I assume that would be me, and somehow Little Eva managed to leave out the part where I apologized right afterwards for that phrase.
AND it was in the Pit right here, since I see no reason to play coy about it, so while it wasn’t polite (or entirely justified), at least it was in the appropriate forum.
Fenris
And it was accepted, too. Right or wrong forum, you apologized, it was accepted, and that should be that. Right?
I wasn’t playing coy, I was simply trying not to hijack this thread any more than I felt necessary. Yes, Fenris did apologize, but it wasn’t “right away,” and let’s just say it was a rather half-hearted apology IMO.
If anyone cares to continue discussing this long-past issue, please open another thread rather than hijacking this one further.
Well, no Lib. But as you see, your answer didn’t illuminate me, either. 
I blame myself, of course, and sometimes calling me an idiot might help me get that down. I mean, if everything were up to me no one would ever be an asshole and everyone would know everything. 
(especially me)
You blame yourself because the answer was illuminating? 
And if the same answer had been provided along with name-calling and profanity, it would have been more illuminating?
For me, often times, the answer is yes. A good shaking up is what I really need every so often.
Really. So you like to be abused, as long as good info accompanies it.
That’s pretty twisted, but to each their own.
Sometimes I need to realize I’m being a fucking idiot in just those terms. I’ve taken philosophical debates to the pit where, among other things, being called a fucking idiot along with the argument (that had already been presented) did, in fact, make me realize that I was a fucking idiot. Drooling. erl logic does not always represent Earth logic. Often it does, but there is no guarantee of coherence, consistency, or anything else we often enjoy in civil debates.
I liked him. I enjoyed his style. That style is not permitted on this message board in the manner he employed it. Thus, he is gone; I will miss him. I don’t see why there has to be a conflict here.
Did you ever learn from being punished? Did that make the punishment superfluous if the knowledge was already there?
He should receive contempt when he is due contempt. I don’t see why this presents such a big problem. Do I “like to be abused?” No, not particularly. But I am being a fucking idiot, I would prefer it if someone could muster up enough force to tell me so without simpering gentility if I doggedly persist in my ignorance.
Not really. If I say something that, for whatever reason, has insulted or offended someone, or is insulting or offensive of itself, than I would much rather people reply with an honest “you fucking idiot” than some understated “I must disagree”. It makes me evaluate the statement more, lets me know that there is something badly wrong, either with what I’ve said or someone else’s interpretation.
IF I am being a fucking idiot. Thanks.
Excellent diagnosis lucwarm, as it concurs with an opinion I have long held.
But we’re talking about civil debates in Great Debates. What you’re talking about has long been acceptable in the Pit, but not elsewhere.
Still, if someone called me a fucking drooling idiot in the Pit, I don’t think I’d learn from it as much as I’d get my back up and refute the charge.
When we’re punished, we’re taught not to do something again. Using your logic, I’d be loathe to ask someone a question again if they were going to abuse me while answering the question.
Ah, if you doggedly persist. And what if you simply ask a question and get abuse and mockery in return, along with the answer? That’s all right, or no?
Sorry, being rude and obnoxious in an otherwise civil debate is still rude and obnoxious, never mind the info being parried about.
Are you seriously telling me that instead of actually refuting your comment with facts and cites you’d prefer the other person call you a fucking idiot?
And if you’re talking about responding only to people saying insulting or offensive things, that’s a completely different story. I’m talking about a civil debate - you know, what you normally find in GD, and you’re more likely talking about a flame.
Realized I forgot to answer this…although I am generally the Queen of Second Chances. Unfortunately I think the odds that if allowed back, he would mend his grumpy (although sometimes hilarious and always enlightening) ways in the long term, are slim.
That is irrelevant to the situation. As many posters have testified, requests for information were almost always politely answered. Persistent ignorance in the face of reason and fact already overturns the standards of civil debate.
Which is where my own opinions differ. I think there is a place for “drooling idiocy” and “you fucking idiot” in perfectly civil debate, quite frankly. I recognize that this is not a popular view, and obviously I recognize that this is boards policy. I still have my posting privileges.
I’m not trying to attack you personally, Maeglin, and I hope it doesn’t come across that way. I don’t quite understand the concept you’re putting forth, but I suspect that’s my fault, not yours. So we’ll agree to disagree, no problem.
If the question belied a certain fucking idiocy I would hope that would be the point. But in fact this is beside the point. We both agree it is not proper behavior in GD to act like Collounsbury did… We both recognize he was banned. Neither of us argue with this.
I do not like verbal abuse. But I do like calling a spade a spade. Sometimes my ignorance of the fact prohibit me from being able to intelligently respond to cites. This is unfortunate. I would like to not be a fucking idiot. But sometimes I am. I do not see how you thus conclude that I love abuse.
That’s fair. If we’re now talking pretty much exclusively about Pit threads, then if a person is acting like a drooling idiot and refuses to think logically, then calling them a drooling idiot might be helpful - if nothing, it gives the rest of us something to laugh at. 