A question for David B, Gaudere, and MEBuckner

The BBQ Pit
161

minty green - those are not the complete lyrics. :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

grienspace - Collounsbury does comply with the Great Debates rules, as my post stated. The “Use your own fucking eyes, fuck!” comments was interpreted by the GD moderators as meaning “Use your own fucking eyes!” with fuck added as a strengthener, similar to “Use your fucking eyes, goddamit!”
I can easily see what Collounsbury what do that would break the rules - say “You, grienspace, are an idiot” instead of “Grienspace, your post is idiotic.” If you see a post that you think insults a poster, not a post, e-mail the moderators of the appropriate forum. If you just want to say “I think Collounsbury is rude” or “Collounsbury used a bad word in the Great Debates forum” then the moderators will probably reply “those are in the accepted boundaries of what is allowed in Great Debates.”

162

Look, can we agree that Gaudere said the following just a couple weeks ago?

(emphasis mine)

And can we agree that Collounsbury said the the following recently?

163

Well, in the context of the entire post I didn’t consider it excessive, although if casual swearing is really bothering a significant number of GD posters I can start cracking down harder on it. I didn’t think anyone really cared all that much about a few -or five - “fucks”. I have only warned for profanity twice in my entire tenure in GD. A few "fuck"s doesn’t bother me as much as graphic scatological description.

164

Well, he does use the word 15 times in one post. IMHO this is excessive, but apparently you disagree.

In any event, since you read the entire post, can I assume that you saw the part where I am addressed as “argument clinic boy”?(Note that Collounsbury had been trying to insinuate that my opinion counted for less because I am an attorney)

165

Also, can we not agree that OASIS…is the greatest band EVER?

166

argument clinic boy? That sounds to me like someone trying to say “you need to work on your debating skills”.
For the record, I stated on a previous page that Collounsbury has an abrasive style. But also some of our posters are more sensitive than others. I remember once being called in Great Debates a Gore-humper, meaning of course that my opinion counted for less because I was a supposed liberal and therefore incapable of unbiased thought. But somehow I managed to survive.

167

A few fucks never bothered anyone around here. Fuck,fuck,fuck, and I can say it all night long. What bothers many of us is being described as drooling idiots and others continually reading about other posters being described as drooling idiots and/or lacking the capacity to debate with a modicum of intelligence in GD. Attack the post not the poster. Remember?When Collounsbury screams to lucwarm to use his own fucking eyes, he’s attacking lucwarm , as lucwarm’s eyes are attributes of lucwarm, not lucwarms post. I can see the justification for the ruling on the second fuck, but what about the first fuck attack?

168

grienspace - “use your eyes” is the same as saying “please read my post carefully!” I fail to see how that can be construed as a personal attack.

169

Arnold, you absolutely amaze me.

170

No one was called “drooling idiots”, some posts were called drooling idiocy, and I did warn for that–however, the line is finer than you think, since saying “your argument is idiotic/bullshit/crap” is acceptable in GD. So Coll calling posts “drooling idiocy” is pretty close to the acceptable “your argument is idiotic”. I warned on it because although technically attacking the posts, I thought it was a bit over-the-top.

If a Neo-nazi came to our board and kept claiming the Holocaust was a myth despite all the evidence GD posters presented, and David B said “use your fucking eyes!” I would not consider that to merit a warning–so I wouldn’t warn Collunsbury for the same phrase and circumstance. It doesn’t matter if when David says it he is morally correct to be irate at someone for ignoring evidence, whereas Collunsbury is simply using the remark to hide his shame at lucwarn’s brilliant insight. If Poster A can say “use your fucking eyes” when he thinks Poster B is ignoring something, Poster Z can say “use your fucking eyes” when he thinks Poster X is ignoring something.

While I can perhaps see an argument that “you fucking typeOfPerson” is calling a poster a “fucker” and is therefore an insult, I do not think “your fucking bodypart” is an insult. Is Collunsbury calling luc’s eyes “fuckers” and is calling someone’s eyes “fuckers” an insult? Since I have never heard of calling someone’s eye “fuckers” as being an insult, I conclude the “fuck” was there for “fuck”'s sake, and not intended to slur luc’s eyes by calling them “fuckers”.

171

What about Collounsbury’s admission that he posts in an abusive manner for his own entertainment? That sounds awfully close to the definition of a, well, you know.

Also, I don’t think anyone is objecting to the use of “fuckety fuck fuck” per se. It’s rude, and offensive to some, but I don’t think that’s what’s troublesome. The problem is the “attack” nature of his posts in GD. “drooling idiocy” and “That is, it fits the simplistic, ignorant and ill-informed stereotypes you hold.” are attacks. Although carefully worded in the "attack the post, not the poster framework, his statements do call the posters idiotic, simplistic, ignorant, and ill-informed.

In GD at least, if someone is ignorant or ill-informed, shouldn’t the proper response be a reply showing evidence to the contrary of what they posted, rather than C’s attacks?

172

This is really out of character for me, since I rarely if ever criticize the mods, who I know are doing a thankless job for free. And I remain deeply conflicted on the whole issue of COLLOUNSBURY – he has such penetrating things to say, but he’s often such a jerk in how he says them. But really:

C’mon. Are you guys for real?

IMO, there’s a standard of civilized debate and common courtesy that ought to be observed in Great Debates, and that fucking ought to including not fucking using fucking profanity every fucking other word, fuck. It also ought not to include allowing demeaning and belittling language on the tenuous grounds that, hey, he’s not talking about you, he’s talking about your argument.

My point is that it the important thing is not whether, when you examine his posts under a microscope, he’s dancing on the edge or actually teetered over it. I think that anyone who gets as close to the line as he does, as often as he does, ought to be told to knock it off. I especially think that’s true when he both acknowledges that he does it, and shrugs it off as acceptable because he himself finds it amusing.

I respect your decision and I’ll say no more about it, but I feel compelled to tell you that it really seems like you’re reaching here. And frankly, I don’t think you should have to work that hard.

173

Well I can carry your fuckin brilliant logic one step further Gaudere. We all fuck don’t we? That means were all fuckers. I don’t see how calling someone a fucker is an insult.

174

I already warned about “drooling idiocy”. As for “simplistic, ignorant and ill-informed stereotypes you hold”, well, then if someone thinks all blacks are rapists we can’t call their sterotype simplistic? If someone thinks all dinosaur bones are a hoax we can’t say they are ignorant? If someone thinks France is a state in the country of Europe we can’t call them ill-informed? While my ideal would be more polite debate, I don’t feel I can get in a tizzy about comments made by one poster that would be acceptable if made by another.

If Sparc refers to “their hateful little regurgitations of lies, half-truths, misinterpretations and idiocy” about the white nationalist posts can C be banned for “drooling idiocy”?

If Scylla refers to another posters’ “idiotic opinions” can C be banned for “drooling idiocy”?

If Gex Gex says “Fundamentalism is synonymous with idiocy” can C be banned for “drooling idiocy”?

If Abe says to another poster “you keep posting here as if this forum were your own lavatory […] I mean explain it with valid arguments, not the political idiocy you have posted” can C be banned for “drooling idiocy”?

And all these examples are from the last few months. The fact is, if you want the right to say to the latest twit who argues that, oh, Republicans or Jews or Gay or blacks are perverted, mentally deficient child molestors, “That’s idiotic!”… that gives Collunsbusy the right to say a post is idiotic too. And even if you don’t want that right, the fact remains that we GD mods think the right to call a bullshit argument a bullshit argument or a stupid point a stupid point or an idiotic remark an idiotic remark is worthwhile enough that it’s worth putting up with people using it when it’s really not appropriate in our eyes.

With enough people around, no matter where you draw the line someone is going to be reallllly close to it. And if I move the line someone else will be reallllly close. GD is a forum where people come to argue and tempers run high, and there is no “you must be polite” rule else half the forum’d be banned, and probably a Mod or two. :wink:

However, this doesn’t mean that I think Collunsbury has a free ride to keep posting in the “drooling idiocy” vein I already warned for. Clearly, I do not quite think he should be banned right this instant, but that may change in the future.

175

Because “you fucker” is commonly used as an insult. If you actually were using it in a context that made it clear that you were only referring to “people who have sex” without intended insult–say in a fertility debate–it would be acceptable. Amazingly enough, I also warn people for calling gay posters “faggots” even though they are simply calling them “chunks of wood”. This is because I am not stupid.

And if you try to pull some bullshit in GD where you insult people and pull out some tortured defense about how it is not really an insult in order to prove some imaginary point, you will be in deep shit. Abrasive people who are naturally snotty are one thing, people deliberately trying to fuck with the mods are quite another.

176

I don’t try to insult people in GD Gaudere, thats the other guy, and I have no intention of doing so in the future, nor do I intend to fuck with you. That tone of hostility was uneccessary.

177

Oh yeah, right. As if I would ever say anything like that.

178

I’ve stayed out of this debate for this many pages because I haven’t been involved one way or the other in any of the threads, but seeing the Mods cave in and back up Coll is repulsive. You don’t have to ban him, but the least you can do is rebuke his actions. This hypocrisy is just sad, IMHO.

grienspace hasn’t done a very good job of defending the position that many posters here have expressed (and should quit while (s)he’s ahead) – namely that Coll should be reined in more severely – but that shouldn’t mean his (her?) position is any less significant.

179

I see, I guess I did not read your reference to my “brilliant logic” as being serious–I thought it was sarcasm. Since it was apparently a remark of honest admiration, I can only say “thank you”! And I am sure your newfound respect for my brilliance means you will no longer be questioning my rulings? :slight_smile:

180

But C doesn’t just call a bullshit arguement bullshit, or a stupid point stupid, he, like I said, carefully worded, calls the posters stupid, idiots, etc.

Why allow the insluting in GD?

For example, at random, I can think of two posters who are almost always on opposite sides, such as December and [b ]wring**. Yet, in recent memory, I can’t think of a single post where either one of them attacked anybody else. Probably because they haven’t, and never would.

Why do you allow C to continually be a “jerk” so to speak?