A verse for Collounsbury

The BBQ Pit
141

Sam:

Granted.

Don’t want any.

Indeed, I had anticipated that.*

Feel free to assume anything you like. I stated my reasons both at the beginning and the end of the thread: 1) Cathartic though it may be, you and I taking cheap shots at each other is likely to be a waste of both our time; 2) Our personal conflict isn’t really relevant to the topic of the thread. I’ll add another; flame fests between two irate posters tend to irritate other thread participants.

That said, if you feel strongly that you have issues you want to take up with me, please don’t hesitate to pit me. Since we tend to see the world in a radically different manner, I doubt it will be worth the effort, but hell, don’t let that stop you.

You know, Sam, it really goes back to your opening volley. Insinuating that Collounsbury’s problems with temper management lessened the quality of his opinions/expertise, especially when he isn’t around to respond, is the original “cheap shot” here, and it was launched by you. If you dish out such, it seems scarcely sporting of you to complain when treated in kind. That you couch such insinuations so that they sound “polite” and “rational” doesn’t really transform their underlying ugliness. By the way, I’ve brought this up with you before, but it doesn’t seem to stop you.

To nip this discussion in the bud, then, please link to a post, or series of posts, in which you forcefully argue to Col’s face that his irrational anger makes his additions to this board a less-than-reliable source of information, or stated something like the following:

…during the course of a debate with him.

Upon preview; yeah, I guess that was kind of my point.

142

Bwahahahahahaha. Obviously you have not spent time on a trading floor or dealing with hedge fund types before or even with analysts. Whilst never having met Col IRL, I worked in his industry for nearly a decade and still hang out with some of those people and do the odd consulting related gig.

This is the way most people in this circle acts in real life. The swearing digs are so commonplace Cols might have just been too sloppy. Not that that is an excuse, and yes it was the right forum. I do in fact remember mentioning on at least one occaision where he wrote a response to IIRC Sam Stone much like the one that got him banned, and when pointed out that we were not in the pit he did apologize for the inappropriate wording.

Ironically enough, Sam Stone has maybe said it best:

143

Just to clear something up: I certainly don’t have any personal problems with you, or Collounsbury, or anyone else. I limit my critique to your particular debating points, or style, or when I think that posting behaviour is over the line.

I’ve been on the internet too long to take any of this stuff personally. If I ever run into Collounsbury or you in an airport or something, the beer’s on me. Life’s too short for personal grudges.

That doesn’t mean I won’t fight tooth and nail in this particular milieu when I think I need to.

As for threads where I have confronted Collounsbury personally, how about this one from two weeks ago?

Then there’s this thread, in which Collounsbury and I went toe-to-toe over this very subject.

But I think that’s enough. Let’s just let this whole steaming pile die a deserved death.

144

Ithink if we let this thread die without it reaching at least five pages, we would have done Collounsbury a great disservice.

145

For what it’s worth, it seems to me that the comments sam stone has been making in this thread about collounsbury aren’t particularly different from his comments in earlier threads in which collounsbury participated. (Just based upon my recollection)

I also find it amusing that anyone would seriously object to an attack on collounsbury, banned or not.

146

May I suggest you re-read my posts? By the way, I’m not sure where you got the impression I am a lawyer.

As for the rest of the detractors, well I can count a handful of you with legitimate grievances; the rest appears to be the usual whining. Sam, I don’t want to focus on you but you have brought up some of the more valid objections to Coll in this thread and over time; the following is not one of them:

I’m sorry Sam, but you’d have an easier time defending that statement if only Coll hadn’t exposed several double standards and elements of bias (including partisanship) in your arguments in addition to rubbing you raw with his style. The norm (not always, I grant you) was that you weren’t able to defend your assertions, and I think you sully yourself focusing on the defence of yours quoted above. As for the rest, well we’ve heard it before.

It seems, at the risk of sounding like a couple of the broken-disk Coll detractors here, that the main grievances against Collounsbury are the following:

    • He was no authority/he just proclaimed whatever he wanted*: this is nonsense, and is easily disproved by looking at the considerable substance of Collounsbury’s arguments over the years. That might even be accomplished without betraying that distinct revisionist (or simply ignorant) streak exhibited here by some of his more unfounded detractors. The references in some of his post are among the most rich and detailed I have seen on these boards, and he backs up his arguments with high quality sources (whether on the biology of race or the Middle East, Coll is very well informed on most of the topics he discusses). I invite you to read up on past threads rather than run around in circles. Note that Coll often makes references to his previous arguments in cases where the tired arguments addressed have been shot down and buried in the past – that’s not self-referential and it’s not “being the biggest authority” – it’s simply avoiding the reinvention of the wheel. And yes, sometimes when he was especially conversant with a particular sub-topic he would not bother supporting every (oft-examined) argument, but that’s hardly being “the biggest authority” (and it’s hardly unique to Collounsbury).

If you’re looking for credentials, those are always difficult to establish on a web site, however we know that Collounsbury speaks fluent Arabic and has been living and working in the Arab world for several years, incidentally meeting a number of its personages. Further, Coll’s occupation requires him to be informed and up to date on MENA affairs, which is why many of us considered him a valuable member of these boards (his professional expertise also includes some sort of biotech). I have some experience in MENA myself and I used to know some Arabic (it’s mostly faded now, regrettably) so those are definitely qualities I appreciate when someone discusses certain topics – particularly if the regiments of the malicious uninformed happen to be present and posting.

  • He was abrasive, rude, etc: yes, a matter of style and character, but I do not apologize for him if I say that I enjoyed his output and saw the value in it. There are plenty of other abrasive and rude posters whose posts I do think are deplorable and whom I have shot down myself as a matter of principle (and irritation), but because they were spouting shit, and not because of their style. After a jarring confrontation, I eventually found Coll’s style entertaining and humorous, but I’m not about to ram my preferences down anyone’s throat (curious though that on Cecil Adam’s web site such an approach would be found so unacceptable). Rather I remind you that around here it’s substance that counts above all – of which Coll gives plenty – and so far (as has been more than ably pointed out to apparently deaf ears) most of this thread consists of base attacks on Collounsbury’s character, many of them supported only by wishful thinking and, in at least a number of cases, bruised egos.

Yes, Coll did let that foul temper get the better of him, that is certainly a valid criticism and I have said so before this thread – I won’t defend that aspect of the poster, but I tried to put it in perspective. On a board dedicated to fighting ignorance much worse offences are allowed to slide by than the minor one Coll was just banned for. Both in terms of direct insults as well as those more insidious offences that have already explained a number of times and that Coll was excellent at addressing. Banning Coll and allowing to continue unabated the trolling, malicious bigotry, and piss-poor arguments he helped rid us of would be irresponsible.

147

Fwiw, I’m not one who has ever questioned Collounsbury’s credentials. Nor anyone else’s. His arguments could stand on their own. And they did. I think demands for his credentials are off base. If you don’t like his (or anyone else’s) arguments, refute them. Don’t attack the person. That was the essence of my disagreement with Collounsbury’s style - HE often played the credential card implicitly - attacking people instead of their arguments. He would simply dismiss them out of hand because of the source.

148

Wow. There it is. Ladies and gentlemen, I ask all of you to note this date on your calanders. Do you see what we have here? Are all of you aware of the monumental implications of what has transpired? Here, on this humble little message baord, we have finally aquired that last bit of knowledge that has long been intuited by the masses of humanity as a whole, but rarely confirmed by actions. Right here, right now, on this very spot, at this very moment, we have positive proof of a truth I have valiently tried to conceal these past 5 years:
I am an idiot.
No, no, friends, stay your defense. I know you will have many reasons why I revealed my true colors, but the time for prevication is past. I am busy making preperations for the seppuku that must follow. I have fucked up.

Abe, I apologise. I read your post and my barely functioning brain juxtaposed your name with that of a friend of mine’s, Abe Babe. I screwed the pooch in this instance. Please, take the post when I replied to you, strip away all of the familiarity with which it was written, and consider it thus, in it’s raw,naked, bleeding essence. I think I might have a point there in spite of my stupididty, but maybe not, because, as we have established,
I AM AN IDIOT.

[sub]Sorry[/sub]

149

[Talk Show Host]

So Dave, I see you’re an idiot. How’s that working out for you?

[/Talk Show Host]

:smiley:

150

I think it’s worth pointing out (again) that on more than one occasion, (1) collounsbury was not able to back up what he said; (2) his references were nothing more than empty hand-waving; (3) his “rich” references missed the point; (4) he was wrong; and (5) he was nonetheless incivil to those who dared challenge him.

Further, I have been in threads where collounsbury and certain other posters (seemed to) share a very similar viewpoint. While other posters defended that viewpoint in a civil, coherent manner, collounsbury came across – to borrow a metaphor from an earlier poster – like a drunken lout at a town meeting.

151

Sam:

Well, that’s an admirable philosophy, at least, and one I agree with. I heartily accept.

Having said that, I just want to reiterate that I concur with Abe’s critique of your posting style (especially in the second thread you linked to, above). You might honestly not be aware of how offense you sometimes comes off to those of us who don’t share your perspective. Particularly grating is your tendency to denigrate a given perspective by pointing out its least attractive proponents and then rhetorically lumping everybody who shares that perspective into the same box.

Let me give you an example. The first time I dive-bombed you regarding your “trees pollute” syndrome, it was in fact an emotional response to this statement, made by you:

Okay, fine that you may think that my political perspective is a “pile of dung;” but you know, Sam, you’re tarring everybody with that brush. Including my wife, by the way, who also opposed the war and was one of those “flies” out demonstrating, as well as numerous friends of mine.

Can you see how I might take that just a wee bit personally? Even though it’s not couched in foul language, and in no sense breaks board protocol, it’s nevertheless a downright disrespectful thing to say, and no less offensive to me, probably, than some of the gall spewed by Col was to you. At any rate, it’s most certainly not an example of “refuting the argument” rather than “attacking the person”, which you claim was your main beef with Col. And even though I know I shouldn’t respond in kind, really, it’s just such a provocation that I find myself suddenly taking a cheap shot at you (and regretting it somewhat, afterwards).

Oh well. I didn’t mean for this to turn into a “let’s rag on Sam Stone” party. I just submit this for your consideration, take it for what you want. God knows I have my faults.

Yeah.

I’ve noticed.

152

Prety good Mike, but I think there’s a lot of predjudice against us idiots in the U.S. today, and a lot of misinformation out there. That’s why I came on your show, to try and educate people in the mainstream about the plight of your typical idiot in today’s society. Y’know, I was at a meeting of Idiots Annonymous last week, and I stood up and said “Hi, my name’s Dave, and I’m an idiot”, and all of the other idiots responded “Hi Bob!”

153

Dang funny joke, that, Dave. But had you said the other idiots responded with “Hi, Mike!” you could’ve gotten in a dig at Mike.

154

Mr. Svinlesha:

Now I get to hijack our hijack…

I think you misunderstood that comment of mine. My point was not that the peace protesters were a big pile of dung. My point was that it had allowed itself to be hijacked by some truly extreme and unsavory people.

As an analogy, the conservatives in the 50’s and 60’s used to sometimes allow debates to be started and led by various unsavory groups who just happened to have either clout, or more zeal to get things done, or more followers. John Birchers, the Klan, etc. Hey, they were anti-communist, right? So Republicans would hold their noses, try to claim that they didn’t agree with everything they said, and quietly let them lead. My point is that those clowns fouled the nest, and by allowing them to lead you tarnish everyone.

My comments in no way apply to you or your wife, unless you happen to be Stalinist members of the Worker’s World Party. Or perhaps you support the Worker’s World Party and aren’t aware of their more unsavory aspects.

155

That from someone who has actually posted his Enemies List here?

156

No. Normally, he would expose your arguments and your sources as crap, and then you would start hollering “Ad hominem! Personal attack! Unfair! Wahhh!”. That juvenility of yours also has been discussed many times in GD and elsewhere. Part of the Fight Against Ignorance is the honesty to admit that the ignorance may be one’s own, and to separate one’s own self from one’s argument. You have been and still are one of the worst at that, in a league only with december. Collounsbury was simply more persevering than most in trying to help you fight your own ignorance.

157

Absolutely correct. If you’ve operated in this milleu, you get so used to it that you hardly notice it anymore. More to the point, you never – well, almost never – take it personally. You can have a royal screaming match with someone and then go out for drinks the next day like nothing happened, because, really, nothing did happen.

But it is, nonetheless, a real problem because many people have trouble switching it on and off depending on the situtation. You may tear one of your colleagues a new one over something and no harm done. But the same conduct with your boyfriend or girlfriend later that evening, well, lot’s of harm done. Lawyers have the same problem. Conduct that is appropriate and necessary when dealing with hair-splitting, legal-minded opponents is completely inappropriate when dealing with ordinary people in ordinary situations. Cross examing a hostile witness is one thing, cross examining a spouse is another.

No doubt something like this happend to C.

Oh, and FWIW, I don’t think Sam is being hypocritical. He has voiced similar complaints in the past. People seem to think that everyone who liked Collounsbury always agreed with him. That’s just simply not true. I didn’t always agree with Collounsbury. In fact, some of his most recent and vituperative abuse was directed at me. Nonetheless, I usually enjoyed his posts. Even when he turned out to be wrong, his points usually moved the analysis to a more sophisticated level. In our most recent engagement, for example, the conclusion to the debate turned on adjusting GDP for population growth, a subtle but important point.

I, for one, will miss Collounsbury and, though he’d probably never admit it, I suspect he’ll miss us. A pity, really.

Anyway, perhaps it is most seemly to let this discussion go. Collounsbury’s oeuvre is what it is and people can judge it for themselves.

158

ElvisL1ves said:

You know, I don’t recall you offering up a lot of mea culpas for being wrong about a lot of things. The fact is, I’m simply a vociferous defender of a position you don’t agree with. You think I’m wrong. You think I’m an idiot, and that my sources are all crap. That’s fine. I happen to think the same of you. Shocking that not everyone in the world sees everything in exactly the same way, isn’t it?

I have never had a problem in admitting that I was wrong when someone could point to an instance where I get my facts wrong. In fact, I did it in this very thread to Mr. Svinlesha, and apologized for it. I have admitted when Collounsbury had valid points, and in this very thread I said that he had caused me to re-think some of my positions.

I can honestly say that I have never seen you modify yours. No doubt you think it is because you are on the side of truth and goodness, but let me tell you - you’re just as blinded by partisanship as the people you are decrying. But what’s worse - while I think that many on the left are wrong on matters of fact, you think that those of us on the right who disagree with you are idiots, worthy of abuse and disdain.

159

I suppose it’s fitting that someone should make this point in a thread about collounsbury.

160

Sam: “I have never had a problem in admitting that I was wrong when someone could point to an instance where I get my facts wrong.” Snicker. Another example of your persistent self-delusion. Is that what happens when you spend all day in the IT room, surfing RW blogs on company time?

Pal, it’s true that I don’t change my mind often in response to what you say, or at all for that matter, but that is hardly an indicator of my “blind partisanship”. Rather, I don’t ever recall an instance of you pointing out where I had a bad grasp of facts, or reasoning. There have been, however, many cases (pointed out to you by myself and many others, not just Col) of you actually fabricating “facts” out of thin air (known in other contexts as “lying”), not just filtering them or using known filtered sources, which is all that december does. If you’d like to take credit for “openmindedness” when that’s simply having reality jammed in your face, then go ahead; the point is that you do acknowledge it, unlike a few others from whom less can be expected. Col did that to a much greater degree than most of us, and was tremendously patient at acknowledging your progress and occasional good point, but he had his limits too. You got far better treatment at his hands than you deserved, and someday you might realize it.

So, here’s the challenge: Point out where you’ve demonstrated my lack of control of facts, or inadequate reasoning, in any significant way on any topic, or reconsider who your assessment of “blind partisanship” really applies to. We don’t keep score according to who has backed off the more times; we keep score according to who has been right the more times. You, pal, are way behind. Quit whining about others’ styles - that alone shows you have no substance to complain of.

luc, same goes for you and Col. Try demonstrating where he was actually wrong about anything important, or simply ran out of patience with you.

But, as usual in a “Put up or shut up” challenge, I don’t seriously expect either of you to do either.