Just to update you that Collounsbury is live and well, and should very soon - hopefully - be starting his own Live Journal.
You can contact him via email, come to the Live Journal SDMB community, and he has made himself known there.
That’s an interesting challenge. I can come up with examples of things that collounsbury was wrong about. But frankly, I think that your use of the word “important” gives you way too much wiggle room to bother.
In any event, I don’t see how your challenge is relevant to my earlier point about willingness to admit ignorance. Would you care to specify EXACTLY what I said that prompted your challenge? Because, believe it or not, I will try to back up what I say.
ElvisL1ves:
Back that up, please. I want thread links. I have been wrong before, and when it’s pointed out I have corrected myself. No one can leave almost 9000 messages without getting the occasional detail wrong. Is it possible that somewhere I said something in error and then missed the request for a cite? I suppose. I participate in so many threads on this board that sometimes I may miss a message directed to me. Unlike others, I don’t do regular vanity searches, because it slows the board down for others.
I have not intentionally lied on these boards. That’s a pretty serious accusation, and I want proof of that or a retraction. Now.
Lucwarm, are you done with the repetitive hand-waving and incorporeal references-in-passing? This kind of thing ought to be embarrassing for you since you employ these techniques to (unfairly) accuse someone else of those very same offences.
When you were called upon to provide more substance than the bland watery stew quoted above you call an argument, you accused your challenger of leaving himself “wriggle room” should you ever decide to grace us with support for your claims. Seems to me the one doing the wriggling here is you.
Additionally, you left yourself wriggle room rather more egregiously than you accuse your opponent of doing: “it’s worth pointing out (again) that on more than one occasion…” (my emphasis). Now, what does that mean, really? That Coll committed these offences (some of which you don’t seem at all averse to utilizing, by the way) a paltry two times, that it was his standard modus operandi, or something in between? You know perfectly well that no one here will claim Coll never did anything wrong, but if you maintain that your five-point analysis reflects an accurate average of the behaviour of Collounsbury, you will need stronger backing than the big fat nothing you have provided so far.
Given your reluctance to address the issues in a direct substantiated manner and your preference for hand-waving over real arguments, your reproaches appear to be nothing more than vermicular gesticulation; small wonder you found Collounsbury --the official SDMB vermifuge-- objectionable.
A particular for your point (5) above: it’s an old, tired objection with only a minor basis in fact (which I have already gone over in a previous message). Coll lacks patience for those who argue from bias and ignorance rather than fact, and especially for those malicious bastards who like to fling mud and polarize perception of a situation to validate their own simpleton views. On such matters I feel the same way Coll does (i.e. roast the bloody vermin), though I usually manage to fare slightly better in the way of temper.
Weirddave, I noticed one day the usurper Abe Babe appeared; some people even referred to him as “Abe”, which was confusing. Really, that simple misunderstanding is not deserving of labels like “idiot” or some such (the reflex accusations of sycophancy, on the other hand…! I’m no servile flatterer, nor are most of the people here arguing for Coll).
Umm, no. I am happy to try to back up what I say with specifics. Elvislives’ challenge seemed to be putting the claim in my mouth that any time I got the last word in with a debate with collounsbury, it means that he was wrong. I have not made such a claim here.
**
Oh really? Then why was the following said in this VERY THREAD?
The reality is that collounsbury regularly attacked those who dared challenge his Incredible Knowledge, microcephalic or not.
In any event, let me explain something to you: I’m NOT claiming that collounsbury was always wrong. Or that he was usually wrong. I’m claiming that he was NOT always right. You do understand the difference don’t you?
**
That’s nonsense. Feel free to quote me on something I said and I will try to back it up. Would you like examples of times that collounsbury was wrong? That he refused to back up his position? That he engaged in empty hand-waving? I’m happy to oblige.
Oblige, by all means, lucwarm. It’s exactly what you’ve been asked to do.
Sam, you do know better than that. Col did it much more often than I have, and you might reread almost any of his MENA threads for examples.
lucwarm, I predicted you’d neither put up nor shut up, and guess what you’ve done?
Well, that certainly is newsworthy. Technically speaking, he’s not back at all. He’s somewhere else, and since everyone is inevitably somewhere, I don’t find it all that remarkable. You 36 pt. colored text notwithstanding, of course.
istara -
If you are saying that Collounsbury has been reinstated on the SDMB, could I ask for a link?
Regards,
Shodan
istara -
If you are saying that Collounsbury has been reinstated on the SDMB, could I ask for a link?
Regards,
Shodan
She provided a link, Shodan. It’s not to the SDMB, however.
Sorry - I didn’t see that this was a hyperlink.
And I double posted.
My apologies.
Regards,
Shodan
ElvisL1vies said:
Ah, the Collounsbury trump card. You can call someone a liar, and when asked to put up proof, you get to say, “I don’t have to! Collounsbury did it!”
Sorry, doesn’t wash. Out of curiousity, do you EVER think for yourself? Because 90% of the time, you dive bomb threads with cheap shots and lame arguments. I can’t remember the last time I read a good, well-researched post from you. Usually, you just try to score ‘debating points’ by saying things like, “How come you want to wait for proof in Iraq, while you are willing to declare Victory in Afghanistan??”. Most rational readers, you know, would see that as an incredibly stupid argument.
But gee, now that Collounsbury is gone, you might actually have to go out and learn some of this stuff for yourself and post links and all that hard work, because you’ve got no one you can just ride behind and go, “Yeah! What he said!”.
Sorry - not here - but better still, Live Journal. Where he can vent his spleen to his heart’s content uninterrupted by moderators or ignorant fuckwits.
His journal appears to be public, so even non-Live Journal members should be able to read it and comment.
I’ve asked you to specify exactly what claim you want me to back up. And you have refused.
It should be pretty easy, really. Just quote a generalization I’ve made, and I’ll try to back it up with specifics.
Put up or shut up, pal. 
No it’s not. But I’m happy to oblige now – which do you want – examples of collounsbury being wrong? Him not backing up his position? Him engaging in hand-waving? All three?
Gosh, I wish there were a code for a HUGE roll-eyes. You make an accusation against another poster, he asks that you back it up, and you wave your hands and refuse.
And in the very same post, you claim that I’m not backing up what I say?!? While refusing to specify what exactly you want me to back up?
You have got to be kidding.
Well I didn’t catch that thread, but your post rather than refuting my speculation, actually supports it, wouldn’t you say? Check the meaning of “portmanteau”.
For gods’ sake Lucwarm, do you ever manage to say anything in your posts? In spite of your noise you haven’t countered (or even addressed) a single argument in this thread, nor have you supported your statements – statements as meaningless and foolish as this one:
Well, perhaps you don’t understand the difference – the difference between a statement of useful meaning/import and your useless rubbish. You made a claim (several, actually, but let’s focus on one) that was meaningless, and you repeated it again and again even when your position (and posts) were thoroughly challenged. Your feeble defence: saying that Collounsbury is “not always right”, which does not mean a thing. Who, pray tell, is always right? Who could possibly be infallible?? Why do you think I asked you very clearly to qualify that ridiculous assertion, not to mention the rest of your effluvia? Your prose is without relevant meaning, which is on the par for your posts in this thread. Either you are truly as uninspired as you come across, or you are just engaging in more of that mind-numbingly repetitive defensive dishonesty with which you are making a name for yourself.
You made a number of unsupported claims; you were asked repeatedly to elaborate on your assertions; rather than provide any substance, you engaged in self-asserting behaviour of the utmost puerility, putting up the pretence of having already provided arguments and substance when you have contributed nothing of import whatsoever.
If you would like to inject some (just a little, not too much to ask) substance into your posts and qualify your ridiculously broad and unsupported statements instead of wriggling around and hand-waving as you have been carrying on so far, feel free. Otherwise there is an appropriate sentence in Collounsbury’s journal:
I am loathe to take up more of the nonsense you’ve given us, I simply draw your attention to this idiocy:
Why was that said “in this VERY THREAD”? Because they were responses to accusations that were base and didn’t fit in with observable reality. What I would like to know is how even you, Lucwarm, can think that the last two snippets of mine you quoted are in any way incompatible with the first snippet. Are you that sloppy in your reasoning, or is this more of your diversionary hair-splitting? Care to provide something more solid?