# How many strikes does Collounsbury get? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 13, 2003, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224 "2003-07-13T20:14:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/181 "2003-07-15T03:08:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Ah, then I see its relevance to the particular point, though not the OP. \*\* Thanks. \*\* > [@](#): > > The answer to your question, I would guess, is that “drooling idiocy” is an insult of the post, whereas “drooling idiot” is an insult of the poster. One would hope that Col has the good sense going forward to avoid both variations, but there you go. \*\* It seems to me that when you add a possesive pronoun and the word “usual,” the phrase “drooling idiocy” turns from an attack on the post to an attack on the poster. > [@](#): > > Attacking the poster’s posts, not the poster himself. Disagree for the same reason. Not much point in discussing it further though. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/182 "2003-07-15T03:10:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Biggirl \* > \*\*It’ll get you banned just like I predict it will finally get **Col** banned. \*\* Perhaps, but my point was that if, say, YOU, were the victim of **collounsbury** -style abuse, you might not be so dismissive. Just speculating though. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/183 "2003-07-15T03:10:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Attacking the poster’s posts, not the poster himself. > > Ugly, yes, but not quite outside the rules. \*\* Hence my argument that the rules are defective. Let’s be honest; anywhere else in the world or on the net, outside of the fairly…ahem…um…unique… environment of GD, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between “You’re a drooling idiot” and the GD acceptable weasel-worded version “That’s a post of such drooling idiocy that it’s not surprising _you_ made it, given that it’s typical of your vast ignorance.” Fenris ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/184 "2003-07-15T03:14:54Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* \*\* seeing as you in no way bring as much to the table as **Coll**. Disagree, but you are of course entitled to your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/185 "2003-07-15T03:26:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*In fact, your quote comes from [a recent Pit thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?&threadid=190754&perpage=50&highlight=stupid%20drooling%20idiot&pagenumber=2) in which you were once again wetting your panties over the continued existence of **Collounsbury**. Rather dishonest of you to scream bloody murder about Col insulting people in GD, then try to illustrate your point with a post in the Pit, don’t you think? \*\* I thought I was quoting a GD thread when clearly I was not. Entirely my bad. Really no excuse for that. No dishonesty was meant, but I can see how it would appear that way. Sorry **Collounsbury** , **Gaudere** , and everyone else. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/186 "2003-07-15T04:03:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > Here’s what you said earlier: > > I think the point was made quite clearly by Gaudere (though delightfully misstated again by milroyj in his orgasmic fervor to get Col in trouble for saying “drooling idiot” in The Pit, of all places) that if you wish to bring up an area where Col went over the line, a good thing to do would be to actually “bring it”, so to speak, **instead of rehashing things Gaudere have already said do not warrant a warning/banning in her opinion**. > > (emphasis mine) > > What did you mean by the bolded words? Would you care to give examples (in this thread) of the “rehashing” that you seem to be protesting here? I still do not see how you progress to “don’t post any disagreement with moderators” from what I said, but anyway. What I am saying here is that if you are trying to show where **Col** was out of line, a good idea is to bring to the table places where you believe he was in error, or situations that have not already been covered by **Gaudere**. _ **IN NO WAY DID I INTEND OR IMPLY THAT YOU ARE FORBIDDEN OR SHOULD OTHERWISE REFRAIN FROM POSTING A DISAGREEMENT WITH A MODERATOR** _. Is that clear enough or should I rent a banner ad from the Chicago Reader just so it’ll pop up every time you load a thread and it’ll burn itself into your brain? > [@](#): > > That’s nonsense. First, if you feel I was wrong in that thread, feel free to ressurect it and continue the debate. Second, I’m not embarrassed in any way. I’m simply expressing my disagreement. Third, when I am wrong, I’m happy to admit it. First, as I have and had no dog in that fight, I have no desire way to resurrect it. I think you were wrong in your parsing of **Col** ’s statement to you, which you evidently perceived as a direct personal attack, and which **Gaudere** did not. Second, you bloody well ought to be embarassed. You show less skill in reading comprehension than extinct species of protista, a feat not previously accomplished in, oh, several million years. Congratulations, really … or then again, maybe not. Third, you are wrong in this thread, and you have been wrong several times, and you still fail to admit it, so I do not believe you when you say you are happy to admit when you are wrong. > [@](#): > > Yes. For example, as far as I can tell, she has not tried to claim that the following was not a personal insult (at least in this thread): What beautiful shading there … “she has not tried to claim”, intimating that if she did “try to claim”, it would be some sort of reach, as opposed to her official decision. I’m sure she’ll be delighted to see someone with your already-established skills in reading comprehension (not to mention backseat moderating) has decided, on her behalf, that **Col** broke the rules:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Cited by **lucwarm** as a GD post wherein **Col** broke the rules: > Bullshit. December is engaging in his usual drooling idiocy linking unrelated issues in some vague conspiracy mongering, although I suppose it requires some vast optimism to hope that you might be able to discern that, however dimly. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Gaudere > “Poster Y, saying that invisible green beetles cause gravity by flapping their wings is drooling idiocy”==attacking the argument. Technically allowed, but it got Collounsbury warned and then banned last time since I thought it was too close to the line. It would appear, **lucwarm** , that you are wrong, unless you had more than that to bring to the table. Now, are you going to ask me if I’m sure I meant that **Gaudere** ’s head is made of cheese, or would you like to try reading with your eyes open for a change? By the way, re: this comment of yours: > [@](#): > > Perhaps, but my point was that if, say, YOU, were the victim of collounsbury-style abuse, you might not be so dismissive. Just speculating though. I was once. As I figure it, if you respect someone and listen to them and are generally polite and don’t go citing bullshit to support your wild-ass assertions (which is, IMO, part of that whole respect thing), you’re pretty safe. At least, the first time. The 18th … well, I make no promises. I know _I_ wouldn’t be pleased. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/187 "2003-07-15T04:35:05Z")
Skimming this thread gives me an overwhelming sense of [deja vu](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=141400). [sub][sup]Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.[/sup][/sub] ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/188 "2003-07-15T06:12:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Evil Captor \* > \*\*It seems to me that anyone who posts regularly to this or any Internet message board which encourages open debate would tend to have a very thick skin. Collounsbury’s victims tend to be frequent posters. I hardly think they shrivel up and die under his flaming – if they even notice it. So I wonder if the defense of Collounsbury’s victims doesn’t have some other purpose than simple chivalry – note the political leanings of Collounsbury’s supporters vs. attackers. Political bias rears its head again – I don’t blame the mods for not being moved by these arguments. \*\* I agree, as one who’s been the target of some of his flames, I survived intact (and I’m SO scarred!! NOT! :D). I do feel terrible sorrty for the poor man though. Despite his obvious intelligence and knowledge on a variety of subjects, it’s apparent that he suffers from as much lack of understanding of human nature as he has an overabundance of I.Q. If it makes him feel better to lash out and take out some of his angst on people here on the board, heck, maybe some day it will help in in whatever anger/psychological issues he faces? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/189 "2003-07-15T07:02:36Z")
Well, I see the little fan club is forthing itself into a masturbatory frenzy. A note of correction by the way. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ThunderBug \* > I find it ironic that **Gaudere** is here defending Collounsbury and his tactics here while warning him [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=197201) once again for direct insults to other posters. So much for that short leash on his unbanning, eh? As anyone reading the thread for actual comprehension - as opposed to some fairly pitibable search for more Lounsbury Porn - will note that I may a passing reference to a prior thread being hijacked by a twit. No detials or anything really. As I noted when the moronic twit in question showed up, I had been under the mistaken impression the Twit in Question was a Former Twit and not a Current Twit. Indeed I drew attention to the issue immediately, although as I note in the thread, had I said nothing the whole thing would have passed unnoticed, the reference being so oblique. Hardly a case to hammer home some point of me violating the rules. > [@](#): > > Personally, I don’t care how much knowledge Collounsbury has, he’s rude and obnoxius and predictable. Predictable? Now that hurts. > [@](#): > > His “read a book before posting” posts are frequent and annoying. It’s almost as annoying as his attitude and his reaction to those he disagrees with. Indeed this whole know what you’re talking about, post with some semblance of understanding thing is such a frightful bore. It’s so very much easier to natter on like a moron without the slightest clue. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/190 "2003-07-15T07:05:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Creative\_Munster \* > \*\*I could beat this asshole in a fistfight. \*\* Now, now young lad, let’s not go down this road. You know, my daddy can beat your daddy… ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/191 "2003-07-15T07:12:22Z")
My dear simpleton. I was mocking you. Really, you are quite dim. Tedious and dim. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > I count 5 specific examples in this thread. That’s sufficient, IMHO, to rebut your charge of “vague characterizations.” > > In fact, it seems as though you’ve shifted ground – now you concede that specifics were presented, but you claim that they were presented with “petty whinging and sniping.” > > For what it’s worth, I feel that I’ve presented my point of view in a reasonable fashion in this thread. Feel free to cite specific language of mine you find objectionable (ooh the irony!). Or perhaps you will content yourself with your usual hand-waving. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/192 "2003-07-15T07:24:11Z")
Hey **Biggirl** , you’ll want to bring your _personal massage aide_ on down here for this lot:D ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/193 "2003-07-15T07:38:01Z")
A word of advice, because I consider you a friend, Pun. Collunsbury is quite capable of making an ass of himself, indeed, he does it with almost every post. Yes, he is very knowledgable about the Middle East, I have learned a lot from him myself. That does not seperate him from the despicable excrement that _he choses to bury his wisdom in_. You seem to have taken Collunsbury defense into your bosom as a personal crusade. Let it go, Pat. He’s an unmitigated asshole. No matter how much he knows, it’s not worth fighting for his knowledge in the face of his arrogance and simple lack of manners. You’re so much better than that. You’re fighting a fight that you can’t win, because no matter how eloquent your defense, no matter how adroitly Cols makes his points…it’s all lost beneith the hate he choses to embrace. It’s a shame, really, he has so much to offer these boards, but he can’t resist embracing the oh-so-clever insult. If feel sad that such a knowlegable individual is so insecure that he can’t simply state facts and let them stand on their own without throwing in a bon mot or an insult to prove to himself how superior to all of us he is. So much knowledge… Such a waste… ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/194 "2003-07-15T07:54:41Z")
I appreciate the thought, Dave, but … I know that I appear to be a **Collounsbury** apologist. More than that it’s that annoying idiots … well, annoy me. If you take a look at my posting tendencies from the past few days you’ll notice they’re predominantly in the Pit. I dunno why but lately I’ve been a lot more driven to post in the Pit than previously (though I’ve been a fairly steady Pit poster for a while now). Yes, Col can be vitriolic. Frankly it’s been his style since he got here. Sometimes he bends the rules and sometimes he breaks them. In general, from what I have seen, his targets are the same people doing the same thing over and over again. I understand his ire. To some, the lack of genteel flavor in his posts very possibly pushes them away. To others it probably says “this guy knows what he’s talking about and he’s fed up with drooling idiots going on like they know what they’re talking about”. He could be less harsh, to be sure, but he could be a whole lot worse, and not just with his manner with people. He could post with his normal style and include with it a total lack of attention to facts, and nobody would read it other than for a laugh. He will, in the end, probably bury himself, because to him the greater crime is to walk away from ignorance rather than face it and risk losing his cool (as he has done before). But given the fact that he continues to explain to people what he has, in some cases, explained more times than either of us can count, I am not surprised at his anger. And he could, quite frankly, do a helluva lot worse than “this is drooling idiocy” or “on the slim chance that you are actually able to grasp this incredibly simple concept”. I don’t think I need to remind you of JDT:) Ideally, would I like to see him with less vitriol? Yes, because then nobody would have any sort of argument against him except “he posts only about all the same things and he thinks highly of himself!” But there’s also a certain flair about him … I imagine him sometimes as though he’s in a GD thread fencing, and his opponents are throwing little plastic swords at him, but they have full fencing gear on. He’s well within his rights to score legal hits so long as he doesn’t slice them open. Granted he comes close to do that on occasion, and he’s sent one or two to the hospital, figuratively-speaking. But dancing, unarmed, in front of a sharp sword held by an expert swordsman is no way to ensure a long life. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/195 "2003-07-15T08:04:01Z")
Hmm. How about that? Having just read a post of **Col** ’s (of my own perusal, lest anyone think Dave IMed me at 4 AM or anything), his first in the thread, and in response to someone who joined this month and has less than 50 posts … his purpose is served better by being polite initially. That person probably isn’t going to lend as much of an ear to what he has to say. **Col** didn’t break the rules, just was unnecessarily snarky to someone. He may well not see it as such, but I do recall in the past (previous to his banning, and no cite for this so if he disagrees I’ll happily retract fully) him saying that he didn’t care how people here thought of him. I remember seeing that opinion voiced by few others. One is perm-banned, another is on self-imposed temp ban, and a third posts rarely, if ever, since the first was banned. **Col** , IMO your purpose in educating people is better served by being more earnest and kind initially. There are targets for your ire. [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=36888) fellow didn’t quite deserve it. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/196 "2003-07-15T09:19:58Z")
But’s what’s worse? Trying to ram your ( accurate, at times ) arrogant opinion down everyone’s throat, or defending your position will well reasoned, polite, facts? December is renown for posting many almost 100% fact free posts, all of which reinforce his unique world view, but he’s reasonable about doing so. Cols hides true facts beneith a venere of superiority and insult. If it were my message board, I’d endure 1000 decembers ( because it’s so easy to provide facts proving him wrong ) rather then one Collunsbury. His constant belief that he’s above the rules, and his dragging down of honest debate, poison the stated purpose of the boards: To fight ignorance. Cols, I don’t know what demons you’re fighting that make it neccesary for you to insult everyone, but just cut it the fuck out already, HMMM? We know you know what you’re talking about, you don’t have to stand on the corpses of those you’ve beaten down screaming “YAAAAH! I AM THE WINNER!!!”, OK? You sell yourself very short by doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/197 "2003-07-15T09:30:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*December is renown for posting many almost 100% fact free posts, all of which reinforce his unique world view, but he’s reasonable about doing so. Cols hides true facts beneith a venere of superiority and insult. > > If it were my message board, I’d endure 1000 decembers ( because it’s so easy to provide facts proving him wrong ) rather then one Collunsbury. His constant belief that he’s above the rules, and his dragging down of honest debate, poison the stated purpose of the boards: To fight ignorance.\*\* So you think that it’s more ignorant to insult than to lie? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/198 "2003-07-15T09:33:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > **I still do not see how you progress to “don’t post any disagreement with moderators” from what I said, but anyway. What I am saying here is that if you are trying to show where Col was out of line, a good idea is to bring to the table places where you believe he was in error, or situations that have not already been covered by Gaudere.** Interesting that you chose not to post examples of the “rehashing” that you find so objectionable. \*\* > [@](#): > > First, as I have and had no dog in that fight, I have no desire way to resurrect it. I think you were wrong in your parsing of **Col** ’s statement to you, which you evidently perceived as a direct personal attack, and which **Gaudere** did not. \*\* Puh-lease. At the very best, you have proposed an alternative interpretation. And anyway, even if **Gaudere** pronounces me incorrect, it’s ok for me to post my disagreement. MHO of course. \*\* > [@](#): > > Third, you are wrong in this thread, and you have been wrong several times, and you still fail to admit it, \*\* So is it your position that absolutely no reasonable person could construe the comments I quoted as personal insults? As I said before, at the very best you have presented an alternative interpretation (which I still consider an insult, FWIW). Now, I suppose you might respond that **Gaudere** pronounced that particular comment OK and that therefore I’m wrong. But IMHO, it’s ok to publicly disagree with the moderators. Despite your protestations, you appear to disagree. \*\* > [@](#): > > What beautiful shading there … “she has not tried to claim”, intimating that if she did “try to claim”, it would be some sort of reach, as opposed to her official decision. I’m sure she’ll be delighted to see someone with your already-established skills in reading comprehension (not to mention backseat moderating) has decided, on her behalf, that **Col** broke the rules\*\* I’m sooooooooo sorrrrrrrry if I have said something that might suggest that a mod might be incorrect. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/199 "2003-07-15T09:42:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > **My dear simpleton. I was mocking you.** Ok, let’s see if I have this straight: (1) You demand specifics; (2) I point out that specifics have already been provided; (3) You respond by “mocking” Yep, that’s our **collounsbury** all right. For lack of a better phrase, your “drooling idiocy” is only partially camouflaged by your vitriol. \*\* > [@](#): > > Really, you are quite dim. Tedious and dim. \*\* Whatever. Just remember to keep the shiny side out. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/200 "2003-07-15T09:58:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > Ok, let’s see if I have this straight: Charesteristically, no. > [@](#): > > (1) You demand specifics; No, I make fun of the whole thing. Reread the paragraph. Think in the context of the tar baby. > [@](#): > > (2) I point out that specifics have already been provided; Eh, you made a claim, it’s a subjective morass, and I continue mocking, the whole Xmas 12 gifts things should have been a hint. > [@](#): > > (3) You respond by “mocking” No the whole thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224.md?page=11)