in that case, few people at all mailed to complain - although there were many Pit threads involving said person.

And, of course, if you don’t want to go with the “Staff have a good idea what is going on and know the backstory and situation”, or the “Staff are not sure if it is a problem, because not enough people are complaining” angles, you can then look to the “Staff are well-meaning but (like all) fallable humans who are tired and cranky and unpaid and have to wrestle with a Board that pretty much does not work for 12 hours out of the day” angle.

Perhaps a mod could add his name to the thread title, maybe sticking a “re:Collunsbury” at the end, so it might catch his eye.

Does he even know there’s a BBQ pit? Obviously he doesn’t save BBQ Pit behavior for it.

Wow. You have a really low threshold for “truly disgusting”!

Collounsbury will know. He does regular vanity searches…

Oh heavens! Oh horrors! Collounsbury uses the word FUCK!!! He’s going to summon Satan and cast our fragile souls into the darkness, forever to be damned! Oh mercy, Lord, mercy on us!


Methinks some people should grow a spine.


Glad I could be of service.

Now, Spoofe, I think it’s been agreed that the excessive use of “fuck” by C. is just the slimy and boring icing on a really nasty cake of abuse, insults and general jerkitude.

Take away the latter and I venture that the former would cause nary a ripple.

As many others have stated in this thread, it’s not the profanity per se. Rather, it’s his personal attacks and general mean-spiritedness.

On a personal note, I don’t care a lot if profanity is, or is not allowed in GD*. I do think, though, that whatever “rules” apply should apply equally.

I also want to add that I learn huge amounts from Collounsbury. My agenda was not to get him banned. I am just having trouble getting past the apparent double standard.

[sub][sup]*In truth, I do have a preference. I would rather that profanity is limited severly if only to force people to be creative in their criticisms and use of the language. I would also like to be able to read things at work and not worry that someone may come up from behind me and be confronted by a page of “fuck”.[/sup][/sub]

Just speaking for myself, here, but when I try to follow debates on the Middle East, my eyes usually glaze over before I’m through with the first post. And then Collounsbury comes along, and has these amazingly funny insults and put downs between his equally amazingly brilliant insights to the discussion. I have to go back and re-read the rest of the thread just to undertand who he’s slamming, and why. As a consequence, I get myself one of those edjumacation things I hear so much about on the teevee.

As to why he hasn’t been banned, I’m hardly an expert on his posts, but it seems to me that while Col has a bit of an itchy trigger finger, he rarely draws first. If someone asks, “Why is there so much violence in the Middle East?” they’ll likely get a reasonable response. If someone asks, “Why are Arabs so violent?” they get themselves a reaming. Since it seems impossible to have a discussion on the Mid East without at least one person chiming in with the later question/opinion, we get a lot more of Reaming Collounsbury, and not so much Reasonable Collunsbury.

My very first experience with this board was a thread started by handy and had many of the regulars pitted against me. Collounsbury was one of them and he said some things that I didn’t like. I emailed him and the problem was easily solved in that manner.
Besides that, why not just consider the source. To me he is a great source of information, but not someone that I’d want working in the State Department.

I’d say there is no sense in replying to something Anthracite says, since chances are she has you on her list. Matter of fact I’m assuming such as I speak.

Obviously my memory works better than your search methods. As you can see here.



You just wanted to find out if you were on, didn’t you? :stuck_out_tongue:

Think about how many people are here as regular posters (by my definition, people posting at a minimum once per every few days, over a long period of time). I estimate…1000? Maybe as many as 1500? We’re talking…at worst, 4%? 3%? Is that really too many? :confused:

FTR, reviewing my list, I had 41 people on it, of which I think 8 are now banned. About 15-20 I haven’t seen online for weeks, so I guess it’s fair to say that it’s closer to a dozen people currently posting here.