Can someone answer a question for me? Why is it an unwarranted insult to call someone a Zionist if he is, in fact, a Zionist? Zionism is a political philosophy, and although some of you may not agree with it, it is a well-established one and comes in many flavors. As long as one defines one’s terms, sticks to one’s definitions, and backs them up, I don’t see what the problem is.
I’ve also never seen december object to being called a Zionist, even on a factual basis, let alone take it as an insult. So why are so many others getting so bent out of shape about it? Maybe he really does believe that Israel should be set aside for the Jewish people as a homeland. I don’t see why disagreeing with him on that point should be disrespectful per se.*
(Oh, and don’t you be dissin’ Jersey! I’m a Jersey girl myself, by birth, anyway.)
I’m very glad to hear the later, but can I add my voice to L_C’s in saying that if you get yourself banned it’s going to really please the hell out of some people - and not help this board at all.
Tamerlane, hun, funny. (except of course that Tamerlane, or Timur-I-Leng, wasn’t a Hun but a Turco-Mongolian born in what is now Uzbekistan, who claimed to be descended from Genghis Khan).
collousbury’s posting style can be abrasive, but so what? The man has a great deal of expertiase in many fields, inclduing Mioddle Eastern culture and politics. I would like him to chill a bit in GD so that he can avoid getting banned.
What really annoys me about the popular reaction to Collounsbury is that either people are in awe (Gawrsh, I wish I knew as much as you do) or are belligerently ignorant (Well, you may live there but this article in Reader’s Digest totally contradicts your position on Shahafi jusrisprudence, so there.) IMO, both reactions are ridiculous.
If you;re going to post in a GD thread on Islam or the Middle East (and do note that they are not synonymous), the first thing you should do is to Know Thy Subject so that you can go toe to toe with Collounsbury. Many times I have found it necessary to go to the library to fill in the gaps in my knowledge uncovered by a GD thread. It seems to me that way too many people prefer to keep arguing from ignorance and half-digested news articles than to take the time to learn.
There is nothing Collounsbury knows that anybody in GD could not also know if they would simply have the humility to admit that they need to be more informed about a subject before spouting off on it.
Coll - please take on board the requests of those amongst us who think you’re just swell - there are more than a few souls who are deliberately attempting to bait you at the moment. It’s patently obvious to discern.
Just err on the side of caution and view every thread in GD at the moment as being potentially a full on mine field. Tread warily.
Your loss would be almost as tragic as if I myself were to get punted! (Heh Heh Heh)
For the record, I am the one who pointed out that most of Collounsbury’s attackers were generally conservative in outlook while his supporters were generally liberal in outlook. I do not think that means Collounsbury is liberal. Most of his posts on the Middle East tend to get into specifics of the history and culture of the people there, which often means they are knocking Bush admin. actions and programs. But Collounsbury’s comments rarely knock the Bush regime on partisan grounds, but on pragmatic grounds, which is why there might be a mistaken belief that Collounsbury is a liberal.
Then again, you learn about stuff, you tend to get liberal.
The larger problem is that people debating in GD largely are doing so based on their entrenched ideas, ideals, beliefs, or at least strong opinions. This creates a sort of degenerate case where people have a hard time seperating the post from the poster. That is to say, “I feel so strongly about this, and I am posting about it, so if you attack my opinion you attack me.”
When I joined the boards, lo, way back in November of 2000, I was greated to a vicious assault on my ideas by Spiritus Mundi, Kimstu, and Collounsbury (among, I’m sure, others, but these are the ones I remember, sorry folks). At the time, it felt like a personal attack; I even recall askingC to lay off the insults, if he pleased (which he said he would for “the novelty of it” hehe!).
In hindsight, from where I stand now, I don’t think they were really out and out personal attacks. But I admit at the time it was hard to see it that way.
No, I don’t think C should be banned, but I think he walks the line a little to closely for his good or anyone else’s. He gets a warning here and there like I have, like I’ve seen others, and why should anything more come of it?
It’s not my posting style, but he can have it if he can have it. I’m surely not going to bitch because he doesn’t address me with pure respect each time we talk.
There are a number of specific examples right in this thread. How many more would you like?
Oh and here’s another entry for the FAQ:
If you don’t like what he says, just don’t read his posts
Doesn’t change what he does or make it right. Anyway, the same argument could made about any improper posts. So in essence, you are saying that there’s no need for rules.
Not true, I know vast amounts about gastrointestinal afflictions that require years of research and experience, as well as the occasional surgury to remove ralcatricant portions of gut.
Well, 12 actually. You know, like Xmas. And without quite so much petty whinging and sniping involved, it makes you look stupid and petty. Show some dignity for the novelty if nothing else.
I think the reason Collounsbury is perceived as being a liberal despite his actual positions being closer to the center (perhaps a bit left) is that he consistently attacks from the left - IOW he very frequently attacks those to the right of him, and much more rarely those to his left. This tends to skew the perceptions and possibly the reality as well.
As an example, Collounsbury’s views on Israel - if you pay close enough attention - are not as anti-Israel as those of many other posters here. But the reason you have to pay close attention to realize this is because in debates, he viciously attacks those who are more pro-Israel than he, but gives a pass to those who are more anti-Israel. And so on.
Whether this is indicative of a substantive attitude difference, I don’t know.
Well in that case, perhaps you can add some information here. I’d appreciate it.
Largely I consider the ability of the Right to respond to the morons on the Left greater than the inverse. Plus I a more personally annoyed by a few key members of the Right than I am by the Left, personal annoyance being a key factor in me responding.
Hmmm, well I am afraid my knowledge runs rather to nasty water borne diseases and the ensuing complications. Very entertaining table talk I may add. Plus I never heard of this diet.
You mentioned giardia, which I have intimate experience of (I drank water from the Firehole River in Yellowstone NP–two weeks of explosive diarrhea), but yikes! If you have Crohn’s Disease, that could make anyone cranky.
I count 5 specific examples in this thread. That’s sufficient, IMHO, to rebut your charge of “vague characterizations.”
In fact, it seems as though you’ve shifted ground – now you concede that specifics were presented, but you claim that they were presented with “petty whinging and sniping.”
For what it’s worth, I feel that I’ve presented my point of view in a reasonable fashion in this thread. Feel free to cite specific language of mine you find objectionable (ooh the irony!). Or perhaps you will content yourself with your usual hand-waving.
If you are going to quote someone please provide the link to go with it. Grrrrr! Certain posters provided quotes as evidence without actually providing the link so that we could check for ourselves. Gee I wonder why?
And Eva Luna it may be because that is a very loaded word- frequently used a slur by bigots and hatemongers and the lunatic conspiracy fringe. Anytime I see someone rant about the “Zionists” 9 out of 10 times that person is a bigot. Given its history, and misuse there are plenty of far more accurate and non-offensive word and phrases which may be used. IMHO.
