# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/61 "2003-07-14T04:05:35Z")
Those are the rules! Attack the post, not the poster. Why aren’t you enforcing the rules, then? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/62 "2003-07-14T04:09:06Z")
**milroyj** , you are being a drooling idiot. **Gaudere** stated, with perfect clarity, that “‘You are a drooling idiot’==direct personal insult, not allowed.” If you have an example of **Collounsbury** calling somebody a drooling idiot in GD, lay it on the table. Otherwise, just deal with it. Having said that . . . **Collounsbury** , can you just calm the fuck down already? I love your posts because of their incredibly valuable knowledge and perspective, but there is no need whatsoever to be so incessantly hostile. Ignorance is well and truly vanquished by exposure to knowledge, not by direct or indirect insults. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/63 "2003-07-14T04:09:47Z")
Sorry for the confusion, the last post was directed at our esteemed Administrator. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/64 "2003-07-14T04:10:26Z")
> [@](#): > > IMHO, this is clearly a personal insult. Instead of simply saying that I’m wrong (which would have been appropriate), he suggests that being wrong is a CHARACTERISTIC of me. That’s an insult. [sub]In the Marianas Trench[/sub] Give it a fucking rest. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/65 "2003-07-14T04:13:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > In a previous thread in GD, **collounsbury** said the following: > > > [@](#): > > > > In re the issue of allele versus gene, my dear lucwarm has it characteristically wrong. > > IMHO, this is clearly a personal insult. Instead of simply saying that I’m wrong (which would have been appropriate), he suggests that being wrong is a CHARACTERISTIC of me. That’s an insult. He said you were characteristically wrong in that matter. Not always, just regarding that issue in genetics. BTW, since no link was provided, do you remember what, if anything, any of the mods or admins did re: that comment? And **milroyj** , if you are going to say that someone is breaking the rules, for fuck’s sake try to actually present an example of rules being broken instead of just complaining with no evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/66 "2003-07-14T04:14:29Z")
Ummm…regardless of the inevitable trip to Hell and descent into madness and buggery, I don’t believe I’ve seen an Admin’s posts so terribly misinterpreted as I have here. I don’t think **Gaudere** is being inconsistant or illogical in her explainations at all. I do think that there is behaviour in question which skirts the line, maybe crossing over, maybe not, depending on the observer. But it’s not obvious to me of it is. Regardless of who is BANNED for what reason, if someone is let back they should be held to a much stricter standard than the rest. But for how long? Is once BANNED forever cursed? Can a person redeem themselves enough to re-set the clock? I don’t know the answers, and I’ll hazard it’s hard to give concrete answers, because they are complicated and depend so much on knowing the exact interpersonal dynamics involved - both at the moment, and over the recent posting history. And I think that the Staff needs some slack and breathing space to work it out on their own what can and can’t be allowed. Or else there have to be more egregious and blatant violations than at present. Of course, I could be wrong… 😕 ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/67 "2003-07-14T04:15:54Z")
Direct personal insult: > [@](#): > > Listen you stupid drooling idiot, there is no fucking admission you were right, nor Steyn because you’re both wrong no matter your crab like scuttling to redefine your argument ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/68 "2003-07-14T04:20:39Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\* > He said you were characteristically wrong in that matter. Not always, just regarding that issue in genetics._\* I think you’re stretching things. “characteristically wrong” is pretty clear. > [@](#): > > Listen you stupid drooling idiot, there is no fucking admission you were right, nor Steyn because you’re both wrong no matter your crab like scuttling to redefine your argument Don’t be silly – it’s a general statement about crabs 😃 ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/69 "2003-07-14T04:21:14Z")
Takers on the bet that **milroyj** just searches GD for the phrase “drooling idiot”? Five gets you in, folks… ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/70 "2003-07-14T04:24:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > I think you’re stretching things. “characteristically wrong” is pretty clear. I disagree. Let’s look at the statement again: > [@](#): > > **In re the issue of allele versus gene** , my dear lucwarm has it characteristically wrong. IE whenever y’all talk about allele versus gene, you, **lucwarm** are wrong (though I’m sure **milroyj** will be back any minute now to find someplace, two months ago, where **Collounsbury** said you were characteristically a drooling idiot on the matter;)). ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/71 "2003-07-14T04:27:22Z")
You lose your five bucks, dude. On the other hand, who wants to bet that the mods/admins/ will find a way to excuse Col’s behavior? 100-1 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/72 "2003-07-14T04:27:50Z")
[b[Originally posted by Gaudere\*\* > [@](#): > > Oh, bite me. Collounsbury was banned even though he _never_, to the best of my recollection, clearly broke the “no personal insults” rule in GD. Are you kidding? Do you read his messages? I’d say at least a third of his messages contain a direct, personal insult at someone. For example, in just the thread mentioned by the OP, we have these choice snippets: > [@](#): > > In short, it would behoove you to obtain some glimmer of an understanding and familiarity with the subject before rambling in blithe and self contained ignorance on as you so habilitualy do. ‘Habitual rambling in blithe, self-contained ignorance’ == direct personal insult. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > Originally posted by december > One can, but does one? > > * * * > > Well, that’s not the question, the real question is your complete and utter ignorance (and usual shifting around.) Direct personal insult > [@](#): > > however we already know from your extensive blundering about like a blind elephant that you know little to nothing about the BBC. DPI > [@](#): > > We all understand very well your delicate ultra-Zionist sensibilities are the real source of whatever interest you have in BBC. Obnoxious direct personal insult. Those are from page 2 of the thread linked in the OP. And believe me, that’s Collounsbury at his mildest. I actually don’t want him banned, BTW. But perhaps he should be confined to the pit or something. Or be quarantined to his own threads. That’s what he said he was going to do when he came back - start threads on topics he thought were worth discussing, and limit himself to those threads. That seemed to me like a good idea. People who don’t want to deal with him don’t have to join those threads. And the rest of the threads can continue on perhaps a slightly less educated, but FAR more civil level. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/73 "2003-07-14T04:33:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\* > IE whenever y’all talk about allele versus gene, you, **lucwarm** are wrong \*\* I realize that’s your interpretation. But like I said, it’s a stretch. And in any event, even under your interpretation, it’s still a personal insult, even if it’s narrower: it’s still talking about a CHARACTERISTIC. Besides, there’s no need to quibble over this example. Unless you disagree that what **milroyj** came up with is an insult. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/74 "2003-07-14T04:34:08Z")
\*\* lucwarm\*\* > [@](#): > > Instead of simply saying that I’m wrong (which would have been appropriate), he suggests that being wrong is a CHARACTERISTIC of me. That’s an insult. I don’t think so. Saying that a poster is generally wrong about subject X is acceptable (even if not accurate), I think. Let’s say a creationist has had a string of posts where they misinterpret biology. Can we then not say after the 15th thread “you are characteristicly wrong about biology”? I would think we can. And being wrong about something, or a lot of things, is not really an insult, I think…it is more a judgment on your arguments. I must emphasize that I do not judge whether a poster is correct in their estimation when I decide if something is a direct personal insult. If tomndebb can say a creationist is ignorant, then the creationist can say tomndebb is ignorant. **milroj** : > [@](#): > > Direct personal insult: > > > [@](#): > > > > Listen you stupid drooling idiot, there is no fucking admission you were right, nor Steyn because you’re both wrong no matter your crab like scuttling to redefine your argument. A direct personal insult in **Great Debates**? NOT in the Pit? NOT on another board? NOT secretly thought to himself whilst on the john? **Sam Stone** : > [@](#): > > The SDMB Great Debates forum is going to hell slowly, and Collounsbury is part of the reason. I am of the frim opinion that when the SDMB came into being, for one Planck moment it was the shining, ultimate pefection of messageboardness. Becase for as long as I can remember, people have been saying it’s going downhill. 😃 It goes through phases, is all. ME and snarkiness now, religion and pleas for temperateness next month. I’ve seen much snarkier episodes in the past. > [@](#): > > I’d say at least a third of his messages contain a direct, personal insult at someone. No they do not. “You are ignorant” is not a direct personal insult. It is sometimes neccessary! Sometimes people are ignorant about a subject. Sometimes they are habitually ignorant. This can be used in a legitmate debate. If one person never cracked a biology book and the other has a Ph. D., can we not say one is ignorant about biology? I have gone over this quite a few times by now. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/75 "2003-07-14T04:34:26Z")
Collunsbury is an idiot, in spite of whatever knowledge he might posess. He’ll get banned again shortly, count on it. He’s proven again and again that his one overriding characteristic is that he is an asshole, a gaping orifice that constantly spews foul diarrea. Frankly, I don’t find his posts worthy of consideration, it’s too much work to wade through the shit to find the valuable nuggets of information hidden inside. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/76 "2003-07-14T04:34:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > > … > Those are from page 2 of the thread linked in the OP. And believe me, that’s Collounsbury at his mildest. I have been reading pretty much all threads he takes part in and I **don’t** believe you. That is in fact **Coll** at his harshest. Since you made such a damning claim, back it up. Prove that Coll has _repeatedly_ written _substantially_ worse vitriol in GD. Put up or … ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/77 "2003-07-14T04:36:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by milroyj \* > You lose your five bucks, dude. As there were no takers on the bet, you are wrong for what seems like the tenth time in this thread, but is probably more like 5 or 6. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, who wants to bet that the mods/admins/ will find a way to excuse Col’s behavior? 100-1 Self-destruction … a lost art. You’re getting there… ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/78 "2003-07-14T04:44:38Z")
Personally, I reckon **Coll** is just right the way he is. And it’s not because I agree with his opinions 100% of the time by the way - it’s simply because in this era of strangled politically correct discourse, **Collounsbury** somehow manages to be wonderfully offensive and wholly irritating without EVER ONCE saying something politically incorrect. He manages to belittle when he chooses to - without ever once resorting to cheapshots about one’s sexual persuasion, or appearance, or religious beliefs or racial background. Now that’s quite a challenge when you think about it. His propensity for unique, and original invective should be treasured and applauded for mine! The world is too bland as it is, for mine. So all I can say is **Coll**? BRING 'EM ON! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troy_mcclure_sf/32/4150_2.png) [@Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troy_McClure_SF)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/79 "2003-07-14T05:26:35Z")
So uh, does this count for **Gaudere** in the NMPQ? (Nazi Mod Pit Quotient) ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224/80 "2003-07-14T05:29:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\*Takers on the bet that **milroyj** just searches GD for the phrase “drooling idiot”? > > Five gets you in, folks… \*\* i ran that search for the last 6 months, collunsbury only used the phrase once, and that was while responding to december by saying he didn’t call some guy a drooling idiot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-strikes-does-collounsbury-get/188224.md?page=5)