"Well, I had thought you had left the Boards. Note to the moderators, the comment above was based on that thinking. "
If “admitted his error” means admitted he was in error about the poster, not about his name calling.
But that is neither here nor there, since my comment was more about Gaudere warning him there and defending him in here.
Agreed.
Agreed again. His knowlegde seems extensive. But IMHO, his style subtracts from his substance, so much so that it makes reading the meaning of his posts near impossible. And since my knowledge of the MENA situation (which I’ve only seen him post on) is miniscule, his insights would be most welcome on my part. However, I don’t know if I want to take to heart the knowlegde of a jerk, no matter how expertise that knowledge is.
So why not quote a couple? Shouldn’t be so hard . . . should it?
**
No, it is you who are unclear. Why don’t you explain the distinction between posting disagreement with a moderator and the “rehashing” that you object to?
**
Sure, and I note that you didn’t answer my question. And as long as we’re counting heads, I note that I’m not the only person in this thread who has regarded something a Direct Personal Attack that Gaudere apparently thought was not. But it seems you are now conceding that there may be room for disagreement.
**
I saw that language. But it seems to me your position is self-contradictory. Why not cite a few specific examples of improper “rehashing”?
**
Look it’s very simple. I feel like disagreeing with Gaudere’s (apparent) pronouncement. You think there’s something wrong with that. If you are simply offering advice and saying that such disagreement won’t help my cause, your advice is duly noted. B’bye.
The language is vague enough that I’d say only Col could clarify it for sure.
I would say that Gaudere was clarifying her position, as a mod/admin, on Col’s use of “drooling idiot/idiocy” in GD. I disagree with your contention, if I am understanding you, that her defense was specific to Col and would not have happened in the defense of any other poster. So to sum up (this point), she admonished him for breaking the rules in one place (that GD thread) and then explained why he did not violate board rules (if only technically, as some would hasten to emphasize) in another thread or five.
I understand this point as it has been made by you and others, and in that sense I agree, as I think you will note in my post previous page of this thread wherein I cited a newbie who was greeted rather more snarkily than deserved in a GD thread:)
Right. Now one last try for lucwarm.
Almost had me but for the winky smiley. If you are unable to read and comprehend what is said (which seems to be the case thus far), then any amount of my reposting anything will do you no good, as I have said more times than I can count “I do not believe that it is improper or not allowed to publicly disagree with a moderator”. I think you have yet to acknowledge that I actually believe that despite my rather loud emphasis of that some posts ago;)
In other words, lucwarm, I am not going to cut up your food for you. You have nowhere stated that you have a mental handicap, and per the rules of this MB you are over 13 years old. As such I am going to ever so boldly suggest that you pretend to be an adult for as long as it takes you to (ever so painftakingly, I know) find a couple rehashings in this thread (or, hell, elsewhere, should you so desire) and post them. It is my current opinion of you that you are trying to wear me down by playing the part of an absolute imbecile. Well, you’re halfway there, but I do not recall an imbecile ever getting me all the way home, so to speak.
Now. There is a difference, among thinking beings at least, between rehashing an old argument (say, “so saying someone is engaging in drooling idiocy isn’t a bannable offense? But Col did it! Look here!”), which is acceptable inasmuch as it is not a violation of board policy. I feel it is rather pointless, if one is trying to make an actual argument for a violation of rules, to bring up something that has been stated before as not being a violation if the rule in question has not changed since (and I am unaware of any such change and believe Gaudere would have noted otherwise).
This is not to say that you aren’t allowed to bring it up. This is to say that if one is going to make a case for someone’s banning or warning, bringing up something that has been previously asserted (without change in rule since then) as not meriting a warning, bringing it up again is rather pointless. You are, again, free to do so, as I think I have mentioned now at least five times in this thread for every functional brain cell you possess. I think this would be an easier point to get across to fetal pigs, but that is beside the point.
As I am rather tired, by now, of having every page of this thread concurrently open so I can search for various things said on them in an attempt to educate you, perhaps you would be so gracious to re-post or re-state this question for me? I am confident that you’ll find it somewhere at least haphazardly near the rehashings you’re to find, since I am by now quite fed up with doing your own work for you.
That you are not alone in being mistaken about what Gaudere believes is a Direct Personal Attack does not qualify your opinion, in case you were under that mistaken impression. We do not have a democracy on this board. I will happily agree with you that there is room for disagreement and further that there is nothing prohibiting you from saying “I disagree, Gaudere”. However, the point is largely moot for the most part, especially when it concerns Direct Personal Attacks.
Because, to be quite frank, I am well and truly tired of this game of yours of assuming I am saying one thing when I in fact explicitly state the other. Since I am so bloody-well fed up with you in this thread, I am not going to restate my opinion for what seems like the tenth time in this thread. If you are unable to understand it, then explain what you do not understand. I am not going to do your work for you.
You disagreed with her position on many of the comments of Col’s that were cited. I don’t think there’s specifically anything wrong with that so much as there is little point in continuing to argue with her (especially if your suppositions are incorrect, viz. “so it’s okay to call someone a drooling moron in GD?”) once she has made her decision. But you’re allowed.
If you go way back in Pit history to, oh, some time back in 2001, you’ll notice a thread started by, I believe, robgruver (I may have the spelling wrong there, so probably search for “bites the dust” in the subject line). You will note there that I spoke against the decision discussed in that thread. That may help you to comprehend the fact that I do not believe one should completely refrain from posting a disagreement with a moderator or administrator. I think it is foolish to continue once the ruling has been made clear (as it was in this thread when Gaudere posted her position), but you are certainly allowed to continue to disagree. I just think it makes you look stupid, but we’re well beyond that now.
I hope that clarifies things once and for all. I should warn you that if I do not sense some form of learning from this post, in which I have made considerable effort to clarify things for you inasmuch as you are playing nicely (viz your little winky “how about finding some rehashings for me?”), I will do my damnedest to completely ignore you in this thread. I feel certain that you will glean from that act that you are correct. My only regret is that someone else may attempt to explain this to you, because my best efforts as of yet have not, it seems, done one bit of good.
To be honest, it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest, especially in his latest incarnation which has been much milder than his previous. I’d much rather argue vigorously with C than with some agenda-driven bore who brings little to the discussion besides his point-of-view.
**
Let’s go! I’m especially keen to get after some of those anti-globalization posters!
The thing that annoys me – and that also, I suspect, to a great extent annoys C – is not that some people sometimes say stupid things. It’s that they say the same stupid things again and again and again.
Poster A: “All Muslims support mass murder!”
Poster B: "No they don’t.
[Lengthy, well-documented explanation follows demonstrating that all Muslims do not support mass murder.]
[*Three weeks later. . . *]
Poster A: “All Muslims support mass murder!”
**
How about “The enlightened must debate civilly, but the willfully ignorant may be attacked with flaming arrows?”
I don’t think true personal attacks belong in GD because I don’t believe they add to the discussion. However, all opinions are not created equal. Stupidity does not become wisdom by repetition. I think it is perfectly acceptable to unload on an opinion that has been thoroughly discredited numerous times.
That is, in fact, one of of the problems in GD. On certain topics, the discussion always bogs down in the same place because the same tired opinions get hauled out at the same points in the discussion, often by the same people.
**
There may be a real difference here that explains some of the angst that C generates. For me, I’m able to appreciate satire regardless of who the target is. I guess I’m just not personally invested enough in any particular perspective to take great offense at someone making fun of it. Maybe that’s why C doesn’t bother me that much, even when he’s after me.
Ahhhh, I understand now – it seems that by “crying and whining incessantly,” you meant “participating in a few threads over a period of months, voicing complaints in a reasonable manner, and responding to those who are dismissive of said complaints in those threads”
Guilty as charged. But I’d love to see a copy of the Biggirl dictionary.
I have no idea how many other threads about Col you have participated in over a period of months luc, but in this particular thread your participation looks a whole lot like crying and whining about how mean Col is to you and how the mods won’t do anything about it.
You keep coming back to post about it. Again and again. Incessantly. You should stop. It doesn’t look good.
Really-- the consensus seems to be that the honoree of this roast will not be able to keep his mostly moderate tone to date and will one day rip someone a new and bloody asshole in GD. This ain’t it though.
Dang, folks, I’m as much of an attention whore as anyone else around here, and I’m jealous. Even if someone ever went to the trouble of Pitting me, I doubt anyone would care enough for it to even run half a page.
All’s I can say is, Collounsbury tends to deliver the goods, argument-wise, and I’ve learned an enourmous amount, particularly about Middle Eastern politics and economic issues, from wading through his posts. OTOH, his habit of commenting belligerently on the intelligence other posters can be fairly obnoxious (although it personally doesn’t bother me overmuch), does nothing to advance his arguments in any way, and no, I wouldn’t want to see his brand of ad hominem become SOP in GD.
So, there: my useless contribution to this popularity contest.
Interesting that you still refuse to give a specific example of this “rehashing” eh?
**
**
Look, you’re the one who objects to “rehashings.” Why should I run around trying to guess what you’re referring to? Put up or shut up.
**
Sure: My question was as follows:
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).
**
Earlier, you seemed to be attributing significance to the number of people who felt a certain way about something collounsbury said. I take it you are backing away from this position now?
**
If there is room for disagreement, then it seems like an overstatement to smugly proclaim that one side is “wrong.” Just MHO.
**
As I said before, your position seems self-contradictory to me. It would help if you would offer some examples of these “rehashings” you object to . . .
**
As I said before, your advice is duly noted.
**
That’s one of the best fast-saving exits I’ve seen in a while. Masel Tov.
Ultimately, these boards are about fighting ignorance.
And I would rather see someone fight it quite literally, with a degree of eloquent violence, than continue to politely and sneakily spread ignorance, untruth and deception around.
I like Col. He reminds me of a fat old fop in a powdered wig, fanning himself in his porch rocker during the American Revolution, sipping tea and spitting orders at his slaves while he belches and complains about the fly population — all this as a battle rages in a nearby field.
For the most part my posts in this thread have been in response to points raised by others who seem to be more pro-collousnbury. And the reality is that a lot of those points were pretty weak.
If you wanna call that “crying and whining incessantly,” then we obviously disagree about what “crying” “whining” and “incessantly” mean.
**
So in other words, I shouldn’t respond to those who defend collounsbury. Sorry, but I’ll feel free to voice my disagreement with you and others.
**
I’d rather an equally free, but more civil forum, rather than “The Pit Lite” that it seems to be and that the rules encourage. (this is an overstatement, but I really wanted to use the “The Pit Lite” line )
The “not suprising you made it”, I judged to be acceptable based on the cliche-for-GD line “you’re displaying your customary ignorance” which has passed the “it somehow isn’t a personal insult” test (despite the fact that it self-evidently is one).
Your point about how someone will complain no matter what is well taken, but there’s an old cliche that goes (something like) “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the better.” IMO, the current standard is atrocious. “Insult the post not the poster” leaves far too much room for veiled personal insults. “No insults whatsoever”, though it still doesn’t cover every situation would be an improvement, IMO.
**
**
And this is where I respectfully disagree with Gaudere vehemently. It is not necessary to call the poster or their postion “ignorant” in GD. That is an insult everywhere else in the world. If you demonstrate that their post was based on ignorance you don’t have to say the words. And if you must, well, that’s what the Pit is for.
It is possible to say “I’m sorry, but your facts are wrong” or “This position isn’t correct” or “This simply isn’t the case. Here are the actual numbers”. Granted someone could also be offended by those statements, but it’s less likely that they will and less reasonable if they do.
And really, except that it’s weasel-worded in such a way as to make it acceptible to GD’s byzantine rules, what’s the real difference between “You’re displaying your customary ignorance” and “You’re ignorant”? Or “Only a drooling ignoramus could have posted that” and “You’re a drooling ignoramus for posting that”? Yeah, the rules say that one of each group is acceptible, but I argue that the rules should be changed.
I stand by my “No insults period” rule. And if you want a test for what constitutes an insult, how 'bout this:
"Can you imagine saying what you’re about to post to: [ul]
[li] Your beloved elderly grandmother/father?[/li][li] Your favorite, most admired religious/political/philosophical hero?[/li][li] A really pissed off, half drunk, heavily armed 6"3’ 240 pound Hell’s Angel named “Thor”?[/li][/ul]
If the answer’s “no” to any one of these, then either rewrite your post or go to the Pit. It’s what the Pit is for.
Manhattan’s “No gawddamned politics in GQ or you’re out on your ass” policy has (IMO) worked wonders in making GQ one of my favorite forums to browse and after an initial spate of people testing the new rule, hasn’t (AFIK) generated many bannings or Pit Threads. It wouldn’t be that hard to force GD to make itself a forum that’s distinct from The Pit (outside of the minor difficulty in weasel-wording one’s post to make it conform to the GD rules).
**
I don’t feel comfortable in GD not because any of the regular posters there, but because the rules are, IMO not conducive to reasoned debate. If I’m gonna be in a Pit Fight, then I want to be able to fight back and I’m not good at the sort of weasel-worded insults that GD requires. Which is a shame. A forum that distingushed itself from the Pit and forced polite debate on serious topics would be a boon to the SDMB.
And finally, on preview, I think Sam summed it up when he said that a good test for the rules is to imagine what would happens if everyone followed them to the letter as some posters do. I’m not proposing that anyone do so, as it would make more work for the Mods (how would they judge when it’s acceptible to weasel-word insults? Is it only ok if they judge that the other poster’s position really is stoooopid? Or is it ok if they judge that you were really pissed off when you wrote it?), but I think it’s a good demonstration that there’s something wrong with a set of rules that, if followed, would ruin a fourm.
Count me as a **Collounsbury ** fan. I am fascinated by his knowledge and there is a part of me that enjoys his witty and rude remarks. Obviously, I was glad he got unbanned and I hope that he will show more restraint so he doesn’t get the boot. I also enjoy reading what Sam Stone has to say and I like to see the two off them presenting their version of different issues.
As for the question - How many strikes does Collounsbury get? I guess some hitters get a smaller strike zone. If you are catching, it may look like a strike. If you are an established power-house hitter and you take a pitch, the umpire may see it as a ball. I don’t think they do this with intention. It just happens. I think everybody gets the same number of strikes. But no matter what everybody else thinks … it ain’t a strike unless the ump calls it a strike.
The rule you’re complaining about is hardly byzantine. It’s very simple: You may insult the post, but you may not insult the poster. Though it is clearly sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two, that’s hardly teh result of any weasel words.
I strongly disagree. A tremendous amount of reasoned debate occurs in GD, the vast majority of it without anything even resembling an insult occurring. (Unless your definition of “insult” includes stuff like responding to somebody’s incorrect point with a hearty “Nonsense!” or “Don’t be ridiculous!”, in which case I would suggest that your sensibilities could use some recalibration.) Certainly, a fair portion of the debate is quite impassioned–hey, we’re talking about some pretty serious stuff in there–but Collounsbury’s vitriol is nowhere near representative of the ordinary course of GD.
Come on in. We don’t eat babies or anything in there, although sacred cows are an endangered species.
Well, I was being a bit flippant in saying we SHOULD do that. Obviously, I don’t want to be a jerk and make a bunch of work for the mods.
But the test of universality is a good way to determine if behaviour is acceptable or not (or if you have the right rules).
Rules are supposed to set boundaries such that, if everyone follows them, the outcome will be acceptable. That’s the whole point. If the rules are such that if everyone followed them chaos would ensue, then the rules are worthless.
That doesn’t mean there can’t be a little leeway or discretion. If an otherwise polite poster loses it once in a blue moon, an apology and a reminder by the mods is all that’s required. But if, A) the poster repeatedly and casually commits the same offenses, B) has been banned before for similar behaviour, and C) admits that he does it not because he loses control or can’t help himself, but simply because it amuses him to abuse people, then it’s really hard to see how that’s acceptable.
And it appears that the ‘don’t be a jerk’ rule is void. Because I don’t think there can be any dispute whatsoever that Collounsbury is frequently a jerk (as are a few other posters, and regrettably I have crossed that line once or twice myself).
And this newspeak the mods have invented around what is and isn’t an insult is actually amusing:
Insult: You are a drooling idiot.
Not-an-insult: Everything you say is a bunch of drooling idiocy.
Not-an-insult: Oh, here comes X, who can be counted on to spew drooling idiocy all the time.
Insult: You’re a stupid fuck.
Not-an-insult (also not excessively profane): Fuck, you can’t fucking read, fuck!
Anyway, I’m done with this thread. I’ve learned to deal with Collounsbury, either by calling him on his abuse, ignoring threads he’s in, or just going off to whimper in a corner. And sometimes I actually agree with him, and we get along fine. I’ve got nothing against the guy. My main point in this thread wasn’t to see him banned, but to point out the destructive effect behaviour such as his has on that forum. I think it’s very short-sighted to just say, “Hey, he’s a smart guy! Cut him some slack!”. The fact is, there has been a general coarsening of debate in GD, and it’s getting worse. To the point where I now skip probably half the threads I’d like to post in, just because I have no stomach for the hostility.
And when debate is littered with childish insults and profanity, it tends to filter out the new users to the SDMB that we would most like to keep, and attract the ones we would most like to have move along. So it’s going to get worse.
I am less than impressed with the combination of your assholish disingenuity and failure to admit you were caught being a jackass, lucwarm. While I am most certain you will take this as a victory of some sort, rest assured that the lower score (yours) wins only in golf and cross-country. This is neither of those.
I am confident that you’ll find it somewhere at least haphazardly near the rehashings you’re to find, since I am by now quite fed up with doing your own work for you.