Was this sarcasm, or are you actually claiming that the “calling a spade a spade” phrase is actually related to the use of “spade” as a slur? Wouldn’t mind a cite on that one.
I assume “Call a spade a spade” is the cliche referred to.
Look, even in the Supreme Court there is flexibility in the rules. Collounsbury goes way beyond the allowances of any flexibility. He breaks the rules on a regular basis. Do you deny this?
Here’s something that he said to IzzyR the other day in General Questions:
IMHO this is pretty clearly a personal attack. Do you think that IzzyR was “asking for it”?
**
So, maybe those people should be (seriously) warned about their conduct.
**
I’m mainly objecting to Collounsbury’s Special Privileges. I don’t see how that makes me a “prissy old biddy,” but whatever.
I ain’t got a clue Gary, then again I’m kinda drunk from all the whine.
Probably not. It’s sad. Almost as sad as seeing people piss and moan because they get ripped into when they argue and debate like disingenuous muttonheads.
For instance:
lucwarm, I find your hypocritical debating style, word twisting and hopelessly ignorant poppycock in the ‘race?’ threads just as offensive, irritating and damnable as you seem to find Col’s invective style rhetoric. So stop squirming around in the mud, grow a spine and take the rebuke standing up when you deserve it, and IMO you have deserved it.
Sparc
Look - does Collounsbury break the rules or doesn’t he? Do the mods let him get away with it or not? That’s what this thread is about.
Claiming that Collounsbury’s victims somehow deserve his abuse is irrelevant.
(But for what it’s worth, I invite you to ressurect any of the “race” threads and point out EXACTLY where my debating style is “hypocritical,” EXACTLY where you think I twist words, etc. )
Please point out in the rules of the board where personal attacks are allowed when someone deserves it.
That’s the point you are missing. No one is getting the vapors over harsh language and arrogant tones. We just want the rules to apply to all, equally.
I am not one of the moderators, and I am not one of the administrators. They have given unequivocal answers as to their stand on this mater in this very thread. Can’t you read, or is your memory not in good enough condition as to recall how the first page of a thread reads? For that matter Mr. Winkelried posted a statement on this page.
So you disagree with the judgments the administration make. Cry me a river.
Is it? I think that if he was exploding right left and center without provocation it would be more justified to complain. Taking the risk of falling into the same trap as you have, I will venture that if I was a mod I would judge that as being a jerk, while as it is I would judge it as being tempered and somewhat high strung.
I defer that privilege to the better suited and more knowledgeable on the topic, for instance Colonel Lounsbury. As I recall it; your errors, both factual and rhetoric, have been clearly pointed out to you by a number of posters on a number of occasions, it obviously didn’t help - invective, or no invective.
Sparc
Sparc
Why so highstrung lately?
Please no one do this. lucwarm doesn’t listen to or understand half of what people post there, and usually that frustrates people enough that only tomanddeb will bother to continue the debate. Collounsbury’s blow ups are perfectly understandable in those threads.
So here’s what we have, towards the end of the second page:
-
No one has any clear idea of exactly what the rules are or aren’t. Unsurprising.
-
Those who tend to agree with Collounsbury’s positions on issues (& personalities) are symphathetic to the idea of him ripping into those people who disagree with them. Also unsurprising.
With regards to the latest turn of the thread, i.e. lucwarm’s performance in the race threads, I can’t say that I’ve followed every post (in particular, I tended to skim the “definition of race” debates), but in those that I have seen I have found him to be forthright and straightforward. But of course, we tended to be on the same side of the debate, so this is also unsurprising. Still, the same applies to Sparc and Tars as well, so it’s a draw.
Which points to the problem of using the “he had it coming” principle being advanced by all the defenders here. Too subjective. Standards have to be objective.
Oh for fuck’s sake-if someone wants to comment on december in such a manner, there is a forum provided for it and we’re posting in it right now.
:smack: :rolleyes:
Am I more than usual? Yeah maybe I am… I dunno… Little matter, the pissing and moaning in buhohoho-mommy-he-cussed-at-me-'cause-I-shot-my-mouth-off-about-stuff-I-don’t-know-shit-about style irritates me like hell, however strung I happen to be.
And Izzy, although I find your post well phrased, well thought and balanced, I think that the idea that a rule system can be clear when its main rule is “don’t be a jerk” is wishfull thinking. Even if the rules would be clearer, rules always need interpretation, interpretation by human beings that by force will have bias. To boot I’d say the administration is usually fair and pretty even-handed as I have witnessed things… then again that’s just MHO.
Sparc
Oh, and FWIW, Izzy, I’m usually on Collounsbury’s end of the political spectrum, but I am in no way sympathetic to his actions. I think he has gone beyond being a jerk.
So don’t assume it’s those who agree with him-I may, but the way he presents his case leaves much to be desired and embarasses my side.
I don’t disagree with this. I am no fan of he “Don’t be a jerk” rule, for this very reason.
Still, it would help if they were more specific.
But in any event, the position that you and others seem to be advocating in this thread is that the mods and admins take what amounts to an official position with regards to the validity of the positions and arguments of the various debators, and define acceptable conduct on that basis. I think this would be taking subjectivity to a new level, and would in general detract from the MB.
And Guinastasia, I did not mean to imply that all who agreed with Collounsbury’s positions found his conduct acceptable. Rather, that most or all who find his conduct acceptable were those who tended to agree with his positions. Looking back, I should have written “2) Some of those who…” Sorry.
By all means, keep parroting your bullshit that this is about people being overly sensitive and deserving flames, and not about rules applying to everybody. A couple more times and you might convince someone.
Sparc
With all due respect, a plea for fair and equitable application of rules is hardly anything to be irritated about. And mockery of such a plea seems, well, misplaced.
On the one hand:
I know a lot about the Resident Evil series of computer games. I also know a lot about R.E.M, Hitchcock movies, the effects of a wide variety of psychotropic substances and I also know the absolute, bona fide best possible way to make a paper aeroplane. Trust me on this, on the above subjects, I am as close to infallible as it is possible to be. The Pope aint got nuthin on me. Seriously.
However, if I were to shoot my mouth off the way Collounsbury does in any thread on any of the above subjects, I would be banned, and anyone who denies this even for a minute fraction of a quintillionth of a nanosecond is a self deluded fool. Yes, even you. Yeah, you…with the face, there. I’m on to you!
The fact that the areas of my expertise are dull as shit should have nothing to do with it. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour in whatever thread it occurs. Just because Collounsbury is being rude while imparting actual worthwhile information should not alter or lessen the charges brought against him. Neither does the fact that some people do genuinely deserve to be roasted. If a man committed some minor social transgression and his 9 buddies all felt he deserved a good ass whuppin for it, they would have no right to administer it, and they would be in the wrong. In other words, Collounsbury has no excuse for lashing out at imbeciles in Great Debates. Not even if they really, really ask for it. We have the pit for that.
On the other hand, the one time I dared challenge Collounsbury in a debate he was very well behaved. It was even on points to do with the middle east. I was even in the wrong. Not so much as a snarl. Granted, in the same thread he ripped both Kalt and Shodan new assholes but I think the difference was that he felt I had tackled his points and questions more thoroughly than the aforementioned.
In short: Collounsbury is fine so long as his posts are addressed to his satisfaction. Bear this in mind before insulting his, and our, intelligence with fact free OP’s & unsubstantiated drive by’s.
P.S. - I am writing this while high. Please excuse any spelling, grammar or syntax errors. I do not vouch for the legibility or clarity of this post.
i just get annoyed the most common reply by him is “i still don’t know what you mean by that” after something simple has been explained 15 times. He seems to be rational and normal in the other threads i’ve seen him in, and it baffels me why he suddenly can’t understand basics that form the backbone of what we are saying.