How strange that you didn’t call him this to his face as it were, rather waiting till he was unable to respond before making such a comment.
I found the following definition of bigot online:
Sounds pretty close to me.
You’re probably right.
Me, I’m just sad I’ll never get the ‘cheesemaker’ thing.
Well, no, i’ve pretty much given up.
Notorious, yeah - and probably a lot of different “notorious fill in the epithet” statements would apply. But not cretin, IMHO. Stupid, he’s not.
Spoken like a true drooling idiot. Better? 
Eh, perhaps. However I would say Coll generally held what I would consider a base rather moderate positions, at least vis-a-vis the ME, though his expression of them may not have always been as moderate as they were. In other words, I don’t think he was seriously lacking in academic objectivity.
To expand on what Sparc said - “Collier Lounsbury.”
I shudder to think what you infer from mine then ;).
I agree. He was pissy, sometimes to the nth degree. But he wasn’t a mindless hater, even at his worst. There’s a difference between bigotry and fierce disagreement, however vehemently expressed. He wasn’t stupid and wasn’t a bigot IMHO. But hey, YMMV.
- Tamerlane
I agree with both Sparc and Gary. I found many of those he argued against vastly more repulsive and offensive than he was even on his cattiest day. He got his hands dirty in protracted arguments with individuals whom I find too frustrating even to bother with.
For what it’s worth, he also took a great deal of time to do me a personal favor off the boards, for which I am still grateful. While hardly a saint, I don’t think he deserves nor particularly cares about the scorn of the perpetually ignorant and thin-skinned.
I don’t think this analogy is apt whatsoever. It is substantially easier to be cool and collected, I believe, about astronomical issues than about race and Middle Eastern affairs, two of the most important cultural and political concerns of our era. Uninformed opinions on these issues can do serious damage to other people. I admit this may be possible with respect to ignorance of astronomy, but right now, I just don’t see it.
Cheesemakers will inherit the earth. It’s from the Life of Brian. Proof positive that Coll has a sense of humor. 
Ditto. He became a legend in his own mind- above the “petty rules” of the “little people”. He got more second chances then almost any poster I have seen here. He intentionally and continuously flouted the basic rule of the board after numerous and detailed warnings. If anything, he should have been gone months ago.
This board is bigger then any one poster- no matter who leaves the party continues. The loss of one self-important Jerk will not effect the board in the least. In a month, everyone will forget this incident. Hopefully, no poster in the future will be allowed to be so disruptive for so long.
A tip of the cap to the mods for doing the right thing- its a thankless job at times but many of us appriciate the job your doing here. Thank you.
Anyone else see Coullounsbury as Mandark on Dexter’s Laboratory?
Ha ha ha! ha ha ha ha!
So, is getting oneself purposely banned the best way to break the addiction to the SDMB? [giggle] Hmmmm.
Seriously, though, I enjoyed reading Collounsbury’s posts. As far as I can recall, he never treated me rudely–in fact he was the exact opposite–and there were times when other folks corrected him on points he’d gotten wrong or called him out for his behavior, and he did apologize and/or retract. Despite all the rudeness and profanity, which sometimes made me cringe and other times giggle, I liked being able to take what he posted and when I had the time check sources and try to figure out what my take on the things he posted about is. I also appreciated him taking bigotry and ignorance to task, even though he did push the line of what is acceptable a few times. I know I don’t have the patience or the time to post a fraction of what he did. While he certainly does need to have his mouth washed out with virtual soap [giggle], he certainly does have a lot of integrity when it comes to being intellectually honest.
I’ll miss Sugarlump, and I wish him well, but c’est la vie. 
Maeglin wrote:
Moon hoaxers, creationists, UFO conspiricists, and the like can do right much damage.
Yeah, I guess you’re right. Thanks.
Sorry, but they’re nothing compared to some of the hateful drivel I’ve seen people espouse on Middle East and North African issues in great debates.
I’m glad someone started this thread; I’d been meaning to do something in response to Collounsbury’s banning for a few days now, but just hadn’t been able to decide exactly what.
I’ve been of at least two minds about the banning. On one hand, he was rather more abrasive on occasion than I feel was strictly necessary to accomplish his purpose (or as my grandmother and several other posters put it, “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”). He was grumpier toward me than I felt necessary on one occasion, but I called him on it, and he stopped.
On the other hand, I agree with those posters who have noted that the recipients of his ire generally deserved it; he is better informed than almost anyone I’ve ever known (except a couple of academics, and their knowledge was deeper, but narrower) on the Middle East, and that he was better than the vast majority of Dopers about providing solid evidence for his arguments. And as someone with a deep interest in an area of the world which is frequently misunderstood, and about which the mainstream Western media generally presents very fragmentary and skewed information and about which most Americans have zero historical knowledge/perspective, I can understand his frustration with people blurting out ignorant falsehoods without any facts to back them up, or conveniently leaving out half the story. (That, and I am with Tamerlane in believing strongly that there is no substitute for in-region living/working experience.)
So I guess you could say I’m sorry that he’s been banned, but I do understand the reasons why. I still retain a glimmer of hope, though, that with enough begging and pleading on someone’s part, he will be back eventually. In the meantime, although I do highly appreciate the well-balanced posts of Tamerlane et al., if anyone is aware of another spot where serious and informed debate takes place on the Middle East/Islamic world, maybe even one where Collounsbury participates, please post it here. And although I’m leery of posting my e-mail anywhere public, there are a few of you out there who have my e-mail address (I guess the mods have access to it, too); if anyone who does also has **Collousbury’s, ** and knows he wouldn’t mind having it passed along to me or would be willing to pass along a message, I wouldn’t mind being able to drop him a line privately.
Oh, and I find it frankly hilarious that a longtime poster whose first words of greeting to me were “fuck you, bitch” (when I politely suggested laying off the invective directed at another poster) has seen fit to criticize Collousbury’s insults.
Back as what? If he comes back and does not change his behavior, he’ll be kicked out again. What do you think the chances are he’ll come back and change his behavior?
Ooh, who, who? Go on, drop 'em in it.
quote:
Moon hoaxers, creationists, UFO conspiricists, and the like can do right much damage.
So can jerks.
I stopped reading Collounsbury’s posts a while back. Lots of other Dopers just as knowledgeable, and far more civilized. If I want to learn something, I can do so from them, and I don’t have to wade thru six paragraphs of abuse to get to it.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, let’s see if he responds himself first…otherwise, there’s always your friend, the Search function.
You know, I have been on both the receiving end of his shit-stick when I’ve made assertions, and the recieving end of his information when I asked questions. And I can understand why he acted the way he acted. I wouldn’t act that way, I don’t support it, and it was proper re: board rules to ban him. But I totally understand. When I asked good questions, he gave good answers. When I was an idiot, he let me know it. This doesn’t make him an asshole, but it breaks board rules.
And it works, too.
Eris
Suppose that, in Great Debates, I had responded to your question:
with this:
“No, you fucking idiot. You’ve negated the terms themselves, and not the proposition. Only a plebian Neanderthal could confuse A=A with A.”
…rather than the response I gave…
“The tautology is A=A. The contradiction is ~(A=A).”
Would you have been more edified?