Those are the rules! Attack the post, not the poster.
Why aren’t you enforcing the rules, then?
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.
Sorry for the confusion, the last post was directed at our esteemed Administrator.
[sub]In the Marianas Trench[/sub]
Give it a fucking rest.
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.
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… 
Direct personal insult:
I think you’re stretching things. “characteristically wrong” is pretty clear.
Don’t be silly – it’s a general statement about crabs 
Takers on the bet that milroyj just searches GD for the phrase “drooling idiot”?
Five gets you in, folks…
I disagree. Let’s look at the statement again:
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;)).
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
[b[Originally posted by Gaudere**
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:
‘Habitual rambling in blithe, self-contained ignorance’ == direct personal insult.
Direct personal insult
DPI
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.
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.
** lucwarm**
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 …
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.
Self-destruction … a lost art. You’re getting there…
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!
So uh, does this count for Gaudere in the NMPQ?
(Nazi Mod Pit Quotient)
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.