First off, I’d like to apologize to ** Gaudere** for my over the top venting about the accused. That said…
If I’m not mistaken, the goal of this site is the reduction of ignorance. People ask questions to reduce their level of ignorance. Essentially, Colonburied delighted in ridiculing those that sought to participate in the activity that he seems to have devoted most of his life to… learning. Need I say that at one point, he was unaware of every single fact in his head?? He was either taught, or actually stooped to asking questions.
These forums are not intended for people to assert their dominance, they’re meant to inform and enlighten. Attitude adds double the fuel to the fire. If he knows everything, how can he manage to make such a rookie mistake such as violating clearly stated rules, thereby banning him from his preferred trolling grounds.
Well, this exchange is likely to lead to nothing more than a few cheap shots between us, so maybe it’s not worth wasting our time on. It’s just that I found your post to be something of cheap, below-the-belt smear on someone you apparently didn’t have the guts to confront when they were here, capable of responding in kind. Now that he’s gone, on the other hand, you find yourself free to denigrate his person, and then use that denigration to imply that it makes his arguments somehow less valid. Which is irritating bullshit.
Regarding Col’s modus operandi:
News flash: most of your sources deserved belittlement.
:shrug:
You are a neo-conservative idiot. You still believe trees pollute, for God’s sake. Get over it.
When you insisted that you were correct in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, Col unambiguously told you to go get stuffed.
That wasn’t my experience of most of Col’s posts, which usually contained solid, well-documented information and most often sharp critique of contrary sources. YMMV.
Having said that, I grant you he could be insufferably overbearing at times, and as far as that goes, I don’t begrudge you some residual ill-will against him. But it’s just cheap to try to demean his arguments because you didn’t like his personality, which are two separate things. Although, I’m sad to say, it is rather typical of your posting style.
No, I honestly didn’t like the abuse. But I did like the point-by-point factual refutations. That you focus on the one and employ it to minimize the other is the point I take issue with, all your weaseling and innuendo about the faults of my character notwithstanding.
You: “And it amazes me that no one seems to question Collounsbury’s opinions given the obvious fact that he’s a hothead who can’t control himself.”
Me: “… to begin with, the idea that no one ever “questioned Col’s opinions” in GD is ludicrous.”
You: “I never said that no one could challenge Collounsbury.”
Me: ?
If I were Col right now, I’d probably tell you to get stuffed for making such a typically disingenuous claim. But I’m not, so I’ll just point out that most of the tripe you post in GD is easily recognized for what it is; the problem is actually refuting it. That takes time, access to source material, and so forth, in order to construct an argument that counters yours and also holds water in a public forum. It’s simply a corollary of spin: it is easier to spit out a dozen misleading factoids than it is to actually take the time out to debunk any single one. By the time one such factoid is debunked, the spinner has 10 new ones to hand, and eventually the rational, balanced view drowns in a sea of misleading bull puckey. It’s a nice strategy for winning a debate, but useless if one seeks to approach anything like truth.
Anyway, like it or not, I’m not a member of the “Collounsbury cheerleading team.” I simply reacted to your post-banning calumny against him.
Actually, I long for someone on the right who can articulate his/her position in anything approaching logical (and honest) form; such is sadly missing from these boards, with the exception of Scylla, IMO (sorry to read about your troubles with the bears, by the way). As far as me being tolerant of such a person’s right to speech, if he told me to go fuck myself on a regular basis, you’re probably right; but then again, I belong to that camp who agrees that banning Col was unavoidable, given his record.
By the way, I might as well point out that Collounsbury was a right-winger by any normal standard, as you probably know.
Poor poor Sam. Always the victim, never the victimizer. Guess that’s why you couldn’t help taking that parting shot.
I thought he “kicked the shit out of you” factually, in most debates. That he sometimes lost his temper is understandable, given your general pig-headedness. But I still don’t condone that, really.
Agreed, and glad to hear that you did learn something, and even changed your opinions; unfortunately, judging from most of what you post, I would never have guessed.
Anyway, this entire discussion is really tangential to the topic at hand, so I let it go. It feels a bit unfair, really, jumping on you in a thread about Col.
I grant you the parting volley, should you so wish it.
If I’m not mistaken, the goal of this site is the reduction of ignorance. People ask questions to reduce their level of ignorance. Essentially, Colonburied delighted in ridiculing those that sought to participate in the activity that he seems to have devoted most of his life to… learning. Need I say that at one point, he was unaware of every single fact in his head?? He was either taught, or actually stooped to asking questions.
These forums are not intended for people to assert their dominance, they’re meant to inform and enlighten. Attitude adds double the fuel to the fire. If he knows everything, how can he manage to make such a rookie mistake such as violating clearly stated rules, thereby banning him from his preferred trolling grounds.
For what it’s worth, in other threads he has made vague statements about working in “pharma-biotech.” I imagine he is some sort of low-level employee with delusions of grandeur. Just speculating of course.
Upon further review… yeah, it wasn’t as bad as I remembered it :o But, notice the contrast with Tamerlane, who explained the situation without any attempt to belittle the person whose post started out with “This is one thing I don’t understand”. That was always Coll’s problem, he let his dander get up and he’d attack rather than just talk. It’s as if he feels personally insulted by other posters who post things he doesn’t agree with.
He knew a lot of stuff, but couldn’t manage his temper.
Perhaps part of the problem was that Collounsbury thought of himself as an authoritative cite. He felt his own opinion to be as definitive as a link to an online encyclopedia.
Witness the thread to which Ferrous and Cheesesteak linked. Collounsbury’s first post in the thread was the expression of an opinion, based on his own experience. As it turns out, he was wrong in that opinion. Military intervention and the successful overthrow of the Taliban was only a few months in the future.
Of course, you can still argue that the US is getting bogged down in Afghanistan, or that there are still tremendous problems in setting a government with the Northern Alliance, and you could be correct. But notice that Collounsbury did not qualify his opinion in the slightest. He stated that no military invasion against the Taliban would occur, and if it did, it would fail.
He was wrong. And knowledge of Arabic or involvement in some company in the Middle East did not make his opinion correct or authoritative.
To be fair, others in the same thread made statements similar to his, and as I said above, US involvement in Afghanistan is far from over. And no one foresaw 9/11 and its effects on US foreign policy.
But again we see the pattern. Collounsbury expresses an opinion, some one else (Sue Duhnym, in this case) expresses a contrary opinion, and he attacks.
In that case, it was the Pit, and personal attacks, even undeserved ones, are par for the course here. I do not argue that he should have been banned for that one.
But that was his pattern. Even in cases where it turns out that his background and experience in MENA was not the functional equivalent of a gilt-edged guarantee from God.
YMMV was an acronym that Collounsbury used almost not at all.
Perhaps I should adopt a new signature - “What Sam Stone said.” It would spare the hamsters.
I say the opinion he gave in that thread was right on as 9/11 was unforeseeable at that point. 9/11 changed everything. i think we would all agree today that there is not prospect of the USA invading Morrocco but if a major attack on the USA is traced back to Morrocco things could change fast. The forecast was correct within the context of the time. had 9/11 not happened I believe the USA would not have invaded Afghanistan.
Now, second part: was the invasion successful? Only up to a point. It did unseat the Taliban but it has not totally made them disappear nor does the USA or its puppet government have complete control of Afghanistan. The fact is Afghanistan has greatly diminished as a threat but the fact is also that the USA does not have the capacity to control the entire Afghanistan and the situation now is of chaos. In that sense the prediction was right on. The idea that a new, free, democratic Afghanistan would surface has been proven wrong.
At any rate, and in re. Coll, he is definitely guilty of being impatient (as I often am). Where I come from patience is considered a virtue and the fact that a person may have other virtues like being knowledgeable does not detract from the fact that he lacks other virtues. Patience was not his forte.
Well, I suppose you can twist his words to pretend he got it wrong. Actually, he responded to multiple posts suggesting intervention in Afghanistan to halt the human rights abuses. We never did “intervene” to halt human rights abuses: we invaded in order to overthrow a government that was protecting an international criminal who had attacked the U.S.
And, of course, we are still futzing around in the mountains without completing our victory 16 months after the “war” ended, which is in line with the reason he noted we would be reluctant to intervene.
He had more recent posts describing a career change from the bio industry to investment management. His facts were always far too detailed to be the imaginings of a low-level flunky.
As for the latest temper tantrum by somebody who should know better: Yes, he shouldn’t have done it, that time or any other. Yes, ignorance will not be as well-fought here (and Mr. Svinlesha has gone into marvelous detail about how). Yes, he’ll be sorely missed. Yes, he did have it coming.
It’s a matter of opinion, I suppose. For what it’s worth, many times I saw him spew crap, sometimes with scholarly references, that totally missed the point. Also for what it’s worth, in one thread I asked him point blank what his position was and he refused to answer.
Ummm, isn’t that the nature of foreign policy? People said that the US and Japan would never fight, with conviction, right up to Dec 6, 1941. There were those, however, who said that war with Japan was coming, just as there were those who predicted that the US would have to deal with the Taliban and state sponsored terrorism. The scope of both attacks was a suprise to almost everyone, I believe, but I think that claiming something was “unforseen” is not exactly proper when the game is prognostication.
Regarding Afghanistan, I don’t think it’s such a big deal that collounsbury was wrong on that point. The thing is, if somebody had replied that (1) an American invasion of Afghanistan was a realistic possibility; and (2) such an invasion would be reasonably successful, he likely would have engaged in his usual accusations of blithering idiocy etc. (even if the thread had been in GD).
I take it you haven’t been paying attention? I called Collounsbury on his behaviour on numerous occasions, in detail. The last time around he even conceded that I had a point. I’ve never, ever had any problem confronting Collounsbury.
So belittle them. Go read them, and explain why they are wrong. To just say that they’re a bunch of fucking idiots just because they’re on the wrong side of the political spectrum from you is not debate - it’s ad hominem bullshit. Some of those ‘idiots’ I quoted are quite well respected in the field. Daniel Pipes, for instance. I never once heard WHY they were wrong - just how stupid I was for citing them.
This is what, the third time you’ve taken a cheap shot at me over that in an unrelated thread? I believe you did exactly this in one of the Middle East Threads - dive bombed it with the helpful comment that no one should listen to me because I’m a conservative idiot who beleives that trees pollute.
And as you might recall, on those other occasions I thoroughly, with careful cites, destroyed your claim that they don’t. In the end, you were resorting to trying to rely on thin semantic points to try and maintain your claim that trees do not pollute.
Anyone reading this is welcome to go back to any of the threads ("search for ‘do trees pollute’), and see what the result of those debates are. Whatever side you come down on, I think you’ll agree that calling someone a fucking idiot for making the claim is very, uh, Collounsburyish.
I’m not demeaning his arguments. When he chose to make them, they were usually quite compelling. It’s just that much of the time he chose to just call you an idiot.
As for my posting style, I’ll let people judge it on its merits. I will point out that I’ve left over 6000 messages on this board (and another 2500 under my old name), and never once have I been pitted. Although now that I’ve said that, I’m sure at least one of the usual suspects will rectify that.
My apologies. I thought we were talking about something else. You are correct that I said that, and I retract it.
So it’s obvious bullshit, but it’s really hard to refute it? Wow. Spoken like a true ideologue. Poor Mr. Svinlesha, having to go and actually dig up cites and all that stuff, when the truth is just so blindingly clear. It’s all such hard work. Much better to just let someone like Collounsbury do the heavy lifting, and chime in occasionally to take a cheap shot at his opponents. Might as well - that’s what half a dozen other people do. I understand why you’re upset that he’s gone. Now you might actually have to do some thinking for yourself, or let the ‘idiots’ get away with their ‘bullshit’.
Of course, the one time you DID try to tear apart my argument about tree pollution, I hit you with so many authoritative cites that even people normally on your side were going ,“Well you know, Sam’s got a point…”. So of course the discussion ended, then here a few months later you just repeat the original character assassination that lead to that thread in the first place. Typical.
I’ve got news for you - the time to be magnanimous is BEFORE you dive bomb a thread and attack someone. So yes, I do wish the parting shot. And you get no points from me for having offered it. I’ll just assume that you knew I was going to come back and tear you a new one, and you wanted to give yourself an easy out.
Regardless of whatever pissing match is taking place between Sam Stone and Mr. Svinlesha, you, Mr. Stone are a fucking gutless coward.
You may have “argued” with Col in the past, but you have never (and would never) have the balls to say what you are saying now if he were able to respond.
Cause you know all too well that he would truly “tear you a new one…”
What the hell are you talking about? Why don’t you go back and look at previous threads on this topic, posted while Collounsbury was here? I think you’ll find that I had absolutely no compunctions about taking on Collounsbury’s attitude while he was here. I have said EXACTLY these things directly to his face. If you’re not aware of that, then you’ve got a lot of nerve calling me a ‘fucking gutless coward’.
And I find it amazing that in an entire thread full of Collounsbury bashing, I should be singled out as being a ‘gutless coward’ for adding my own thoughts.
So why don’t you take your supercilious attitude, roll it up really tight, and cram it up your ass?
You know what’s REALLY cowardly? I’ll tell you. What’s really cowardly is abusing people over the internet. Because, you know, there are no consequences. There are a lot of people on this board who like to attack others and call them names from afar. If you want to launch charges of cowardice, I suggest you start with them. And I think we all know who they are.
Anyone (not just you) who is going to sit here and shit on someone who has no way of defending themselves is a fucking coward, especially if that person (like you) wouldn’t have the balls to do so when that person could defend themselves.
But you have a point: Collounsbury is gone, and there’s really no point to continually bash him. I think we all agree that he had a lot to offer. Perhaps this whole discussion should just end.