Must’ve been trying to flush out the hamsters.
Collounsbury exhibited no more knowledge about his area of expertise than any number of Dopers on this board exhibit about theirs.
Yes, he was erudite and articulate, but no more than many others. He only came across as exceptionally informed because of his “academic” posting style.
I for one found him to be a condescending jerk. (Caveat: I rarely post in GD, but I read it every day.)
Unlike many other well-educated/well informed and cool Dopers like The Bad Astronomer.
I won’t miss him a bit.
Clearly the scope of a debate such as this would include not only special exemptions but other caveats about the policy setforth by the powers that be. I would think a general debate over it would promote discussion. I don’t nessecarily think reform is needed over the banning policy or any other policies for that matter, but i’m SURE there is logical dissenting thought about it.
Now frankly, I agree special exemptions tend to be unworkable, but no one can deny that special exemptions can and should exist. Perhaps not in the banning policy, but elsewhere.
Wasn’t. Just thought it would be a good idea. Guess I was wrong.
Do you stand by this statement fully? Expect to be challenged on it if this is the case.
There is no addendum to the “don’t be a jerk” rule that allows for those posters of above-average knowledge to be pissy at people (which is a pretty good thing, because I can see some people using it a bit too much;)). The same rules that apply me to apply to you and tom~ and Shodan and Guinastasia and everyone else. If you break those rules enough times, you can and usually do get banned. If you bend them or commit minor infractions, you get warned, and in recent board history a few people have had their posting priviledges suspended.
Banning isn’t permanent, however, as a few people will tell you if they feel the need or whatever. But if you’re intelligent enough to learn as much as Coll did, picking up a few pieces of common decency and sense shouldn’t be that much of an extra burden on your brain.
And re: explanation of banning, the administration of this board owes us nothing of the sort. We are guests. I could be banned tomorrow for absolutely no reason, and you know what? I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. The service agreement you “sign” when you register says that you agree that the administration of this board can ban you whenever for whatever reason (including none). Ultimately we’re at the mercy of the administration here. And Coll wasn’t banned for no reason. He’d been warned before, and there was a pit thread discussing his GD language a few months ago (which would not be that hard to find if you wanted to look for it).
Over 95% of the people who have registered at this board (rough number … it’s probably about 4% higher, but I really am not in the mood to go through every member’s page) are able to follow the rules. They’re really quite simple. For some people that isn’t enough.
I can’t think of any off the top of my head, but if I were a gambling man, i’d say it’d be a safe bet.
While I agree the administrators can and should have power over the userbase I don’t think it’s too much to ask to have some sort of user-input. But since it’s obvious that already happens, no complaint here. Just wanted to formalize it.
Well I, for one am glad he’s gone. I stopped posting in GD a long time ago because of an atmosphere that he was instrumental in creating. Debate was not the point, trying to elevate yourself above the other guy, and that should not be the point of debate, He was very knowledgeable, and there were several subjects that he knew much more about than anyone. He was also dead wrong on several subjects. He didn’t have any idea about what a debate was. He would never consider any option aginst what he had already decided was true. Any questioning of his opinion and he would attack with a rude, condesending and basically assholish response. He was a negative on the board because he would kill the discourse of debate by being an asshole. And he had several groupies who would pile on, knowing less than him, because they accepted his knowledge at face value.
Fighting ignorance is a more complicated fight than many people realize. Just being right doesn’t do a damn thing for anybody. Being right and being an asshole does less than nothing for anybody. To trully fight ignorance you have to actually attempt to make a positve change in someones thinking. He just wanted to prove he knew more than someone about something, and make them feel bad. So goodbye, and my personal opinon is that the mods gave him way to much latitude, and it was long overdue.
And maybe you are overly presumptive. He never called me any name that I recall.
As folks might guess, I won’t miss the guy.
When he was around, it was nearly impossible to have a civil discussion about racial issues.
I also take issue with these claims of his supposedly incredible knowledge and/or intelligence. When I had exchanges with him, he would frequently respond with a lot of buzzwords and cite a lot of high-falutin’ sources while totally missing the point. Again and again, he would refuse to back up his general, conclusory statements with specifics or explain what he meant with his imprecise language. Is this because he’s so freakin’ smart that the truth of his conclusions is obvious? Possibly, but IMHO he was too much of an idiot (or at any rate, less smart & knowledgeable than he made himself out to be) to defend his position in a reasonable manner.
Far be it from me to diagnose somebody by the internet, if you look at pages like this one - http://www.tipsofallsorts.com/narcissism.html - it kinda makes you wonder.
I’ll miss him. I found most of the comments that made him irate far more obnoxious and hurtful than his replies.
Well, I will miss his knowledge. I also sadly feel that his banning was deserved.
To post something like that last big post of his - in the light of moderator warnings in that earlier thread (and possibly personal email warnings, who knows?) I feel he was deliberately either pushing the line or trying to get banned.
I also felt that his last big post was one of his most best-informed and most incredibly rude posts ever, from those that I had read. If he could have just kept his rudeness on a level, rather than increased it, maybe he would still be here. I think most of us could have taken that.
Yeah - he did have extremely deep, specialist knowledge about a couple of subjects that possibly surpassed anyone else’s here on those subjects. But by the end I was of the impression that his rudeness derived less and less from frustration at people’s ignorance, and more and more from a pleasure at just being rude.
And maybe you are overly presumptive. He never called me any name that I recall.
Tamerlane wrote:
Often, an objective opinion is more valuable and less ignorant than a subjective one.
I can’t say if I think that some people are too soft skinned or if Collounsbury had too thick skin… what I can say is that IMNSHO some of his victims are just as goddamned offensive through their thinly veiled bigotry, which obviously doesn’t break any rule, but nevertheless irks the fuck out of me.
I shan’t cast the stone of accusing those affected negatively by his attacks of being overtly sensitive, I have seen myself get rather irrational and call for banning when I felt I was being baited… that being said crying for mommy and daddy just because you got smacked over the head for being stupid is just as childish, or maybe even more so, than the smack might have been.
'tis a pity the old boy had to go, many a moron will now go undeservedly un-ridiculed.
Sparc
Wow. Bad Astronomer is an excellent example of how to be informed from head to toe about something and use reason rather than ad hominem to win arguments. He attacks only falsehoods, and never those who bear them. In fact, it was the recommendation from his website that led me here back in '99. I reasoned that if there were people like him here, it was probably worth a look.
I first noticed Collounsbury in those interminable “biological basis of race” threads. I assumed his bad humour was attributable to exasperation - after all, he was having to repeat the same basic information to one racist idiot after another, you can see how that would get on someone’s nerves.
However, as time went by, and he moved onto other subjects, I couldn’t help but notice that he could be quite vilely rude, sometimes, to people who didn’t deserve it - people who were genuinely asking for information, or participating in legitimate debate. And I only ever saw him apologize once for his attitude.
So - yes, he knew a lot. I shall miss his expertise. But I’m not going to miss him.
I’ve only been reading this board since late summer. Certainly Collounsbury was one of those posters that grab your attention and it didn’t take long for me to form an opinion of him.
First thing I wanted to know was what the heck “Collounsbury” means. Anyone have a clue as to why that particular name was chosen? I try to infer information from such things- for example I’ve always assumed “december” was elderly based on his name.
I was initially impressed by what Klaatu refers to his “academic” posting style. Lots and lots of quotes and references. Indeed he was articulate. However, it seemed to me that he could spew a lot of facts but not reach the right conclusion. I found him to be a mean-spirited, condescending bigot. While he was certainly knowledgeable about Middle Eastern history, it would have certainly been possible for him to share this knowledge without the profanity and insults. If for some reason Brazil becomes the focus of world attention, then we would expect Milossarian to give much insight into that country. But we would have no reason to expect him (or her, don’t really know) to act like an arrogant, all knowing jerk.
In the end, you judge a tree by its fruit. Collounsbury provided insults and profanity. Time to chop it down.
I spot another SDMB mythical chracter in the making…
Just short of a WAG: It should be read Col. Lounsbury. Such a character existed during the civil war and googling that name reveals an old post by a user called thus on a university MB that seems to fit our forcefully departed poster.
Col can by most standards be described as mean spirited and condescending, but he does most certainly not deserve to be called a bigot. Methinks that Col would call the usage of the epithet bigot in this context uniformed idiocy and illiterate drivel.
Sparc
What a pity he couldn’t stay within the rules.
Okay, Sam, in that case I’m with you. I’m rather amazed that Harmonix is continuing to argue the point.
He never was that keen on proofreading. My guess is that he mistook “fighting ignorance” for “fighting ignorants”.