May I suggest that you pay attention to the state of your own urination, unless your value for “very long time” is about 3 weeks when Ace0Spades was temp-banned or (more accurately) maybe 6 weeks when Lucki was banned for the Stormfront thing. This happens every time anyone other than an obvious troll (a la BZoooooooOO today) is banned. “Jeepers! I know he broke the rules, but golly! He was different from every other poster who broke the rules after being warned multiple times, so can’t we treat him special-like?”
Frankly, I share Sam’s feelings.
**
**
:rolleyes:
Goodbye, Saint Coll. How we mourn this, thy passing. Thou hadst feet of clay and mouth of sewer, but thy loss will be mourned forever.
Remember Satan?
**
And excuse the fuck out of rest of us who are glad to see the same rules applied to a notorious cretin who didn’t have the fucking guts to actually try to fight ignorance and instead decided to commit suicide-by-mod while simultaneously acknowledging he might have had something worthwhile to say, if only he’d actually tried to communicate.
This thread (not your post in specific, Minty) sounds exactly like the thread that was started for Wildest Bill: “Yeah he was a mean, abusive, trollish asshole, but he was funny so can’t he have his own special set of rules just for him?”
Satan was precisely the comparison I had in mind, Dangerosa. He didn’t have the areas of expertise that Collounsbury had, but the “Are we better off with him or without him?” consideration seems quite comparable to me.
Like it matters, but my two cents (and one of them is red):
Collounsbury was a fellow educated about a lot of issues many of us don’t know much about. And he broke the rules.
It’s really not that difficult a concept. And one would think, with all his brains and such, that he could have grasped four simple words (as fond of four-letter words as he was…).
Tamerlane. You’re gonna have to kick it up a notch. Could you practice being just a little less polite? I can’t fucking believe that anyone can argue against stupidity the way you do and still remain SO civil(well, perhaps tomndebb).
This whole wake is kinda like being at Paul Wellstones memorial, only someone let the Pubbies in.
No, I do not believe that it does. My recollection is that multi-page “Why was So-and-So banned?” were a regular feature of the Pit–I mean, like two or three times a week–before the powers that be told people to knock it off. Practically the only thing that gets questioned these days is the policy, not the application of the policy. I do not recall a thread devoted to the all-too-brief banning of Ace0Spades/Swords, and the gist of the Lucki Charrms thread was why/whether he got booted without being forewarned that posting under the SDMB name on other boards was a no-no.
Oh, piss right off, Fenris. Outside of one numbskull, nobody in this thread has advocated special treatment for Collounsbury. Everybody else, myself included, has simply expressed sorrow over the loss of one hell of a knowledgeable poster who also happened to be a big time jerk. If you think something other than that has happened here, please do us the courtesy of quoting the “Nazi Mods!” posts to show us where we missed it.
What I just said. A really smart jerk is gone. We’re sorry for the loss of the really smart part.
Uh, yeah, and where exactly do you get the impression that the rest of us are sorry to see him go? Pardon me if I don’t join you in skipping the the eulogy to publicly pissing on the corpse, okay?
Yeah, he was an asshole. But I’ll miss him anyway. For some reason, I envisioned some kind of secret spy operation going on in his super-slick bachelor pad and his know-it-all, nasty-tempered posts always left me vaguely hot in the pants and disgusted with myself for my own ignorance. YMMV, of course.
Mail me, ** Collounsbury**, you clandestine sex machine.
First of all, I don’t want to Hijack the thread, so i’m not responding to anything regarding this matter after this. Might start a thread when I got time later.
It wasnt that my friend was a lazy bastard, in fact he was quite far from it. He worked at his brother’s fledgling cell phone shop then went and worked the legal limit at his stock-boy job at Vons(single parent home, needed the income). Then he came home and studied his ass off for all of his classes. He went to school about once a week because of this, being physically too tired to go most of the time. He did the work alright, just not the work his teachers assigned him. You don’t get 5’s on everything without work. I think those test-grades alone should have earned him his A’s. The top 20% of all test takers get 5’s. I say that’d easily put him withen the top 10% in each class he got a 5 in.
He’s currently a freshmen at UCI acing his classes where they accepted him with a ~ 2.2 gpa and a 1470 SAT. I’m a sophomore at UCD with a 3.9 gpa and 1310 SAT. he is definitely smarter and harder working then I ever was. I got accepted into UCLA, and he didn’t. I don’t find that fair at all.
I realize rules apply to everyone, but should they?
Until the last year or so, I always enjoyed Collounsbury’s insights on Middle Eastern subjects. And I recall telling him as much in certain threads.
A few too many people apparently did, however, judging by what he morphed into in the past year. He sort of became a caricature of what he once was - flexing his ego, throwing off phrases in Farsi for impress value.
And, far too often, he seemed to have an idea that anything he had to say on all subjects featuring the Middle East and the Muslim religion was the end of the discussion. Yes, he regularly lowered the flame-throwers on idiots who had it coming. He also began to be increasingly uncivil to those who intelligently disagreed with him.
Squelching dialogue and debate isn’t what this place is about.
I guarantee I’ve been more places, more often, and know and talk regularly with more people in Brazil than 99.999 percent of this message board.
I consider that of benefit if a conversation ever comes up where I can provide some first-hand insight.
I’m not, however, under the delusion that because I’ve been someplace, and know some people there, anything I have to say on the subject necessarily has more weight than something said by someone who hasn’t.
And I don’t consider it a license to annihilate and personally attack someone whose opinion is ill-formed, or with whom I simply disagree.
Minty: I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t complaining about this thread. I have mixed feelings about Collounsbury’s banning myself. He was a fun foil, when he wasn’t being extremely abusive. Towards the end, that was almost never, but he could always be counted on to make you think and do your homework. That’s valuable, and it’s too bad it was wrapped in such an unappealing package.
I was specifically commenting on the idea that there should be a ‘great debate’ about Collounsbury’s banning, with all the members of the SDMB acting as a big jury. That continues to be an incredibly bad idea…
i’m a layman in law, so forgive me if i’m wrong. I was under the impression that the supreme court didn’t have any jury. Merely the Judges, and a lawyer presenting their case. I’m not advocating reinstatement, i’m asking if there should be possible special circumstance clauses to the policy that is currently here.
Ahhh, but where would it end… We can’t ban Col, he has way to much knowledge and speaks FARSI! We can’t ban Libertarian because he joined in 1999. And as for the people from the old AOL board, they will always get free reign because they were here from the beginning.
Naw, doesn’t work (unless of course we put a clause about users with numbers in their handle). Either we live with the rule of law or we live in anarchy.
Col was great, I always enjoyed reading his posts. I never had the dubious honor of being on the recieving end, but I think I wouldn’t have minded it even then. It was rude, but it was witty and it made you think.
What would the rules be?
Poster A is so popular that s/he is above the rules of you mere mortals?
Poster B is so brilliant that the rules of mere mortals do not apply?
Who gets to decide on popularity? Who gets to determine how much brilliance is required for protection?
It was the considered opinion of at least some posters that Coll had already been treated too kindly, based on the (perceived or conjectured) convergence of his political views with those of the administration or some subset thereof. Do we really want an official policy that opens every “withheld” banishment to charges of favoritism ad nauseam? Coll knew what he was doing and had already stated that he sought no favors. Creating a special category of protected posters (who might not have Coll’s integrity to admit that they knew what they were doing and his forthright acceptance of the consequences of his actions) would be a surefire method to lead this MB into perennial rounds of bickering over behavior and favoritism. We simply do not need that sort of added stress on the board.
No, that’s why it’s not worth debating. Handing out special exemptions clearly would be unworkable and nobody aside from you (unless I missed somebody?) is advocating the idea.
If you don’t know who Collounsbury was, and you don’t have a viewpoint of your own, why do you feel this impulse to try and stir up trouble?
What would the rules be?
Poster A is so popular that s/he is above the rules of you mere mortals?
Poster B is so brilliant that the rules of mere mortals do not apply?
Who gets to decide on popularity? Who gets to determine how much brilliance is required for protection?
It was the considered opinion of at least some posters that Coll had already been treated too kindly, based on the convergence of his political views with those of the administration or some subset thereof. Do we really want an official policy that opens every “withheld” banishment to charges of favoritism ad nauseam. Coll knew what he was doing and had already stated that he sought no favors. Creating a special category of protected posters (who might not have Coll’s integrity to admit that they knew what they were doing and his forthright acceptance of the consequences of his actions) would be a surefire method to lead this MB into perrenial rounds of bickering over behavior and favoritism. We simply do not need that sort of added stress on the board.
You’ll have to ask the cat how he posted that last one. He leaped onto the keyboard, it jumped back several pages, then the “Thank you for posting page” came up. I doubt that I could have done it on purpose.
