Probably the giardia, leads one to be light headed.
I should add that there are perfectly acceptable portions of New Jersey, according to popular rumour, so let me not seem to be casting aspersion on all New Jersey nor every … what to name them, I forget, was it Jerseyites, Jersayans…? More colorful appelations come to mind.
Pray tell, just where the hell does that appear in Great Debates? I sure as hell can’t find it.
In fact, your quote comes from a recent Pit thread 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 rather think I did a good job earlier of explaining why I like Coll. It has nothing to do with seeking a hero. To atack a guy just coz you don’t like his style is lame - just plain lame. Attack what he says, fine… but not his style. That’s like attacking someone coz they’re gay. It’s lame.
Moreover, to equate the SDMB to some sort of silly high school popularity contest is something I have to take you task on sir… my personal joy in visiting this messageboard revolves around education - not personality conflict. All things being equal, I derive immense pleasure from learning about the interesting shit that Coll offers us.
Am I fortunate that I personally find it easier to go through his posts than some of you do? Obviously, yes. But I would also suggest the following - those of you who struggle through a typical Collounsbury post arguably do so because you approach them with a certain amount of emotional baggage. To play the ball, and not the man, isn’t easy - I’ll admit - but ultimately, on a debating platform such as the SDMB it’s the best policy I find.
We’re all guilty of getting hot under the collar at times. It’s only human. None of us, absolutely none of us, are entitled to assume the high moral ground on this matter. Lord knows I’ve been an asshole at times in my life… Lord knows. We all have. Don’t lie to us and make out you haven’t. We’re all guilty of assholiness at times. All of us. To assume an air of “Holier Than Thou” is silly.
This must be the most moronic and assholish post yet in this thread.
This board is about FIGHTING IGNORANCE. If someone posts crappy, illiterate, ignorant nonsense - of course someone has the right to ridicule and attack it.
And of COURSE it reflects badly on the poster. If you don’t want to be shown up as a fuckwit, don’t post fuckwittedness. If you don’t want to be shown up as a racist, don’t post racism. By your words and actions you shall be known, and your words and actions - if ignorant or abhorrent - will and should be attacked.
But you forget - blatant dishonesty and misrepresentation are perfectly acceptable, just as long as you don’t swear.
That’s why, according to milroyj, sam and others December is a fine and respected poster, but Collounsbury is evil and a blight on this board.
But of course, the blatant dishonesty and misrepresentation also have to be of the appropriate political stripe, i.e., conservative Republican.
And by the way, Sam Stone: Me, a “liberal”? Only if your point of reference is Ann Coulter.
I firmly disagree. I think the rules unique to GD are hoplessly muddled and not conducive to having civil debates. And, IMO, there’s certainly nothing clear about them.
For example, you can insult the post but not the poster in ways that clearly allow you to insult the poster too. (ex: “You are a drooling moron” would not be allowed, whereas “That is a post so devoid of logic that it looks as though it were written by a drooling moron” probably would be and “The drooling ignorance of that moronic post made it evident that you posted it” should be just fine.)
This is the reason for the constant pit-threads on Coll: his whole ovure is to see how close he can get to that line without actually crossing it.
You can insult the poster via attacking the membership in whatever group holds their position unless they’re part of a few special protected groups. (ex: “You’re a drooling moron” isn’t allowed, but “All anarchists (and you’ve admitted you’re an anarchist) are drooling morons” is probably OK.)
EXCEPT, there’s some sort test for protected groups that you aren’t allowed to do that with. The test is sorta “Is it possible to change your membership in that group?”. If the answer is “no” (based on someone’s whim, and NOT the Poster’s POV) then attacking their group is “hate speech”. But saying the exact same thing about a different group that doesn’t pass the magical test is just dandy. (Example a Christian, who believes “Once saved, always saved” and thus, from their POV, cannot change their group membership are fair game.)
BUT nationalities are problematic: can one attack the French in GD? What about Jews?
AND on top of all that, there’s a (quite reasonable) standard that says “If you’re making the Mods/Admins life harder by playing rules-lawyer” you can have your butt kicked. But the standard for “making the Mod’s life harder” is awfully damn nebulous. Given the number of times Coll sidles right up to the line and says something that causes one of these multi-page fights, I’d say that he breaks the “don’t make the Mod’s life harder” rule. And while it’s not up to me, I’ll admit to not understanding why someone who constantly posts stuff that’s apparently designed to cause the worst possible reaction and be interpreted as attacks isn’t breaking this rule.
The only reason GD works at all to the degree that it does is because of the hard work and essential fairness of the mods. But their jobs aren’t made easier by the rules unique to that forum.
Earlier, [b[Gaudere**, you wrote
I STRONGLY disagree. (Not about it being legitmate, that’s up to you of course) but about it being appropriate or necessary to a forum called “Great Debates” not “Great Thinly Veiled Insults”. If someone is ignorant, take 'em to the Pit where they can be insulted or prove 'em wrong without the insults that so often skirt the intent of the rules (“the real question is your complete and utter ignorance”.) but manages to stay just barely within the letter.
In my opinion, the current standard is self defeating, contradictory and obscure to the point where I’m not comfortable posting in GD.
My .02c
Fenris
I disagree. You can split hairs all day long, but at the end of the day, “characteristically” implies that you are talking about a characteristic of somebody. In any event, there’s no need to quibble, if you accept that the following is a personal insult:
Actually, I suppose that the above is acceptable under your approach. Whatever.
Let me ask you this: Is it OK if I start throwing collounsburyisms around in Great Debates?
By the way, based upon Gaudere’s comments, I gather that the following is acceptable for GD:
For what it’s worth, I haven’t “butted heads” with collounsbury since he’s back. As far as I remember, anyway.
Most recently, he and I were on the same side in a GD thread about CEO pay. As usual, his incivility far outweighed whatever intelligent thoughts he added to the discussion.
Jaysus there’s a good few people here with serious hard-ons for Collounsburys banning.
Naturally the people who are calling for the ban are people that just want the rules dished out fairly. No personel agenda at all. Nope :rolleyes:
Perhaps you didn’t notice this from Abe -
So it is OK to attack december’s character, because of the partisan nature of his posts. Not his arguments, his character.
If december posted even once using the level of invective and personal insult that Collounsbury uses as a matter of course, he would be immediately banned.
Of course, if Collounsbury posted with the same level of courtesy that december almost invariably does, he would become a useful and valuable poster, instead of adding generally to the level of assholery one has to wade thru to get to the interesting posts.
Regards,
Shodan
I whole heartly agree. It seems that Collounsbury has collected a wide array of… well… eniemies. Because, I can’t for the life of me, figure out why he should be banned for hinting that in his post, December was acting ignorant. Or that his dislike of the BBC stems from his ultra-zionist views. These are two seemingly common themes about December, which all of us know.
All I can say is: come on people. Call back when he’s called some one “a fucking asshole”. This is starting to just look petty.
Piffle. No one has to “wade through” anything one finds distasteful. Der Cheesemiester is clearly marked, as is anyone else. Persons of a frail and vulnerable temperment can look at the username and simply pick up one’s little basket and skip along, skip along.
So, elucidator, I assume you are addressing all those who have called so often for december’s banning.
In fact, there is no need for any rules in GD at all. All personal attacks can simply be ignored.
And your entire response to my post was pointless. Anyone who disagrees should have ignored me in the first place.
Regards,
Shodan
Well yes Shodan, you’re correct. If it turns out that someone offers an insight, or an opinion, or whatever, which doesn’t reconcile with our own PERSONAL point of view, yes, we should, (in theory) just shut up and say nothing.
I agree, but by extension, if we were to ALL follow that rule of thumb, then the SDMB would dry up rather quickly I rather think.
No… the key here is to play the ball, and not the man. Collounsbury is as guilty as sin of going for december’s throat - there can be no denying that. And he’s also guilty of being very guilty of not suffering fools gladly, but in his defence, he concedes when he’s overstepped the mark and dials back his tone.
In the interests of fairness, we should at least concede that particular point.
That Coll occasionally lets the lying, racist piece-of-shit like december get under his skin is a shame, albeit human nature IMHO, but that december’s style might see Coll in trouble again is a noteworthy irony.
december does nothing here but propagate ignorance and undermine debate. Coll does the opposite.
In sporting terms, december plays to the rules, not to the spirit of the law, which is provocative to some. Which is hardly surprising, it’s supposed to be.
Unless Coll gets a grip, one must fear another roaring success for the propagation of ignorance . . . .
My advice, keep a cool head and try not to provide the scum with any more wanking material than the Straight Dope continues to provide him with.
I just want to say that it’s fucking hilarious that Sam Stone of all people accuses his political opponents of abrasiveness. What’s next, is Brutus going to whimper about how We All Just Need To Be Nice To One Another?
Sam, you’re a fine, intelligent fellow. Miss Manners you’re not.
Daniel
Collounsbury , don’t let the door hit you on the way out, hun.
Hun? That might be Tamerlane. I’m an Anglo Saxon. Not leaving mate, not leaving at all.
Fenris has raised a point or two that does indeed deserve a response. One of the few of the fan club that does so.
On Insulting the Poster Through the Post
Oeuvre? Well, I hardly have an oeuvre quite as yet, although perhaps a modus operendi might be characterized, but I really don’t merit the accusation of really having a body of work here, or perhaps I do.
Well, yes, back in the day I made it an art form really, and that was covered in my return. The reality is since my return I have not made it an art form – I’ve transgressed a few times that is true and modified, but I rather submit that if Gaudere et al felt I was … well let me just say the conversations on reinstatement lead me to believe I would be gone were they to suspect your above statement is true for the present me.
And I assert that it is not the case. I have made an effort to stay within my understand of the acceptable space and have adjusted when asked.
Well we’re getting into rather expansive definitions of insulting here, and rather far away from myself. Certainly this would put a crimp in the fine accusations thrown at, for example, “liberals” that seem to be so popular, indeed I would say among the most popular on a frequency basis. I myself prefer to beat the anti-globos about the head, but that’s out of season presently.
I’ll lay aside the hate speech whinging. That really belongs in another thread, doesn’t it?
I do like the imagery there, sidling up to the line, although I then get an image of myself wearing fishnet stockings and it gets highly unpleasant after that. But let’s lay that aside, shall we?
You know, the one thing that does get under my skin in these little fracases are these vague characterizations of myself. Number of times? You, lucwarm sling these things around quite a lot. If it’s so bloody clear please do illustrate. Have I missed a pitting, I would be terribly disappointed if so. Indeed, why I have been under-graced with Pit Threads since my return? I feel positively neglected. December has generated far more than I in the same time period, which is very unfair and almost insulting considering the characterizations of my demonic behaviour here. It means there’s a non-Right Wing conspiracy to give me a slide, or taking the ideological spin, the Right Wing on the board are simply not very Pit competent. This is what, the first feature film about me in this fine forum? Since reincarnation mind you. Really, it implies that the vague “Right Wing” camp simply is not organized and efficient enough to really be on the ball. Need to work on that.