I know nothing about Arab culture, but I feel free to rant on about it

[Klaatu]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**Notice he’s posting in the Pit, dumbass. **

Perhaps you might notice I was merely redirecting a post to one above. Perhaps you might read a bit closer dumbass…

[Klaatu]

Or I should say get a fucking grip Guin. I made a post, and to avoid ambiguity, posted again to say the post was directed at Coll.

Where you come off with that strange bullshit post ragging my ass, I don’t know.

So screw you too…

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Tamerlane *
I would hope you wouldn’t necessarily label everyone who agrees, expresses respect for, or defends the gentleman in question, as being a “toady”.

Of course not. With regards to the first in particular, the fact is that his views are pretty much middle-of-the-road/mainstream on both of his pet issues. It is in fact a testimony to his enduring personal greatness that he has managed to arouse so much antipathy despite this seeming handicap. And a lot of his harshest critics have expressed respect for his knowledge of the subject matter.

When I referred to toadies, I was primarily referring to those posters who are frequently popping into threads that he is involved in to say nothing substantive at all, but instead to merely proclaim their worthless opinions about Collounsbury’s incredible wisdom and magnificence. That they’ve learned so much from him, as he enlightened them and gently guided them in the Ways of Wisdom, and rescued their dog from a passing car and taught them a great recipe for hummus etc. etc. etc.

So don’t sweat it. (I don’t think tomndebb fits into the above category either, obviously. But I felt that, in this particular instance, his willingness to do all that legwork in service of what is at best a minor nitpick in defense of Col was truly remarkable, and deserved to be acknowledged).

[tramp]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**Oh good, Brutus, the drooling dumbfuck and future Fox specialist on fact free masturbatory ideological posturing.

As you might note, should you ever pass your remedial classes in joined up reading for comprehension, I suggested numerous avenues to furthering one’s understanding of the region, some of which include such novel items, and I know this will prove a bit shocking and perhaps challenging for you, books and even… other non-fact free pundit-glurge such as you might otherwise prefer.

Now, I am sure that you mightly prefer the unchallenging fare found in the drooling circle jerks that is the ideological punditocracy, as it gives you ammo for such fact free assertions, such as you made to me, that policy in the Middle East has been directed by regional experts to date. It is always nice, if one is in fact a moron, an idiot or otherwise some gibbering chimp of an unlearned and otherwise semi-literate idealogue, to simple assert away based on your own masturbatory fantasies. One need not then deal with minor issues of cognitive dissonance when one discovers that certain cherished fantasies are not in fact in accord with reality.

You, in fact, Brutus the moron, are one of the people who irritate me to no end. Not because of your stunningly stupid ideological posturing, but rather because of your aggressive ignorance, a particularly pernicious close mindedness that sees no need to check the facts, even the objectively objective ones. One should feel free, of course, to take whatever view one wishes of the facts – however utter denial, indeed contempt for actual facts that simply do not fit your worldview, as contemptiblely narrow and uninformed as it is, is not only sad, it’s fairly pitiful. **

Oh it is so nice to see the old Collundbury is back!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Mtgman]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**My guess is that Lewis takes a harsher view of contemporary Islam than Collounsbury does, including support for war with Iraq, for example. Col likes to dismiss such views as being bigoted and uninformed. But I’m guessing.
…
Tomndebb

You can quibble about the word “frequently” - I was going from memory - I see at least three qualifications in your links here. But you should observe, if you read your own cites, that the majority of these cites are recommending specific works by Lewis, as opposed to his work in general. In these cases, no qualification is needed. If you look at the general recommendations to read his work, they are usually accompanied by disclaimers that this applies to his historical works only.

And Collounsbury does not merely respectfully disagree with Lewis’ position on current events - rather, he finds him to be “naive” and his analysis “weak for its dependence on classically oriented sources”. So the notion that Collounsbury can respect the idea that someone can have a legitimate difference of opinion with him as opposed to being mentally deficient in some way has not been shown.**

Your reply to tomndebb shows you to bear the exact same deficiency. It seems someone can’t disagree with you without being derided as “quibbling” or “a toady”, or some other metaphor which clearly puts you in the role of the reasonable party and them as nitpickers or detractors from your all-important message. Your insistance that your point stands, with a minor modification, in the face of a large body of evidence to the contrary yet your point is fabricated on the wonderful authority of “IIRC”.

As for recommending specific works instead of the author in general; that is the action of a wise man. Giving endorsement to an author on an ongoing basis can really backfire if the author starts spouting bullshit. Endorsing works which haven’t even been produced yet is foolish. A thoughtful person weighs each individual work on its merits and then endorses(sometimes even with qualification, although you seem not to see this as an endorsement), ignores, or criticises it. To claim Collounsbury is somehow anti-Lewis because he hasn’t given him a pre-emptive kudos for any work he may yet produce is… well, I can’t think of what it is, but the phrase “just motherfucking stupid” comes to mind. Again, a wise person doesn’t issue blanket endorsements, or if they do they base it on a large sample of work and throw caveats into it.

Overall though I think we agree more than disagree. I too have noticed a tendancy for Collounsbury to dismiss arguments against his position with terms like “idiotic”, “ill-informed”, etc. Not being an expert on the matter at hand I’m not sure if these labels are appropriate or not, but I HAVE seen him thoughtfully debate, or point out sources, for people who were advocating another position. Even if he truly believes his opinion is spot on 100% of the time, he’s not as universally contemptous of other viewpoints as you claim. Of the issues I’ve seen him argue I’ve seen a variety of respect given to alternate opinions. I’m not enough of an expert to determine if he only scorns uninformed opinions or if some thoughtful, well-reasearched/supported, and informed opinions are also scorned. You seem to be asserting that he often engages in scorn of thoughtful, well-researched/supported, and informed opinions. I’d ask you to show these instances. The burden of proof will be on you to show that they truly were thoughtful, well-researched/supported, and informed however.

Enjoy,
Steven

[tramp]

Of course, that is Collounsbury. Blah.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
Your reply to tomndebb shows you to bear the exact same deficiency. It seems someone can’t disagree with you without being derided as “quibbling” or “a toady”, or some other metaphor which clearly puts you in the role of the reasonable party and them as nitpickers or detractors from your all-important message. Your insistance that your point stands, with a minor modification, in the face of a large body of evidence to the contrary yet your point is fabricated on the wonderful authority of “IIRC”.

If that is your opinion, that’s fine. As you may recall, I have previously demonstrated on more than one occasion that you are a lying weasel - this did not seem to break your stride, and I can assure you that I am even less concerned about your opinion. As for the “large body of evidence to the contrary”, I have dealt with it satisfactorily, although you have failed to understand it - see below.

As for recommending specific works instead of the author in general; that is the action of a wise man. Giving endorsement to an author on an ongoing basis can really backfire if the author starts spouting bullshit. Endorsing works which haven’t even been produced yet is foolish. A thoughtful person weighs each individual work on its merits and then endorses(sometimes even with qualification, although you seem not to see this as an endorsement), ignores, or criticises it. To claim Collounsbury is somehow anti-Lewis because he hasn’t given him a pre-emptive kudos for any work he may yet produce is… well, I can’t think of what it is, but the phrase “just motherfucking stupid” comes to mind. Again, a wise person doesn’t issue blanket endorsements, or if they do they base it on a large sample of work and throw caveats into it.

In the future, in attempting to rebut arguments, please try to pay attention to what the argument actually is. There is nothing wrong with recommending specific works. I have never suggested otherwise. Try to get a grip on that. Afterwards, understand this. I introduced that issue in regards to the matter of the relative frequency of Collounsbury’s disclaimers about Lewis’ work on current issues (tomndebb was quibbling over my use of the term “frequently”). And my point was that in recommending specific works, no such disclaimer is needed, hence the absence of such in such cases shows nothing.

There are also other stupidities in your above quote that I am ignoring - what I’ve written should suffice.

You seem to be asserting that he often engages in scorn of thoughtful, well-researched/supported, and informed opinions. I’d ask you to show these instances. The burden of proof will be on you to show that they truly were thoughtful, well-researched/supported, and informed however.

Not going to bother. I am not intending to prove anything here. I am merely expressing my opinion of this OP, which I think was accurately summarized by Brutus. This reflects my experience here. YMMV.

[Mtgman]

Hmm, add “lying weasel” to the terms you use to deride those who disagree with you. So noted.

Enjoy,
Steven

[IzzyR]

Actually I use such terms as are appropriate in the individual case. So don’t sell yourself short - you’ve earned it!

But I must say, I’m glad you’re taking notes. Got to keep that dossier updated, you know.

[TwistofFate]

*Originally posted by Leaper *
**Because only the educated would know he was ever called “Brutus,” and the uneducated would just think he’s always been called “Bluto”? **

Just to clear up for anyone confused

http://povonline.com/IAQ1.htm

It was Bluto first, then Brutus, now Bluto

[Mtgman]

The dossier is current, but it’s getting pretty full of instances of you being an ass. I’ll have to buy another file cabinet soon.

Enjoy,
Steven

[IzzyR]

All for me? I am honored.

I think you really love me, and this is sort of a cover. But I could be wrong.

[Eva_Luna]

IzzyR,, **Mtgman, ** I’m beginning to think that life imitates satire…as in this article fromThe Onion:

“Sexual Tension Between Arafat, Sharon Reaches Breaking Point”

http://www.theonion.com/onion3820/sexual_tension.html

[Mtgman]

Oh, Izzy! I never thought you’d realize… How can I hide my feelings any longer? You’re such a cold-hearted bitch, I was afraid of rejection, but to hear that I’ve “earned it” and that you’re “honored”. swoon

Fucknugget, that will be my special nickname of LOVE for you. Because you’re really small and dense.

See ya round Fucknugget!

Enjoy,
Steven

[Mtgman]

Eva Luna you bitch! You keep out of this, this is between me and Fucknugget. Go find your own small, dense guy.

[IzzyR]

Well I’m glad you can finally express your inner feelings. One positive that may come out of this matter might be to get you to be more in synch with your true self - perhaps some of your other problems might be alleviated as well, in this manner.

(These relationships can be hard work…)

[Eva_Luna]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**Eva Luna you bitch! You keep out of this, this is between me and Fucknugget. Go find your own small, dense guy. **

Well, then. I guess I won’t bother touching on the issue of which one of you is Arafat and which is Sharon.

, or maybe ;j

[Mtgman]

(These relationships can be hard work…)

I know, but I’ll keep trying, for your sake Fucknugget.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Neurotik]

So you think this has a chance in hell of making it to Threadspotting?

[Weirddave]

So, is Collundbury ever going to answer my questions, or did this entire thread get sidetracked into a bitch-slap fest?