Darkfucker
Dalton
>
> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
> answered me.
>
> Will notify the group if anything changes.
*fist-pumping, etc*
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"All tribal myths are true, for a given value of
'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett
Michael Wong
Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
answered me.
Will notify the group if anything changes.
---------
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire
Long live the Empire!
Jason L. Miles
>Michael Wong wrote:
>>
>> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
>> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
>> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
>> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
>> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
>> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
>> answered me.
>>
>> Will notify the group if anything changes.
>
>*fist-pumping, etc*
<Seconds Dalton's fist pumping>
--
"This is Grand Moff Miles, Lord Vader, I am heading to the Milky Way with my
95,089 ship Oversector Group, I don't expect much resistance. Don't worry
about sending Death Stars as support."
Jason L. Miles
Kazuaki Shimazaki
news:3D7BEFF9...@stardestroyer.net...
> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
> answered me.
>
> Will notify the group if anything changes.
This should shut that guy up for a while. What's the debate topic? The Death
Star "trick?" Canon issues? Are the asteroids really vaped? Doesn't he
realize that half (three-quarters actually) the fun of reading Wong Hate
Mail is Mike Wong being rude to assholes _while_ ripping apart their
arguments? The audience would be halved if it was a nice, civl, polite,
goody-goody debate! :-)
Pablo Sanchez
<mi...@stardestroyer.net> wrote:
>Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
>Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
>and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
>declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
>straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
>Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
>answered me.
>
>Will notify the group if anything changes.
I doubt he'll do anything. At heart he's a pissy little coward.
WeeMadAndo
Can we all come along to point and laugh?
--
WeeMadAndo
Blue sparks and white smoke, the two most expensive components of any
electrical system. Once you've used them, it costs a fortune to replace
them.
Jason L. Miles
<l33ta0...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"Jason L. Miles" <seaqu...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:otsnnuga924r1ahls...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:56:21 -0400, Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Michael Wong wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
>> >> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He
>waffled
>> >> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could
>unilaterally
>> >> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
>> >> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
>> >> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he
>hasn't
>> >> answered me.
>> >>
>> >> Will notify the group if anything changes.
>> >
>> >*fist-pumping, etc*
>>
>> <Seconds Dalton's fist pumping>
>> --
>
>ooo bad image there...
>
>
Haha
Paradox
>
> >Michael Wong wrote:
> >>
> >> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
> >> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He
waffled
> >> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could
unilaterally
> >> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
> >> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
> >> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he
hasn't
> >> answered me.
> >>
> >> Will notify the group if anything changes.
> >
> >*fist-pumping, etc*
>
> <Seconds Dalton's fist pumping>
> --
ooo bad image there...
Jason L. Miles
wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:29:40 -0700, "Paradox"
><l33ta0...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jason L. Miles" <seaqu...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:otsnnuga924r1ahls...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:56:21 -0400, Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Michael Wong wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
>>> >> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He
>>waffled
>>> >> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could
>>unilaterally
>>> >> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
>>> >> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
>>> >> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he
>>hasn't
>>> >> answered me.
>>> >>
>>> >> Will notify the group if anything changes.
>>> >
>>> >*fist-pumping, etc*
>>>
>>> <Seconds Dalton's fist pumping>
>>> --
>>
>>ooo bad image there...
>>
>>
>Haha
That was ment to be a slow and not very amused laugh.
Cmdrwilkens
news:3D7BF1B5...@daltonator.net...
> Michael Wong wrote:
> >
> > Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
> > Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
> > and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
> > declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
> > straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
> > Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
> > answered me.
> >
> > Will notify the group if anything changes.
>
> *fist-pumping, etc*
>
Oh God man take your fist away from your crotch, no person should ever see
that.
--
Lcpl Burnett, G.R.
USMCR
BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG
"Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure"
- IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net)
"I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me."
-Anakin Vader
Cmdrwilkens
news:algt2h$1prkue$1...@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de...
> Yay!
>
> Can we all come along to point and laugh?
>
Couldn't we do that already?
Stuart Mackey
> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
> answered me.
>
> Will notify the group if anything changes.
excellent, sounds like a good excuse for a beer.
Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz
"Cmdrwilkens" <burn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:alh6o1$1p43l6$1...@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de...
C.S.Strowbridge
> Michael Wong wrote:
>>Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
>>Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
>>and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
>>declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
>>straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
>>Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
>>answered me.
>>
>>Will notify the group if anything changes.
>
> *fist-pumping, etc*
Don't get too excited. Seriously, man. Think of baseball or something.
...
Good. The chances of Darkstar actually going through with a one-on-one
debate and not wussing out after the first insult is about the same as
either one of us winning the Mr. Universe title. Now if it was the Miss
Universe contest, that would be a whole other story.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> "Jason L. Miles" wrote:
>>Dalton wrote:
>>>*fist-pumping, etc*
>>
>><Seconds Dalton's fist pumping>
>
> ooo bad image there...
Better or worse than goatse.cx?
C.S.Strowbridge
Jason L. Miles
wrote:
>
>"Michael Wong" <mi...@stardestroyer.net> wrote in message
>news:3D7BEFF9...@stardestroyer.net...
>> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
>> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
>> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
>> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
>> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
>> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
>> answered me.
>>
>> Will notify the group if anything changes.
>>
>
>I see he's spreading lies all over, now. Here are the facts:
>
>http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185
>
You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and hit you over the head
with a Death Star II.
DarkStar
> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
> answered me.
>
> Will notify the group if anything changes.
>
I see he's spreading lies all over, now. Here are the facts:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185
His Divine Shadow
"DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BVXe9.410224$Aw4.17...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely.
Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats so blatantly
obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never occured and
that the towers are still there.
RayCav
WHOOO! MY LONGTIME HERO RETURNS TO ASVS!
Chris O'Farrell
> Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats so
blatantly
> obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never occured and
> that the towers are still there.
>
DarkStar
Aww, poor baby . . . now he's basically saying 'let me debate dirty or I'll
ban you'
My reply to his second challenge attempt, after he ran screaming from the
first:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185
His reply:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=192
His Divine Shadow
Essentially
MW: Debate me
DS: Not without special rules so I can focus on those instead of actually
debating you, you meanie!
Kazuaki Shimazaki
news:DM0f9.234$yj4....@read2.inet.fi...
<snip>
> Essentially
> MW: Debate me
> DS: Not without special rules so I can focus on those instead of actually
> debating you, you meanie!
He doesn't even realize that about half the group already wants to ban him
(we once voted on this, remember, and it didn't pass by a small margin,) so
if Wong bans him for any reason, he'll be doing a favor to that half of the
group. About 40% of the total wants to keep him as a joke (and we were kind
of low on proper Trekkies of any categorization back then,) so I'm sure they
won't scream if Wong threw him out (they might even be relieved, because
they had been so harassed by the stupidity since then.) Perhaps 10% think he
makes real contributions, and even then, they seem to have _severe_
reservations. I think they'll accede to the others' wishes.
DarkStar
Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has
chosen to ban me altogether.
What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the
process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time.
Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many
times he mysteriously agreed with himself.
My reply to his second challenge attempt, after he ran screaming from the
first:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185
His reply:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=192
The rest comes later . . . you can figure it out.
DarkStar
> Essentially
> MW: Debate me
> DS: Not without special rules so I can focus on those instead of actually
> debating you, you meanie!
Oh, hardly. Like any StarDestroyer.Net thread, he was hoping it could turn
into a Let's-Flame-DarkStar hour, so he could stay substance-free, and just
attack his opponent. By demanding a debate based on the evidence, I was
restricting the level of BS he could employ. That would mean no flinging
of insults like monkeys fling feces, no clever sophistries hidden under
mounds of lies and personal attacks, and none of his peculiar Kynesian
efforts, such as his attempt to contact individuals at Graham Kennedy's
educational institution.
The highlight reel:
DarkStar: "If you had ever, even once, led me to believe for a moment
that you could refrain from such childish behavior in a debate against
me, I'd tell you to bring it on."
Wong: "OK Darkstar, fine. I challenge you to one-on-one debate. Face
me, you little dipshit."
DarkStar: " . . . if you really think you can keep a promise to
maintain civility in a public forum, then let's get it on."
Wong: "Don't give me any of these bullshit conditions, you evasive
little chickenshit."
(((http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Debate-1-negotiations.html
Gothmog: "Actually, as the challenged party, I should, by tradition,
set the terms and topic without going through such a process as we are
going through."
Wong: "If I had specifically addressed the challenge to you
personally, that would be the case." )))
DarkStar: "So, you have refused to debate in a more proper fashion as
per the guidelines set out by the challenged party, and have
effectively re-issued a challenge wherein you demand that you be
allowed to debate the Wong way." "Should you wish to accept the
terms, you are at liberty to come crawling back."
Wong: "No, I have issued a challenge with no conditions whatsoever."
"Debate me or I'll ban your worthless ass."
DarkStar: "So, you challenge me to a debate, and then fail to follow
your own stated beliefs, running away from an honest, evidence-based debate
because that's your biggest fear. Having been caught in the act, you
suddenly
have to try to play off the fact that you're not just a pussy, but indeed a
huge,
gaping vagina. Then, the icing on the cake . . . you threaten to ban me.
This is the only force you can apply in the situation . . . the only way you
can
hope to make me acquiesce to a debate which has nothing to do with the
issues, but everything to do with ego and audience.
I've already told you and everyone else a hundred times . . . I'm not
interested in ego and audience . . . I'm here for the facts and evidence.
So, I'm afraid I have to reply with the following:
GO AHEAD AND BAN ME, YA BIG PUSSY."
Wong: "Fine. You're gone."
Once you adapt to his BS, as I did in the threads which I posted on his
board,
you find that he's really not as impressive as he makes himself out to be.
Now,
my opinion of him is even lower . . . he challenges, I demand honesty, and
he
bans me.
This is your vanguard? The Great Warsie Hope? Sheesh.
DasBastard
wrote:
>Ha, ha!
>
>Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has
>chosen to ban me altogether.
I can never decide whether you are delusional or a lying coward.
Probably a lot from column A, a little from column B, judging by the
fact that you think anyone will agree with your chickenshit spin once
they peruse the relevant posts on SD.net
>What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the
>process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time.
>Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many
>times he mysteriously agreed with himself.
You are as clumsy as you are stupid. Mike never made a secret of the
fact that he also posted as AdmiralKanos - check the system forums,
you failed abortion.
Paradox
Michael Wong
pussy-ass chickenshit. No pansy pre-conditions, escape routes, or other
weaselly little sophistries. Grow a pair of balls.
Austin Sweevo
wrote:
>
>What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the
>process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time.
You didn't work this out? I knew that, and I've been on the board all
of a week!
Michael Wong
> Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has
> chosen to ban me altogether.
You mean "straitjacketed debate, where you get to claim victory the
minute I do anything you don't like".
The offer remains open. Debate me, you pansy little chickenshit. No
pussy-ass pre-conditions. No weaselly escape routes or exit strategies.
Grow a pair of balls. Fight like a man.
Austin Sweevo
<mi...@stardestroyer.net> wrote:
>Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
>Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
>and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
>declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
>straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
>Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
>answered me.
>
>Will notify the group if anything changes.
I hate living in the UK. All the exciting stuff happens while I sleep.
Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage
wrote:
>Ha, ha!
>
>Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has
>chosen to ban me altogether.
>
>What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the
>process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time.
>Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many
>times he mysteriously agreed with himself.
OK... Mike posts as the viewpoint character from his own fanfic that's
been up for years (which is arguably one of the finest not just STvsSW
fics but one of the finest crossover fics of ANY kind on the net)...
and you're somehow SURPRISED that it's him? Besides the fact that
AdmiralKanos is listed as the Admin (meaning the board owner and maybe
2-3 others), pretty much narrowing down the list of possible users of
that name.
You're 19 years old and still in first grade, aren't you, Scott?
Don't lie. There is no human way that - barring major cranial
disability - anyone could CONCEIVABLY not figure out that "Admiral
Kanos" and "Darth Wong" were the same person. Except maybe in Star
Trek.
On second thought, maybe it's not so surprising after all...
-- Ice
"How should I know? I'M A FUCKING CATFISH!" - Standard Mon Cal
response to any crisis
Michael Wong
still so I can pummel them?
Sir Nitram
>still so I can pummel them?
>
I am reminded of a sound clip of Maul. "Fear.. Fear attracts the fearful. Fear
makes them seem powerful. Fear is my ally."
--
SirNitram
ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius
Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves.
Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need.
"And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..."
-Hero
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> > Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate,
has
> > chosen to ban me altogether.
>
> You mean "straitjacketed debate, where you get to claim victory the
> minute I do anything you don't like".
No, I meant "honest debate, where one need only worry about the evidence
that will be presented, and not what new color of feces you'll fling".
Hell, I can be just as obnoxious as you, and by your own statements in the
first Superlaser Effect thread, I can keep up quite nicely with your
rhetorical tricks. I wasn't going to be insulted or offended by your BS .
. . I've been flamed enough, and have heard it all . . . but by demanding a
rational discussion, I knew you wouldn't be able to employ such smokescreens
and BS.
And claims of victory are irrelevant . . . I knew you'd spin-doctor the
discussion to death after the fact . . . you're Wong, and that's what you
do.
> The offer remains open.
I already accepted! But (gasp!), I demanded a rational discussion. (Oh,
the horror!) You ran away. You can posture all you like, but the fact is
you ran like hell, and felt it necessary to ban me, too. Poor baby.
> Debate me, you pansy little chickenshit. No
> pussy-ass pre-conditions. No weaselly escape routes or exit strategies.
. . . no Wongian pussiness . . .
> Grow a pair of balls. Fight like a man.
A real man isn't so scared of a debate of the evidence that he feels it
necessary to ban a guy who asks for one.
To paraphrase: "Wong . . . I'm _laughing_ at the 'superior intellect'."
CaptainSheridan
So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any other
debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big dummyhead
you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that?
CaptainSheridan
Chris, do you, a Pro-Trek debater, think DarkStar's a fucking idiot?
(judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably
yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS)
Michael Wong
stipulation, I'm going to ask for one too. The minute you take a quote
out of context in order to misrepresent its meaning, you forfeit.
Michael Wong
> necessary to ban a guy who asks for one.
OK, fine. I'll call your bluff. We'll debate, and I will try to be more
civil to you than you've been to me. If you want to be a pussy and
declare victory the moment I say something you don't like, go ahead (as
if anyone will buy it). Submit your first debate entry by Friday to my
E-mail (click the E-mail link on my main Empire website). Four-day
response window. 5 salvoes each. If you've got the balls.
Michael Wong
bullshit, although we must deal with your outrageous dismissal of all EU
material first, since we can't discuss the Death Star without settling
ground rules of evidence first.
DarkStar
Having previously stated the following:
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWd.html
I think it should be followed in its entirety.
DarkStar
> Oh, and by the way, I just realized that if you're going to ask for a
> stipulation, I'm going to ask for one too. The minute you take a quote
> out of context in order to misrepresent its meaning, you forfeit.
>
Uh-huh. Riiiight.
A further note is that your ban of me shall be countermanded. You can
leave my account as read-only if you feel the need, but my Death Star site
is in need of an update, and that update was to be culled from the recent
arguments there.
Michael Wong
>>Oh, and by the way, I just realized that if you're going to ask for a
>>stipulation, I'm going to ask for one too. The minute you take a quote
>>out of context in order to misrepresent its meaning, you forfeit.
>
> Uh-huh. Riiiight.
Is that a yes or no? Will you give a fucking plain answer for once?
> A further note is that your ban of me shall be countermanded. You can
> leave my account as read-only if you feel the need, but my Death Star site
> is in need of an update, and that update was to be culled from the recent
> arguments there.
No. You are banned forever. Nobody insults me the way you did on my
board and visits there again. I know you were deliberately amping it up
to goad me into banning you so you could pretend you were banned out of
fear rather than disgust, but if you think I'm going to unban you from
my board after what you said, you're even dumber than I thought.
That's TWO more pre-conditions you're trying to add: you want me to
accept your bullshit definition of SW continuity and you also want me to
un-ban you. NO MORE FUCKING CONDITIONS!
You gave 1 stipulation, I gave 1 stipulation. Let's do it.
Michael Wong
> Having previously stated the following:
> http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWd.html
> I think it should be followed in its entirety.
You're ignoring my stipulation that you concede if you're caught
misrepresenting evidence, and you're also casting your bullshit
interpretation of canon as a stipulation. What's the matter, Darkstar?
Afraid to debate without being able to misrepresent evidence? Afraid to
subject your rules of canon to debate?
Once again, I am calling your bluff. Debate me, accept my stipulation in
exchange for yours, and don't try to slip in your bogus deletion of the
entire EU as yet-another debate pre-condition. Your incompetent
mis-reading of the continuity policy is a perfectly valid subject of debate.
PS. No debate on any discussion forum. We'll do it right here, in ASVS,
where every post will be archived in Google forever and no one can be
accused of editing posts after the fact or otherwise screwing around.
Doomriser
> DarkStar wrote:
>
> No. You are banned forever. Nobody insults me the way you did on my
> board and visits there again. I know you were deliberately amping it up
> to goad me into banning you so you could pretend you were banned out of
> fear rather than disgust, but if you think I'm going to unban you from
> my board after what you said, you're even dumber than I thought.
>
Okay, Dorkstar said a lot of terrible things so was it all of them together
or one specific thing that pissed you off the most?
--
-=Doomriser
"We've been very careful. The continuity is airtight. Believe me. We know.
We know."
-Brannon Braga
Michael Wong
>>No. You are banned forever. Nobody insults me the way you did on my
>>board and visits there again. I know you were deliberately amping it up
>>to goad me into banning you so you could pretend you were banned out of
>>fear rather than disgust, but if you think I'm going to unban you from
>>my board after what you said, you're even dumber than I thought.
> Okay, Dorkstar said a lot of terrible things so was it all of them together
> or one specific thing that pissed you off the most?
His last message on the "Darkstar poll" thread in the SWvsST forum was
the straw that broke the camel's back. It was virulent enough that he
put me in a position where I would either HAVE to ban him or set a
precedent whereby people can call me an "open vagina" without
repercussions. He was obviously trying to MAKE me ban him, and I don't
let people get away with that kind of shit. He can go whine on sb.com if
he wants, but I doubt their mods and admins would let somebody call them
an "open vagina" either.
If he wants to see the board again, he can go to a damned Internet cafe,
because IP bans on the phpBB2 software are total (no registration, no
look, no read, no visit, nada, zilch).
CaptainSheridan
>
> What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the
> process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time.
> Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many
> times he mysteriously agreed with himself.
OMG! ADMIRAL KANOS IS MIKE WONG?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I mean, even though Kanos is a character from Mike's fanfic, and AK is
listed as the sole admin, and makes all the anoucements I could have
NEVER guessed that he was Mike!
Only a mega-moron like you would think he was hiding as Kanos. My
opinion of you has unbelieving dropped even lower. In fact, terms like
stupid, idiot, moron, etc. don't do your lack of intelligence justice.
We need a word meaning the Einstein of stupidity
Kamakazie Sith
You know Darkstar others will be watching the debate and if you do manage to
give a better arguement than Mike Wong then we will all see it. You
shouldn't be concerned with ad hominem attacks because all of us watching
will recognize it and point it out. So accept the challenge and debate
against him, lets see what you got.
Ted Archbold
wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 02:36:06 GMT, Jason L. Miles <seaqu...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:29:40 -0700, "Paradox"
>><l33ta0...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jason L. Miles" <seaqu...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:otsnnuga924r1ahls...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:56:21 -0400, Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Michael Wong wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
>>>> >> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He
>>>waffled
>>>> >> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could
>>>unilaterally
>>>> >> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
>>>> >> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
>>>> >> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he
>>>hasn't
>>>> >> answered me.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Will notify the group if anything changes.
>>>> >
>>>> >*fist-pumping, etc*
>>>>
>>>> <Seconds Dalton's fist pumping>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>ooo bad image there...
>>>
>>>
>>Haha
>
>That was ment to be a slow and not very amused laugh.
>--
With grunts in between, right?
AIM: FldMrslTed
ICQ: 125211976
MSN: tedman...@hotmail.com
Enigma
matter.
Ted Archbold
<csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Dalton wrote:
>> Michael Wong wrote:
>
>>>Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
>>>Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
>>>and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
>>>declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
>>>straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
>>>Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
>>>answered me.
>>>
>>>Will notify the group if anything changes.
>>
>> *fist-pumping, etc*
>
>Don't get too excited. Seriously, man. Think of baseball or something.
>
Then he'd go bat pumping.
Ted Archbold
<jut...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Michael Wong" <mi...@stardestroyer.net> wrote in message
>news:3D7BEFF9...@stardestroyer.net...
>> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
>> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
>> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
>> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
>> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
>> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
>> answered me.
>>
>> Will notify the group if anything changes.
>
>excellent, sounds like a good excuse for a beer.
>
>
I've got the chips out and ready.
Ben Robbins
Probably because they're fucking a hat.
Steve Garrett Jr.
> Why is it so goddamned hard to get these little hatfuckers to stand
> still so I can pummel them?
>
Because the GM gave them a high agility/dexterity score with a "Dodging
the Point" Specialty. :)
--
Sorry, it's a character trait: I can't respect idiots.
"The weak shall inherit the earth - about ten cubic meters of it over
their coffins!" - Pirate phrase, BattleTech Field Manual: Periphery
Stephen Garrett Jr.
a.k.a. "Big" Steve, Spacebattles regular, and Slayer of Fools
I AM THE MECHWARRIOR. I PILOTS THE MECHS THAT MAKES ALL OF THE TANKS AND
PEOPLES FALL DOWN AND GO SQUISH!
Jason L. Miles
Quite
--
"This is Grand Moff Miles, Lord Vader, I am heading to the Milky Way with my
95,089 ship Oversector Group, I don't expect much resistance. Don't worry
about sending Death Stars as support."
Jason L. Miles
Graeme Dice
DarkStar wrote:
>
> Ha, ha!
>
> Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has
> chosen to ban me altogether.
>
> What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the
> process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time.
Good god. You are stupid. In case you didn't notice, Admiral Kanos is
his administration account. You know, the one who made all the posts on
the announcements board?
> Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many
> times he mysteriously agreed with himself.
>
> My reply to his second challenge attempt, after he ran screaming from the
> first:
> http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185
>
> His reply:
> http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=192
>
> The rest comes later . . . you can figure it out.
Yes, I can. You are incapable of making actual arguments, so you have
claimed victory immediately and saved us the trouble of havibng to read
your tripe.
--
Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.
Michael Wong
fool anyone. Are you ready to debate? No flames on my part, no
misrepresentation of evidence on your part, and NO MORE GODDAMNED DELAY
TACTIC PRE-CONDITIONS FROM YOU? I'm waiting for an answer.
Graeme Dice
He's Guardian 2000, the last bastion of Trek remember?
Graeme Dice
Ted Archbold
Can you both shut up about the prelims and just debate?
Wong, stop calling him names until AFTER you deliver the Imperial
Smackdown TM.
Darkstar, shut up about the stupid rules and crap. You are just
delaying and all the crapabout Wong turning into a babby, just saw
you'll debate him, and if you make no comments about name calling,
etc..., then I can guarentee that Wong will reply in kind. YOu say
nothing bad to him, he says nothing bad to you. It's simple.
Now behave like adults.
Paradox
> Hey Darkshit, the offer is still open. Debate me, you worthless little
> pussy-ass chickenshit. No pansy pre-conditions, escape routes, or other
> weaselly little sophistries. Grow a pair of balls.
>
I'd say call him darkpussy, but its all pink on the inside.
WeeMadAndo
>
> "His Divine Shadow" <denni...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in message
> news:DM0f9.234$yj4....@read2.inet.fi...
>
> > Essentially
> > MW: Debate me
> > DS: Not without special rules so I can focus on those instead of
actually
> > debating you, you meanie!
>
> Oh, hardly. Like any StarDestroyer.Net thread, he was hoping it could
turn
> into a Let's-Flame-DarkStar hour, so he could stay substance-free, and
just
> attack his opponent. By demanding a debate based on the evidence, I was
> restricting the level of BS he could employ. That would mean no
flinging
> of insults like monkeys fling feces, no clever sophistries hidden under
> mounds of lies and personal attacks, and none of his peculiar Kynesian
> efforts, such as his attempt to contact individuals at Graham Kennedy's
> educational institution.
Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain credibility
in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it. I myself
can't claim to be a genius in tech threads as I'm just finishing up my
majors History, Ancient Civs and Political Science at university, but if
someone was to debate politics and culture within the sci-fi canon, then I'd
be happy to jump in.
On another note, I was not a follower of Wong to begin with. After going
head to head with Brian Young many years ago over some B5 weapon calcs that
I worked on I was converted through logic and reason. As I worked my way
through Wongs, Youngs and Saxtons pages I came to realise that these people
did indeed, have a clue. Graham Kennedy's site, like Tigerclaws B5Tech are
both highly questionable when it comes to tech issues, but are great for
culture and other points.]
So don't abuse me about being a one-eyed alpaca-fucker, sit down and debate
properly.
--
WeeMadAndo
Blue sparks and white smoke, the two most expensive components of any
electrical system. Once you've used them, it costs a fortune to replace
them.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> > Having previously stated the following:
> > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWd.html
> > I think it should be followed in its entirety.
>
> You're ignoring my stipulation that you concede if you're caught
> misrepresenting evidence, and you're also casting your bullshit
> interpretation of canon as a stipulation.
The above constitutes a confession that you plan to challenge my canon
policy, and demand concession based on *your* belief that I have taken a
quote out of context in reference to it.
Talk about giving yourself an escape route . . .
> Afraid to subject your rules of canon to debate?
Not at all, but I foolishly thought you might want to debate something
meatier than issues of canon.
Of course, your plan of attack is clear, now. You want to debate canon,
and then cry "Wah, he's taking a quote out of context!" the first time I
quote something. Interesting how the 'taking something out of context'
thing only applies to me. (rolls eyes)
> and don't try to slip in your bogus deletion of the entire EU as
yet-another debate pre-condition.
Why should I bother? Not only are you afraid to debate about the
Superlaser Effect on strictly canon grounds, but you've given yourself the
Instant Debate Off-Ramp where anytime you _feel_ I have taken a quote out of
context, you get to declare victory.
*I* am the challenged party. *I* set the terms. This is your own
statement.
Gothmog: "Actually, as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set
the terms and topic without going through such a process as we are going
through."
Wong: "If I had specifically addressed the challenge to you personally,
that would be the case."
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Debate-1-negotiations.html
> PS. No debate on any discussion forum. We'll do it right here, in ASVS,
> where every post will be archived in Google forever and no one can be
> accused of editing posts after the fact or otherwise screwing around.
Suggestion accepted. My terms are accordingly revised.
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWd.html
WeeMadAndo
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> >>Oh, and by the way, I just realized that if you're going to ask for a
> >>stipulation, I'm going to ask for one too. The minute you take a quote
> >>out of context in order to misrepresent its meaning, you forfeit.
> >
> > Uh-huh. Riiiight.
>
> Is that a yes or no? Will you give a fucking plain answer for once?
In case you hadn't noticed the usage that has been in play for the past
several years, "Riiiight" is a sarcastic term having a meaning similar to
replying with the term "Bullshit."
> > A further note is that your ban of me shall be countermanded. You can
> > leave my account as read-only if you feel the need, but my Death Star
site
> > is in need of an update, and that update was to be culled from the
recent
> > arguments there.
>
> No. You are banned forever. Nobody insults me the way you did on my
> board and visits there again.
You insult yourself far more than I would ever hope to, Wong.
Further, denial of access to debate-related materials is a poor strategy,
indeed.
> I know you were deliberately amping it up
> to goad me into banning you so you could pretend you were banned out of
> fear rather than disgust, but if you think I'm going to unban you from
> my board after what you said, you're even dumber than I thought.
Every word I said was true . . . you've demonstrated that by continuing to
hound me for a debate long after you ran away from the concept of a fair
one. Now, you're backpedaling like a pro, and after accusing me of putting
in a 'weasel-out' stipulation, you've put one of your own in that applies
_only to me_, and brazenly declared your intent to use it if the Canon
Policy issue is debated.
> That's TWO more pre-conditions you're trying to add: you want me to
> accept your bullshit definition of SW continuity and you also want me to
> un-ban you.
The situation has changed since the banning . . . asking to be unbanned for
access to materials is not an unreasonable pre-condition. As for the SW
Canon Policy issue, that had already been posted prior to your recent
backpedaling efforts. I understand if you want to avoid meaty topics like
the Superlaser Effect, but declaring your Canon Policy exit strategy was a
dumb move.
DarkStar
> It was virulent enough that he put me in a position where I would either
> HAVE to ban him or set a precedent whereby people can call me an
> "open vagina" without repercussions.
I call 'em like I see 'em. And I believe my exact words were "huge, gaping
vagina". After the dozen-or-so subtle and dozens of not-at-all subtle
insults you flung in my direction like a monkey with a handful of its own
feces, I find it unlikely you took such great offense.
> If he wants to see the board again, he can go to a damned Internet cafe,
> because IP bans on the phpBB2 software are total (no registration, no
> look, no read, no visit, nada, zilch).
Oh, naturally. This way, you get access to everything I've said, while I
have to reconstruct it from memory.
But, of course, we'll never get to that point, since you have declared your
intent to bug out of the debate and declare victory the first time would
talk about the Canon Policy.
This attempt on your part to short-circuit the debate is childish schoolyard
bluster on your part, Wong, and more evidence of your charlatanism, and your
huge, gaping status.
Various ST and SW character comments on Mike Wong's huge, gaping vagina:
Data: "The interior surface area is over ten to the sixteenth square
kilometers. It will take seven
hours to completely scan the surface."
Commodore Decker: "It's miles long, with a maw that can swallow a dozen
starships!"
Riker (echoing): "An-y-bod-y?"
Admiral Pressman: "This chasm is large enough for us to maneuver in."
Uhura: "It could hold a crew of tens of thousands."
McCoy: "Or a crew of a thousand ten miles tall."
Luke: "Look at the size of that thing!"
Vader: "Impressive. Most Impressive."
R2-D2: (Whistles)
TMP Navigator: "We are now seventeen kilometers inside . . ."
Han: "What an interesting smell you've discovered!"
Enterprise-D: (Image of Enterprise maneuvering in the cavernous asteroid
from "Pegasus")
McCoy: "My god, that's a big . . . "
Crusher: "The bottom's a little over five hundred meters."
Picard: "Be certain your tricorder makes a precise map of our route. It
will be easy to get lost in here."
DarkStar
"Ted Archbold" <tedman...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d7d45b0...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> if you make no comments about name calling,
> etc..., then I can guarentee that Wong will reply in kind. YOu say
> nothing bad to him, he says nothing bad to you. It's simple.
That's the way _I_ do things. Have you ever looked at his Hate Mail page?
It certainly isn't his way.
WeeMadAndo
>
> "WeeMadAndo" <weema...@sluggy.net> wrote in message
> news:aljjrd$1qajak$1...@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain
> credibility
> > in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it.
>
to
> ever pop up. That's why Wong always poses those questions. Besides,
his
> attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . they never debated.
An honest and rational discussion SHOULDN'T require those questions, but in
some cases they just have to be asked. Especially when some 12 y/o starts
claiming that he has a degree in astrophysics in order to make his points
have that little bit more credibility.
> An honest, rational discussion deals with the issues, the evidence, the
> arguments . . . foreign territory to some. Hence my decision to place it
> there.
Evidence, the key point in a Sci-Fi arguement. Which is precisely why here
in ASVS the rules of canon laid down by the makers of the shows and movies
are followed.
DarkStar
"CaptainSheridan" <big_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d3e5dbf.02090...@posting.google.com...
> So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any other
> debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big dummyhead
> you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that?
It means he'll be locked in to a debate on the facts and evidence, not on
schoolyard namecalling and silly bluster. I'm familiar with the territory
of facts and evidence, and though I can see right through his BS and point
it out for all to see, I see no point in allowing myself to be a target of
it.
DarkStar
"WeeMadAndo" <weema...@sluggy.net> wrote in message
news:aljjrd$1qajak$1...@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de...
> Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain
credibility
> in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it.
An honest, rational discussion does not require questions of credibility to
ever pop up. That's why Wong always poses those questions. Besides, his
attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . they never debated.
An honest, rational discussion deals with the issues, the evidence, the
Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage
I'd call him a pussy, but that would be an insult to female genitalia.
-- Ice
"How should I know? I'M A FUCKING CATFISH!" - Standard Mon Cal
response to any crisis
Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage
<grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>CaptainSheridan wrote:
>>
>> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<X53f9.537490$2p2.21...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>>
>> >
>> > What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the
>> > process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time.
>> > Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many
>> > times he mysteriously agreed with himself.
>>
>> OMG! ADMIRAL KANOS IS MIKE WONG?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
>>
>> I mean, even though Kanos is a character from Mike's fanfic, and AK is
>> listed as the sole admin, and makes all the anoucements I could have
>> NEVER guessed that he was Mike!
>>
>> Only a mega-moron like you would think he was hiding as Kanos. My
>> opinion of you has unbelieving dropped even lower. In fact, terms like
>> stupid, idiot, moron, etc. don't do your lack of intelligence justice.
>> We need a word meaning the Einstein of stupidity
>
>He's Guardian 2000, the last bastion of Trek remember?
Does G2K count as a full kilojacques, yet?
Jesus Christ
Hmmm, better whip up some dip I think..
Durandal
> Why is it so goddamned hard to get these little hatfuckers to stand
> still so I can pummel them?
"Hatfucker," huh? Sounds like someone's been playing AotT, or at least
been reading the FUQ. The possibility of that insult being independently
discovered by two people is next to nil. :)
--
Damien Sorresso
[AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859]
http://daltonator.net/durandal
"Buck futter!"
-Sean Connery, Celebrity Jeopardy, Saturday Night Live
Paradox
them!
....
I conceed that ST would get its ass royally spanked by a single Imperial
Star Destroyer.
"Michael Wong" <mi...@stardestroyer.net> wrote in message
news:3D7BEFF9...@stardestroyer.net...
> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
> answered me.
>
> Will notify the group if anything changes.
>
>
> ---------
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire
> Long live the Empire!
>
Michael Wong
> The above constitutes a confession that you plan to challenge my canon
> policy, and demand concession based on *your* belief that I have taken a
> quote out of context in reference to it.
>
> Talk about giving yourself an escape route . . .
What's the matter, Darkstar? Don't like the taste of your own medicine?
If you're not misrepresenting evidence, you've got nothing to worry
about, right? Are you afraid?
> Not at all, but I foolishly thought you might want to debate something
> meatier than issues of canon.
>
> Of course, your plan of attack is clear, now. You want to debate canon,
> and then cry "Wah, he's taking a quote out of context!" the first time I
> quote something. Interesting how the 'taking something out of context'
> thing only applies to me. (rolls eyes)
Again, I ask: don't like the taste of your own medicine? This is
certainly no worse than the condition you placed on me (and which I had
decided to accept). I see you're basically admitting that you intend to
take quotes out of context and twist their meaning, and you run away
like a little girl whenever someone tries to force you to argue
exclusively with UNADULTERATED evidence. Look, everybody! Darkstar can
dish it out but he can't take it! Poor baby ...
> Why should I bother? Not only are you afraid to debate about the
> Superlaser Effect on strictly canon grounds, but you've given yourself the
> Instant Debate Off-Ramp where anytime you _feel_ I have taken a quote out of
> context, you get to declare victory.
Yes, those debate off-ramps aren't very sporting, are they? Why don't we
debate without them, then? Or are you unwilling to admit that my debate
off-ramp is no more unreasonable than yours? Are you trying to defend
your right to twist quotes out of context and misrepresent them? Hmmm?
You're afraid to debate in a no-holds-barred fashion, Darkstar. That's
obvious, even though you'll gleefully trade flames left, right, and
centre with anyone else on Earth. You were looking for an excuse to
evade my challenge, and now, you tacitly acknowledge the pansy-ass
nature of your tactics BY SEEING WHAT'S WRONG WITH THEM WHEN SOMEBODY
ELSE DOES IT.
> *I* am the challenged party. *I* set the terms. This is your own
> statement.
>
> Gothmog: "Actually, as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set
> the terms and topic without going through such a process as we are going
> through."
> Wong: "If I had specifically addressed the challenge to you personally,
> that would be the case."
>
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Debate-1-negotiations.html
Yes, I said that to Gothmog. And since you ignored it the first time I
posted it, I will post it again: "he used the condition as an excuse to
run away even though everyone could see that I was kicking his ass.
Badly." I don't intend to let a second weasel squirm away by using the
same trick, Darkstar.
I see you're going to fuck around with debate conditions until the end
of time in order to make sure this doesn't happen. Very well, I will
unilaterally start this debate without agreeing to your unreasonable
terms since you refuse to agree to my counter-terms. You can bitch about
your debate conditions until you're blue in the face but it won't
matter. I intend to post to the newsgroup this Friday at midnight EST
(not your ridiculous start time of noon GMT which is actually 8AM in my
timezone; that is completely unreasonable). I expect your reply within
four days (yes, four; unlike you, I actually have a life to maintain). I
will discuss your mindlessly anti-scientific Death Star claims, but only
AFTER demolishing your ridiculous attempts to misrepresent Star Wars'
continuity policy. And if you don't like it, too bad because I'm firing
the first salvo off this Friday and that's the way it goes. I'm sick of
your delay tactics.
Paradox
"Austin Sweevo" <aus...@sweevo.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:3d7cdd3e...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:48:57 -0400, Michael Wong
> <mi...@stardestroyer.net> wrote:
>
> >Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
> >Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
> >and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
> >declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
> >straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
> >Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
> >answered me.
> >
> >Will notify the group if anything changes.
>
>
Your talking like Usenet is really action-packed or something...
Jesus Christ
"DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X53f9.537490$2p2.21...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has
> chosen to ban me altogether.
>
> process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time.
> Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many
> times he mysteriously agreed with himself.
>
> first:
> http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185
>
> His reply:
> http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=192
>
> The rest comes later . . . you can figure it out.
This Is FUQ material, Kano's is Mike Wong you idiot
Paradox
> Grow a pair of balls. Fight like a man.
>
hmmm, well that would require a few pints of beer and an asswhooping outside
of a bar over a stripper named michelle :)
Jesus Christ
I used to know a Bombadier who once said that one should always look at what
was being said, not how it was said.
Sir Nitram
>have to reconstruct it from memory.
>
>But, of course, we'll never get to that point, since you have declared your
>intent to bug out of the debate and declare victory the first time would
>talk about the Canon Policy.
>
>This attempt on your part to short-circuit the debate is childish schoolyard
>bluster on your part, Wong, and more evidence of your charlatanism, and your
>huge, gaping status.
>
Most amusing. You seem to think being able to post and read on a privately
owned and operated message board is some sort of God-given right.
Oh wait. You're an American Jingoist. You think everything is your right.
Tell you what, sparky. If you're a real good boy and are nice, I might find
some goodness in my cold black heart to post various chunks of your claims on
the Superlaser on a site. I will obviously not quote the entire 20+ pages
you've had on it, but I might. Just because I'm such a nice guy, and I want to
see what you make from it.
--
SirNitram
ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius
Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves.
Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need.
"And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..."
-Hero
Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc.
got caught while selling his only friends for delicious, delicious
cake. While being carted away by the police he uttered these prophetic
words :
>> No. You are banned forever. Nobody insults me the way you did on my
>> board and visits there again.
>
>You insult yourself far more than I would ever hope to, Wong.
>
>Further, denial of access to debate-related materials is a poor strategy,
>indeed.
It was a poor strategy to ask for it.
Cyborg Stan, Aimless Wanderer and Part-Time Galatic
Hero http://www.ipass.net/~bdiller/
bdi...@ipass.net ICQ : 32779556
"It's like having your brain replaced with a lump of crack cocaine and confectioner's sugar."
Jesus Christ
> I see you're going to fuck around with debate conditions until the end
> of time in order to make sure this doesn't happen. Very well, I will
> unilaterally start this debate without agreeing to your unreasonable
> terms since you refuse to agree to my counter-terms. You can bitch about
> your debate conditions until you're blue in the face but it won't
> matter. I intend to post to the newsgroup this Friday at midnight EST
> (not your ridiculous start time of noon GMT which is actually 8AM in my
> timezone; that is completely unreasonable). I expect your reply within
> four days (yes, four; unlike you, I actually have a life to maintain). I
> will discuss your mindlessly anti-scientific Death Star claims, but only
> AFTER demolishing your ridiculous attempts to misrepresent Star Wars'
> continuity policy. And if you don't like it, too bad because I'm firing
> the first salvo off this Friday and that's the way it goes. I'm sick of
> your delay tactics.
My son, hath thou forgotten that he hath no knowledge other than that of a
19 year old varsity first year? The planet revolves around him....
John Hansen
as <2uionu4i814op258p...@4ax.com>) on Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:20:30
GMT...
>On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:16:49 GMT, "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:>>news:3D7BEFF9...@stardestroyer.net...
>>> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged
>>> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled
>>> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally
>>> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a
>>> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions.
>>> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't
>>> answered me.
>>>
>>> Will notify the group if anything changes.
>>>
>>
>>
>>http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185
>>
>You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and hit you over the head
>with a Death Star II.
Dalton, this needs FUQing. Preferably in the T&I section.
Dalton
>
> Ha, ha!
>
> Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has
> chosen to ban me altogether.
>
> What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the
> process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time.
> Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many
> times he mysteriously agreed with himself.
What are you, fucking stupid? Do you even pay attention to anything else
than "Wong is a meenie hed"?
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"All tribal myths are true, for a given value of
'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett
Michael Wong
>>Further, denial of access to debate-related materials is a poor strategy,
>>indeed.
>
> It was a poor strategy to ask for it.
Heh heh ... on his website, he rants that I run my board like a
"petulant child" and delete anything that contradicts me. But if that
were true, there would be nothing on the board for him to find, so why
is he even bothering to ask?
Could this be a tacit admission of slanderous character assassination on
his part, to admit that he KNOWS his threads are completely intact on my
board despite his accusations?
Naaah ...
Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage
legion.
Chris O'Farrell
> (judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably
> yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS)
Thanks......I think?
And yes he is a fucking idiot.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> > The above constitutes a confession that you plan to challenge my canon
> > policy, and demand concession based on *your* belief that I have taken a
> > quote out of context in reference to it.
> >
> > Talk about giving yourself an escape route . . .
>
> What's the matter, Darkstar? Don't like the taste of your own medicine?
> If you're not misrepresenting evidence, you've got nothing to worry
> about, right? Are you afraid?
Oh, puh-leeze! Having a condition which can *only* be placed on me, and
(with no judges) can *only* be violated on the grounds of your opinion, is
not my "medicine" at all.
Asking for a rational discussion is one thing. But, given your subjective
use of the term "misrepresent", and your declaration that you will use it at
the first sign of trouble in a Canon discussion, *you have already
conceded*.
Do you understand that, Mike? You have conceded in advance, because you
have agreed to a rational discussion, *on the condition* that you get an
escape clause which you have already declared the use of, before the debate
has even begun. *This means that I cannot disagree with your subjective
interpretation of any quote*, because you will cry foul.
That's a far, far cry from me telling you to restrict your arguments to the
evidence and facts, and leave the personal attacks out of it.
> > Not at all, but I foolishly thought you might want to debate something
> > meatier than issues of canon.
> >
> > Of course, your plan of attack is clear, now. You want to debate
canon,
> > and then cry "Wah, he's taking a quote out of context!" the first time I
> > quote something. Interesting how the 'taking something out of context'
> > thing only applies to me. (rolls eyes)
>
> Again, I ask: don't like the taste of your own medicine? This is
> certainly no worse than the condition you placed on me (and which I had
> decided to accept).
A plain and simple lie. The rational discussion condition was not
exclusive to you. Unlike certain people who come to mind, I _can_ have a
rational discussion without resorting to dirty tricks.
> I see you're basically admitting that you intend to
> take quotes out of context and twist their meaning, and you run away
> like a little girl whenever someone tries to force you to argue
> exclusively with UNADULTERATED evidence.
I would *only* be admitting that if there was an objective criteria which we
were going by. However, because you have imposed the restriction only on
me, *any disagreement on interpretation* is instantly in your favor.
> Look, everybody! Darkstar can dish it out but he can't take it! Poor baby
...
If you even knew what I was dishing out, this might be funny. I demanded
something perfectly fair . . . no Wong Way smokescreens and feces-flinging .
. . and you have demanded total control of all the evidence, going so far as
to restrict my access to evidence so that you'll have all my arguments
readily available.
I laugh at you. I laugh at your arrogance . . . I laugh at your silly
belief that you are superior. You must think everyone a fool to make your
attempts to cheat so transparent.
> > Why should I bother? Not only are you afraid to debate about the
> > Superlaser Effect on strictly canon grounds, but you've given yourself
the
> > Instant Debate Off-Ramp where anytime you _feel_ I have taken a quote
out of
> > context, you get to declare victory.
>
> Yes, those debate off-ramps aren't very sporting, are they? Why don't we
> debate without them, then? Or are you unwilling to admit that my debate
> off-ramp is no more unreasonable than yours?
I have no debate off-ramp, but yours is damned unreasonable.
> You're afraid to debate in a no-holds-barred fashion, Darkstar.
I'm not afraid of such a debate . . . you know why? What the hell do you
think we're doing right now, dipshit? We're engaging in a public
slam-fest. That's what you want . . . that's all you've wanted . . . and
you've got it. You can posture all day long about debate-this and
debate-that . . . you're getting *precisely* what you wanted, right now.
I want a debate on the evidence, but you're scared to death of such a thing.
Huge. Gaping. Vagina.
> > *I* am the challenged party. *I* set the terms. This is your own
> > statement.
> >
> > Gothmog: "Actually, as the challenged party, I should, by tradition,
set
> > the terms and topic without going through such a process as we are going
> > through."
> > Wong: "If I had specifically addressed the challenge to you
personally,
> > that would be the case."
> >
> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Debate-1-negotiations.html
>
> Yes, I said that to Gothmog. And since you ignored it the first time I
> posted it, I will post it again: "he used the condition as an excuse to
> run away even though everyone could see that I was kicking his ass.
> Badly." I don't intend to let a second weasel squirm away by using the
> same trick, Darkstar.
And I see you failed to read my reply, in which I correctly pointed out that
whatever Gothmog did was irrelevant. I am not Gothmog. According to your
own statements, a specifically addressed individual challenge grants the
challenged party the right to set terms.
The reason you have run from the condition of a rational discussion, and the
reason you continue to run from it, even now, is because that would be tying
your hand. You can't win to your satisfaction (where "your satisfaction"
refers to your belief of how well you can spin-doctor the posts to your
fawning disciples) in a rational debate where the evidence is open.
> I see you're going to fuck around with debate conditions until the end
> of time in order to make sure this doesn't happen. Very well, I will
> unilaterally start this debate without agreeing to your unreasonable
> terms since you refuse to agree to my counter-terms. You can bitch about
> your debate conditions until you're blue in the face but it won't
> matter.
Then you have already conceded:
1. You refuse to follow your own stated beliefs on the rights of debate
terms formulation.
2. You refuse to accept the terms of rational discussion, unless you alone
get to control the evidence and dictate its use.
3. You foolishly believe that tying my hands and keeping me from the
evidence in this fashion is similar to the way I have tied your hands by not
letting you let loose with your standard ad hominem smokescreens. This
points to your fundamental (and fundamentalist) ignorance of the fact that a
discussion focused _exclusively_ on the evidence and facts is, by
definition, as fair and impartial as it gets.
Concession Accepted, O Keeper of the Huge, Gaping Man-Pussy.
DarkStar
"Crayz9000" <ab...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4itqnuop8uvob8sik...@4ax.com...
> >Various ST and SW character comments on Mike Wong's huge, gaping vagina:
>
> Oh, wow. I'm surprised. A character attack.
We're not in the debate now, idiot. BTW, nice cross-post.
DarkStar
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
news:20020909232026...@mb-mv.aol.com...
> Most amusing. You seem to think being able to post and read on a privately
> owned and operated message board is some sort of God-given right.
No, but making the evidence available to both parties is a convention.
Naturally, he'll have none of it, since he wants control of all the
evidence, and even the interpretation of it.
DarkStar
"Jesus Christ" <jut...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:aljns9$1qi2tq$1...@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de...
I agree, but I'm in the minority.
Crayz9000
as <3Uef9.286029$On.11...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>) on Tue, 10 Sep 2002
04:52:15 GMT...
Damn. So much for subtlety.
--
;X7XaZr John Hansen
BMi 7 iM@ AKA
MX M iM Crayz9000
i0 MM XX {AGUT}Freak'o'Nature
a. M:;@ B
;8 MX M2. 7S
Mr S; W M mhm28x12
@@ 0M
X88Z80S http://foobar.homelinux.net/
DarkStar
> Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc. wrote:
> >>Further, denial of access to debate-related materials is a poor
strategy,
> >>indeed.
> >
> > It was a poor strategy to ask for it.
>
> Heh heh ... on his website, he rants that I run my board like a
> "petulant child" and delete anything that contradicts me.
A bald-faced lie.
"He also has a new discussion board, which is interesting insofar as you get
to see how a petulant child would run such a thing. Those he does not like
get posts edited and their personal information altered, and threads which
refer to anything contrary to his views get closed, after he says something
about not having time to update the site. Oh, yes, very impressive . . .
especially when you take into account how much time he spends reading and
writing in the forums."
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWlinks.html
Actually, this must be your guilty conscience talking, since the first post
I've seen you delete recently was in the banning thread. You took a
perfectly good counterargument to your blatant defilement of the principle
of parsimony, *which you yourself had posted in that thread*, and declared
it a thread hijacking attempt on my part.
Stepping out into the forums was your worst move, Mike. That's probably
why you stayed away from me there, and feel it necessary to posture and try
to save face now.
Michael Wong
skin-doctoring on this as you like. You're accelerating both, in what I
assume is a desperate attempt to goad me into changing my course of action.
Too bad, because it won't happen. I'm launching the first salvo this
Friday, nothing you can do will stop that, and if you walk away,
everybody will know that the only colossal pussy around here is you.
I assume you will continue making an ass out of yourself over the next
four days. Perhaps you think that if you continue posting all of these
"Mike Wong is a giant pussy" rants, they will somehow lend weight to
your bizarre claims about my integrity or supposed inability to debate
logically.
Isn't it odd how someone who claims to champion rational debating has
made such a complete ass out of himself by filling his posts almost
exclusively with character assassinations ...
DarkStar
> He can go whine on sb.com if he wants,
I've been meaning to reply to this.
Who, praytell, has gone to whine at SpaceBattles?
http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=4
No one.
Ah, but here's the rub . . .
Who, praytell, ran from his own board to come whine at ASVS?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3206073142d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=3D7BEFF9.3040400%40stardestroyer.net
Why, Mike Wong, of course!
Eleas
> Ha, ha!
>
> Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has
> chosen to ban me altogether.
>
> What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the
> process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time.
> Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many
> times he mysteriously agreed with himself.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Scooter, you just lost what little credibility you ever had.
From day one, just about everyone knew of Mike's two accounts;
moreover, he himself explained to anyone uncertain. Calling you a
clueless asshole would be an insult to sphincters everywhere.
> My reply to his second challenge attempt, after he ran screaming from the
> first:
> http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185
>
> His reply:
> http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=192
>
> The rest comes later . . . you can figure it out.
Easily. You'll most likely fuck up and then claim victory, as you do
with predictable regularity.
--
Björn
Cmdrwilkens
>
> "His Divine Shadow" <denni...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in message
> news:DM0f9.234$yj4....@read2.inet.fi...
>
> > Essentially
> > MW: Debate me
> > DS: Not without special rules so I can focus on those instead of
actually
> > debating you, you meanie!
>
> Oh, hardly. Like any StarDestroyer.Net thread, he was hoping it could
turn
> into a Let's-Flame-DarkStar hour, so he could stay substance-free, and
just
> attack his opponent. By demanding a debate based on the evidence, I was
> restricting the level of BS he could employ. That would mean no
flinging
> of insults like monkeys fling feces, no clever sophistries hidden under
> mounds of lies and personal attacks, and none of his peculiar Kynesian
> efforts, such as his attempt to contact individuals at Graham Kennedy's
> educational institution.
>
> The highlight reel:
>
<snip>
Very nice, lets see what this works out to:
DS: Debate me but don't insult me because it would hurt my ego
MW: I don't give a shit about your ego, debate anyway
Get off your white horse Dark Star. Whetehr a eprson insults you or not has
no bearing on the content of their posts. If you don't have the gonads to
accept barbs along with a rebuttal post then you have no buisness debating
Star Trek versus Star Wars.
--
Lcpl Burnett, G.R.
USMCR
BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG
"Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure"
- IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net)
"I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me."
-Anakin Vader
Eleas
> "Chris O'Farrell" <rogu...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<3d7c782a$0$1751$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > > Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely.
> > > Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats so
> blatantly
> > > obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never occured and
> > > that the towers are still there.
> > >
> > Don't give him ideas...
>
> Chris, do you, a Pro-Trek debater, think DarkStar's a fucking idiot?
> (judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably
> yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS)
I'd be surprised if he didn't. I've butted heads with Chris in the
past (that's just how things go here) but there are two crucial
differences between Chris and Scooter:
1. Chris fights battles he can win, while Scooter does the opposite,
bringing crashing defeat on the Trek side time and again. Is it any
wonder all other trekkies hate the Last Bastard of Trek?
2. Chris is on a crusade against the Wars contingent. Scooter is on a
crusade against reality.
--
Björn
DarkStar
> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> opened Pandora's Box (cleverly
disguised
> as <3Uef9.286029$On.11...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>) on Tue, 10 Sep
2002
> 04:52:15 GMT...
> >
> >"Crayz9000" <ab...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:4itqnuop8uvob8sik...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> >Various ST and SW character comments on Mike Wong's huge, gaping
vagina:
> >>
> >> Oh, wow. I'm surprised. A character attack.
> >
> >We're not in the debate now, idiot. BTW, nice cross-post.
>
> Damn. So much for subtlety.
Don't feel bad . . . it was close, the first time. But not this time.
Cmdrwilkens
>
> "CaptainSheridan" <big_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2d3e5dbf.02090...@posting.google.com...
>
> > So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any other
> > debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big dummyhead
> > you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that?
>
> It means he'll be locked in to a debate on the facts and evidence, not on
> schoolyard namecalling and silly bluster. I'm familiar with the
territory
> of facts and evidence, and though I can see right through his BS and point
> it out for all to see, I see no point in allowing myself to be a target of
> it.
>
So in other words you want to limit and constrict his language and the flow
of his posts simply because you don't have the balls to accept ridicule for
the monstrously stupid ideas you have put forth. Perfectly reasonable.