Thanks.
**
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.
Disagree for the same reason. Not much point in discussing it further though.
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.
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
[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.
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. 
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?
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.
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:
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:
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.
Skimming this thread gives me an overwhelming sense of deja vu.
[sub][sup]Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.[/sup][/sub]
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?
Well, I see the little fan club is forthing itself into a masturbatory frenzy.
A note of correction by the way.
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.
Predictable? Now that hurts.
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.
Now, now young lad, let’s not go down this road. You know, my daddy can beat your daddy…
My dear simpleton. I was mocking you. Really, you are quite dim. Tedious and dim.
Hey Biggirl, you’ll want to bring your personal massage aide on down here for this lot:D
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…
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.
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 fellow didn’t quite deserve it.
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.
So you think that it’s more ignorant to insult than to lie?
Interesting that you chose not to post examples of the “rehashing” that you find so objectionable.
**
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.
**
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.
**
I’m sooooooooo sorrrrrrrry if I have said something that might suggest that a mod might be incorrect. :rolleyes:
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.
**
Whatever. Just remember to keep the shiny side out. 
Charesteristically, no.
No, I make fun of the whole thing. Reread the paragraph. Think in the context of the tar baby.
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.
No the whole thing.