Well here we have it from two administrators that** Collounsbury** does indeed occasionally break the rules. As soon as we go from occasionally to frequently perhaps then we may see some action.
By the way
This quote by a fellow named Collounsbury criticising the ad hominem nature of another’s post on another message board
He he he.
Damn, this is still going on?
I am flattered and all, but Greeny old maid and Lucwarmy need to get new hobbies. Greeny, I know you’re madly in love with me but you know, the '98 post from the usenet: the equivalent of the killfile is the ignore. You can use it if you want. Maybe Lucwarmy can “restate” his arguments here for me, you know I just don’t quite get them. Or perhaps he can just come on by and explain why he could never quite advance a clear hypothesis but always had to ask Telemark et al to summarize his very own points for him.
Well, I would love to return their love, in spades but I’m afraid I’ve gone and accepted a new employment offer so I gots me work to do in prepping. Pity, it would have some real entertainment value.
Now then, if it makes Arnold et al life happier and easier, they should take whatever steps they feel appropriate. I shall not take it personally.
Collounsbury, are you supposing that your attitude of “the staff can just ban me if they want to” is going to make our life easier?
Let me disabuse you of that notion. Almost everytime there’s a banning of a well-known member, there’s a pit thread and accompanying e-mails saying how the moderators/administrators are nazis, enemies of free speech, etc., etc. Is that prospect supposed to fill me with joy?
If you really want to make our lives happier and easier, you could either a) Stop being rude in Great Debates or b) voluntarily stop posting at the SDMB.
Of course, if you don’t care that you are being a thorn in the side of the staff, just keep on posting in your usual manner.
COLL, it’s not an all or nothing proposition, you know. It’s unfair of you to act like the only choices are to put up with your scorched-earth style of “debating” or do without your admittedly extensive knowledge and expertise. There is a third option, and I mean no insult when I ask you this:
Why can’t you just post like a human being? You make good points; why do you have to cut your opponent’s nuts off in order to do so? Why isn’t it enough to point out that someone is wrong – why do you always (or most times) have to make them feel stupid and small as well? I’m serious: Why do you do that? I don’t know your situation and I’m not asking about it, but when you go all postal on someone’s ass, with what appears to be little if any provocation, the most charitable answer I can come up with is that you are a very, very angry man.
Nobody is asking you to suffer fools gladly; you don’t have to suffer them at all. But neither is it necessary to rip their lungs out and stomp on them as an accompaniment to pointing out how wrong they are.
Congratulations on your new job; I hope it brings you many good things. And I hope you continue to post here from wherever you next are. I know I speak for a lot of posters when I say I would be sad to see you go. But couldn’t you at least try to play nice? Or, if not nice, at least nicer? Please? Or, to use your vernacular: Fucking please?
What Jodi said. Nearly everyone, including me, gets frustrated in GD from time to time and lets a few questionable remarks fly. While those occasional comments may be understandable and forgiveable in context, you’ve made rather a career out of it in nearly every post for some time now. Insulting ignorance is rarely an effective means of fighting it, which is a shame since your information so often gets swallowed up in the personal attacks.
Well, that’s why they pay you the big bucks.
Oh Grienspace, I’m still waiting for an explanation of the racist cliche you were referring to?
Gee Gary Kumquat were you holding your breath all this time? Please re-read page 2 where several posters answered your question including proviision of a cite.
A cite which proved the phrase has nothing whatsoever to do with a “racist cliche.” You should withdraw the accusation and apologize, grienspace.
Gee minty green, since Squink did not take offence, I don’t see why it is any concern of yours. But since it is let me respond.
I did not mean to suggest in any way shape or form that Squink was racist. Any one reading it that way should read the post in question again. I did suggest that he refrain from racist cliches. (note that I did not claim that he used a racist cliche although admittedly that was my intent.)
Did the cite that Gary Kumquat provided “prove” that the phrase in question was racist? Not at all. It merely affirms that the origin of the phrase is comepletely unrelated to racism.
But then so is the word Negro which various dopers have convinced me should not be used to describe African Americans as they take offence.
And the origin of Christmas celebration is completely unrelated to the Christian celebration it is today.
If there is any doubt, I refer you to a cached Google site. Beware, the hate here is particularly virulent.
As I take my appologies seriously, I only make them where they are warranted. Be sure however that no offence was intended by me in this regard.
Indeed, withholding and apology is very niggardly.
Hodge, less than one post per day? Why that makes you a niggard.
followed by
Grienspace, you talk complete fucking shite, do you know that? First you try to claim that a cite has already answered my question. Then, at about the time you notice the only cite is one I provided showing it has no racist connotations, you try to bullshit your way out of it.
That is a perfect example of the kind of contemptible dishonesty that is a far greater insult to users of this board than any language Col has ever thrown about.
Please disabuse yourself of that notion. Of course I took offense. I also felt that there was no need to respond to such an outrageous and off-topic tactic. That would’ve only served to move the discussion in a direction of your choosing. Instead, we got at least a brief excursion into the rule-abusive practices of posters * other than * Collounsbury Having admitted dishonorable intent, you’ve hoisted your petard, now please feel free to rotate upon it.
grienspace, minty green is right. The claim that that phrase is racist is a joke.
Believe me, I would gladly trade all that money in for a romantic walk on the beach with you, Bryan. 
Hey Fuckhead you want to talk about dishonesty??!!
Lets review your fuckin bullshit in this thread
Sounds like an innocent question. **Kal **answered and you accepted the answer with a rebuttal. End of story until you came up with this
Now where the fuck where you asking for an explanation that caused you to wait dickhead I fuckin knew you were looking to cause shit with that lie the moment I read it.
I know you were just trying to hijack a thread you didn’t like. Now go and crawl back into your hole asshole
And the shites have nothing to do with this.
And Squink I confess that I do not understand your outrage but I accept the fact that you were offended, hence I apologize and withdraw the remark.
I think the point was grien, that we couldn’t quite believe that you actually thought ‘calling a spade a spade’ was used as a racist slur. The posts that were on page 2 said ‘he CAN’T mean this can he? NO WAY’, so I think we were wondering if you were going to weigh in on it.
just IMHO.
Carry on.
Grienspace, thank you for providing further and further evidence of just what sort of disengenous lying fuck you are.
First you claimed a remark was racist, when it was not.
Then you claimed people had given cites showing it to be racist - the only cite was one I’d provided showing quite the opposite.
You claimed Squink was not offended, without bothering to check if he was (and he was).
You said that Kal had answered my question, and I’d accepted it - neither true.
In short, thank you for showing, beyond all doubt, that there are far more offensive tactics than swearing.
Oh, and for your information, you’ll find shite is the scottish phrase for shit. I think it has everything to do with you, ya wee shite.
You know jarbabyj, 95% or so of the time the usage is non racist, but as I’ve point out it can be racist.
My point was to maintain the degree of validity of Squinks remarks by connecting the characterization that many dopers are drooling idiots with the suggestion that he used a racist cliche. I thought that most people would understand that my request for a list of drooling idiots does not affirm that many dopers are drooling idiots and as you’ll note my “racist cliche” remark was in the same sentence. A facetious comment and a serious comment in the same sentence just doesn’t work.
Please do not confuse my defence of the racist cliche label with the original intent. Minty Green claimed that a cite" proved"
that the phrase wasn’t racist’ and thus I should apologize.I had to respond with the actual usage argument And as you know this debate never ends.
As I’ve stated before, I never once entertained that Squink used the phrase “as a racist cliche” or that he was racist, and I thought that the cited rebuttal and my lack of response was indicative of how strongly I felt the remark was racist.