Collounsbury, if you don't mind?

[Cervaise]

*Originally posted by tramp *
**I have no shame that my knees are well worn. Mr. tramp enjoys it and I enjoy doing it. Maybe if your significant other’s knees were a little broken in, you wouldn’t be wound so tight. **

I know you think you’re bringing balance to the discussion and all that, but in point of fact you’re coming across like a fuzzy-minded twat. Just FYI.

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

I actually found the riposte to be quite appropriate.

[Tamerlane]

Neurotik: Well in aditrion to that volume on Persia I mentioned, a general work or two on the Ottoman Empire would probably fit neatly.

The Ottoman Centuries by Lord Kinross (, is the old standard narrative history, heavy on the political and military. Good book actually, a few idiosyncracies aside, and easy to find.

A little harder to find it seems, but still around ( I just checked ) is the much more modern The Ottoman Turks:An Introductory History to 1923 by Justin McCarthy ( 1997, Addison Wesley Longman Ltd. ). It’s a shorter college textbook-type narrative history, that is little less heavy on the military detail than Kinross, but throws in a lot more social history and the like. Pretty decent as a short intro to the subject.

I don’t really recommend Lords of the Horizon: A History of the Ottoman Empire by Jason Goodwin, as a history book. It was not written by a historian, but rather a journalist and therefore a little light on detail ( except interesting anecdoted ) and a bit breezy in tone. However it is not a bad companion piece to one of the volumes above.

In addition to Persia and the Ottomans, there is also the Mamluks of Egypt to cover ( 1250-1517 ). Robert Irwin has written a decent political history of The Early Mamluk Sultanate, 1250-1382, but I haven’t read anything on the later period. Also Morocco, but I don’t have a good source for the medieval period ( I should look for one though - plenty of activity at times ). Oh and stretching just a little farther afield, L.P. Harvey has a pretty good book covering Islamic Spain, 1250-1500.

Just skimming the shelves, something you might find of interest is Before European Hegemony:The World System A.D. 1250-1350. Despite the short time frame it is a very interesting analysis of the world economic system in the three big connected hubs of Europe, the Middle East and East Asia.

Well, that’s a start, anyway :).

• Tamerlane

[tramp]

*Originally posted by Qadgop the Mercotan *
**I actually found the riposte to be quite appropriate. **

I’d only heard that word in my old college fencing days. I happy to see it has a place in the vernacular.

[squeegee]

*Originally posted by capacitor *
Oh boy, another Collunsbury-inspired orgy session in the Pit.

Jealous, sweetie?

For my part, I’m more than happy that C has eased off the the “fucking motherfuckers”, fucking motherfucker.

[Measure_for_Measure]

tramp, seriously: you haven’t been paying attention. Collounsbury is a rabid moderate. It’s just that this board has a preponderance of fervent Israel supporters, along with the occasional anti-semitic nutjob. I assure you that both groups get a sound thrashing from Mr. Collounsbury; the latter especially.

Energetic Palestinian supporters are few and far between, but where they appear (Olentzero on some days) Collounsbury has been known to offer some pointed rebuttals.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
Well, I do take exception to this last criticism for I don’t think it is valid. I approach every engagement like I approach a fencing match, my goal is of course to win within the rules and with

So would it be fair to say that you don’t like being proven wrong, and you consider being so as losing?

[wring]

I don’t think anyone relishes being proved wrong. Some people of course, won’t refuse to look at potential evidence that they might be proven wrong.

[Cervaise]

DNFTR.

[wring]

*Originally posted by Cervaise *
**DNFTR. **

:: head bowed slightly ::

ok.

[system]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
So would it be fair to say that you don’t like being proven wrong, and you consider being so as losing? **

In your dimwitted drooling sense, no, so fuck off idiot boy.

[Xavier]

Collunsbury: One of the messages that I read on this board which moved me the most –indeed almost as much as a certain film which I feel is integral to understanding the dynamics, the structure of the conflict, which is la bataille d’alger was a post by Alessan here where he stated (and I paraphrase) he understood the P’s actions – in their boots he might do the same, but goddammit he was going to defend his…. Or something on those lines. No demonization, no childish indulgence in moral posturing. I have deep respect for him, very deep. And in his place I would do the same. As such, I entirely understand the Israeli responses, as for the most part the Palestinian ones, even the morally and ultimately unsupportable ones.

I agree. I often find the most sympathetic (or at least understanding) responses come from Israeli’s themselves - who are involved directly within the conflict. It’s kind of moving when one person makes a gesture to another - that he’ll meet him up half way. To see two people from the opposite end of the spectrum shake hands - or laugh together - I don’t know. It’s just kinda cool, I guess.

From what I’ve read of C’s posts, he seems to have a clear point (usually). If he expresses it in a less than palatable style, I find it’s often in response to something inflammatory that has been said. Alas, game on.

[Auspex]

Pardon me, but I always thought an ad hominem argument is a bad one. Why should you stoop to their level?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by wring *
**I don’t think anyone relishes being proved wrong. Some people of course, won’t refuse to look at potential evidence that they might be proven wrong. **

Do you really not understand the difference between “here’s some evidence” and “here’s where you can find what I think is evidence, but I won’t tell you what it is that I consider to be the evidence”?

Collounsbury

In your dimwitted drooling sense, no, so fuck off idiot boy.

If you’re not going to answer the question, what’s the point of pretending to answer the question?

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**

If you’re not going to answer the question, what’s the point of pretending to answer the question? **

Actually, I think The Ryan sort of has a point here. I’ve noticed that when his opponents make a good point, Collounsbury has a tendency to dismiss it in a conclusory (and sometimes inflammatory) fashion.

[Gomez]

I haven’t read the entire thread because I’m short of time but I just wanted to say that I’ve disagreed with Collounsbury a few times (once even on a middle east issue :eek: ) and I never got anything approaching a hostile response. Maybe it’s more to do with phrasing & tone.

[eunoia]

Sparrows, swallows, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, mango, papaya, Ça prends toutes sortes de monde pour faire un Monde.

[wring]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
Do you really not understand the difference between “here’s some evidence” and “here’s where you can find what I think is evidence, but I won’t tell you what it is that I consider to be the evidence”?
**

Of course I do. I also recognize the difference between what you’ve posted and “well, unless you link the specific item on the site, I won’t look at it”.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by wring *
**

Of course I do. I also recognize the difference between what you’ve posted and “well, unless you link the specific item on the site, I won’t look at it”. **

By “it”, do you mean the website, or the specific item?

[wring]

I respectfully (well, that’s a lie) decline to parse the word “it” for you.