How many strikes does Collounsbury get?

[Tars_Tarkas]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**
I have not seen anyone complaining about Collounsbury being personally abusive in the Pit, when such things are common. The thread was based on his behavior (and that of others) in Great Debates.
**

The quote milroyj gave as an example earlier was Collounsbury in the Pit (though milroyj neglected to note where it came from)

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

FWIW, I don’t think December is anywhere near as directly insulting as Collounsbury is. On the other hand, I don’t think Collounsbury has ever deliberately distorted my words to make it look like I was agreeing with an outrageous point, in the way that December has.

All in all, I’d rather be subject to Collounsbury’s vitriol than December’s dishonest debate tactics. However, I recognize that’s not what’s being discussed. Even though December might distort and twist what I say, he’s always been unfailingly polite about it.

Daniel

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by iampunha *
**lucwarm and anyone else who feels Col should be warned/banned/flogged with december’s toothbrush:

I think the point was made quite clearly by Gaudere (though delightfully misstated again by milroyj in his orgasmic fervor to get Col in trouble for saying “drooling idiot” in The Pit, of all places) that if you wish to bring up an area where Col went over the line, a good thing to do would be to actually “bring it”, so to speak,**

For what it’s worth, I have used the “report a post to moderator” option against collounsbury on more than one occasion.

**

instead of rehashing things Gaudere have already said do not warrant a warning/banning in her opinion.**

So is it your position that I should not publicly disagree with the moderators? Because it sounds like that’s what you’re saying.

**

Or whatever. It might make you look slightly less like a lapdog to merely use the “Report this post to a moderator” feature, which allows you to report the post without pointing out the cumstain (which you’ll be sure to wipe off before anyone else sees it), the result of months of orgasmic fervor of waiting for Col to say something that is an actual infraction of rules**

If by “lapdog,” you mean a person who is a victim of rude and obnoxious behaviour and who complains publicly about similar behaviour by the same perpetrator, then yes, I’m a lapdog. BFD.

**

, instead of merely pointing out that, yes, you are wrong again (and as Gaudere has already said in this thread, that is not a personal insult).**

As I recall, she has NOT responded to all the examples offered. And in any event, what’s the big problem with disagreeing with the mods?

[Beagle]

Are you saying that december should be called dissembler, Daniel Withrow?

I slay me.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
**The quote milroyj gave as an example earlier was Collounsbury in the Pit (though milroyj neglected to note where it came from) **

Correct, but I don’t believe that anyone is objecting (at least, I am not objecting) to anyone’s behavior in the Pit. As far as I can tell, the rules are very much looser there. I consider that anyone who enters the Pit does so at his own risk, and personal insults, obscenities, and so forth, are either expected or allowed.

What I believe everyone is objecting to is either Collounsbury’s or december’s postings in Great Debate, where the rule is supposed to be “attack the post, not the poster”. So far, we have seen several examples that either skirt the line or (IMO) cross over it into direct abuse. In Great Debates.

As far as I can tell, we have received our answer on “how many strikes does Collounsbury get?”

As has been stated elsewhere, your board, your rules.

Regards,
Shodan

[Tars_Tarkas]

i was just pointing out that examples of his attacks in the Pit had been cited and implied as not happening in the Pit, which was at odds with how i interpreted your statement above.

[iampunha]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
Well, if "I criticize your lack of sympathy to the girl, her family, and French Jews in general’ is a direct, personal insult on the level of “you are a f**ktard”, etc., then you are correct. Keep in mind that the thread to which you linked was in the Pit, not Great Debates.

I am well aware of the forum. I actually did wonder if you had specifically meant GD, but I figured you would clarify if I was mistaken in thinking you spoke for all of his posts.

Originally posted by december
I assume the two of you were equally unsympathic when Rosa Parks broke the law by not sitting in the back of the bus.

This is the main post I meant, not the one you cited. FWIW. I just ate, so I will refrain from specifically looking at any of the rest of december’s posts in that thread.

lucwarm states:
So is it your position that I should not publicly disagree with the moderators? Because it sounds like that’s what you’re saying.

How, in the Hell, does it sound like that to you? There is no rule about that on this MB, for one. Secondly, I haven’t yet advanced that as an argument. I’m saying that if you have an issue with someone’s posts/behavior here, don’t come whining about it with no evidence, and if a mod/admin tells you that it isn’t against the rules, getting pissy isn’t the way to go.

I don’t know where you got, from anything I said, that you shouldn’t publicly disagree with the moderators, especially given that I’ve done that very thing before…

If by “lapdog,” you mean a person who is a victim of rude and obnoxious behaviour and who complains publicly about similar behaviour by the same perpetrator, then yes, I’m a lapdog. BFD.

Oh, piss off. You’re just embarassed because you were wrong and he showed you were wrong and you thought he insulted you and an admin disagreed.

As I recall, she has NOT responded to all the examples offered. And in any event, what’s the big problem with disagreeing with the mods?

To which has she not responded? And where in the Hell do you see me saying it’s not okay to disagree with mods? I still don’t see where I said that anywhere.

[Shodan]

Sure, Tars, and I would say that examples of Collounsbury abuse in the Pit are not on point.

In the same way, iampunha’s example of december name-calling (even if that was what it was) was not on point, since it happened in the Pit.

One can (more or less) be a jerk in the Pit, or at least, jerkhood is defined differently here. IMO, Collounsbury has crossed the line in Great Debates more than once. So have others, but they seem to get away with it, provided it is aimed at december or perhaps other Dopers for whom the rules do not seem to be applied very strictly.

Which is a pity.

Sometimes I think I should stay out of the Pit. The only threads I enjoy here are the ones that, even while they are abusive, preserve a certain almost light-hearted hyperbole in the midst of all the “fucks”, and that spirit doesn’t seem to last as long as it might.

I think I have said all that I have to say in this thread.

Regards,
Shodan

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by iampunha *
**

I don’t know where you got, from anything I said, that you shouldn’t publicly disagree with the moderators, especially given that I’ve done that very thing before…**

Here’s what you said earlier:

I think the point was made quite clearly by Gaudere (though delightfully misstated again by milroyj in his orgasmic fervor to get Col in trouble for saying “drooling idiot” in The Pit, of all places) that if you wish to bring up an area where Col went over the line, a good thing to do would be to actually “bring it”, so to speak, instead of rehashing things Gaudere have already said do not warrant a warning/banning in her opinion.

(emphasis mine)

What did you mean by the bolded words? Would you care to give examples (in this thread) of the “rehashing” that you seem to be protesting here?

**

Oh, piss off. You’re just embarassed because you were wrong and he showed you were wrong and you thought he insulted you and an admin disagreed.**

That’s nonsense. First, if you feel I was wrong in that thread, feel free to ressurect it and continue the debate. Second, I’m not embarrassed in any way. I’m simply expressing my disagreement. Third, when I am wrong, I’m happy to admit it.

**

To which has she not responded? **

Yes. For example, as far as I can tell, she has not tried to claim that the following was not a personal insult (at least in this thread):

Bullshit. December is engaging in his usual drooling idiocy linking unrelated issues in some vague conspiracy mongering, although I suppose it requires some vast optimism to hope that you might be able to discern that, however dimly.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by lucwarm *
For example, as far as I can tell, she has not tried to claim that the following was not a personal insult (at least in this thread):

Bullshit. December is engaging in his usual drooling idiocy linking unrelated issues in some vague conspiracy mongering, although I suppose it requires some vast optimism to hope that you might be able to discern that, however dimly.

Where and when, precisely, did Collounsbury make this statement? Was it in GD and after his reinstatement? I sure can’t find it anywhere but this thread.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Where and when, precisely, did Collounsbury make this statement? Was it in GD and after his reinstatement? I sure can’t find it anywhere but this thread. **

It was in Great Debates, before collounsbury was banned. Here’s a link:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=141317

Interestingly, a few posts down, Gaudere scolds collounsbury but does not acknowledge that he has engaged in a personal attack.

[minty_green]

So if it was before he was banned, and the apology for his behavior that led to the restoration of his posting privileges, what relevance does that post have to do with his alleged rule-breaking now?

[Biggirl]

Can I get a few links where Col gets all superior and nasty? Please? Thems some of my favorite posts.

And if nobody can find anything in GD post-reinstatement besides the post he got a warning for, can the offended go quietly off into a corner somewhere to lick their psychic collounsbury wounds and lay in wait for him to fuck up?

My money’s on Col going butt-fuck on one of the whiners and getting banned permanently. It’ll be a sad, sad day on the SDMB but double or nothing it’ll be one helluva post.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**So if it was before he was banned, and the apology for his behavior that led to the restoration of his posting privileges, what relevance does that post have to do with his alleged rule-breaking now? **

Earlier in this thread, the following claim was made:

Collounsbury was banned even though he never, to the best of my recollection, clearly broke the “no personal insults” rule in GD.

The door has been opened.

:wally

[minty_green]

Ah, then I see its relevance to the particular point, though not the OP.

The answer to your question, I would guess, is that “drooling idiocy” is an insult of the post, whereas “drooling idiot” is an insult of the poster. One would hope that Col has the good sense going forward to avoid both variations, but there you go.

[Squink]

It was in Great Debates, before collounsbury was banned.

No Tabla Rasa for the reanimated ? Y’all want he should come back as a worm ? :rolleyes:

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by Biggirl *
**
And if nobody can find anything in GD post-reinstatement besides the post he got a warning for, **

Here ya go:

In short, it would behoove you to obtain some glimmer of an understanding and familiarity with the subject before rambling in blithe and self contained ignorance on as you so habilitualy do.

Direct personal attack; after reinstatement; no warning as far as I can tell. Also mentioned earlier in this thread.

**

can the offended go quietly off into a corner somewhere to lick their psychic collounsbury wounds and lay in wait for him to fuck up?**

Gah. I’m so tempted to start abusing certain people the way collounsbury does and see how easily they brush it off.

[minty_green]

In short, it would behoove you to obtain some glimmer of an understanding and familiarity with the subject before rambling in blithe and self contained ignorance on as you so habilitualy do.

Attacking the poster’s posts, not the poster himself.

Ugly, yes, but not quite outside the rules.

[Biggirl]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lucwarm *
**Here ya go:

Direct personal attack; after reinstatement; no warning as far as I can tell. Also mentioned earlier in this thread.** Thanks. Can I get a link please? Classic Collounsbury. Although, as always, he skirts that line. I don’t think he goes over it but my opinion doesn’t count.

*Originally posted by lucwarm *
**
Gah. I’m so tempted to start abusing certain people the way collounsbury does and see how easily they brush it off. **

It’ll get you banned just like I predict it will finally get Col banned.

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by lucwarm *
**Gah. I’m so tempted to start abusing certain people the way collounsbury does and see how easily they brush it off. **

Probably not as well, seeing as you in no way bring as much to the table as Coll.

That said, I agree with Biggirl.