Holy shit.
Mixed feelings - he was such an amazing fount of knowledge. And such an abrasive person.
I will miss the depth of understanding he brought to the board.
And now I will never find out why he always typed “in re” rather than just “re”.
I thought he was an excellent and passionate fighter of ignorance. I’m quite sorry to see Collunsbury go – his posts were always enjoyable and informative, and that’s about as high a compliment as I give out.
I’ll grant that truculence was his watchword – and second the thought that it would be nice to see the judiciary opinion.
Our erudite friend Collounsbury –
With Great Debates rules he made merry.
…He exceeded his luck,
…When he used the word “fuck,”
Which the Mods felt was not necessary.
RickJay - simulposts - Eyer8 posted that link while I was posting mine. I agree that it must be that post that got him bounced.
I’m always surprised at how much people feel the need to defend him, because he was so knowledgable on a few subjects. I bet most people here have extenstive knowledge in their own fields, but simply aren’t pricks about it.
That’s what the Staff has been wondering as well. He’s a well-informed guy, but that doesn’t mean the rules don’t apply to him. It’s a shame, but it’ll save the GD mods some time as well.
And unlike december thinks, it is of course not about using foul language every now and then. But then, even december knows that, as he himself has gotten in trouble whilst being perfectly polite.
Pity.
I will miss his irascible, yet informative posts. It’s really too bad he couldn’t pull back the curmudgeon a bit.
He was interesting and informative, but I’d never in a million years want to get jumped on in his notorious style, so I’ve never even attempted to discuss anything (or learn anything) as an active participant in a Collounsbury thread. Everything was strictly “lurking in the shadows” for me.
Didn’t he pretty much admit he acted that way because he found it amusing?
Even when the mods warned him?
I can’t say I’m surprised. He can’t say he was surprised either. I’ll miss him: I never did convinced him to marry me (he had some kind of hang-up about the husband I already have.)
If you’re reading this Col, keep that 'fro bopping.
If it’s any consolation, Tamerlane is also a fount of information on the Middle East but with a much more pleasant attitude.
Well, that’s a shame if not a surprise. I think the boards will be little less interesting without him, but also a lot more civil.
Hmm… an abrasive, vitriolic fount of knowledge.
Does this remind us Cecilians of anyone?
For those who are interested here’s a link to the thread started by KarlGauss that precipitated a major discussion on the character of Collounsbury’s posts with extensive mod participation starting at the end of October. I think it’s safe to say that this must be the most reluctant banning ever performed in the history of the SDMB. This is a great loss for the board, but it had to be done.
SO, when do we get a “Being a Jerk” button next to “Report this post”?
I ask, because no matter how revved up the server may now be, it won’t be able to handle the stress if one gets put in.
I know that’s what he’s most remembered for - however:
-
I’d seen him be damn near gentle in his explanations when the person on the other end seemed merely uneducated, but willing to learn.
-
I’ve been on the opposite end of a debate w/him, and he never did the venom w/me.
-
There were a specific few prolific posters w/whom he took issue, and on very specific issues. AutumnWindChick for example, and several others who are still with us.
What I observed was that if he felt that the poster had made up their mind, and was deficient on facts, debating/logic skills, and yet still stubbornly steadfast in their position, he let 'em have it with both barrels.
Am I suprised about this event? no, not at all, and neither, I suspect, is he. And, of course, the mods were absolutely correct.
Sure. And when we visit Coll’s message board, we’ll obey his rules.
Seeing that Collounsbury was finally banned reminded me of something that someone here on the SDMB said a while back- “Would people hold Einstein’s ideas in such high regard if he went around calling everyone ‘asshole’?”
I’m probably mangling it but you get the gist.
ok now I’m really angry.
Collounsbury was abrasive to be sure but then most of the time his abrasiveness was directed at people who deserved it. I tended to take his hostile sounding posts in the way (I think) they were meant - as witty rejoinders. In fact, being insulted by Collounsbury is quite an honour - you know you’ve arrived.
He was mainly only rude to people who made ignorant assertions. If you asked him a question in a spirit of honest inquiry then he would usually give you a genuine response. He may still be slightly abrasive but that was just his style, the main thing is he would tell you what you wanted to know.
Middle eastern society is so different to western society that it would take the sharp words of Collounsbury to bring home to you that the whole world ain’t kansas.
ok he was rude but he was always informative whilst being rude. He never posted a purely “rude” post. He would always explain precisely why he thought a particular poster was a jackass.
There are other posters who are knowledgable about the middle east such as Tamerlane (and their contributions are just as valuable) but this whole thing is such a hot button issue at the moment. We need all the informed views we can get.
One Collounsbury is worth a hundred Kalts. I hope that, after a suitable period, Collounsbury will e mail Lynn with a promise to restrain his tongue and rejoin.
this space reserved for a poster named “dojo”