I’m sad to see him go… I was impressed by the knowledge and unique vantage he had to give an oppinion. But the guy had a hard time treating people like people in GD.
He was a tad arrogant and when he was given the rules for staying he thought himself above them. I don’t see why anyone should get a pass the rest of us would not.
Frankly, I also am disappointed with Collounsbury’s banning, because he swore to accept the somewhat tighter rein we put on him, and then did not do so. It would have taken him a few seconds (well, few minutes with the board running slow) to open up a pit thread where he could have told people to “fuck off” all he liked, but he had to do it in GD. And this just a little while after an extremely irate email warning from me, and after multiple previous warnings to tone things down. I regret that he is gone, but I believe it was neccesary to ban him. I am becoming increasingly dubious that any poster banned for multiple infractions can reform; the only sucessful returnee I recall is C#3, and I strongly suspect that’s only because he doesn’t post anymore.
Put me on the side of “nobody should be exempt from the rules.” I’ll miss what Col has to say, but the rules against personal abuse in GD were and are quite clear, and he more than sufficiently demonstrated that he couldn’t stay within them.
This isn’t a popularity contest. He broke the rules and was warned, continued flaunting them and was banned.
Twice.
Nobody, but nobody, can ever be “the best objective source for facts”. To me it boils down to having any “source” as opposed to not having any.
*The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Extends upward in farewell to a twit.
Despite all fawning from those who kissed his ass,
I think I’ll give reinstatement petitions a pass.
**
Well, yes, but only situationally. He and I butted heads a couple of times just in the last several weeks. Despite his flights of abuse, I don’t think it was anything personal, nor did I take it personally. In fact, I found the over-the-top invective kind of amusing, given the subject matter.
**
Actually, probably his greatest weakness. I, at least, had no problem challenging C. But when you unload with both barrels, it’s almost impossible to come back and admit that the person you just referred to as “moron boy” or some such actually had a point and that you were wrong. However, C did at least have the good sense to stop digging and shut up once he finally realized he was in a hole – and that’s more than I can say for a lot of posters.
Collounsbury’s biggest problem was that he was too predictable. Posters who spouted the same nonsense over and over again in thread after thread would always draw a reaction from him. He reacted true-to-form once again and it got him banned. A pity, really. He should have known from his fencing that being too predictable will end up getting you skewered every time.
Well I’m not sure what you refer to. AOB certainly isn’t someone I could see as unbiased, yet I think everyone has at least “some” bias in his opinions, no matter what they may be or about which issue they may go.
If I refuse to go in to his postings it is because it is a waist of time to first have to complete his quotes, put them in context and then to give the explanation.
I’m sorry, but if people want to criticize or question Islam, posting some copy and paste work of an anti-Islam website isn’t a good way to come across as being interested in honest debate.
For as far as I was able to read them the short period I’m a member, I found his posts most of the time rather to the point, certainly when it came to give people living outside the region some insight.
Of course his view is coloured pro-West/USA and pro-his own interests. Yet it is how such people look at the region; you can’t expect them to act as MENA-born. They are there for a reason. That doesn’t make his writings less interesting for people who aren’t informed about the issues he touched.
As for my own opinion: He managed to insult me more then once in his replies to my postings and also when jumping in on my topic.
Don’t question me about the “why”… But for someone living in the region and being aware of Arab sensitivities, he knew very well what he was doing.
I can’t say antyhing on Collounsburie’s qualities to “entertain” because I’m not long enough a member of this website.
And as I said: His posts were even for me informative. Because it is first of all interesting to read how outsiders with experience in the region view and experience it and try to have investments running. That they are out on profit is only natural and that someone like Collounsbury explodes when seeing the blunders of the US government is not surprising to me.
As for losing his temper when posting on boards like this: I can understand it completely. I’m not innocent myself to such reactions.
I read here that this member was already banned once and was permitted to come back. So maybe in a few weeks the moderator will change his mind about his decision once again?
I really think many people would like to see him back.
You can count me among them.
Salaam. A.
Col: as my son taught me just last night, sometimes you coupe, sometimes you just disengage. Keeps the opponent off balance.
Shodan: given that you can’t process anything more complex than four letter words, you should be lamenting his banning.
There once was a doper named Coll
Whose style was like a brick wall
His mouth kept on running
Moderators came gunning
And now he is posting fuck all
[reposted from another Collounsbury thread]
Civility … (how to say this?) … was never Coll’s long suit. I too agree that people in Great Debates need to more clearly sort between assaults upon the veracity of their data or stance and personal attacks. However, like some sort of BASE jumper that keeps on pulling the ripcord closer and closer to the ground, Coll kept up his personal attacks, even after a recent warning. How clear does it need to be for someone?
I feel that there has been a marked decline in courtesy around here of late. People I have contacted all concur that a propensity for vicious personal attacks continues to grow. Disagreeing with what someone says is one thing. Smearing their character when they have done no direct harm to you is another. Evidently, some people are entirely unable to use the ignore function, be it by clicking on the scroll icon or implementing the viewing option here at the boards. Somehow, these same people see nothing wrong with raising Hell about a personal issue that could have been solved by ignoring it. I can only wonder if it will ever dawn upon them how they come across as whinging, pouting little rotters that have nothing better to do than foul the nest. To be completely clear about this, those who merely pile on in such situations are “pulling up lawn chairs” and not much else. A vital focus upon constructive criticism is being lost and astoundingly few people seem willing to lament this.
Coll, was fouling the nest. If there is one forum at these boards where civility must be held dear, it is Great Debates. Decorum in factual discussions serves an important function. It forces informative statements to the fore and reduces the clutter of personalities and characterization that interferes with clear communication. Anyone not able to respect this simple fact may well be lacking in other departments too. While I agree that there are some posters in Great Debates who are utterly uncontaminated by logic or reason, the place to point that out is in the Pit. Coll persisted in what amounted to being a drunken lout in the town hall meetings and was ejected therefrom. While I shall miss the chance to get detailed information about the MENA region, watching moderators reduced to mopping up bile gets tiresome.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
It can’t changed, once you have hit Submit
Review with care the words thou dost transmit
Thy Tears cannot wash out thy posted shit.
I’ll miss Collounsbury.
Well, I am having trouble with the five-letter word “coupe”.
Sometimes I sedan, sometimes I station wagon, sometimes I even SUV. But I am having real trouble learning how to coupe.
Regards,
Shodan
Another sychophant chiming in here.
I think China Guy really nailed it. I won’t mention names, but there are 2 very prolific posters who frequent GD, and while I guess they are technically within the rules, neither one has ANYTHING of value to contribute, ever. It somehow seems wrong that these troll-types are allowed to clog up threads with drivel, yet an intelligent person with a lot to contribute gets banned for using the f-word.
Collunsbury is a smart guy who has little tolerance for fools. Reminds me of early Cecil Adams, actually.
Banning Colls while allowing other Dopers to hang around and toss out their moronic gibberings is a step backwards in the fight against ignorance, I say.
Gah. He had little tolerance for most people who dared challenge his Incredible Knowledge. If you really want, I’ll try to dig up some exchanges where he was (1) rude; and (2) wrong, or at least there was room for disagreement.
Even though we agreed more often then not, it was clear that he had little regard for the rules when they were inconvienent to him.
The right decision was made.
December is killing us with his supposed “kindness”
His debate style is the functional equivalent of looking every person interested in facts instead of rhetoric square in the eye and saying “fuck you”.
So I’m not the only one who would characterize his style in such manner. Actually, after he called himself “lounsbury” in one thread, I speculated that the “col” refers to the military title colonel. A web search of “colonel lounsbury” however revealed zilch although “private lounsbury” and “lieutenant lounsbury” produced results. I leave it to others to draw conclusions.
Now I could start another thread, but I specifically want to address the collounsbury supporters and worshipers, as their posts utterly baffle me. If GWB started posting regularly in GD, who would you prefer to be banned if you were required to choose, GWB or collounsbury. Or, of these two, who would make a better president of the United States.
WTF 
Enjoy,
Steven
Although pubic hair on the public toliet would make a better president than the current guy, WHAT are you talking about?