Defending Collounsbury, myself that is.

[system]

In regards to
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=71652
I wish to take exception with a statement Chronos made as moderator.

Let me preface my taking exception by saying that I have no problems with moderation at SDMB and fully recognize it as the thankless job that it is.

However, I believe part of my rebuke is unfounded and I wish to correct what I believe to be a false impression.

Chronos wrote

*Originally posted by Chronos *
[Moderator watch ON]

Whoa, there, Collounsbury. Personal attacks are not allowed in this forum. You’re allowed to address the ideas or views of another person, but things like calling another poster “our resident baseless speculator” is over the line.

I accept that I should not have used the phrase “resident baseless speculator” although I can’t help but offer up the weak defense of personal frustration. AWC loves to make drive by posts (see my pit thread on drooling morons) but flees from the bright sun light of substantiation. Intellectual cowardice I call it.

However, GQ requires other things, as such I apologize for this.

However, I take exception with this:

I understand that you and Ms. Wind Chick have had prior contact elsewhere on the Internet, but that does not justify carrying feuds over here to the SDMB.

In re prior contact, I believe it is inappropriate to make this statement. I have refrained from the same, I would hope that administratively we should also.

In re “carrying feuds over here to the SDMB” I **categorically reject ** and take issue with the statement. There is no feud or the like. I have taken issue with the substance of AWC’s posts as well as style insofar as that style has been connected to substantive issues.

As such, I want to be categorical, my issue is with substance and with this board. Only. Other suggestions are without basis.

If another poster says something with which you disagree, then address that specific post, not that person’s entire posting history.

I in fact did the very same. I addressed the actual facts of the issue and any comments in re AWC’s posting are 100% unreservedly informed by posting here on SDMB, nothing else.

There, I believe that is all.

Otherwise, I’ll just sincerely thank Chronos for doing his job and apologize for having to take issue with this. I simply did not want to leave false impressions and in no way wish to make his job any harder.

[DRY]

Well stated, Collounsbury.

Without wishing to take sides in any dispute (I’m not even familiar with the incident in question, other than being aware of some personal disagreement between the OP and Autumn Wind Chick), I’d just like to say that I wish more pit threads were this well written, coherent, dignified and respectful.

And no, this isn’t a backhand slam at anyone else.

[Liberal]

Collounsbury and I are known to agree on very little, and I think Chronos is in that class of moderators, like Gaudere, who are almost always fair. In this case, however, I stand with Collounsbury, and attribute Chronus’s extended remarks to a rare error in judgment. For what it’s worth, Collounsbury, I think you defended your case with great dignity, civility, and diplomacy. See you in the debates.

[Starbury]

Originally posted by Chronos
If another poster says something with which you disagree, then address that specific post, not that person’s entire posting history.

Originally posted by Collounsbury
I in fact did the very same. I addressed the actual facts of the issue and any comments in re AWC’s posting are 100% unreservedly informed by posting here on SDMB, nothing else.
**

The statement “resident baseless speculator” does seem to take into account AWC’s entire posting history (on the SDMB). Its clear that you didn’t come to that conclusion based on her one post in that GQ thread. That seems to be the point that Chronos was making.

[brachyrhynchos]

Perhaps I’m terribly slow on the uptake (no surprise there), but why not just apologize for the slam and correct the error in the thread in question?

Example: * “I apologize for my earlier remarks - they were uncalled for in this forum. (I should point out that I don’t know AWC outside of these boards - my comment was based solely on her SDMB postings.)”*

By posting that in the original thread, you would be addressing those that might have been mislead by Chronos’s comment. Now, they will have to open up this pit thread for clarification.

Finally, despite my thickheadedness, I too appreciate the civil tone in which you present your case.

[system]

First, let me thank Libertarian for his comments. We do agree on very little and he knows I am an impatient bastard, but I do try to be fair. I appreciate the same in others. Now if I can just get him to engage my comments in the way I want, I think we would all see a much more interesting Libertaria, hehe.

I agree, by the way, that Chronos’ comments were in that category of rare. Even if I am wrong, by the way, I have always felt that the moderators here do an excellent job and that very, very few complaints about moderating are justified here. Even my own is only proferred as an explanation and commentary as Chronos was quite justified in his intervention – and I’ve a sense people cut me some slack to be frank in regards to me acerbic commentary so it would be highly uncalled for me to be snotty about the occaisonal slap-down.

Why the pit thread? Simply because I wanted to make a somewhat extended comment and my reading of our rules in re comments on moderating should be made in the pit.

I should add that it * might * not be * accurate * for me to say I do not know AWC outside of SDMB. For full disclosure, I made a comment in another thread which I asked the moderators to remove based on the sense that the opposite is the case, however in retrospect I decided it was both inappropriate and irrelevent. In emailing the moderators/admin I explained myself fully, that is the context of my obscure comments.

I think it would be a disservice to AWC as a person and myself to bring this into SBMB, as I desire to restrict my comments solely to the substantive issues at hand.