Oh, boys . . .
DarkStar
http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
Guardian 2000
Stuart Mackey
"DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KIL59.149234$yc3.6...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
>
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
>
> Guardian 2000
>
Good ruse, And I must really congratulate you on it. However we will now
proceed to rip you a new asshole troll boy
http://www.galactec.com/timothy/index.php3
Chuck, Modulating Moderator
"DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KIL59.149234$yc3.6...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
>
> Guardian 2000
>
--
Chuck
"Try to explain to people that writing is something you do because it's
impossible not to, and you get blank stares."
- Peter David
Sir Nitram
>
>http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
>
>Guardian 2000
>
Oh, look, it's the pathetic little Trekkie who already conceeded all his
arguments months ago. And, like clockwork, he came back to try and stir shit.
How very predictably stupid.
--
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
Dalton
Ah, confirmed to be an impostor, a liar and a deceitful scumbag.
I am never speaking to you again.
I despise impostors.
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"...we never burned and tortured and ripped one another apart
and called it morality." --Guards! Guards!, Terry Pratchett
RayCav
>
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
>
> Guardian 2000
I suspected as much
Austin Sweevo
wrote:
>You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
>
>http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
>
>Guardian 2000
<has his first look at the SD board>
Hey, can we FUQ stuff our guys say over there?
"Please use punctuation. In the middle of reading that post, my brain
ran out of breath."
---Durandal
Sir Nitram
>wrote:
>
>>You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
>>
>>http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
>>
>>Guardian 2000
>
><has his first look at the SD board>
>
>Hey, can we FUQ stuff our guys say over there?
>
I see no reason why not.
C.S.Strowbridge
>><has his first look at the SD board>
>>
>>Hey, can we FUQ stuff our guys say over there?
>
> I see no reason why not.
I've got stuff in the FUQ from e-mails. So I don't see why not.
C.S.Strowbridge
Paradox
--
---
"What made you think this board excersized free speach?"
--LordChaos, Spacebattles Moderator
"C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3D581934...@shaw.ca...
how the FUQ did that happen?
Dalton
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:02:18 GMT, "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> >
> >http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> >
> >Guardian 2000
>
> <has his first look at the SD board>
>
> Hey, can we FUQ stuff our guys say over there?
Mail it to me, no worries. Tell me if it's from SD.net though
Dalton
He sent it to me.
RayCav
We need a DarkStar FAQ now
Chuck, Modulating Moderator
"Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
news:3D57C453...@daltonator.net...
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> >
> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> >
> > Guardian 2000
>
> Ah, confirmed to be an impostor, a liar and a deceitful scumbag.
>
> I am never speaking to you again.
>
> I despise impostors.
>
Sir Nitram
A true master uses the FAQ for defense and enlightenment, never for attack.
Dalton
>
> "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> news:3D57C453...@daltonator.net...
> > DarkStar wrote:
> > >
> > > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> > >
> > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> > >
> > > Guardian 2000
> >
> > Ah, confirmed to be an impostor, a liar and a deceitful scumbag.
> >
> > I am never speaking to you again.
> >
> > I despise impostors.
> >
> You know you've hit a new low when you resort to recycling Weyoun's tactics.
>
Sorry, who?
Dalton
>
> >"Stuart Mackey" <jut...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:<aj88sg$19ltlh$1...@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:KIL59.149234$yc3.6...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >> > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> >> >
> >> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> >> >
> >> > Guardian 2000
> >> >
> >>
> >> Good ruse, And I must really congratulate you on it. However we will now
> >> proceed to rip you a new asshole troll boy
> >>
> >> http://www.galactec.com/timothy/index.php3
> >
> >We need a DarkStar FAQ now
> >
>
> A true master uses the FAQ for defense and enlightenment, never for attack.
Besides, we already have one. Kynes made it.
Sir Nitram
>>
>> >"Stuart Mackey" <jut...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>> >news:<aj88sg$19ltlh$1...@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de>...
>> >> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:KIL59.149234$yc3.6...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>> >> > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
>> >> >
>> >> > Guardian 2000
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Good ruse, And I must really congratulate you on it. However we will now
>> >> proceed to rip you a new asshole troll boy
>> >>
>> >> http://www.galactec.com/timothy/index.php3
>> >
>> >We need a DarkStar FAQ now
>> >
>>
>> A true master uses the FAQ for defense and enlightenment, never for attack.
>
>Besides, we already have one. Kynes made it.
>
Yes, but I couldn't think of a Yoda-esque way to say that.
Dalton
>
> >Sir Nitram wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Stuart Mackey" <jut...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> >> >news:<aj88sg$19ltlh$1...@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> >> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:KIL59.149234$yc3.6...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >> >> > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Guardian 2000
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Good ruse, And I must really congratulate you on it. However we will now
> >> >> proceed to rip you a new asshole troll boy
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.galactec.com/timothy/index.php3
> >> >
> >> >We need a DarkStar FAQ now
> >> >
> >>
> >> A true master uses the FAQ for defense and enlightenment, never for attack.
> >
> >Besides, we already have one. Kynes made it.
> >
>
> Yes, but I couldn't think of a Yoda-esque way to say that.
Allrighty.
Graeme Dice
>
> >"Stuart Mackey" <jut...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:<aj88sg$19ltlh$1...@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:KIL59.149234$yc3.6...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >> > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> >> >
> >> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> >> >
> >> > Guardian 2000
> >> >
> >>
> >> Good ruse, And I must really congratulate you on it. However we will now
> >> proceed to rip you a new asshole troll boy
> >>
> >> http://www.galactec.com/timothy/index.php3
> >
> >We need a DarkStar FAQ now
> >
>
> A true master uses the FAQ for defense and enlightenment, never for attack.
Always in motion the FAQ is.
Graeme Dice
--
"You do what I do, " said Miro.
"What's that ?"
"You take a breath. You let it out. Then you take another."
Ender thought about it for a moment. "I can do that. I've
been doing that since I was little."
-- Xenocide / Orson Scott Card
Chuck, Modulating Moderator
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
news:20020812212841...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> >Sir Nitram wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Stuart Mackey" <jut...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> >> >news:<aj88sg$19ltlh$1...@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> >> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:KIL59.149234$yc3.6...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >> >> > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Guardian 2000
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Good ruse, And I must really congratulate you on it. However we will
now
> >> >> proceed to rip you a new asshole troll boy
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.galactec.com/timothy/index.php3
> >> >
> >> >We need a DarkStar FAQ now
> >> >
> >>
> >> A true master uses the FAQ for defense and enlightenment, never for
attack.
> >
> >Besides, we already have one. Kynes made it.
> >
>
> Yes, but I couldn't think of a Yoda-esque way to say that.
Already you have that which you need.
Chuck, Modulating Moderator
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
> >"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
> >news:20020812212841...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> >> >Sir Nitram wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"Stuart Mackey" <jut...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:<aj88sg$19ltlh$1...@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> >> >> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:KIL59.149234$yc3.6...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >> >> >> > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Guardian 2000
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Good ruse, And I must really congratulate you on it. However we
will
> >now
> >> >> >> proceed to rip you a new asshole troll boy
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://www.galactec.com/timothy/index.php3
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We need a DarkStar FAQ now
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> A true master uses the FAQ for defense and enlightenment, never for
> >attack.
> >> >
> >> >Besides, we already have one. Kynes made it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, but I couldn't think of a Yoda-esque way to say that.
> >
> >Already you have that which you need.
> >
>
A dweebish one the boy may be. Nevertheless, great fear do I take at his
FAQing.
Dalton
[snip]
> > > > Yes, but I couldn't think of a Yoda-esque way to say that.
> > >
> > > Already you have that which you need.
> > >
> >
> > And Chuck wins the cookies.
> >
> Mmm! Milk I do need...
Milk, got?
They have to have done an ad with Yoda...
Dalton
>
> "Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
> news:20020812212841...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> > >Sir Nitram wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >"Stuart Mackey" <jut...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > >> >news:<aj88sg$19ltlh$1...@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de>...
> > >> >> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:KIL59.149234$yc3.6...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > >> >> > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Guardian 2000
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Good ruse, And I must really congratulate you on it. However we will
> now
> > >> >> proceed to rip you a new asshole troll boy
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://www.galactec.com/timothy/index.php3
> > >> >
> > >> >We need a DarkStar FAQ now
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> A true master uses the FAQ for defense and enlightenment, never for
> attack.
> > >
> > >Besides, we already have one. Kynes made it.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but I couldn't think of a Yoda-esque way to say that.
>
> Already you have that which you need.
>
And Chuck wins the cookies.
--
Sir Nitram
>news:20020812212841...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>> >Sir Nitram wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Stuart Mackey" <jut...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>> >> >news:<aj88sg$19ltlh$1...@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de>...
>> >> >> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:KIL59.149234$yc3.6...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>> >> >> > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Guardian 2000
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Good ruse, And I must really congratulate you on it. However we will
>now
>> >> >> proceed to rip you a new asshole troll boy
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.galactec.com/timothy/index.php3
>> >> >
>> >> >We need a DarkStar FAQ now
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> A true master uses the FAQ for defense and enlightenment, never for
>attack.
>> >
>> >Besides, we already have one. Kynes made it.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, but I couldn't think of a Yoda-esque way to say that.
>
>Already you have that which you need.
>
FAQ's do not make one great.
Chuck, Modulating Moderator
> "Chuck, Modulating Moderator" wrote:
> >
> > "Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
> > news:20020812212841...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> > > >Sir Nitram wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >"Stuart Mackey" <jut...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > >> >news:<aj88sg$19ltlh$1...@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > >> >> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >> >> news:KIL59.149234$yc3.6...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > > >> >> > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Guardian 2000
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Good ruse, And I must really congratulate you on it. However we
will
> > now
> > > >> >> proceed to rip you a new asshole troll boy
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> http://www.galactec.com/timothy/index.php3
> > > >> >
> > > >> >We need a DarkStar FAQ now
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> A true master uses the FAQ for defense and enlightenment, never for
> > attack.
> > > >
> > > >Besides, we already have one. Kynes made it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but I couldn't think of a Yoda-esque way to say that.
> >
> > Already you have that which you need.
> >
>
> And Chuck wins the cookies.
>
--
Chuck, Modulating Moderator
> "Chuck, Modulating Moderator" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > Yes, but I couldn't think of a Yoda-esque way to say that.
> > > >
> > > > Already you have that which you need.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And Chuck wins the cookies.
> > >
> > Mmm! Milk I do need...
>
> Milk, got?
>
> They have to have done an ad with Yoda...
>
"Different, Think" written next to it.
Sir Nitram
Too trite. Yes, too trite, too obvious, to begin the FAQing.
Graeme Dice
>
> "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> news:3D588186...@daltonator.net...
> > "Chuck, Modulating Moderator" wrote:
<snip>
> > They have to have done an ad with Yoda...
> >
> My co-worker's wallpaper is an Apple Logo and Yoda with the words
> "Different, Think" written next to it.
Think Different:
http://homepage.usask.ca/~gdd851/ohthehumanity.jpg
Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz
Three way ICQ conversations between Me/Ancaris/Sheppard have also made it into
the FUQ. Particularly the one about Seven Eleven Employee's wanting Kevlar.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> >
> > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> >
> > Guardian 2000
>
>
> I am never speaking to you again.
>
> I despise impostors.
Impostor? What, was someone else DarkStar before me?
Liar? I never said I wasn't Guardian.
Deceitful? A bit, perhaps. However, it was necessary to prevent you
idiots from ignoring rational arguments out of spite, since you care more
about your own beliefs on people's personalities than facts.
Or, as I put it here:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183&start=0
________
Yes, long ago I graced ASVS as Guardian 2000, encountering the same sort of
resistance to logic and reason I have found to still exist there, and which
also exists in spades here. I finally departed when Ian Samuels, one of the
debaters there, wanted to see injury come to myself and those I care about,
and took steps toward that goal, with the support of most of the Rabid
Warsie ASVS denizens.
However, with the threat eliminated and the topic still of interest, I
decided to re-enter the fray, simultaneously updating my page. Knowing of
the loathing I had garnered at ASVS (due to my stalwart refusal to buy into
Rabid Warsie bullshit), I chose to adopt a new name, and at first I tried to
adopt a revised style which might keep my identity a secret. (Of course, I
wasn't trying too hard, since my website was already known . . . had anyone
dared take a peek, they'd have noticed the many changes.) I knew that if
true identity were discovered, the Rabid Warsies would automatically ignore
any relevant points or rational arguments, in favor of their peculiar
beliefs about how rational argumentation works, as I outlined to Dalton:
"You call me a liar, because you have no other options. You
call me a poor debater, because I don't share your opinions and I'm not
swayed by insults. You ignore the fact that you lie... to yourselves, and
each other... by continuing to spout bias as fact and sophistries as
evidence. You ignore the fact that you're poor debaters, hoping to throw
smokescreens around the weak arguments you work from by poisoning the
well of discourse.
I think most warsie debaters are part of a sad little group, living in the
shared delusion of overwhelming superiority. If anyone disagrees or dares
to paint Star Wars as less powerful or Star Trek as more powerful, you
believe that their arguments are instantly wrong, and consider any
counterargument, no matter how stupid, as proof. You're willing to ignore
any evidence which doesn't fit within your biases, twisting it to suit
theories instead of changing theories to suit facts. You allow your
rationality to be clouded with the belief that insults and labels make
arguments, and that ten voices, no matter what they say, are always going
to be stronger than one voice using evidence and reason."
Of course, being who I am, I rapidly dispensed with the attempted style
modifications, instead doing things the way I had always done . . . if my
arguments appeared to be true and correct according to reason and evidence,
I would vigorously stand by my arguments and conclusions, unless someone
could demonstrate error. Bitching, moaning, and arguments contrary to reason
or the evidence would not sway me.
Entertainingly, though I was generally arguing about different topics than I
had before, my insistence on rational arguments based on logic and evidence
garnered the same disapproval from the Rabid Warsies . . . hence their
efforts to poison the well with such nuggets as "Village Idiot."
One aspect which entertained me was Poe's rapid and bitter hatred. It made
me wonder whether it was some sort of subconscious revulsion due to the
stylistic similarities . . . I guess unyielding resolve against his
stupidity really, really bothers him. Of course, not all the fools were old
. . . Ossus, to my knowledge, is a new star in the Rabid Warsie
constellation of idiots, though he fits in splendidly, as does DasBastard.
The only remaining stylistic difference between DarkStar and Guardian 2000
involved the use of ellipses. You'll note that as DarkStar, ellipses were
performed one way... but as Guardian 2000, they were performed in a
different way . . .
Evidently, this was enough to throw fools like Poe, SirNitram, and other old
ASVS regulars off the scent. Poe did seem to suspect at one point that I
might've been on ASVS before, but he seemed to think I was someone who had
changed names on more than one prior occasion, instead of this, my first
time.
(http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30862&perpage=
25&highlight=canon%20DarkStar&pagenumber=2)
Really, though, the old-school ASVS regulars I was used to dealing with
should be ashamed of themselves . . . I wasn't even trying to hide the fact
that I had already dealt with their bullshit before. Or, as a 'lurker'
friend put it, "How can they not realize it!?!?"
Austin Sweevo
>"Chuck, Modulating Moderator" wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> > > > Yes, but I couldn't think of a Yoda-esque way to say that.
>> > >
>> > > Already you have that which you need.
>> > >
>> >
>> > And Chuck wins the cookies.
>> >
>> Mmm! Milk I do need...
>
>Milk, got?
>
>They have to have done an ad with Yoda...
>
On Classic Gold...
Following the example of Samuel L Jackson, other members of the Star
Wars cast have gone into advertising for banks:
Plain speaking, there will not be.
Once into the red you go, forever will it dominate your destiny!
At risk your Death Star is, if mortgage repayments you do not keep.
...damn my memory, they did loads!
Austin Sweevo
>Austin Sweevo wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:02:18 GMT, "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
>> >
>> >http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
>> >
>> >Guardian 2000
>>
>> <has his first look at the SD board>
>>
>> Hey, can we FUQ stuff our guys say over there?
>
>Mail it to me, no worries. Tell me if it's from SD.net though
>
That was the one that caught my eye. The one that looks like a sig but
isn't meant to.
Dalton
>
> "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> news:3D57C453...@daltonator.net...
> > DarkStar wrote:
> > >
> > > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> > >
> > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> > >
> > > Guardian 2000
> >
> > Ah, confirmed to be an impostor, a liar and a deceitful scumbag.
> >
> > I am never speaking to you again.
I'm relaxing this rule just once, since you're so hell-bent on the whole
"Last Bastion of Trek" illusion.
> > I despise impostors.
>
> Impostor? What, was someone else DarkStar before me?
No, but you changed your persona to fool us. That is the very basis of
being an impostor.
> Liar? I never said I wasn't Guardian.
Being an impostor is, by definition, a lie.
> Deceitful? A bit, perhaps. However, it was necessary to prevent you
> idiots from ignoring rational arguments out of spite,
What rational arguments would these be? The nitpicks or the bent canon?
> since you care more
> about your own beliefs on people's personalities than facts.
Well, when a debater is known to lie, bullshit and post yellow canary
stories in general, then we tend to take a dim view towards said
debater.
You are so full of shit even the Trekkies got sick of you.
Better go start crossing your name off in the phone directories, don't
want the big bad stalker to get ya.
Dalton
Only because I never know the source :P
Dalton
>
> "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> news:3D588186...@daltonator.net...
> > "Chuck, Modulating Moderator" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > > Yes, but I couldn't think of a Yoda-esque way to say that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Already you have that which you need.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And Chuck wins the cookies.
> > > >
> > > Mmm! Milk I do need...
> >
> > Milk, got?
> >
> > They have to have done an ad with Yoda...
> >
> My co-worker's wallpaper is an Apple Logo and Yoda with the words
> "Different, Think" written next to it.
>
I want it!
Dalton
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:14:40 -0400, Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
>
> >Austin Sweevo wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:02:18 GMT, "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> >> >
> >> >http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> >> >
> >> >Guardian 2000
> >>
> >> <has his first look at the SD board>
> >>
> >> Hey, can we FUQ stuff our guys say over there?
> >
> >Mail it to me, no worries. Tell me if it's from SD.net though
> >
>
> That was the one that caught my eye. The one that looks like a sig but
> isn't meant to.
Which?
Wayne Poe
> You are so full of shit even the Trekkies got sick of you.
>
> Better go start crossing your name off in the phone directories, don't
> want the big bad stalker to get ya.
How sad is it that Scooter spent an entire year making cut-and-paste
arguments for his return? He's actually been obsessing on us for a whole
YEAR...while we simply forgot about him! Lol!!
"Oh Boys...." Can you just HEAR this lisping Tube Steak Tarzan saying that?
What's even funnier-- who does the most damage to Trekkie credibility?
"Rabid Warsies", or fucktards like this? Its very telling that we simply
thought, "Oh, yet another Trekkie retard" instead of "Hmm...must be a
RETURNING Trektard...."
--
"Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science,
nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They
are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as
they are might be amenable to their arguments."
Darth Wong
Wayne Poe
> You are so full of shit even the Trekkies got sick of you.
>
> Better go start crossing your name off in the phone directories, don't
> want the big bad stalker to get ya.
How sad is it that Scooter spent an entire year making cut-and-paste
Dalton
>
> "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net>
>
> > You are so full of shit even the Trekkies got sick of you.
> >
> > Better go start crossing your name off in the phone directories, don't
> > want the big bad stalker to get ya.
>
> How sad is it that Scooter spent an entire year making cut-and-paste
> arguments for his return? He's actually been obsessing on us for a whole
> YEAR...while we simply forgot about him! Lol!!
>
> "Oh Boys...." Can you just HEAR this lisping Tube Steak Tarzan saying that?
ROFL!!!
> What's even funnier-- who does the most damage to Trekkie credibility?
> "Rabid Warsies", or fucktards like this? Its very telling that we simply
> thought, "Oh, yet another Trekkie retard" instead of "Hmm...must be a
> RETURNING Trektard...."
Hah, morons are instantly identifiable the world over.
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"...we never burned and tortured and ripped one another apart
Chuck, Modulating Moderator
> Really, though, the old-school ASVS regulars I was used to dealing with
> should be ashamed of themselves . . . I wasn't even trying to hide the
fact
> that I had already dealt with their bullshit before. Or, as a 'lurker'
> friend put it, "How can they not realize it!?!?"
>
simple: I don't care. I know this is going to bruise your inflated ego, but
you really aren't worth any effort on my part that goes beyond entertaining
myself. Now when Weyoun pulled this, I put a little bit of time into it,
because I really, really didn't like him. He was like nails on a
chalkboard. You, you're more like professional wrestling: I find you stupid
and make fun of you when I get the opportunity, but I only do it if I've got
nothing better to do at the moment. There are better ways for me to spend
my time.
"To put it bluntly, you're not that important." -Q
--
Chuck
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a
tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
- Abraham Lincoln
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D57C453...@daltonator.net...
> > > DarkStar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
> > > >
> > > > Guardian 2000
> > >
> > > Ah, confirmed to be an impostor, a liar and a deceitful scumbag.
> > >
> > > I am never speaking to you again.
>
> I'm relaxing this rule just once, since you're so hell-bent on the whole
> "Last Bastion of Trek" illusion.
Big surprise.
>
> > > I despise impostors.
> >
> > Impostor? What, was someone else DarkStar before me?
>
> No, but you changed your persona to fool us. That is the very basis of
> being an impostor.
>
I changed identities to prevent your stupid ad hominems from clouding the
issues I presented. Remember, I don't expect to change Rabid Warsie minds
. . . I just bounce ideas off of them to see how my arguments hold up
rationally in the face of the Rabid Warsie onslaught.
> > Liar? I never said I wasn't Guardian.
>
> Being an impostor is, by definition, a lie.
Loosely, perhaps. However, given the intellectual dishonesty by which you
gentlemen convince yourselves that insults and slander are valuable as tools
in a rational debate, and given the hatred inspired by the name Guardian, my
ruse was hardly the horrendous breach of conduct you want to think of it as.
I presented the same and similar arguments, never painted myself as anything
but pro-Trek, and used the same thought processes and argument styles.
Had my intent been to engage in evil or trolling, I would have been far
craftier about it, and evidently you'd have been none the wiser. I could
have presented myself as a proud Warsie, raising little doubts here and
there while pandering to the Warsie crowd. (I could have then really
freaked you out by converting to Trek, which would have been totally
contrary to the mutual-support-group mentality of the Warsies here.)
Or, I could have presented myself as multiple strongly pro-Trek individuals
of the same opinion in an effort to even the numbers a bit. Or, hell, I
could have gone shopping for allies on other sites and led an invasion.
Did I do these things? No. I changed names in order to sidestep the Rabid
Warsie bullshit. Oooh, a sinner am I.
> > since you care more
> > about your own beliefs on people's personalities than facts.
>
> Well, when a debater is known to lie, bullshit and post yellow canary
> stories in general, then we tend to take a dim view towards said
> debater.
A. You do not refer to me, since I did not do the things you claim. Of
course, you claimed them for both DarkStar and Guardian without any proof,
so I won't be surprised when you whine about this.
B. You do not refer to your Rabid Warsie friends, since when they lie,
bullshit, et cetera, you don't bother to correct them, nor does your view of
them appear to change at all.
> You are so full of shit even the Trekkies got sick of you.
Actually, I'm almost proud of Edam. He's actually in a thread arguing
points and sticking to his guns right now (or was in the Connie thread).
This is precisely what I suggested to him long ago, when he was more than
content to sit back and let Warsie lies go unchallenged.
> Better go start crossing your name off in the phone directories, don't
> want the big bad stalker to get ya.
I see you didn't read that first StarDestroyer.Net post of mine in the
thread I linked to. That threat has been neutralized. I know it must be
sad for you guys, since now I cannot be threatened unless one of you wants
to come die trying to do the dirty work himself. Of course, given that the
ones who hate me the most are generally members of the Lump Club, all I have
to do is keep some cheesecake or donuts around for a distraction.
DarkStar
"Wayne Poe" <lo...@h4h.com> wrote in message
news:uljbl2l...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net>
>
> > You are so full of shit even the Trekkies got sick of you.
> >
> > Better go start crossing your name off in the phone directories, don't
> > want the big bad stalker to get ya.
>
> How sad is it that Scooter spent an entire year making cut-and-paste
> arguments for his return? He's actually been obsessing on us for a whole
> YEAR...while we simply forgot about him! Lol!!
Uh, dude . . . the website updates occurred over the course of a couple of
weeks. How long have you been maintaining your anti-Trek website? Years,
is it? Uh-huh . . .
> Its very telling that we simply thought, "Oh, yet another Trekkie retard"
You think that of anyone who makes a remotely pro-Trek point, Wayne.
Stephen Hawking (or any other appropriate genius) could come in here and
start laying down the law, and you'd pull some of your stupid arguments out
of your ass, sniff 'em to make sure they still reek, and then start spraying
them, proclaiming your own superiority in the process. You're the idiot,
Wayne.
DarkStar
"Chuck, Modulating Moderator" <so...@ubiteme.com> wrote in message
news:B1k69.3686$aU3.6...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
>
> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cv869.48903$Ce.24...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > Really, though, the old-school ASVS regulars I was used to dealing with
> > should be ashamed of themselves . . . I wasn't even trying to hide the
> fact
> > that I had already dealt with their bullshit before. Or, as a 'lurker'
> > friend put it, "How can they not realize it!?!?"
> >
> I'll answer this. I suspected for some time.
I wondered how many would say "Uh, well, yeah, see, I knew all along, and
stuff." Very amusing that you ended up the only one.
Austin Sweevo
>Austin Sweevo wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:14:40 -0400, Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Austin Sweevo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:02:18 GMT, "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1183
>> >> >
>> >> >Guardian 2000
>> >>
>> >> <has his first look at the SD board>
>> >>
>> >> Hey, can we FUQ stuff our guys say over there?
>> >
>> >Mail it to me, no worries. Tell me if it's from SD.net though
>> >
>>
>> That was the one that caught my eye. The one that looks like a sig but
>> isn't meant to.
>
>Which?
"Please use punctuation. In the middle of reading that post, my brain
ran out of breath."
---Durandal
Austin Sweevo
Sweevo) wrote:
>>> That was the one that caught my eye. The one that looks like a sig but
>>> isn't meant to.
>>
>>Which?
>
>"Please use punctuation. In the middle of reading that post, my brain
>ran out of breath."
>---Durandal
Who do I email if I'm not getting my account activation key for the
forums?
Chuck, Modulating Moderator
about your secret identity. The similarity made it a possibility but, since
you choose to spend your time whining about why you can ignore special
effects when it contradicts your interpretations instead of fighting crime,
there was no need to take any interest in the matter. You could have turned
out to be Rick Berman for all I care; all that would do would explain why
Star Trek's gone down the tubes.
Dalton
Ooh, good one.
Dalton
Mike.
Wayne Poe
>> How sad is it that Scooter spent an entire year making cut-and-paste
>> arguments for his return? He's actually been obsessing on us for a whole
>> YEAR...while we simply forgot about him! Lol!!
> Uh, dude . . . the website updates occurred over the course of a couple of
> weeks.
Right right....
> How long have you been maintaining your anti-Trek website? Years,
> is it? Uh-huh . . .
See, once again, you can't even form a SIMPLE analogy. Is my website devoted
to you and your stupidity? Nope.
>> Its very telling that we simply thought, "Oh, yet another Trekkie retard"
> You think that of anyone who makes a remotely pro-Trek point, Wayne.
Wrong. I debate via argumentation with a strong vein of mockery running
through it in order to keep myself conscious and entertained while
responding to dumber posters, such as yourself.
I think that of anyone who has a penchant for ignoring everything that's
been said and done before he arrived and so allowing any debater with a
sense of humor to lead him down endless roads of age-old argumentation.
> Stephen Hawking (or any other appropriate genius) could come in here and
> start laying down the law, and you'd pull some of your stupid arguments
out
> of your ass, sniff 'em to make sure they still reek, and then start
spraying
> them, proclaiming your own superiority in the process. You're the idiot,
> Wayne.
Oh, this is rich. Robbie is comparing himself to Hawking now? Listen you
little retard, when I found out you were actually G2k, I couldn't believe
how much LOWER my respect for you became! Can you imagine that? If all the
pro-wrestling fans in the world were laid end to end in a line to the moon,
they still wouldn't match your dumbness.
No matter how hard you've tried, you haven't refuted ONE of my points! Not
ONE! Amazing.
"Oh! TOS warp doesn't exist anymore because I say it doesn't! "Oh! There IS
no official Star Wars info, only canon!" Do you honestly think these sort of
stupid, asinine displays of Trekkie geekdom do anything except exacerbate
your position as Group Moron? No, excuse me. Of course you don't think. If
you put an ounce of thought into any of the drivel you spew, the newsgroup's
collective IQ would quadruple. If you were any more of a troll I'd have to
pay toll to read your posts. You bring new and sadder meaning to the word
"frighteningly retarded."
Do you actually have to try to be an asshole, or does it just come naturally
to you? 'Cause for me it takes a little effort, but you seem quite capable
of just demonstrating total assholishness on command. Whether it's through
hard work or just a talent, I salute your ability to be a complete and utter
asshole without equal.
It's almost September, so we'll see you leave yet again because Jason or
Michael Myers is after you again, Mr. Bond...
All hands on deck. The S.S. Boo Fucking Hoo is about to leave port, sailing
on a river of Scott's tears, with the endless wind of his blowhard
"arguments" in its sails. You're so full of shit I should twist your ears to
flush your brain. Now be a good bitch and shut the fuck up.
Thanks for picking the most atypical cases and holding them up as some sort
of standard, you useless hatfucker.
Let's see your picture, Scott. I've never hidden any aspect of myself from
this or any other online group, because unlike you, I have no need to hide
behind a shield of anonymity because my life isn't a pathetic mess and I
don't have to invent lies for strangers. Jesus, you are such a little-kid
moron. I can see you now: toddling around your trailer park, wrapped up in
an American-flag diaper, speaking made-up Latin phrases to the local
bucktoothed Down's syndrome "beauties".
You can go and pretend you won, even though you convinced no one, not even
the people on your side. Even the pro-Trek people weren't swayed by you
pathetic arguments. Even though nothing changed I give you full permission
to live your life in glorious self deception. Meanwhile I, the "defeated",
will stay here with nothing but the rules, the massive support from the
regular debaters and the facts to comfort me.
You've been strutting around sb.com and sd.net like Big Man on Campus, but
with your dickless debate tactics and now this, you've rapidly proved
yourself to be nothing but a pompous, two-faced, lying, long-winded,
ignorant, arrogant, irrational, weaselly little chickenshit fucktard.
You think that because you've ejaculated on the pages of the Star Trek
Technical Manual that you're a fucking expert in astrophysics? Piss the fuck
off. I know you're wrong, and I've shown it to the obvious satisfaction of
everyone watching. You fucking lose. This fact is intuitively obvious to
even the most casual of observers. I've gone to painful lengths to explain
these concepts to you, and you still persist in your creationist-like
stance.
Your confounding arrogance and ignorance served as spectacle for all those
watching, but it's degenerated into little more than an annoyance. If you
want attention, show the rest of your class your wee-wee during your recess
period on Monday. Do the human race a fucking favor and hire someone to
fucking shoot you in the fucking head. At least THAT way, you'll keep the
economy going, so your death may have SOME contribution to a higher cause,
which is certainly more than can be said for your life.
Unfortunately, mocking you is like peeing. It's not very hard, and it's only
temporary relief. Yet it still needs to be done. Not since TJ was on the
group have I seen more unified revulsion for an individual. You have
probably helped the pro-SW camp more than any debater since Cronan. One of
your defining characteristics is believing that you are, as you call
yourself, the "Last Bastion" of pro-ST debate. The fact that this is untrue
does not deter you. Indeed, when you show up like a bad case of syphilis,
most other pro-ST debaters just sigh and take a break from the group.
Wisely. You have a penchant for ignoring everything that's been said and
done before you arrived and so allowing any debater with a sense of humor to
lead you down endless roads of age-old argumentation. This is amazingly fun,
for us, because it completely confounds you.
"What the fuck is wrong with you people?" LOL.
Alas, the pleasure of torturing you is not one which can be had year-round.
Inevitably, you will inform all of us that some chick you've been seeing has
threatened suicide or something, so you dumped her to debate Trek v. Wars.
Then, after staying just long enough to get your ass kicked more than a
combination donkey-boot salesman, you leave, informing us that some "cute
young thing" has caught your eye, and you are going to go tutor her in
reading full-time. The amusing thing is, since these excuses for leaving and
returning are always, always the same, one can track your many failed and
probably imaginary relationships via a quick trip to Google.
Sir Nitram
A beautiful rendition of some of the best insults from the FUQ.
Kamakazie Sith
Darkstar reminds me of a character from the movie Kung Pow, the character is
called Wimp Lo.....if you've seen the movie you will understand but to quote
him.
"I am bleeding which makes me the victor."
Stuart Mackey
>
snip snip
Bravo!, Wayne, Bravo!
Do we get a encore?
His Divine Shadow
"Kamakazie Sith" <Ja...@NOSPAMccutah.com> wrote in message
news:%RH69.32772$Zl2.7788@sccrnsc02...
Hehe, I think that would fit in his troll description on the FUQ.
DarkStar
dealing with stupid crap, and look what I find upon my return here . . .
stupid crap.
How surprising.
"Wayne Poe" <lo...@h4h.com> wrote in message
news:ulm8acc...@corp.supernews.com...
> DarkStar wrote:
>
> >> How sad is it that Scooter spent an entire year making cut-and-paste
> >> arguments for his return? He's actually been obsessing on us for a
whole
> >> YEAR...while we simply forgot about him! Lol!!
>
> > Uh, dude . . . the website updates occurred over the course of a couple
of
> > weeks.
>
> Right right....
>
> > How long have you been maintaining your anti-Trek website? Years,
> > is it? Uh-huh . . .
>
> See, once again, you can't even form a SIMPLE analogy. Is my website
devoted
> to you and your stupidity? Nope.
Is mine devoted to you and yours? Nope.
>
> >> Its very telling that we simply thought, "Oh, yet another Trekkie
retard"
>
> > You think that of anyone who makes a remotely pro-Trek point, Wayne.
>
> Wrong. I debate via argumentation with a strong vein of mockery running
> through it in order to keep myself conscious and entertained while
> responding to dumber posters
You debate via distortion of canon fact, evidence, and reason (the warp turn
argument, the Romulan weapon argument, the TIE out the window argument, et
cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum), using "mockery" (i.e. insults, curses,
slander, etc.) in an effort to cover the weakness of your argument.
> I think that of anyone who has a penchant for ignoring everything that's
> been said and done before he arrived and so allowing any debater with a
> sense of humor to lead him down endless roads of age-old argumentation.
Ooh, nice twist . . . instead of confessing to the fact that Warsies such as
yourself repeat disproven arguments over and over again as if they are
fresh, new, and true, you claim it is a debate tactic. How charmingly
dishonest of you . . . and that works in regards to the claim of the tactic,
the claim of the tactic, and the simple fact of repeating disproven
arguments.
>
> > Stephen Hawking (or any other appropriate genius) could come in here and
> > start laying down the law, and you'd pull some of your stupid arguments
> out
> > of your ass, sniff 'em to make sure they still reek, and then start
> spraying
> > them, proclaiming your own superiority in the process. You're the
idiot,
> > Wayne.
>
> Oh, this is rich. Robbie is comparing himself to Hawking now?
WTF? Where, oh where, do you see a comparison of myself to Hawking?
> No matter how hard you've tried, you haven't refuted ONE of my points! Not
> ONE! Amazing.
In your mind, of course not. Fortunately, fact is not based on the opinion
of Poe. If so, the world would be a very subjective, illogical place.
> "Oh! TOS warp doesn't exist anymore because I say it doesn't!
What the hell are you talking about?
> "Oh! There IS no official Star Wars info, only canon!"
Don't bitch at me. The existing statements already made this pretty clear,
and Lucas cinched the deal.
> Do you honestly think these sort of
> stupid, asinine displays of Trekkie geekdom do anything except exacerbate
> your position as Group Moron?
Of course not! If I were trying to keep company with people who based
their opinions on facts, and their opinions of me on facts about me, do you
really think I would be here?
I have explained several times why I am here. I'm not here for the
personalities or the popularity contests. I'm here to throw out my ideas,
and see if, somewhere in the maelstrom of Rabid Warsie personal attacks and
general stupidity, anyone might bring up a relevant point that I need to
address, or a point which shatters the idea I was working with. I am not
here for the flaming, nor am I particularly concerned with Rabid Warsie
opinions of my views.
> Do you actually have to try to be an asshole, or does it just come
naturally
> to you? 'Cause for me it takes a little effort, but you seem quite capable
> of just demonstrating total assholishness on command. Whether it's through
> hard work or just a talent, I salute your ability to be a complete and
utter
> asshole without equal.
Thanks, Wayne. I take it as a compliment when a renowned asshole takes a
moment to bask in the glow of the fact that I am one unyielding bastard when
I think one of my arguments is right and no one has proven it wrong. Of
course, I am probably giving you too much credit . . . you were probably
just trying to insult me. But, I'll choose to take it as a compliment
anyway. :-)
> Thanks for picking the most atypical cases and holding them up as some
sort
> of standard, you useless hatfucker.
What are you talking about? What cases?
> Let's see your picture, Scott. I've never hidden any aspect of myself from
> this or any other online group,
Yes, I see that:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/images/avatars/d197fc053d5710d821a0c.gif
Nice mask.
> because unlike you, I have no need to hide behind a shield of anonymity
The very fact that you sick fucks try to help armed and dangerous psychotic
stalkers gather data on those you disagree with is more than sufficient
reason for anyone to prefer anonymity.
What's amusing about it is how it ended up backfiring on you.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1312
anarchistbunny - "Is that legal?"
Pablo Sanchez - "Anyway Poe, I happen to think that this is over the line.
Scooter should be allowed his anonymity."
Stravo - "I'm sorry guys but this just isn't funny, in fact in many ways its
VERY creepy. This is just a message board and we're all here to have fun,
share in our hobby. There is bound to be a few idiots or two, but why stoop
to this when ignoring them is just as fine, and takes far less effort on
anyone's part.
Why debate with anyone if the response will be the posting of your home
address, etc. BTW as someone who had to deal with a stalker in the
past...this is NOT cool."
Mr Bean - "But your right the website has to go, Just because you can in no
way means you should"
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi - "That was very creepy. I wonder how many prank
calls DarkStar received."
TheDarkling - "Prank calls and such is exactly why that sick freak the ASU
coward had to be banned and I cant believe anyone else would stoop to that
level, for shame ."
Pendragon - "That was low..."
Vertigo - "Now thats low. Disagreeing with someone over a debate is one
thing, but this? I wouldn't even do that to the most ignorant troll. Sure,
I'd get em banned, but thats about it. If you're that obsessed to pull
something like that, then you really need a life. Badly."
Grand Admiral Thrawn - "That's a little too far..."
Spoofe - "Eh. Posting his personal information is a tad unnecessary, in my
opinion."
Gil Hamilton - "Alright, that is going too far."
"There is no reason to take it to real life."
Some of the names above are people who would never agree with me about
anything, and yet there they were.
Of course, the idiocy of your move didn't disturb everyone:
Spanky the Dolphin - "I'd better pack them in ice to make sure those heads
are still fresh when DarkStar gets them."
His Divine Shadow - "Well things certanly can get out of hand, then again,
what did DarkStar expect?"
Setesh - "So don't garbage us about it being a 'threat' to your well being
when you made no attempt to acctually hide your ID."
Master of Ossus - "LMAO!"
But, even he came around, saying "I kind of agree. Maybe the website has to
go."
SirNitram - "I find nothing wrong with the site itself. Frankly, every
asshole who hides his identity deserves it."
A request to SirNitram (whatever his real name is) to post his personal
information has gone unanswered, as expected.
> Jesus, you are such a little-kid moron.
Uh-huh. This from the fellow who, like a child on the playground, strikes
out when he can't upstage someone. Or, do you consider the posting of my
data to be mature and intelligent on your part?
> You can go and pretend you won, even though you convinced no one, not even
> the people on your side. Even the pro-Trek people weren't swayed by you
> pathetic arguments.
Nope, not a one, ever.
http://scn.infopop.net/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=526090832&f=9440964644&m=46109768
25
> Meanwhile I, the "defeated", will stay here with nothing but the rules,
the massive support from the
> regular debaters and the facts to comfort me.
You have the massive support from the regulars . . . but then, the vast
majority are Warsies or Rabid Warsies, anyway. You have the support of the
rules, but that only makes sense, since it was the numerical superiority of
the Warsies that implemented them (that's like justifying apartheid in South
Africa because it was codified into law).
However, you do not have the facts to comfort you. You twist, rend, and
tear the facts to suit your theories, instead of altering theories to suit
facts. This is your great weakness . . . the pro-Wars bias you refuse to
let go of is the origin of your intellectual dishonesty, lies, and general
idiocy.
When I consider the Star Wars vs. Star Trek question, I don't look at it
from the point of view of trying to make Star Trek win, like Ian. I don't
try to distort canon SW facts, like you. In spite of idiots like you, I
still try to be as fair as possible when considering Star Wars, leaving
plenty of room open in case there is bias hiding in my thought process.
Clearly, it is your opinion that I fail miserably. Well, that's your
opinion, and you've made it abundantly clear over the time I've dealt with
you that your opinions do not change in order to fit facts, nor do they need
to be based on facts to begin with. Do forgive me if I hold your opinion of
what I do and how I do it in extremely low regard.
> You've been strutting around sb.com and sd.net like Big Man on Campus, but
> with your dickless debate tactics and now this, you've rapidly proved
> yourself to be nothing but a pompous, two-faced, lying, long-winded,
> ignorant, arrogant, irrational, weaselly little chickenshit fucktard.
I wasn't aware I was strutting. I argued the same ideas there as I did
here, though I did allow myself the evil pleasure of slipping Warsie-esque
insults and other such Warsie stupidity into my posts. If you thought I
was strutting, it only goes to show what I have said all along . . . you
and those who think as you do pay more attention to the presentation than
you do to the actual meal. You sit there with an almost empty stomach and
bad aftertaste, yet declare the meal fabulous so long as the presentation
was good.
> I know you're wrong, and I've shown it to the obvious satisfaction of
> everyone watching.
Right, right. Push on, little man, and keep trying to convince yourself
that I'm wrong. One day, you might even believe it.
Setesh
<snip gratuitous poe bashing>
>the warp turn argument,
Which we're still contesting and you have been asked again for you evidence.
>the Romulan weapon argument
which you still haven't proved, except by calling me an idiot for interpreting
a still shot of the Romulan ship coming dead on in the view screen as just
that. Rather than your 'its above the plane of the ship' argument which you
still have no case and in fact stopped posting when I pointed this out to you.
>using "mockery" (i.e. insults, curses,
>slander, etc.) in an effort to cover the weakness of your argument.
Strange I only mock you because you make it so clear you have the IQ of burnt
toast.
>Ooh, nice twist . . . instead of confessing to the fact that Warsies such as
>yourself repeat disproven arguments over and over again as if they are
>fresh, new, and true, you claim it is a debate tactic. How charmingly
>dishonest of you . . . and that works in regards to the claim of the tactic,
>the claim of the tactic, and the simple fact of repeating disproven
>arguments.
While you repeat trekkie arguments refuted so long ago most of the die hard
trekkies think your an idiot. I especially liked your attempt to refute Wong's
turbolaser fire power yeilds and Hull strength calcs by contradicting yourself.
>> Oh, this is rich. Robbie is comparing himself to Hawking now?
>
>WTF? Where, oh where, do you see a comparison of myself to Hawking?
right here
>> > Stephen Hawking (or any other appropriate genius) could come in here and
>> > start laying down the law, and you'd pull some of your stupid arguments
>In your mind, of course not. Fortunately, fact is not based on the opinion
>of Poe.
No but he's a little more in touch with reality.
> If so, the world would be a very subjective, illogical place.
LOL, yet anouther gem that you won't understand why we laugh when you post it.
>> "Oh! There IS no official Star Wars info, only canon!"
>
>Don't bitch at me. The existing statements already made this pretty clear,
>and Lucas cinched the deal.
And Natalie Portman is a lesbian because she likes girls as much as guys.
>Of course not! If I were trying to keep company with people who based
>their opinions on facts, and their opinions of me on facts about me, do you
>really think I would be here?
Since we are, let me think, YES.
>I have explained several times why I am here. I'm not here for the
>personalities or the popularity contests. I'm here to throw out my ideas,
>and see if, somewhere in the maelstrom of Rabid Warsie personal attacks and
>general stupidity, anyone might bring up a relevant point that I need to
>address, or a point which shatters the idea I was working with. I am not
>here for the flaming, nor am I particularly concerned with Rabid Warsie
>opinions of my views.
Since to you a 'relevent point' is to agree with you no matter how idiotic the
statment your going to be waiting a loooooong time, or at least till TJ gets a
new screenname:)
>The very fact that you sick fucks try to help armed and dangerous psychotic
>stalkers gather data on those you disagree with is more than sufficient
>reason for anyone to prefer anonymity.
LOL, still clinging to the delusion of web 'anonymity' Besides I've been
attacked by trekkies in RL for speaking my opinion, no hiding, no safe
distance. I'm still not complaining.
>What's amusing about it is how it ended up backfiring on you.
Not a whole lot of backfire is it? After all its Kynes site so Poe can't really
be held accountable.
>Uh-huh. This from the fellow who, like a child on the playground, strikes
>out when he can't upstage someone. Or, do you consider the posting of my
>data to be mature and intelligent on your part?
Gee, I never knew Kynes and Poe were the same guy, oh wait they aren't. So
quit harpin' at Poe about it, the page has been in the Google archieves for
quite a while.
>Nope, not a one, ever.
>http://scn.infopop.net/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=526090832&f=9440964644&m=46109768
>25
Lets look at your 'supporters', (though I notice they don't agree with you they
just don't like Wong.
>Razor posted July 31, 2002 03:58
>------------------------------------------------------------>------------
--------
>I dont know if any of you are familiar with >Mike Wong's anti-star trek site
you'll >know how disgusting the website is. Im a >hardcore trek fan but I still
enjoy the Star >Wars movies. However this site is nothing >more than disgusting
Trek bashing and >mockery.
Actually he's quite realistic about trek, I loved TOS, but NG disapointed and
B&B made it go down hill from there.
>Many trek fans know about this site and >Wong's arrogant attitudes. Recently
>Wong added a message board to his site
>http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=2 >which is interesting
insofar >as you get to see how a petulant child >would run such a thing.
WTF?
>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,
3 lies, your out, he 'asks' that we stop threads but the thread wasn't closed
(You just posted in it) the only other threads closed because no one posted in
them for a month.
>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.
I've seen Darth Wong post 8 times total, 3 were threads he started.
The rest of your suppporters basically agree with him with the usual 'We hate
Wong' lines.
>> Meanwhile I, the "defeated", will stay here with nothing but the rules,
>the massive support from the
>> regular debaters and the facts to comfort me.
>
>You have the massive support from the regulars . . . but then, the vast
>majority are Warsies or Rabid Warsies, anyway. You have the support of the
>rules, but that only makes sense, since it was the numerical superiority of
>the Warsies that implemented them (that's like justifying apartheid in South
>Africa because it was codified into law).
LOL, jeez now you are joking right, apartied was because the Whites were
outnumbered by the blacks not the other way round.
>However, you do not have the facts to comfort you. You twist, rend, and
>tear the facts to suit your theories, instead of altering theories to suit
>facts.
I'd say PKB but its to easy.
>This is your great weakness . . . the pro-Wars bias you refuse to
>let go of is the origin of your intellectual dishonesty, lies, and general
>idiocy.
Repeat above reply.
>When I consider the Star Wars vs. Star Trek question, I don't look at it
>from the point of view of trying to make Star Trek win, like Ian.
*snicker*
> I don't
>try to distort canon SW facts, like you.
*chortle*
> In spite of idiots like you, I
>still try to be as fair as possible when considering Star Wars, leaving
>plenty of room open in case there is bias hiding in my thought process.
*snort*
>Clearly, it is your opinion that I fail miserably.
Well duh.
>Well, that's your
>opinion, and you've made it abundantly clear over the time I've dealt with
>you that your opinions do not change in order to fit facts, nor do they need
>to be based on facts to begin with.
I'd laugh but I'm not sure if laughter or pity is correct.
>Do forgive me if I hold your opinion of
>what I do and how I do it in extremely low regard.
If you want forgivness ask Boyd, just don't mention God.
>I wasn't aware I was strutting. I argued the same ideas there as I did
>here, though I did allow myself the evil pleasure of slipping Warsie-esque
>insults and other such Warsie stupidity into my posts. If you thought I
>was strutting, it only goes to show what I have said all along . . . you
>and those who think as you do pay more attention to the presentation than
>you do to the actual meal. You sit there with an almost empty stomach and
>bad aftertaste, yet declare the meal fabulous so long as the presentation
>was good.
>
I think DS just accused Poe of 'Style over Substance' but since that's the
general Trek argument I'm dubious.
>Right, right. Push on, little man, and keep trying to convince yourself
>that I'm wrong. One day, you might even believe it.
>
Belief is not required.
Skywarp:"Starscream, What's Megatron's plan this time?
Starscream:"Who cares? You just Know it's going to be evil. And evil is always
fun."
Wayne Poe
"DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Well, well, well. I go play over at StarDestroyer.Net for a few days
> dealing with stupid crap, and look what I find upon my return here . . .
> stupid crap.
>
> How surprising.
[snip]
Oh, that was so good! ROTF!!!!! This reminds me of those crank callers who
play sound bytes on the phone and the guy on the other ends holds a
conversation with the recording!!
LOL!!!!
Robbie, I knew you were a tool, but I didn't know that you were so much of a
MULTI tool...
http://www.daltonator.net/fuq/trolls/g2k.html
http://www.daltonator.net/fuq/search.php?code=insults&author=kynes"e=
Whotta dipshit!!!
Wayne Poe
"Setesh" <set...@aol.com> wrote
> >Don't bitch at me. The existing statements already made this pretty
clear,
> >and Lucas cinched the deal.
>
> And Natalie Portman is a lesbian because she likes girls as much as guys.
This is so funny. He acts like Lucas has JUST declared that the EU is an
alternate universe, when he's said this all along!
*******************************************************************
I already know that George is throwing out past "facts" in the
prequels.
As far as George is concerned, all the other stuff is "alternate
galaxies."
As far as Lucasfilm as an entity is concerned, all the other stuff is
Star Wars until George says it isn't. At that point, they'll pay
someone like me or Kevin Anderson or Bill Smith to scramble around
trying to fix the problems.
And as far as future events are concerned, I don't mean to sound
dismal, but as I've implied before, I don't think George will ever do
the final trilogy. His intro to the TESB paperback is about as clear
as it gets.
Andy Mangels 12-5-95 www.aol.com SW fan forum. ANDY MANGELS, author of
STAR WARS: THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO CHARACTERS and the BOBA FETT: TWIN ENGINES
OF DESTRUCTION comic
****************************************************************************
***********
> Gee, I never knew Kynes and Poe were the same guy, oh wait they aren't.
So
> quit harpin' at Poe about it, the page has been in the Google archieves
for
> quite a while.
Please, let me clarify the issue.
I am absolutely 100% in favor of Ian's RSA website. I have NO PROBLEMS with
it, nor do I have any problem being associated with it. It's the ultimate
"fuck you" to an annoying little fuckface like Scooter. And its so
incredibly funny and insidious that I laugh every time I read it.
DarkStar
"Setesh" <set...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020820155516...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> Darkstar subspaced:
> <snip gratuitous poe bashing>
>
> >the warp turn argument,
>
> Which we're still contesting and you have been asked again for you
evidence.
It was provided. The argument ended the first time I posted. All that
remains is Rabid Warsie whining.
>
> >the Romulan weapon argument
>
> which you still haven't proved, except by calling me an idiot for
interpreting
> a still shot of the Romulan ship coming dead on in the view screen as just
> that. Rather than your 'its above the plane of the ship' argument which
you
> still have no case and in fact stopped posting when I pointed this out to
you.
1. It was not dead on in the viewscreen shot.
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Romman2.jpg (Note how I drew the lines I
suggested Wayne draw, but which he obviously chose not to.)
2. The ship's course is made plain by the fact that the stars are merging
toward the center of the viewscreen (where X marks the spot above), just as
they had been moving away from that point prior to the order for reverse
warp. For confirmation, feel free to download the clip Wayne provided at
http://h4h.com/louis/baldy2.mpv
3. It was above the plane of the ship. The fact that we can see the top of
the Romulan saucer is meaningless, contrary to your opinion. Since you
have utterly failed to grasp this simple concept, I shall draw it out for
you: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Romman.jpg (the line is the track
the weapon would have to take to hit the ship . . . the pic is not intended
to represent scale, but to illustrate the point).
Hey, wow, guess what that would look like on the Enterprise viewscreen?
http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_157.htm
> I especially liked your attempt to refute Wong's
> turbolaser fire power yeilds and Hull strength calcs by contradicting
yourself.
It is either a lie or an error to claim self-contradiction on my part in
those instances. Which would you prefer to claim?
>
> >> Oh, this is rich. Robbie is comparing himself to Hawking now?
> >
> >WTF? Where, oh where, do you see a comparison of myself to Hawking?
>
> right here
>
> >> > Stephen Hawking (or any other appropriate genius) could come in here
and
> >> > start laying down the law, and you'd pull some of your stupid
arguments
I say again, where do you see a comparison of myself to Hawking? At no
point in the above sentence do I give any reason for you to claim such a
comparison, unless you are choosing to *assume* it.
> >In your mind, of course not. Fortunately, fact is not based on the
opinion
> >of Poe.
>
> No but he's a little more in touch with reality.
LOL Ow, my sides! LOL
> >> "Oh! There IS no official Star Wars info, only canon!"
> >
> >Don't bitch at me. The existing statements already made this pretty
clear,
> >and Lucas cinched the deal.
>
> And Natalie Portman is a lesbian because she likes girls as much as guys.
Hmm . . . oh, sorry, what were we talking about again? :-)
I already had a fine argument in play which showed the common Warsie
misinterpretation of the canon policy to be questionable, at best, and a
dirty lie, at worst. As I said, though, Lucas' comments were the final nail
in the coffin.
> >Of course not! If I were trying to keep company with people who based
> >their opinions on facts, and their opinions of me on facts about me, do
you
> >really think I would be here?
>
> Since we are, let me think, YES.
You're apparently trying to derail the conversation . . . first, you used
humor. Then, you used Natalie Portman. Now, you're using humor again.
> Since to you a 'relevent point' is to agree with you
No, a relevant point is a point relevant to the topic at hand, preferably a
valid one.
> >The very fact that you sick fucks try to help armed and dangerous
psychotic
> >stalkers gather data on those you disagree with is more than sufficient
> >reason for anyone to prefer anonymity.
>
> LOL, still clinging to the delusion of web 'anonymity'
No, just the 'illusion' that people should behave ethically, maturely, et
cetera.
> Besides I've been attacked by trekkies in RL for speaking my opinion, no
hiding, no safe
> distance. I'm still not complaining.
Riiiight. Based on what I've seen here, the only people likely to try to
throttle an opponent in real life would be Warsies.
> >What's amusing about it is how it ended up backfiring on you.
>
> Not a whole lot of backfire is it? After all its Kynes site so Poe can't
really
> be held accountable.
He's the one who posted the link, and the backfire hits both of them
equally.
> >Nope, not a one, ever.
>
>http://scn.infopop.net/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=526090832&f=9440964644&m=4610976
8
> >25
>
> Lets look at your 'supporters', (though I notice they don't agree with you
they
> just don't like Wong.
>
>
> >Razor
Contacted me via e-mail long before bringing up the topic.
> >Many trek fans know about this site and >Wong's arrogant attitudes.
Recently
> >Wong added a message board to his site
> >http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=2 >which is
interesting
> insofar >as you get to see how a petulant child >would run such a thing.
> WTF?
You'll note that he quoted my links page:
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWlinks.html
> >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,
> 3 lies, your out, he 'asks' that we stop threads but the thread wasn't
closed
> (You just posted in it) the only other threads closed because no one
posted in
> them for a month.
Also a quote from my page, and also correct. Posts of mine have been
edited, personal info has been altered (where the hell do you think "Village
Idiot" came from?), and the Death Star superlaser thread was closed in
mid-stride, as have threads by others.
> >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.
> I've seen Darth Wong post 8 times total, 3 were threads he started.
He has that many posts in the Death Star superlaser thread, alone.
> The rest of your suppporters basically agree with him with the usual 'We
hate
> Wong' lines.
Who hates Wong? I don't. I imagine he's probably a decent guy in some
circumstances. However, when it comes to this topic, he's off his rocker.
I think this says it best:
http://scn.infopop.net/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=526090832&f=9440964644&m=76109499
25
> >You have the massive support from the regulars . . . but then, the vast
> >majority are Warsies or Rabid Warsies, anyway. You have the support of
the
> >rules, but that only makes sense, since it was the numerical superiority
of
> >the Warsies that implemented them (that's like justifying apartheid in
South
> >Africa because it was codified into law).
>
> LOL, jeez now you are joking right, apartied was because the Whites were
> outnumbered by the blacks not the other way round.
You're right, the analogy was a little off . . . but thanks for proving the
point anyway. :-)
> >When I consider the Star Wars vs. Star Trek question, I don't look at it
> >from the point of view of trying to make Star Trek win, like Ian.
>
> *snicker*
"Debate is a game. This debate is a game. The purpose is not to discover
truth;
the purpose is to win."
- Ian "Kynes" Samuels
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3209294336d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=lrJbO53Uh7Glz7MA8cRqh%3DPpY3G8%404ax.com
>
> > I don't
> >try to distort canon SW facts, like you.
>
> *chortle*
http://www.h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html
>
> > In spite of idiots like you, I
> >still try to be as fair as possible when considering Star Wars, leaving
> >plenty of room open in case there is bias hiding in my thought process.
>
> *snort*
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWhi.html
>
> >I wasn't aware I was strutting. I argued the same ideas there as I did
> >here, though I did allow myself the evil pleasure of slipping
Warsie-esque
> >insults and other such Warsie stupidity into my posts. If you thought I
> >was strutting, it only goes to show what I have said all along . . . you
> >and those who think as you do pay more attention to the presentation than
> >you do to the actual meal. You sit there with an almost empty stomach
and
> >bad aftertaste, yet declare the meal fabulous so long as the presentation
> >was good.
> >
>
> I think DS just accused Poe of 'Style over Substance' but since that's the
> general Trek argument I'm dubious.
Yes, Wayne and those like him were just accused of "style over substance".
>
> >Right, right. Push on, little man, and keep trying to convince yourself
> >that I'm wrong. One day, you might even believe it.
> >
> Belief is not required.
When you have neither truth nor belief, that leaves your point out in the
cold, doesn't it?
DarkStar
Thanks, Wayne. That lends further support to my argument, and I'll be sure
to tack it on during the next update.
>
> > Gee, I never knew Kynes and Poe were the same guy, oh wait they aren't.
> So
> > quit harpin' at Poe about it, the page has been in the Google archieves
> for
> > quite a while.
>
> Please, let me clarify the issue.
>
> I am absolutely 100% in favor of Ian's RSA website. I have NO PROBLEMS
with
> it, nor do I have any problem being associated with it. It's the ultimate
> "fuck you" to an annoying little fuckface like Scooter. And its so
> incredibly funny and insidious that I laugh every time I read it.
That's why you score a 10 on the Sick Fuck scale.
DarkStar
>
.
.
.
What, did you expect a reply here? Why? You didn't give one.
Setesh
>http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Romman2.jpg (Note how I drew the lines I
>suggested Wayne draw, but which he obviously chose not to.)
>2. The ship's course is made plain by the fact that the stars are merging
>toward the center of the viewscreen (where X marks the spot above), just as
>they had been moving away from that point prior to the order for reverse
>warp. For confirmation, feel free to download the clip Wayne provided at
>http://h4h.com/louis/baldy2.mpv
>3. It was above the plane of the ship. The fact that we can see the top of
>the Romulan saucer is meaningless, contrary to your opinion. Since you
>have utterly failed to grasp this simple concept, I shall draw it out for
>you: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Romman.jpg (the line is the track
>the weapon would have to take to hit the ship . . . the pic is not intended
>to represent scale, but to illustrate the point).
>
>Hey, wow, guess what that would look like on the Enterprise viewscreen?
>http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_157.htm
Did I say it was dead on in the view screen, no. I said its on a dead on to
the enterprise. Your lines prove it was above the centerline of the CAMERA not
the ships plane. Point still unproven.
>It is either a lie or an error to claim self-contradiction on my part in
>those instances. Which would you prefer to claim?
>
In one thread you argued that Wongs LTL yeild is to high, meaning the asteroids
must be made of something with a lower melt/vape point that Nickel/Iron, but in
the collision thread you tried to argue the asteroids were of the silicate
carbide type, which has a HIGHER melting point.
>I say again, where do you see a comparison of myself to Hawking? At no
>point in the above sentence do I give any reason for you to claim such a
>comparison, unless you are choosing to *assume* it.
Di I say I thought you compared yourself to Hawkings, No. This is Poe's point
talk to him. I just pointed out you did mention the Hawkman.
>> No but he's a little more in touch with reality.
>
>LOL Ow, my sides! LOL
>
Jesters always laugh at themselves.
>> >> "Oh! There IS no official Star Wars info, only canon!"
>> >
>> >Don't bitch at me. The existing statements already made this pretty
>clear,
>> >and Lucas cinched the deal.
>>
>> And Natalie Portman is a lesbian because she likes girls as much as guys.
>
>Hmm . . . oh, sorry, what were we talking about again? :-)
>I already had a fine argument in play which showed the common Warsie
>misinterpretation of the canon policy to be questionable, at best, and a
>dirty lie, at worst. As I said, though, Lucas' comments were the final nail
>in the coffin.
Its called a comparison, the guy who reported Natalie was a lesbian used the
same argument style you do, one and only one source, ignore all others. Even
the Lucas Arts/Films stated Canon vs. official policy. Our version fits with
everything else , yours does not.
>> >Of course not! If I were trying to keep company with people who based
>> >their opinions on facts, and their opinions of me on facts about me, do
>you
>> >really think I would be here?
>>
>> Since we are, let me think, YES.
>
>You're apparently trying to derail the conversation . . . first, you used
>humor. Then, you used Natalie Portman. Now, you're using humor again.
>
Strategic Incompatence is trademarked.
>> Since to you a 'relevent point' is to agree with you
>
>No, a relevant point is a point relevant to the topic at hand, preferably a
>valid one.
>
>
That's our definition care to ever make one.
>> LOL, still clinging to the delusion of web 'anonymity'
>
>No, just the 'illusion' that people should behave ethically, maturely, et
>cetera.
Ethics? What's that?
>> Besides I've been attacked by trekkies in RL for speaking my opinion, no
>hiding, no safe
>> distance. I'm still not complaining.
>
>Riiiight. Based on what I've seen here, the only people likely to try to
>throttle an opponent in real life would be Warsies.
>
Try the wacko who put his Bat'leth replicat through the winshield of my
girlfriends car while we were in it. Or how about the guy who turned and swung
after I gave a radio show on scene my opinion of ST:FC in the theater lobby. I
won't get into the Con...
Point being I have never attacked someone for their opinions except through
sarcasm. Excepting Jehovas Witnesses and that was only the one time, I'm sure
the stains came out.
>> >What's amusing about it is how it ended up backfiring on you.
>>
>> Not a whole lot of backfire is it? After all its Kynes site so Poe can't
>really
>> be held accountable.
>
>He's the one who posted the link, and the backfire hits both of them
>equally.
Not really most were 'Take the site down' something Poe can't do so it's not on
him.
Village idiot isn't personal info, its a title any moderator can alter them,
you cannot. the default is newbie. I will look into your claim of the DS
thread but I'm dubious.
>> >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.
>> I've seen Darth Wong post 8 times total, 3 were threads he started.
>
>He has that many posts in the Death Star superlaser thread, alone.
There's that thread I've never seen again, if it was the same argument you had
with me I'll just say well, duh.
>> The rest of your suppporters basically agree with him with the usual 'We
>hate
>> Wong' lines.
>
>Who hates Wong? I don't. I imagine he's probably a decent guy in some
>circumstances. However, when it comes to this topic, he's off his rocker.
Self describing again are ye?
>http://scn.infopop.net/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=526090832&f=9440964644&m=76109499
>25
>
Gee what a suprise, I notice that one admits that he can't even 'understand'
our points, boy color me suprised.
>> >You have the massive support from the regulars . . . but then, the vast
>> >majority are Warsies or Rabid Warsies, anyway. You have the support of
>the
>> >rules, but that only makes sense, since it was the numerical superiority
>of
>> >the Warsies that implemented them (that's like justifying apartheid in
>South
>> >Africa because it was codified into law).
>>
>> LOL, jeez now you are joking right, apartied was because the Whites were
>> outnumbered by the blacks not the other way round.
>
>You're right, the analogy was a little off . . . but thanks for proving the
>point anyway. :-)
>
I'm not going to ask how you reached the conclusion I 'proved' your point.
>> >When I consider the Star Wars vs. Star Trek question, I don't look at it
>> >from the point of view of trying to make Star Trek win, like Ian.
>>
>> *snicker*
>
>"Debate is a game. This debate is a game. The purpose is not to discover
>truth;
>the purpose is to win."
> - Ian "Kynes" Samuels
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3209294336d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
>lm=lrJbO53Uh7Glz7MA8cRqh%3DPpY3G8%404ax.com
>
What I was snickering at went completely over your head apparently.
>>
>> > I don't
>> >try to distort canon SW facts, like you.
>>
>> *chortle*
>
>http://www.h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html
>
Ditto above replace snicker with chortle.
>>
>> > In spite of idiots like you, I
>> >still try to be as fair as possible when considering Star Wars, leaving
>> >plenty of room open in case there is bias hiding in my thought process.
>>
>> *snort*
>
>http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWhi.html
Oh joy my own link to your site, I'll get to that later.
>>
>> >I wasn't aware I was strutting. I argued the same ideas there as I did
>> >here, though I did allow myself the evil pleasure of slipping
>Warsie-esque
>> >insults and other such Warsie stupidity into my posts. If you thought I
>> >was strutting, it only goes to show what I have said all along . . . you
>> >and those who think as you do pay more attention to the presentation than
>> >you do to the actual meal. You sit there with an almost empty stomach
>and
>> >bad aftertaste, yet declare the meal fabulous so long as the presentation
>> >was good.
>> >
>>
>> I think DS just accused Poe of 'Style over Substance' but since that's the
>> general Trek argument I'm dubious.
>
>Yes, Wayne and those like him were just accused of "style over substance".
>
Ahh.
>>
>> >Right, right. Push on, little man, and keep trying to convince yourself
>> >that I'm wrong. One day, you might even believe it.
>> >
>> Belief is not required.
>
>When you have neither truth nor belief, that leaves your point out in the
>cold, doesn't it?
Nope, the Sword of Truth still strikes true.
Setesh
Nope, its the consensous he only scores a 6. Hit-man scores an 8.
C.S.Strowbridge
> "Wayne Poe" wrote:
>>I am absolutely 100% in favor of Ian's RSA website. I have NO PROBLEMS
>>with it, nor do I have any problem being associated with it. It's the
>>ultimate "fuck you" to an annoying little fuckface like Scooter. And
>>its so incredibly funny and insidious that I laugh every time I read
>>it.
>
> That's why you score a 10 on the Sick Fuck scale.
It's not that we think you're going to get beat up cause of this site,
we think you're lying about being in danger in the first place.
If you really have a stalker and he wasn't able to find all this
information on line in 5 minutes, then he's too stupid to find this website.
C.S.Strowbridge
Sir Nitram
>
>Nope, its the consensous he only scores a 6. Hit-man scores an 8.
>
Has he been shown the horrors of Strowbridge's links yet?
DarkStar
"C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3D6405DD...@shaw.ca...
> DarkStar wrote:
> > "Wayne Poe" wrote:
>
> >>I am absolutely 100% in favor of Ian's RSA website. I have NO PROBLEMS
> >>with it, nor do I have any problem being associated with it. It's the
> >>ultimate "fuck you" to an annoying little fuckface like Scooter. And
> >>its so incredibly funny and insidious that I laugh every time I read
> >>it.
> >
> > That's why you score a 10 on the Sick Fuck scale.
>
> It's not that we think you're going to get beat up cause of this site,
> we think you're lying about being in danger in the first place.
That's our Strowbridge . . . always willing to err on the side of caution
when risking the lives of others.
DarkStar
I reiterate point #2 above, which you have ignored.
> >It is either a lie or an error to claim self-contradiction on my part in
> >those instances. Which would you prefer to claim?
> >
>
> In one thread you argued that Wongs LTL yeild is to high, meaning the
asteroids
> must be made of something with a lower melt/vape point that Nickel/Iron,
but in
> the collision thread you tried to argue the asteroids were of the silicate
> carbide type, which has a HIGHER melting point.
There is an option you are not considering:
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWaster.html
> >I say again, where do you see a comparison of myself to Hawking? At no
> >point in the above sentence do I give any reason for you to claim such a
> >comparison, unless you are choosing to *assume* it.
>
> Di I say I thought you compared yourself to Hawkings, No. This is Poe's
point
> talk to him. I just pointed out you did mention the Hawkman.
Then next time, when I ask him for where I made a comparison, don't say
"right here".
> >I already had a fine argument in play which showed the common Warsie
> >misinterpretation of the canon policy to be questionable, at best, and a
> >dirty lie, at worst. As I said, though, Lucas' comments were the final
nail
> >in the coffin.
>
> Its called a comparison, the guy who reported Natalie was a lesbian used
the
> same argument style you do, one and only one source, ignore all others.
You seem to be confused. It is the Rabid Warsies who opt for the "Magic
Bullet" theory of evidence. Witness DasBastard's efforts in the sd.net
asteroid collision thread, Wong's choice of a particular shot more powerful
than all others, the fallacious Poe argument about warp stars, et cetera.
I, on the other hand, opt for a more logical treatment of evidence.
Sometimes, this requires that I weigh some evidence higher than others, but
this is done in strict accord with canon.
> Ethics? What's that?
The sad part is, you could be serious.
>
> >> Besides I've been attacked by trekkies in RL for speaking my opinion,
no
> >hiding, no safe
> >> distance. I'm still not complaining.
> >
> >Riiiight. Based on what I've seen here, the only people likely to try
to
> >throttle an opponent in real life would be Warsies.
> >
>
> Try the wacko who put his Bat'leth replicat through the winshield of my
> girlfriends car while we were in it. Or how about the guy who turned and
swung
> after I gave a radio show on scene my opinion of ST:FC in the theater
lobby. I
> won't get into the Con...
If these events actually occurred, then you have my apologies.
However, if these things have occurred, how would you feel if I had a huge
billboard put up in your area giving all your pertinent information? Even
better, suppose I had all of this information placed in Trekkie areas, with
signs leading to the billboard? Would you find that appropriate?
> >> >What's amusing about it is how it ended up backfiring on you.
> >>
> >> Not a whole lot of backfire is it? After all its Kynes site so Poe
can't
> >really
> >> be held accountable.
> >
> >He's the one who posted the link, and the backfire hits both of them
> >equally.
>
> Not really most were 'Take the site down' something Poe can't do so it's
not on
> him.
Actually, it is, since he evidently got the site back up to begin with. It
was down prior to that time.
> Village idiot isn't personal info, its a title any moderator can alter
them,
> you cannot. the default is newbie. I will look into your claim of the DS
> thread but I'm dubious.
So, "All About DarkStar" is not personal information? I certainly can't
modify it.
> >When you have neither truth nor belief, that leaves your point out in the
> >cold, doesn't it?
>
> Nope, the Sword of Truth still strikes true.
And from where I sit, it looks like you must find that reeeaaallll painful.
C.S.Strowbridge
>>>That's why you score a 10 on the Sick Fuck scale.
>>
>>Nope, its the consensous he only scores a 6. Hit-man scores an 8.
>
> Has he been shown the horrors of Strowbridge's links yet?
They're not my links. I didn't find then, I didn't bring them here, I
didn't post them the most.
C.S.Strowbridge
The Baron
I did, dammit, I did.
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>It's not that we think you're going to get beat up cause of this site,
>>we think you're lying about being in danger in the first place.
>
> That's our Strowbridge . . . always willing to err on the side of caution
> when risking the lives of others.
It's all based on Risk / Reward analysis.
Risk: You get your ass kicked.
Chance Risk will occur: << 0.001%
Reward: Opportunity to Mock you.
Chance Reward will occur: 99.99%
C.S.Strowbridge
Dalton
>
> DarkStar wrote:
> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>
> >>It's not that we think you're going to get beat up cause of this site,
> >>we think you're lying about being in danger in the first place.
> >
> > That's our Strowbridge . . . always willing to err on the side of caution
> > when risking the lives of others.
>
> It's all based on Risk / Reward analysis.
>
> Risk: You get your ass kicked.
> Chance Risk will occur: << 0.001%
I don't know, the phone books are usually pretty accurate.
> Reward: Opportunity to Mock you.
> Chance Reward will occur: 99.99%
>
> C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>DarkStar wrote:
>>>>It's not that we think you're going to get beat up cause of this site,
>>>>we think you're lying about being in danger in the first place.
>>>
>>>That's our Strowbridge . . . always willing to err on the side of caution
>>>when risking the lives of others.
>>
>>It's all based on Risk / Reward analysis.
>>
>>Risk: You get your ass kicked.
>>Chance Risk will occur: << 0.001%
>
> I don't know, the phone books are usually pretty accurate.
Yeah, but you have to consider the odds that DarkStar is telling the
truth and the odds that his imaginary enemy could find the site in the
first place.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>Sir Nitram wrote:
>>>Has he been shown the horrors of Strowbridge's links yet?
>>
>>They're not my links. I didn't find then, I didn't bring them here, I
>>didn't post them the most.
>
> I did, dammit, I did.
But I've stolen your glory. Ha ha ha. You want it back?
C.S.Strowbridge
Setesh
>> >2. The ship's course is made plain by the fact that the stars are
>merging
>> >toward the center of the viewscreen (where X marks the spot above), just
>as
>> >they had been moving away from that point prior to the order for reverse
>> >warp. For confirmation, feel free to download the clip Wayne provided at
>> >http://h4h.com/louis/baldy2.mpv
>> Did I say it was dead on in the view screen, no. I said its on a dead on
>to
>> the enterprise. Your lines prove it was above the centerline of the
>CAMERA not
>> the ships plane. Point still unproven.
>>
>
>I reiterate point #2 above, which you have ignored.
My point still stands, in fact this proves you wrong. The center point would
not be in view if the Romulan ship were above the plane. It is in front of the
enterprise slightly above the center of the camera's view point. Or does the
word Distance not appear in your vocabulary.
>There is an option you are not considering:
>
>http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWaster.html
Silicates have very poor thermal conductivity, even given the (unspecified)
iron content. Given the timescale over which the energy
is absorbed (1/12s), we can expect local vaporisation to occur almost
immediately. This local expansion is much greater than that required
to blast said asteroid apart.
Since the asteroid is campletely destroyed with no fragments this is fairly
inane.
The "lower limit" calcs are nothing of the sort. The figure
obtained is meaningless, based on a false assumptions - namely that the entire
mass of the asteroid is vaporised, and that the energy
is absorbed uniformly and instantly throughout the entire mass (this second
assumption also flies in the face of all known physics).
So you want to ignore canon, then fail to realize that non uniform composition
make vaporization.
>You seem to be confused. It is the Rabid Warsies who opt for the "Magic
>Bullet" theory of evidence. Witness DasBastard's efforts in the sd.net
>asteroid collision thread, Wong's choice of a particular shot more powerful
>than all others, the fallacious Poe argument about warp stars, et cetera.
Fallacy in both points there is only one clear example.in the asteroid
colision. And Wong is using the largest asteroid we see vaped.
>I, on the other hand, opt for a more logical treatment of evidence.
>Sometimes, this requires that I weigh some evidence higher than others, but
>this is done in strict accord with canon.
This from a guy who just declared a movie novilization wasn't canon while
trying to reduce the Republics size.
>> Ethics? What's that?
>
>The sad part is, you could be serious.
>
The sad part is you can't see a joke when you read one. Worse its a quoted
joke.
>If these events actually occurred, then you have my apologies.
>
>However, if these things have occurred, how would you feel if I had a huge
>billboard put up in your area giving all your pertinent information? Even
>better, suppose I had all of this information placed in Trekkie areas, with
>signs leading to the billboard? Would you find that appropriate?
Repeat: I AM AN AOL USER, my pertinate information IS on an internet bilboard.
>Actually, it is, since he evidently got the site back up to begin with. It
>was down prior to that time.
>
He fixed to link, big whoop.
>So, "All About DarkStar" is not personal information? I certainly can't
>modify it.
?
>And from where I sit, it looks like you must find that reeeaaallll painful.
After 2 hours of swinging, yes. 8lbs of steel are hard on the arm.
Setesh
>From: swin...@7dof.org (The Baron)
>Date: 8/22/02 3:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3d653eb2...@news.freeserve.co.uk>
Dalton
It's a million to one chance, but it might just work.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
<snip>
> It's all based on Risk / Reward analysis.
>
> Risk: You get your ass kicked.
> Chance Risk will occur: << 0.001%
>
> Reward: Opportunity to Mock you.
> Chance Reward will occur: 99.99%
Just as a hypothetical. If Robert Scott Anderson can produce proper and firm
evidence to show that the chance of him getting killed outright is say 3% or
more, will you still do it?
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>It's all based on Risk / Reward analysis.
>>
>>Risk: You get your ass kicked.
>>Chance Risk will occur: << 0.001%
>>
>>Reward: Opportunity to Mock you.
>>Chance Reward will occur: 99.99%
>
> Just as a hypothetical. If Robert Scott Anderson can produce proper and firm
> evidence to show that the chance of him getting killed outright is say 3% or
> more, will you still do it?
Yep, cause the way I see it it's 3% with RSAAP and 3% without it. If
whoever is stalking him can find that page he can find the pages that
information came from.
Lesson to be learned: If you want to maintain a low profile stay the
hell off the internet.
C.S.Strowbridge
The Baron
>>Subject: Re: Oh, boys . . .
>>From: swin...@7dof.org (The Baron)
>>Date: 8/22/02 3:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3d653eb2...@news.freeserve.co.uk>
>>
>>On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:23:33 GMT, "C.S.Strowbridge"
>><csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Sir Nitram wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>That's why you score a 10 on the Sick Fuck scale.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, its the consensous he only scores a 6. Hit-man scores an 8.
>>>>
>>>> Has he been shown the horrors of Strowbridge's links yet?
>>>
>>>They're not my links. I didn't find then, I didn't bring them here, I
>>>didn't post them the most.
>>>
>>I did, dammit, I did.
>>
>Your rating just went from 4 to 6
>
>
Fuck you, I'm at least a 6.2
The Baron
No, I poisoned it, the last laugh's on you! haha!
Kazuaki Shimazaki
<snip>
> Yep, cause the way I see it it's 3% with RSAAP and 3% without it. If
> whoever is stalking him can find that page he can find the pages that
> information came from.
>
> Lesson to be learned: If you want to maintain a low profile stay the
> hell off the internet.
OK, I agree. But I should have rephrased my question.
Let's say he can find good evidence to say that there will be a 3% INCREASE
in the chance of him getting murdered (like from 3% up to 6% or 97% up to
100%.)
Personally, I still would. How about you?
:-)
Setesh
>Just as a hypothetical. If Robert Scott Anderson can produce proper and firm
>evidence to show that the chance of him getting killed outright is say 3% or
>more, will you still do it?
>
Everyone has a 6% chance of getting killed by random chance.
Setesh
>Fuck you, I'm at least a 6.2
That was my gut reaction I'll gather the others and have you rerated by
commity.
DarkStar
> <Snippity snip>
> >> >2. The ship's course is made plain by the fact that the stars are
> >merging
> >> >toward the center of the viewscreen (where X marks the spot above),
just
> >as
> >> >they had been moving away from that point prior to the order for
reverse
> >> >warp. For confirmation, feel free to download the clip Wayne provided
at
> >> >http://h4h.com/louis/baldy2.mpv
>
> >> Did I say it was dead on in the view screen, no. I said its on a dead
on
> >to
> >> the enterprise. Your lines prove it was above the centerline of the
> >CAMERA not
> >> the ships plane. Point still unproven.
> >>
> >
> >I reiterate point #2 above, which you have ignored.
>
> My point still stands, in fact this proves you wrong. The center point
would
> not be in view if the Romulan ship were above the plane.
You say this only because you still don't seem to understand the simple fact
that "above the plane" does not mean "directly above the ship". Half of
the universe was above the plane of the ship. Does that help you at all?
> It is in front of the
> enterprise slightly above the center of the camera's view point. Or does
the
> word Distance not appear in your vocabulary.
What does distance matter, when the fact of being above the plane is being
discussed? Even if the Romulan ship was ten meters off the bow, the point
would still stand.
> >There is an option you are not considering:
> >
> >http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWaster.html
>
> Silicates have very poor thermal conductivity, even given the
(unspecified)
> iron content. Given the timescale over which the energy
> is absorbed (1/12s), we can expect local vaporisation to occur almost
> immediately. This local expansion is much greater than that required
> to blast said asteroid apart.
>
> Since the asteroid is campletely destroyed with no fragments this is
fairly
> inane.
1. "Quotation Marks" . . . use them.
2. There are no *visible* fragments.
>
> The "lower limit" calcs are nothing of the sort. The figure
> obtained is meaningless, based on a false assumptions - namely that the
entire
> mass of the asteroid is vaporised, and that the energy
> is absorbed uniformly and instantly throughout the entire mass (this
second
> assumption also flies in the face of all known physics).
>
> So you want to ignore canon, then fail to realize that non uniform
composition
> make vaporization.
Would you mind rephrasing that? I'm not sure what you said.
>
> >You seem to be confused. It is the Rabid Warsies who opt for the "Magic
> >Bullet" theory of evidence. Witness DasBastard's efforts in the sd.net
> >asteroid collision thread, Wong's choice of a particular shot more
powerful
> >than all others, the fallacious Poe argument about warp stars, et cetera.
>
> Fallacy in both points there is only one clear example.in the asteroid
> colision. And Wong is using the largest asteroid we see vaped.
No, I'm talking about his X-Wing silliness, not the asteroid.
> >I, on the other hand, opt for a more logical treatment of evidence.
> >Sometimes, this requires that I weigh some evidence higher than others,
but
> >this is done in strict accord with canon.
>
> This from a guy who just declared a movie novilization wasn't canon while
> trying to reduce the Republics size.
WTF? That never happened. You clearly misunderstood something.
> >If these events actually occurred, then you have my apologies.
> >
> >However, if these things have occurred, how would you feel if I had a
huge
> >billboard put up in your area giving all your pertinent information?
Even
> >better, suppose I had all of this information placed in Trekkie areas,
with
> >signs leading to the billboard? Would you find that appropriate?
>
> Repeat: I AM AN AOL USER, my pertinate information IS on an internet
bilboard.
From what I understand (not being an AOL user), others can only see what you
wish them to see.
Setesh
>> <Snippity snip>
>> >> >2. The ship's course is made plain by the fact that the stars are
>> >merging
>> >> >toward the center of the viewscreen (where X marks the spot above),
>just
>> >as
>> >> >they had been moving away from that point prior to the order for
>reverse
>> >> >warp. For confirmation, feel free to download the clip Wayne provided
>at
>> >> >http://h4h.com/louis/baldy2.mpv
>>
>> >> Did I say it was dead on in the view screen, no. I said its on a dead
>on
>> >to
>> >> the enterprise. Your lines prove it was above the centerline of the
>> >CAMERA not
>> >> the ships plane. Point still unproven.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I reiterate point #2 above, which you have ignored.
>>
>> My point still stands, in fact this proves you wrong. The center point
>would
>> not be in view if the Romulan ship were above the plane.
>
>You say this only because you still don't seem to understand the simple fact
>that "above the plane" does not mean "directly above the ship". Half of
>the universe was above the plane of the ship. Does that help you at all?
Is this simple concept tohard for you to understand?
>> It is in front of the
>> enterprise slightly above the center of the camera's view point. Or does
>the
>> word Distance not appear in your vocabulary.
>
>What does distance matter, when the fact of being above the plane is being
>discussed? Even if the Romulan ship was ten meters off the bow, the point
>would still stand.
Wrong direction Scooter.
>> >There is an option you are not considering:
>> >
>> >http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWaster.html
>>
>> Silicates have very poor thermal conductivity, even given the
>(unspecified)
>> iron content. Given the timescale over which the energy
>> is absorbed (1/12s), we can expect local vaporisation to occur almost
>> immediately. This local expansion is much greater than that required
>> to blast said asteroid apart.
>>
>> Since the asteroid is campletely destroyed with no fragments this is
>fairly
>> inane.
>
>1. "Quotation Marks" . . . use them.
>2. There are no *visible* fragments.
Since the put in fragments for asteroid collisions, then it is safe to say they
would be there for this shot to.
>>
>> The "lower limit" calcs are nothing of the sort. The figure
>> obtained is meaningless, based on a false assumptions - namely that the
>entire
>> mass of the asteroid is vaporised, and that the energy
>> is absorbed uniformly and instantly throughout the entire mass (this
>second
>> assumption also flies in the face of all known physics).
>>
>> So you want to ignore canon, then fail to realize that non uniform
>composition
>> make vaporization.
>
>Would you mind rephrasing that? I'm not sure what you said.
>
So you want to ignore canon, then fail to realize that non uniform composition
make vaporization harder. Sorry I was in a hurry.
>>
>> >You seem to be confused. It is the Rabid Warsies who opt for the "Magic
>> >Bullet" theory of evidence. Witness DasBastard's efforts in the sd.net
>> >asteroid collision thread, Wong's choice of a particular shot more
>powerful
>> >than all others, the fallacious Poe argument about warp stars, et cetera.
>>
>> Fallacy in both points there is only one clear example.in the asteroid
>> colision. And Wong is using the largest asteroid we see vaped.
>
>No, I'm talking about his X-Wing silliness, not the asteroid.
Since we're talking about the LTL calcs, you admit you have no point.
>> >I, on the other hand, opt for a more logical treatment of evidence.
>> >Sometimes, this requires that I weigh some evidence higher than others,
>but
>> >this is done in strict accord with canon.
>>
>> This from a guy who just declared a movie novilization wasn't canon while
>> trying to reduce the Republics size.
>
>WTF? That never happened. You clearly misunderstood something.
Your post Ripping thread:
You quoted
>He also ignores canon evidence, as Palpatine represented 36 full member worlds
of the Republic.
Your response.
>That's ICS, not canon.
Yes it is.
You also quoted:
>I thought it was also stated in the novel that Palpatine represented a sector,
which is generally thought[/quote]
Your response:
>Bzzt. Still non-canon. I also have no recollection of the "Palpatine
represented a sector" idea, but I could be wrong on that point
He's refering to PM novel.
>From what I understand (not being an AOL user), others can only see what you
>wish them to see.
LOL, there are two pages one I make and one AOL makes both are public access.
DarkStar
Which one? Your stupid idea that because we can see the top of the Romulan
ship, it can't be above the Enterprise? Ooh, ooh, maybe it's the one where
you claim that the Romulan ship was only above the center of the camera's
view, even though we saw the stars moving toward the dead center of the
screen, indicative of direction of travel.
>
> >> It is in front of the
> >> enterprise slightly above the center of the camera's view point. Or
does
> >the
> >> word Distance not appear in your vocabulary.
> >
> >What does distance matter, when the fact of being above the plane is
being
> >discussed? Even if the Romulan ship was ten meters off the bow, the
point
> >would still stand.
>
> Wrong direction Scooter.
>
The Enterprise engaged emergency reverse warp. That means that the Romulan
ship was X distance from the ship's bow.
> >> >There is an option you are not considering:
> >> >
> >> >http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWaster.html
> >>
> >> Silicates have very poor thermal conductivity, even given the
> >(unspecified)
> >> iron content. Given the timescale over which the energy
> >> is absorbed (1/12s), we can expect local vaporisation to occur almost
> >> immediately. This local expansion is much greater than that required
> >> to blast said asteroid apart.
> >>
> >> Since the asteroid is campletely destroyed with no fragments this is
> >fairly
> >> inane.
> >
> >1. "Quotation Marks" . . . use them.
> >2. There are no *visible* fragments.
>
> Since the put in fragments for asteroid collisions, then it is safe to say
they
> would be there for this shot to.
Not at all. However, this will wait until my next site update is completed,
scheduled to occur soon.
> >>
> >> >You seem to be confused. It is the Rabid Warsies who opt for the
"Magic
> >> >Bullet" theory of evidence. Witness DasBastard's efforts in the
sd.net
> >> >asteroid collision thread, Wong's choice of a particular shot more
> >powerful
> >> >than all others, the fallacious Poe argument about warp stars, et
cetera.
> >>
> >> Fallacy in both points there is only one clear example.in the asteroid
> >> colision. And Wong is using the largest asteroid we see vaped.
> >
> >No, I'm talking about his X-Wing silliness, not the asteroid.
>
> Since we're talking about the LTL calcs, you admit you have no point.
No, *you* are talking about the LTL calcs. *I* never was. The "particular
shot" refers to the X-Wing silliness.
>
> >> >I, on the other hand, opt for a more logical treatment of evidence.
> >> >Sometimes, this requires that I weigh some evidence higher than
others,
> >but
> >> >this is done in strict accord with canon.
> >>
> >> This from a guy who just declared a movie novilization wasn't canon
while
> >> trying to reduce the Republics size.
> >
> >WTF? That never happened. You clearly misunderstood something.
>
> Your post Ripping thread:
> You quoted
> >He also ignores canon evidence, as Palpatine represented 36 full member
worlds
> of the Republic.
>
> Your response.
> >That's ICS, not canon.
>
> Yes it is.
The ICS is not a movie novelisation. See? I told you that you
misunderstood something.
>
> You also quoted:
> >I thought it was also stated in the novel that Palpatine represented a
sector,
> which is generally thought[/quote]
>
> Your response:
> >Bzzt. Still non-canon. I also have no recollection of the "Palpatine
> represented a sector" idea, but I could be wrong on that point
>
> He's refering to PM novel.
I don't think he was, but I also have no intention of digging through those
37 pages to find out. Would you care to provide a link?
> >From what I understand (not being an AOL user), others can only see what
you
> >wish them to see.
>
> LOL, there are two pages one I make and one AOL makes both are public
access.
Probably AOL only, from what I have seen.
Setesh
Thank you for conceeding. The direction of travel stars show the centerpont of
the camera's view Meaning the Romulan ship is strait forward. It also means
the Enterprise was already moving. The Plasma blast from the Romulan ship
obscures the view of said ship. If the shot was fired at an angle towards a
MOVING ship the blast would appear to be going down away from the Romulan ship.
It isn't you lose.
>>
>> >> It is in front of the
>> >> enterprise slightly above the center of the camera's view point. Or
>does
>> >the
>> >> word Distance not appear in your vocabulary.
>> >
>> >What does distance matter, when the fact of being above the plane is
>being
>> >discussed? Even if the Romulan ship was ten meters off the bow, the
>point
>> >would still stand.
>>
>> Wrong direction Scooter.
>>
>
>The Enterprise engaged emergency reverse warp. That means that the Romulan
>ship was X distance from the ship's bow.
See above.
>> >> >There is an option you are not considering:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWaster.html
>> >>
>> >> Silicates have very poor thermal conductivity, even given the
>> >(unspecified)
>> >> iron content. Given the timescale over which the energy
>> >> is absorbed (1/12s), we can expect local vaporisation to occur almost
>> >> immediately. This local expansion is much greater than that required
>> >> to blast said asteroid apart.
>> >>
>> >> Since the asteroid is campletely destroyed with no fragments this is
>> >fairly
>> >> inane.
>> >
>> >1. "Quotation Marks" . . . use them.
>> >2. There are no *visible* fragments.
>>
>> Since the put in fragments for asteroid collisions, then it is safe to say
>they
>> would be there for this shot to.
>
>Not at all. However, this will wait until my next site update is completed,
>scheduled to occur soon.
>
This is called 'Ignoring Canon'. Your theory doesn't fit the visual evidence,
you can't argue the evidence is wrong just 'cause you don't like it.
>> >>
>> >> >You seem to be confused. It is the Rabid Warsies who opt for the
>"Magic
>> >> >Bullet" theory of evidence. Witness DasBastard's efforts in the
>sd.net
>> >> >asteroid collision thread, Wong's choice of a particular shot more
>> >powerful
>> >> >than all others, the fallacious Poe argument about warp stars, et
>cetera.
>> >>
>> >> Fallacy in both points there is only one clear example.in the asteroid
>> >> colision. And Wong is using the largest asteroid we see vaped.
>> >
>> >No, I'm talking about his X-Wing silliness, not the asteroid.
>>
>> Since we're talking about the LTL calcs, you admit you have no point.
>
>No, *you* are talking about the LTL calcs. *I* never was. The "particular
>shot" refers to the X-Wing silliness.
>
You'll have to be a little more specific. A link would be helpful
>>
>> >> >I, on the other hand, opt for a more logical treatment of evidence.
>> >> >Sometimes, this requires that I weigh some evidence higher than
>others,
>> >but
>> >> >this is done in strict accord with canon.
>> >>
>> >> This from a guy who just declared a movie novilization wasn't canon
>while
>> >> trying to reduce the Republics size.
>> >
>> >WTF? That never happened. You clearly misunderstood something.
>>
>> Your post Ripping thread:
>> You quoted
>> >He also ignores canon evidence, as Palpatine represented 36 full member
>worlds
>> of the Republic.
>>
>> Your response.
>> >That's ICS, not canon.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
>The ICS is not a movie novelisation. See? I told you that you
>misunderstood something.
Care to provide one shread of proof that a lucasfilms product isn't canon.
>>
>> You also quoted:
>> >I thought it was also stated in the novel that Palpatine represented a
>sector,
>> which is generally thought[/quote]
>>
>> Your response:
>> >Bzzt. Still non-canon. I also have no recollection of the "Palpatine
>> represented a sector" idea, but I could be wrong on that point
>>
>> He's refering to PM novel.
>I don't think he was, but I also have no intention of digging through those
>37 pages to find out. Would you care to provide a link?
>
>
Page 35, he doesn't quote directly, but thats where I read it. He did say
'novel'.
>> >From what I understand (not being an AOL user), others can only see what
>you
>> >wish them to see.
>>
>> LOL, there are two pages one I make and one AOL makes both are public
>access.
>
>Probably AOL only, from what I have seen.
>
What part of 'public access' did you not understand. I went to the library to
look myself up to be sure. Their computers use a freeserver and I found my
pages.
DarkStar
You're crazy. If this were something where one could honestly believe more
than one thing and we were on opposite sides, I could respect your opinion .
. . but this is not one of those times. The canon visuals are clear, and
their validity inviolable.
> >> >> This from a guy who just declared a movie novilization wasn't canon
> >while
> >> >> trying to reduce the Republics size.
> >> >
> >> >WTF? That never happened. You clearly misunderstood something.
> >>
> >> Your post Ripping thread:
> >> You quoted
> >> >He also ignores canon evidence, as Palpatine represented 36 full
member
> >worlds
> >> of the Republic.
> >>
> >> Your response.
> >> >That's ICS, not canon.
> >>
> >> Yes it is.
> >
> >The ICS is not a movie novelisation. See? I told you that you
> >misunderstood something.
>
> Care to provide one shread of proof that a lucasfilms product isn't canon.
Oh my . . . did you just ask me to disprove the canonicity of something that
was only 'official' non-canon to begin with? Where've you been?
>
> >>
> >> You also quoted:
> >> >I thought it was also stated in the novel that Palpatine represented a
> >sector,
> >> which is generally thought[/quote]
> >>
> >> Your response:
> >> >Bzzt. Still non-canon. I also have no recollection of the "Palpatine
> >> represented a sector" idea, but I could be wrong on that point
> >>
> >> He's refering to PM novel.
>
> >I don't think he was, but I also have no intention of digging through
those
> >37 pages to find out. Would you care to provide a link?
> >
> >
>
> Page 35, he doesn't quote directly, but thats where I read it. He did say
> 'novel'.
Ah, I see. I was replying to his statement:
"I thought it was also stated in the novel that Palpatine represented a
sector, which is generally thought to be made up of about 50 habitable
planets (definition of sector is not canon, to the best of my knowledge). I
could be wrong about this."
I was not refuting the canonicity of the novelisation's statement that
Palpatine represented a sector . . . just the non-canon's definition of what
that sector would be like.
DarkStar
> >> Is this simple concept tohard for you to understand?
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWromplasw.html
Wayne Poe
"Setesh" <set...@aol.com> wrote
>>>> From what I understand (not being an AOL user), others can only see
what
>>>> you wish them to see.
>>> LOL, there are two pages one I make and one AOL makes both are public
access.
>>Probably AOL only, from what I have seen.
> What part of 'public access' did you not understand. I went to the
library to
> look myself up to be sure. Their computers use a freeserver and I found
my
> pages.
=snicker= This is the same idiot who wrote me wanting my help on how to
access Usenet...
http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html
DarkStar
"Wayne Poe" <lo...@h4h.com> wrote in message
news:umgbp2r...@corp.supernews.com...
Wow. When did that happen? Must've been before I first set foot here,
figuratively speaking.
Wayne Poe
"DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KsZ99.177621$2p2.7...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
From lo...@h4h.com
Mon May 22 00:07:25 2000
From: Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com>
To: Robert Scott Anderson <rand...@ocean.otr.usm.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Question On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Robert Scott Anderson wrote:
> I'm curious if you know of any way to access the Usenet debate sans
> actual access to Usenet.
Ahh...not unless you want to put up a webpage....
> The reason I'm curious is due to the fact that I have read your site,
> and I have found it to be replete with errors both mathematical and
> logical, not to mention evidential. Granted, I realize this is
> primarily the fault of your contributors and not yourself, but I
> should like to have opportunity to correct the manifold errors,
> preferably on Usenet, but I'd also be willing to do battle here, if
> you prefer, as I've seen done with evolution-creation debates online.
Of course. I'd welcome the opportunity to correct your likely complete
misunderstandings of the evidence presented here, as I have done to
countless others. I'm curious...how did you have evolution-creation debates
online WITHOUT Usenet access?
Setesh
Yes and it proves you wrong.
Analogy time:
You and me standing in a field. I have a video camera with a nice crosshairs
showing the center of the the camera's POV. You have a paintball gun pointing
strait forward (at me) I center the crosshairs on you, you take one step ro the
left, are you still in the the POV yes, just not in the center, you fire, you
hit me. While You were no longer in the center of the view you were still
pointed at me without having to change your aim.
>> >> >> This from a guy who just declared a movie novilization wasn't canon
>> >while
>> >> >> trying to reduce the Republics size.
>> >> >
>> >> >WTF? That never happened. You clearly misunderstood something.
>> >>
>> >> Your post Ripping thread:
>> >> You quoted
>> >> >He also ignores canon evidence, as Palpatine represented 36 full
>member
>> >worlds
>> >> of the Republic.
>> >>
>> >> Your response.
>> >> >That's ICS, not canon.
>> >>
>> >> Yes it is.
>> >
>> >The ICS is not a movie novelisation. See? I told you that you
>> >misunderstood something.
>>
>> Care to provide one shread of proof that a lucasfilms product isn't canon.
>
>Oh my . . . did you just ask me to disprove the canonicity of something that
>was only 'official' non-canon to begin with? Where've you been?
>
Considering your usual method of defining canon, ignoring you. Still waiting
for evidence or a least a link to same.
>>
>> >>
>> >> You also quoted:
>> >> >I thought it was also stated in the novel that Palpatine represented a
>> >sector,
>> >> which is generally thought[/quote]
>> >>
>> >> Your response:
>> >> >Bzzt. Still non-canon. I also have no recollection of the "Palpatine
>> >> represented a sector" idea, but I could be wrong on that point
>> >>
>> >> He's refering to PM novel.
>>
>> >I don't think he was, but I also have no intention of digging through
>those
>> >37 pages to find out. Would you care to provide a link?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Page 35, he doesn't quote directly, but thats where I read it. He did say
>> 'novel'.
>
>Ah, I see. I was replying to his statement:
>
>"I thought it was also stated in the novel that Palpatine represented a
>sector, which is generally thought to be made up of about 50 habitable
>planets (definition of sector is not canon, to the best of my knowledge). I
>could be wrong about this."
>
>I was not refuting the canonicity of the novelisation's statement that
>Palpatine represented a sector . . . just the non-canon's definition of what
>that sector would be like.
I quoted you vertextum (yes this is a word) that's not what it looked like.
Setesh
>From lo...@h4h.com
>Mon May 22 00:07:25 2000
>From: Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com>
>To: Robert Scott Anderson <rand...@ocean.otr.usm.edu>
>Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: Question On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Robert Scott Anderson wrote:
>
>> I'm curious if you know of any way to access the Usenet debate sans
>> actual access to Usenet.
>
>Ahh...not unless you want to put up a webpage....
>
>> The reason I'm curious is due to the fact that I have read your site,
>> and I have found it to be replete with errors both mathematical and
>> logical, not to mention evidential. Granted, I realize this is
>> primarily the fault of your contributors and not yourself, but I
>> should like to have opportunity to correct the manifold errors,
>> preferably on Usenet, but I'd also be willing to do battle here, if
>> you prefer, as I've seen done with evolution-creation debates online.
>
>Of course. I'd welcome the opportunity to correct your likely complete
>misunderstandings of the evidence presented here, as I have done to
>countless others. I'm curious...how did you have evolution-creation debates
>online WITHOUT Usenet access?
>
>
I'm suddenly curious as to which side he argued.
DarkStar
Wow. Yep, that was before I ever got on here. The ISP I had at the time
would allow you to read Usenet posts, but not make any of your own.
I am curious, though . . . had you never heard of discussion forums, a la
Wong's? That's how I was doing my E/C debating at the time.