---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:14:29 -0500 Subject: Attention Message-ID: <_xOdne01sOJwJCqgXTWc2Q@comcast.com> -------- Warsies: You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, and unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic concepts you have created. It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the irrational can't allow themselves to see it. You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. DSG2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Spyder Date: 24 Oct 2002 09:45:36 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ..and then "DarkStar" said: > It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the > irrational can't allow themselves to see it. FUQ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Spyder Date: 24 Oct 2002 09:59:50 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ..and then "DarkStar" said: > Warsies: > > You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. > I commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual > dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > > The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, > and unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be > wrong. > > As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your > opinions will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be > forceful and defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through > to you, and logic is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. > > Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon > Policy debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools > and their foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to > continue to bitch and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt > continue to deceive yourselves (and try to deceive others) into > believing in the idiotic concepts you have created. > > It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the > irrational can't allow themselves to see it. > > You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > > DSG2k Arguing Pro Trek takes a lot of skill and perparation. You're preaching to an overwhelming majority, if you run off half cocked with a bunch of arguments and don't have refferences sited then your arguments are going to be dead in the water. Bitching about it and simply saying "You're wrong!" isn't going to help. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:44:09 +1000 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3db7eb18$0$23173$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- > Arguing Pro Trek takes a lot of skill and perparation. Shouldn't you have sent a memo or something out about that? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Spyder Date: 25 Oct 2002 03:01:32 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ..and then "Chris O'Farrell" said: >> Arguing Pro Trek takes a lot of skill and perparation. > > Shouldn't you have sent a memo or something out about that? About arguing pro trek taking skill and preparation? I thought it would have been obvious, given that the information isn't handed out on a plate with the episode format like it is in the movie format. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:49:55 +1300 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- snip > You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > > DSG2k *snigger* This reminds me of when Trancend left, calling us all the 'weakest link' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:42:43 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DB830AF.6010605@shaw.ca> -------- Stuart Mackey wrote: >>You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > > *snigger* > This reminds me of when Trancend left, calling us all the 'weakest link' Damn, we've got to get that boy back. I figure Darkstar just wasted the last of his entertainment value. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:32:14 -0400 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DB830AF.6010605@shaw.ca... > Stuart Mackey wrote: > > >>You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > > > > *snigger* > > This reminds me of when Trancend left, calling us all the 'weakest link' > > Damn, we've got to get that boy back. I figure Darkstar just wasted the > last of his entertainment value. > Transcend versus DarkStar..it'd be like watching bearded lady circus midgets jello wrestle in thongs. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 01:34:46 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DB89F54.5000200@shaw.ca> -------- Greg Burnett wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>Stuart Mackey wrote: >>>>You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. >>> >>>*snigger* >>>This reminds me of when Trancend left, calling us all the 'weakest link' >> >>Damn, we've got to get that boy back. I figure Darkstar just wasted the >>last of his entertainment value. > > Transcend versus DarkStar..it'd be like watching bearded lady circus midgets > jello wrestle in thongs. Only funnier. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:39:29 -0400 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DB89F54.5000200@shaw.ca... > Greg Burnett wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >>Stuart Mackey wrote: > > >>>>You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > >>> > >>>*snigger* > >>>This reminds me of when Trancend left, calling us all the 'weakest link' > >> > >>Damn, we've got to get that boy back. I figure Darkstar just wasted the > >>last of his entertainment value. > > > > Transcend versus DarkStar..it'd be like watching bearded lady circus midgets > > jello wrestle in thongs. > > Only funnier. > As well as more pointless. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:07:40 +0300 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- This is like some insipid kid holding his breath or something, just fuck of liar. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:39:37 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DB82FF4.2010107@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: Let's see, who's opinion should we trust. One that was created by a man based on a few quotes he's read (Darkstar.) Or one whom had the policy explained to him by those that helped create it (Saxton.) Gee, I know who I trust more. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: werd2drew@hotmail.com (Drewcifer) Date: 24 Oct 2002 13:04:26 -0700 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:<_xOdne01sOJwJCqgXTWc2Q@comcast.com>... > Warsies: > > You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I > commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual > dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > > The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, and > unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. > > As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions > will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and > defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic > is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. > > Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy > debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their > foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch > and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive > yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic > concepts you have created. > > It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the > irrational can't allow themselves to see it. > > You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > > DSG2k Posting crap like the above is why you don't get any respect from the group. You may not agree with this group's canon policy. So be it. But if you want to play on this playground, the rules have already been stated. If you don't like the rules, and can't abide by them, then go play someplace else. Why keep butting your head against the wall??? - To change ASVS canon policy? A diplomatic approach would have worked better if that was ytour goal. - To change individual members minds? Great, try it with a bit of respect. I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen to more of your waste. Yes, the latter may contradict the former, but sheesh, I've never seen you show the least bit of respect in this group. Respect comes from the inside, and you seem to have very little self respect, judging by your complete lack of respect for others. - For the attention? This is my personal opinion. The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. And being hated is better than being ignored. And so on. I have to get back to work -- I've been on a job out of town, lurking via Google, but had to post something in response to your crap. I apologize to the group if this post ends up being more fodder for Darkstar, but damn he pisses me off! I like that many members of ASVS disagree, it makes for an interesting group, but Darkstar scares the hell out of me. He reminds me of some of the astrology folks I know, arguing about Atlantis, and using quotes from everywhere to justify the existence of something they beileve in at all costs... Drewcifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:07:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "Drewcifer" wrote in message news:fd938449.0210241204.269e188d@posting.google.com... > "DarkStar" wrote in message news:<_xOdne01sOJwJCqgXTWc2Q@comcast.com>... > > Warsies: > > > > You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I > > commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual > > dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > > > > The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, and > > unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. > > > > As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions > > will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and > > defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic > > is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. > > > > Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy > > debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their > > foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch > > and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive > > yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic > > concepts you have created. > > > > It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the > > irrational can't allow themselves to see it. > > > > You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > > > > DSG2k > > > Posting crap like the above is why you don't get any respect from the > group. Posting crap like the wannabe arguments they were making (and which the above gives final response to) is why they get no respect from me. > You may not agree with this group's canon policy. So be it. But if you > want to play on this playground, the rules have already been stated. I have no problem with them making up their own biased rules. Anyone can make up whatever they like. Just don't go claiming that it's actual fact. > I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such > a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen And that is why you fail. > I've never seen you show the least bit of respect in this group. I have tried. The response was flames, lies, et cetera . . . that certainly didn't earn the showing of any additional respect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drewcifer Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:33:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ::log:: XMT IDC: "DarkStar" MSG TXT: > "Drewcifer" wrote in message > news:fd938449.0210241204.269e188d@posting.google.com... >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:<_xOdne01sOJwJCqgXTWc2Q@comcast.com>... >>> Warsies: >>> >>> You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I >>> commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual >>> dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. >>> >>> The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, and >>> unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. >>> >>> As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions >>> will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and >>> defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic >>> is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. >>> >>> Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy >>> debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their >>> foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch >>> and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive >>> yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic >>> concepts you have created. >>> >>> It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the >>> irrational can't allow themselves to see it. >>> >>> You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. >>> >>> DSG2k >> >> Posting crap like the above is why you don't get any respect from the >> group. > > Posting crap like the wannabe arguments they were making (and which the > above gives final response to) is why they get no respect from me. I understand that you disagree with the arguements given for ASVS' canon policy. I just don't understand what the point was of flipping the bird, so to speak, and saying "neener neener neener" before sticking out your tongue and stomping away. My point is that people might listen to you if you didn't act like such a prick about it. You say you could care less about what ASVS thinks of you -- that's great, but being a jerk about your arguments has gained you nothing. I doubt very many people (if any) have read through all of your posts to render out fat and listen to what you're actually trying to say. You made a few good points, but they all got lost beneath the crap. >> You may not agree with this group's canon policy. So be it. But if you >> want to play on this playground, the rules have already been stated. >> If you don't like the rules, and can't abide by them, then go play >> someplace else. > I have no problem with them making up their own biased rules. Anyone > can make up whatever they like. Just don't go claiming that it's actual > fact. Seriously, what do you care? You seem to have nothing but contempt for the group, and you disagree with the group's policies, so why keep coming around? Like I said, "if you don't like the rules, and [more importantly] can't abide by them, then go play someplace else." No one is forcing you to participate here. Besides, the ASVS canon policy agrees with you, as far as what is strictly canon. Your problem seems to be with the "Official" sources. I'm sorry that ST doesn't have an "Official" catergory, but like Lord Edam de Fromage said so well: > Pretty much everybody else realises that if we want to > have any discussions lasting more than three posts we need to extend > Star Wars to more than just the real stories, and that everything Lucas > agrees might be possible should also be considered unless/until it is > shown to be impossible (canon contradiction). That may offend your "Logic and Truth, or Death" point of view, but so does most of real life. And so does most of the fun stuff from EU. And fun is really why we're here, right? Fun with heavy doses of realism and science, but fun nonetheless. And what about ET? He and his kind are canon. OK that was flamebait, but ET is canon :) >> I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such >> a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen... >> ... to more of your waste. > And that is why you fail. Fail at what? And by the way, your habit of snipping sentences to suit your purposes is quite annoying, and rather dishonest. Suprising for someone that carries a huge black banner with the word "TRUTH" on it. But you may have missed my point - being a jackass has kept most everyone from listening to you anymore. I /was/ rooting for you, the underdog, in the deathstar/canon debate but you lost me with all of your pompous crap. I know, you couldn't care less if I care or not, but acting like such an asshole all the time really defeats your stated purpose of educating the masses, and that is illogical. >> I've never seen you show the least bit of respect in this group. > > I have tried. The response was flames, lies, et cetera . . . that > certainly didn't earn the showing of any additional respect. Maybe, but in the three months I've been lurking here, you've acted like a jerk 99% of the time, even when people agreed with you. If you really want to understand, try and play devil's advocate to your own ideas. I would love to see a new, _1 round_ debate where you aruged MW's side, and he argued your side. Try and see things from another point of view, you might be suprised how fruitful this can be. Or just keep acting like an asshole and no one will ever listen to you. Drewcifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:11:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <_gadnfkJtaEPPyegXTWcoA@comcast.com> -------- "Drewcifer" wrote in message news:B9DF8556.7E7E%valis1NOTFORSPAM@mindspring.com... > ::log:: XMT IDC: "DarkStar" MSG TXT: > > > "Drewcifer" wrote in message > > news:fd938449.0210241204.269e188d@posting.google.com... > >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:<_xOdne01sOJwJCqgXTWc2Q@comcast.com>... > >>> Warsies: > >>> > >>> You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I > >>> commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual > >>> dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > >>> > >>> The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, and > >>> unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. > >>> > >>> As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions > >>> will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and > >>> defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic > >>> is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. > >>> > >>> Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy > >>> debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their > >>> foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch > >>> and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive > >>> yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic > >>> concepts you have created. > >>> > >>> It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the > >>> irrational can't allow themselves to see it. > >>> > >>> You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > >>> > >>> DSG2k > >> > >> Posting crap like the above is why you don't get any respect from the > >> group. > > > > Posting crap like the wannabe arguments they were making (and which the > > above gives final response to) is why they get no respect from me. > > I understand that you disagree with the arguements given for ASVS' canon > policy. I just don't understand what the point was of flipping the bird, so > to speak, and saying "neener neener neener" before sticking out your tongue > and stomping away. I don't think you understand . . . the Warsies here do not change their mind for any reason, unless it changes in a more pro-Wars direction. Even when they've conceded something, just wait . . . they'll be claiming the exact same thing in no time. > My point is that people might listen to you if you didn't act like such a > prick about it. I admire your position . . . don't think for a moment that I don't. But you should realize that I've been watching these people in action for quite some time, whether from the point of view of being their target, or from the point of view of watching them target someone else. Though a few can occasionally behave reasonably, the majority do not. I learned long ago that reason would not get through to them. I tried other methods from time to time . . . acting more like them to see if they'd understand. Nope. Now, I know that their only value in regards to the debate is their utility to me. I just put the arguments out there into the lion's den and see how they hold up, in the hopes that somewhere amongst the insults, slanders, sophistries, and outright lies, they might actually find a hole in an argument, or a point that requires idiot-proofing. Almost without exception, they fail to do the former . . . indeed, I've had to point out the flaw in my own argument before. The latter, however, they excel at . . . > You say you could care less about what ASVS thinks of you -- > that's great, but being a jerk about your arguments has gained you nothing. Not true . . . I've learned a lot, be it from researching issues related to the debate, to observing some of the most negative examples of human nature and the nature of irrational belief. > This recent development of the idea that I must specifically reply to every single sentence is most peculiar. The idea behind what I snipped was covered. You say: > And by the way, your habit of snipping sentences to suit your > purposes is quite annoying, and rather dishonest. What, you think I've edited your original post somehow? I'm not snipping to suit my purposes . . . I've already addressed the point or claim, or else it was snipped due to irrelevance. > > I have no problem with them making up their own biased rules. Anyone > > can make up whatever they like. Just don't go claiming that it's actual > > fact. > > Seriously, what do you care? From my website: "Granted, this is not the most important topic on the planet . . . or in this country . . . or even in this room. But, that which is false must be challenged. Oh, I could engage some other falsehood, but this one is kinda fun, and makes good practice for the others." > You seem to have nothing but contempt for the group, and you disagree > with the group's policies, so why keep coming around? It serves my purposes. > Besides, the ASVS canon policy agrees with you, as far as what is strictly > canon. Your problem seems to be with the "Official" sources. I'm sorry that > ST doesn't have an "Official" catergory Why are you sorry? The respective canon policies do not make demands of one another. My only rule regarding both is that they should be determined in the same manner . . . their content can be utterly different. > That may offend your "Logic and Truth, or Death" point of view, but so does > most of real life. And so does most of the fun stuff from EU. And fun is > really why we're here, right? Fun with heavy doses of realism and science, > but fun nonetheless. Wong says something similar, when on his hate mail page he refers to seeing no need to behave maturely in reference to debates on the topic. I don't agree with him, either. It's not that you're totally wrong . . . you're right, insofar as, in the end, this can basically be considered an elaborate game -- a fun thought experiment. However, I consider how a person plays the game to be important . . . it says a lot about the person. I play it with reason. I play the 'game of life' in the same way. Warsies play the game with lies, slander, and threats of violence. > >> I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such > >> a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen... > > And that is why you fail. > > Fail at what? Thinking. If you are under the impression that much of what I say is chaff, but that there is wheat there, then your choice to disregard the wheat simply because chaff exists is irrational. > But you may have missed my point - being a jackass has kept most everyone > from listening to you anymore. This idea that I am the big bad jackass is so very peculiar to me. Have you not seen the Warsies in action? Have you never watched them argue? Go read old posts on Google or something. I am an angel by comparison. And if you really think that jackasses are to be ignored, what the hell are you doing here? I mean, if you think I'm a jackass, you must be of the impression that they are, too . . . in which case this must be a big empty room for you. > If you really want to understand, try and play devil's advocate to your own > ideas. I do that anyway. When I develop an argument, I pay attention to whatever facts might be or appear to be against that argument . . . and I also try to imagine what Warsies will claim about it. I find the latter difficult, since I'm operating on the basis of reason, but I do try. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 18:20:29 -0700 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <55dmruci14kmmvfb535u58fogrso2pnc7i@4ax.com> -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as <_gadnfkJtaEPPyegXTWcoA@comcast.com>) on Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:11:41 -0500... > >"Drewcifer" wrote in message >news:B9DF8556.7E7E%valis1NOTFORSPAM@mindspring.com... >> >>> >> >>> DSG2k >> >> >> >> Posting crap like the above is why you don't get any respect from the >> >> group. >> > >> > Posting crap like the wannabe arguments they were making (and which the >> > above gives final response to) is why they get no respect from me. >> >> I understand that you disagree with the arguements given for ASVS' canon >> policy. I just don't understand what the point was of flipping the bird, >so >> to speak, and saying "neener neener neener" before sticking out your >tongue >> and stomping away. > >I don't think you understand . . . the Warsies here do not change their mind >for any reason, unless it changes in a more pro-Wars direction. Even when >they've conceded something, just wait . . . they'll be claiming the exact >same thing in no time. Many of us will change our minds if presented with a good enough reason to do so. I used to accept the 64MT photon torpedo figures; I later didn't mind the 128MT photorp estimates. I don't mind the idea of variable yields (although examples like ST6 and TDiC are hard to explain away). >> My point is that people might listen to you if you didn't act like such a >> prick about it. > >I admire your position . . . don't think for a moment that I don't. But >you should realize that I've been watching these people in action for quite >some time, whether from the point of view of being their target, or from the >point of view of watching them target someone else. Though a few can >occasionally behave reasonably, the majority do not. I learned long ago >that reason would not get through to them. I tried other methods from time >to time . . . acting more like them to see if they'd understand. Nope. > >Now, I know that their only value in regards to the debate is their utility >to me. I just put the arguments out there into the lion's den and see how >they hold up, in the hopes that somewhere amongst the insults, slanders, >sophistries, and outright lies, they might actually find a hole in an >argument, or a point that requires idiot-proofing. Almost without >exception, they fail to do the former . . . indeed, I've had to point out >the flaw in my own argument before. The latter, however, they excel at . . Would you kindly direct me to that example? Speaking of sophistry, every time you have been questioned about actually having proved something, you waffle about, giving vague references to vague references instead of concrete proof. A simple message-ID would be nice. >> You say you could care less about what ASVS thinks of you -- >> that's great, but being a jerk about your arguments has gained you >nothing. > >Not true . . . I've learned a lot, be it from researching issues related to >the debate, to observing some of the most negative examples of human nature >and the nature of irrational belief. Have you researched your own behaviors, by any chance? The only reason that I disrespect you now is because of your own utter lack of respect. Behaving in a Beavis-and-Butthead manner is not conductive to benevolence. >> > >This recent development of the idea that I must specifically reply to every >single sentence is most peculiar. The idea behind what I snipped was >covered. You say: > >> And by the way, your habit of snipping sentences to suit your >> purposes is quite annoying, and rather dishonest. > >What, you think I've edited your original post somehow? I'm not snipping >to suit my purposes . . . I've already addressed the point or claim, or else >it was snipped due to irrelevance. It was not irrelevant. Here is one such example: >> I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such >> a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen... >> ... to more of your waste. Snipping, in this one case, completely changed the context of the statement. Not listening at all is one thing; not listening to reams of pure grandstanding by a self-professed expert is another. Not that you'll likely realize this. Instead, I am nearly certain that you will snip parts of sentences in my post like you have done continually since 2001, changing the context to suit your purposes. Do I care? No; it only demonstrates your arrogance as any bystander might realize. The proper use of snipping is to take out irrelevant paragraphs and cascading text. Its use is not for changing the context of sentences, which is exactly what you're doing. Don't deny it, Robert. Snipping my post will not help you, since my post will still exist for people to look at. >> Besides, the ASVS canon policy agrees with you, as far as what is strictly >> canon. Your problem seems to be with the "Official" sources. I'm sorry >that >> ST doesn't have an "Official" catergory > >Why are you sorry? The respective canon policies do not make demands of >one another. My only rule regarding both is that they should be determined >in the same manner . . . their content can be utterly different. They are determined in the same manner, based on what the respective authorities say. You may concern yourself with semantics and nitpick all you want, saying that a person didn't really mean _this_ but meant _that_, but are you suddenly an authority on what someone says? I certainly haven't seen you display a bachelor's degree in English. >However, I consider how a person plays the game to be important . . . it >says a lot about the person. I play it with reason. I play the 'game of >life' in the same way. Warsies play the game with lies, slander, and >threats of violence. >> But you may have missed my point - being a jackass has kept most everyone >> from listening to you anymore. > >This idea that I am the big bad jackass is so very peculiar to me. Have >you not seen the Warsies in action? Have you never watched them argue? >Go read old posts on Google or something. I am an angel by comparison. I love your sense of morals, claiming righteousness when you flame and slander like there's no tomorrow. A nice use of the appeal to manner fallacy. Quoting your post from Stardestroyer.net: >So, you challenge me to a debate, and then fail to follow your own stated >beliefs, running away from an honest, evidence-based debate because that's >your biggest fear. Having been caught in the act, you suddenly have to try to >play off the fact that you're not just a pussy, but indeed a huge, gaping ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >vagina. Then, the icing on the cake . . . you threaten to ban me. This is the ^^^^^^ >only force you can apply in the situation . . . the only way you can hope to >make me acquiesce to a debate which has nothing to do with the issues, but >everything to do with ego and audience. (emphasis added) Then you wonder why we do the same back to you. At least I'll freely admit that I will make fun of certain people on occasion. If you don't want to be called an idiot, don't act like one. It's as simple as that. >And if you really think that jackasses are to be ignored, what the hell are >you doing here? I mean, if you think I'm a jackass, you must be of the >impression that they are, too . . . in which case this must be a big empty >room for you. Since you claim to be a bastion of logic, let's take that statement logically: Jackasses are to be ignored. DarkStar is a jackass. Therefore, the pro-Wars debaters on ASVS are to be ignored. Anyone else see a big leap of logic here? Following the pattern of formal logic, using those two assumptions it should be: Jackasses are to be ignored. DarkStar is a jackass. Therefore, DarkStar is to be ignored. >> If you really want to understand, try and play devil's advocate to your >own >> ideas. > >I do that anyway. When I develop an argument, I pay attention to whatever >facts might be or appear to be against that argument . . . and I also try to >imagine what Warsies will claim about it. I find the latter difficult, >since I'm operating on the basis of reason, but I do try. But have you actually played devil's advocate? Trying to imagine what Warsies will claim about a theory is not playing devil's advocate. It means actually trying out the opposition's side. Just for kicks, I think I'll play devil's advocate for your side for a few days. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:32:09 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <2pydnaEUtY-XviGgXTWcpg@comcast.com> -------- "John Hansen" wrote in message news:55dmruci14kmmvfb535u58fogrso2pnc7i@4ax.com... > "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised > as <_gadnfkJtaEPPyegXTWcoA@comcast.com>) on Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:11:41 -0500... > > > >"Drewcifer" wrote in message > >news:B9DF8556.7E7E%valis1NOTFORSPAM@mindspring.com... > > > > >> >>> > >> >>> DSG2k > >> >> > >> >> Posting crap like the above is why you don't get any respect from the > >> >> group. > >> > > >> > Posting crap like the wannabe arguments they were making (and which the > >> > above gives final response to) is why they get no respect from me. > >> > >> I understand that you disagree with the arguements given for ASVS' canon > >> policy. I just don't understand what the point was of flipping the bird, > >so > >> to speak, and saying "neener neener neener" before sticking out your > >tongue > >> and stomping away. > > > >I don't think you understand . . . the Warsies here do not change their mind > >for any reason, unless it changes in a more pro-Wars direction. Even when > >they've conceded something, just wait . . . they'll be claiming the exact > >same thing in no time. > > Many of us will change our minds if presented with a good enough reason to do > so. That's rare. > > >> My point is that people might listen to you if you didn't act like such a > >> prick about it. > > > >I admire your position . . . don't think for a moment that I don't. But > >you should realize that I've been watching these people in action for quite > >some time, whether from the point of view of being their target, or from the > >point of view of watching them target someone else. Though a few can > >occasionally behave reasonably, the majority do not. I learned long ago > >that reason would not get through to them. I tried other methods from time > >to time . . . acting more like them to see if they'd understand. Nope. > > > >Now, I know that their only value in regards to the debate is their utility > >to me. I just put the arguments out there into the lion's den and see how > >they hold up, in the hopes that somewhere amongst the insults, slanders, > >sophistries, and outright lies, they might actually find a hole in an > >argument, or a point that requires idiot-proofing. Almost without > >exception, they fail to do the former . . . indeed, I've had to point out > >the flaw in my own argument before. The latter, however, they excel at . . > > Would you kindly direct me to that example? Example of what quoted point? > >> You say you could care less about what ASVS thinks of you -- > >> that's great, but being a jerk about your arguments has gained you > >nothing. > > > >Not true . . . I've learned a lot, be it from researching issues related to > >the debate, to observing some of the most negative examples of human nature > >and the nature of irrational belief. > > Have you researched your own behaviors, by any chance? The only reason that I > disrespect you now is because of your own utter lack of respect. Funny, since the reason I show no respect to many of the folks here is their long history of disrespect toward me. > >This recent development of the idea that I must specifically reply to every > >single sentence is most peculiar. The idea behind what I snipped was > >covered. You say: > > > >> And by the way, your habit of snipping sentences to suit your > >> purposes is quite annoying, and rather dishonest. > > > >What, you think I've edited your original post somehow? I'm not snipping > >to suit my purposes . . . I've already addressed the point or claim, or else > >it was snipped due to irrelevance. > > It was not irrelevant. Here is one such example: > > >> I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such > >> a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen... > > >> ... to more of your waste. > > > Snipping, in this one case, completely changed the context of the statement. Yes. I took the liberty of making a point out of his statement, instead of it just being a stupid and irrelevant insult. > The proper use of snipping is to take out irrelevant paragraphs and cascading > text. Irrelevancies in general are also snip-worthy. > Snipping my post will not help you, > since my post will still exist for people to look at. Precisely. > > > > >> Besides, the ASVS canon policy agrees with you, as far as what is strictly > >> canon. Your problem seems to be with the "Official" sources. I'm sorry > >that > >> ST doesn't have an "Official" catergory > > > >Why are you sorry? The respective canon policies do not make demands of > >one another. My only rule regarding both is that they should be determined > >in the same manner . . . their content can be utterly different. > > They are determined in the same manner, based on what the respective > authorities say. Yes . . . now. > >> But you may have missed my point - being a jackass has kept most everyone > >> from listening to you anymore. > > > >This idea that I am the big bad jackass is so very peculiar to me. Have > >you not seen the Warsies in action? Have you never watched them argue? > >Go read old posts on Google or something. I am an angel by comparison. > > I love your sense of morals, claiming righteousness when you flame and slander > like there's no tomorrow. I occasionally flame, but never slander. > Then you wonder why we do the same back to you. The same back to me? You really have no sense of time, do you? Over and above the fact that, as stated, I was trying to goad Wong into following his own stated precepts (by correctly pointing out what his behavior was), there's the simple fact that I'd had much worse from him and others directed my way already. By reversing the time order to make me look like the one who made the first strike, you alter the context. > >And if you really think that jackasses are to be ignored, what the hell are > >you doing here? I mean, if you think I'm a jackass, you must be of the > >impression that they are, too . . . in which case this must be a big empty > >room for you. > > Since you claim to be a bastion of logic, let's take that statement logically: > > Jackasses are to be ignored. > DarkStar is a jackass. > Therefore, the pro-Wars debaters on ASVS are to be ignored. I'd already pointed out the fact that the Warsies (not the pro-Wars debaters . . . there is a difference) are far worse jackasses then I could ever hope to be (if I even ever hoped to be one). This is not an example of faulty logic . . . it is another example of short attention span on the part of a reader. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:59:20 -0800 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as <2pydnaEUtY-XviGgXTWcpg@comcast.com>) on Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:32:09 -0600... > >"John Hansen" wrote in message >news:55dmruci14kmmvfb535u58fogrso2pnc7i@4ax.com... >>>I don't think you understand... the Warsies here do not change their mind >>>for any reason, unless it changes in a more pro-Wars direction. Even when >>>they've conceded something, just wait . . . they'll be claiming the exact >>>same thing in no time. >> >> Many of us will change our minds if presented with a good enough reason to >> do so. > >That's rare. That's what debate is for. Prove your point in a convincing fashion and the less rabid of us (Kaz not included) might listen. However, so far you have failed to do that. >>>Now, I know that their only value in regards to the debate is their utility >>>to me. I just put the arguments out there into the lion's den and see how >>>they hold up, in the hopes that somewhere amongst the insults, slanders, >>>sophistries, and outright lies, they might actually find a hole in an >>>argument, or a point that requires idiot-proofing. Almost without >>>exception, they fail to do the former . . . indeed, I've had to point out ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>the flaw in my own argument before. The latter, however, they excel at... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Would you kindly direct me to that example? > >Example of what quoted point? See emphasis. I've never seen you point out a major flaw in your own argument before. I've never seen you admit the fact that you use fallacies on a regular basis. I've never seen you accept defeat on even a minor issue, et cetera... >> Have you researched your own behaviors, by any chance? The only reason >> that I disrespect you now is because of your own utter lack of respect. > >Funny, since the reason I show no respect to many of the folks here is their >long history of disrespect toward me. The first post that I have in my own archive (dating back to May 2001) in which you concern yourself with the ST vs SW debate here. And in this very first post, you use the fallacies of hasty generalization and negative transfer. Small wonder we lost our respect for you right off the bat! Transcend's first reply was also more typical of him than Warsies in general. He basically did that to anyone who didn't agree with him, but I don't blame you for not knowing that at the time. Transcend, Guardian 2000. Thu, 12 Jul 2001 03:35:17 -0500 <20010719.165916.1620643079.1315@localhost.localdomain> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ||||||||That, son, is a question long-debated. The pro-Wars faction (which, as ||||||||obviated by most of the replies to this thread, has the numerical advantage) ||||||||has a variety of calculations and/or arguments which purport to show that: |||||||[...] ||||||||In short, it is quite possible to survive quite happily as a Trekker. ||||||||Certain members of the pro-Wars faction will hound you as much as possible ||||||||if you demonstrate the audacity to argue with them, but all you have to do ||||||||is bear in mind that a lot of the arguments they make are flawed, and a lot ||||||||of the calculations are based upon false assumptions/arguments/other ||||||||calculations. |||||||| ||||||||Of course, in my own opinion, we pro-Trek debaters are often like scientists ||||||||engaging creationists in a debate . . . there are way more of them (of ||||||||course, I'm stuck in the Bible Belt USA), and they fling such massive ||||||||volumes of BS that there's a lot to wade through, and a lot of it looks ||||||||almost decent, so long as you don't think about it too hard. :-) ||||||| ||||||| HAHAHAHAHAHAhaha, I think you have that backwards boy. |||||| |||||| Hardly. Certain pro-Wars debaters/authors share most if not all of their |||||| tactics with creationists. ||||| ||||| I'd like some proof of that please. |||| ||||I'll be sure to point out examples from now on when I encounter them. |||| ||| Concession accepted. || || No concession offerred. I was simply going to make life easier for the || both of us and not go back over all the threads and mark everything, and || make you follow along. || | You are so full of bullshit, if anyone here is guilty of illogical | thinking it is you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- So who was goading him on? You. And here is your first, your very first, discussion on Alderaan's ring problem. Try and point out every fallacy used. Graeme Dice, Guardian 2000, Transcend. Sat, 21 Jul 2001 05:30:45 GMT, <3B591307.40148A8@sk.sympatico.ca> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |||||||||| 2a. Dodonna's comment in Star Wars that the Death Star had |||||||||| more firepower than half of the Imperial star fleet. From |||||||||| calculations given for the Death Star's weapons energy in the |||||||||| destruction of Alderaan, plus guesses at the number of ships in |||||||||| the Empire, people can finagle any desired outcome. ||||||||| ||||||||| Not really, it depends on whether you believe in extremely high ||||||||| fleet numbers or extremely low fleet numbers. At any rate it still ||||||||| leaves Star Destroyers capable of pulling off a BDZ. |||||||| |||||||| Only if that is supported and not overruled by the rest of canon, |||||||| especially visuals. Also, it requires that the assumptions made |||||||| in the calculations of Death Star firepower be correct. ||||||| ||||||| It is not overruled by canon. Also unless you want to argue the ||||||| idiocy that Alderaan to be much more dense, or much less dense, the ||||||| energy required to destroy it in the manner in which it was ||||||| destroyed is known. I don't have the exact number, I don't have a ||||||| good memory for such things, but there are plenty here who do have ||||||| that number and most trekkies agree with it. |||||| |||||| As I said, it does not satisfy sentence one. I've not gone into |||||| sentence two in sufficient detail. |||||| |||||| However, there is something funny about the ring explosion . . . I |||||| know of no natural explanation off the top of my head. ||||| ||||| Still, it required so much energy to cause the planet to explode, and ||||| to explode so violently. Although the ring may be an aftereffect of the ||||| beam, if you noticed the DS blew up in a similar way. ||||| |||| Hmm, so it's not a perfectly natural phenomenon, attributable to normal |||| physics? ||| ||| The explosion itself still required the energy it required though. The ||| ring itself....nobody knows for sure. || || What I'm saying is that you cannot claim that the Death Star directly input || 1E38J or 1E32J into Alderaan. | | Yes, we can. The canon opening credits on ANH tell us that the station | has the power to destroy a planet. That plus the fact that the ring is | not counted in any determinations of added energy. It would only | increase the power of the superlaser. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Want me to keep dredging up old material? >>>What, you think I've edited your original post somehow? I'm not >>>snipping to suit my purposes... I've already addressed the point >>>or claim, or else it was snipped due to irrelevance. >> >> It was not irrelevant. Here is one such example: >> >>>> I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such >>>> a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen... >> >>>> ... to more of your waste. >> >> >> Snipping, in this one case, completely changed the context of the >> statement. > >Yes. I took the liberty of making a point out of his statement, instead of >it just being a stupid and irrelevant insult. So, by your own admission, you changed the context of his statement to suit your purposes. However, you also denied in previous posts that you change the context of people's statements to suit your purposes. Am I sensing a pattern here? >> The proper use of snipping is to take out irrelevant paragraphs and >> cascading text. > >Irrelevancies in general are also snip-worthy. Not if removing them will change the context of a statement. I thought you had a grasp of the English language, DarkStar. How sad that you prove me wrong on that count. (Yep, a perfect opportunity to snip and change the context.) >> Snipping my post will not help you, >> since my post will still exist for people to look at. > >Precisely. Well, if snipping relevant words of other people's post won't help you, why do you continue to do it? >>>> Besides, the ASVS canon policy agrees with you, as far as what is >>>> strictly canon. Your problem seems to be with the "Official" >>>> sources. I'm sorry that ST doesn't have an "Official" category. >>> >>>Why are you sorry? The respective canon policies do not make demands of >>>one another. My only rule regarding both is that they should be >>>determined in the same manner... their content can be utterly different. >> >> They are determined in the same manner, based on what the respective >> authorities say. > >Yes . . . now. >> You may concern yourself with semantics and nitpick all you >> want, saying that a person didn't really mean _this_ but meant _that_, but are >> you suddenly an authority on what someone says? I certainly haven't seen you >> display a bachelor's degree in English. Miss something, Mr. Semantics? >>>> But you may have missed my point - being a jackass has kept most >>>> everyone from listening to you anymore. >>> >>>This idea that I am the big bad jackass is so very peculiar to me. >>>Have you not seen the Warsies in action? Have you never watched them argue? >>>Go read old posts on Google or something. I am an angel by comparison. >> >> I love your sense of morals, claiming righteousness when you flame and >> slander like there's no tomorrow. > >I occasionally flame, but never slander. I'll grant that calling a person a gaping vagina is a flame, but claiming to people on other boards (which I won't mention for the purposes of privacy) that the person in question runs away from debate is slander of a sort. >> Then you wonder why we do the same back to you. > >The same back to me? You really have no sense of time, do you? Over and >above the fact that, as stated, I was trying to goad Wong into following his >own stated precepts (by correctly pointing out what his behavior was), You incorrectly pointed out what his behavior was. He said that he wanted a debate free from things like your tendancy to change the context of statements. You immediately claimed that he was running away and did not want to debate. Hypocrite. >there's the simple fact that I'd had much worse from him and others directed >my way already. > >By reversing the time order to make me look like the one who made the first >strike, you alter the context. Ah, so you accuse me of exactly what any bystander can see you do. >>>And if you really think that jackasses are to be ignored, what the hell >>>are you doing here? I mean, if you think I'm a jackass, you must be of the >>>impression that they are, too . . . in which case this must be a big empty >>>room for you. >> >> Since you claim to be a bastion of logic, let's take that statement >> logically: >> >> Jackasses are to be ignored. >> DarkStar is a jackass. >> Therefore, the pro-Wars debaters on ASVS are to be ignored. > >I'd already pointed out the fact that the Warsies (not the pro-Wars debaters >. . . there is a difference) are far worse jackasses then I could ever hope >to be (if I even ever hoped to be one). This is not an example of faulty >logic . . . it is another example of short attention span on the part of a >reader. Yes, but following the rules of deduction, you cannot have three premises. You can only have two premises. The example you provided had three premises, which seems to suggest that your grasp of logic is worse than you would have us think. Properly stated, as you have it now: Jackasses are to be ignored. (universal, universal) (major premise) Warsies are jackasses. (universal, universal) (minor premise) Therefore, Warsies are to be ignored. (universal, universal) (conclusion) However, there is one more error here, in that the second premise (Warsies are jackasses) is a generalization and hence an illicit minor premise. Not all Warsies are jackasses (the term Warsie means, in general, a Star Wars fan; I know many Warsies from AFS who are not jackasses) so your logic fails here. Try again? (y/n) _ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 23:34:59 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "John Hansen" wrote in message news:g4coruc3qjq222doon58b35vfon7n1o4pe@4ax.com... > >>>exception, they fail to do the former . . . indeed, I've had to point out > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>>the flaw in my own argument before. The latter, however, they excel at... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> Would you kindly direct me to that example? > > > >Example of what quoted point? > > See emphasis. I've never seen you point out a major flaw in your own argument > before. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22denying+the+antecedent%22+group:alt.sta rtrek.vs.starwars&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9a1k10%243728b%241%40ID-82121.news .dfncis.de&rnum=1 > >> Have you researched your own behaviors, by any chance? The only reason > >> that I disrespect you now is because of your own utter lack of respect. > > > >Funny, since the reason I show no respect to many of the folks here is their > >long history of disrespect toward me. > > The first post that I have in my own archive (dating back to May 2001) in > which you concern yourself with the ST vs SW debate here. April 2000 is my first post, according to Google. Sounds about right to me. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:alt.startrek.vs.starwars+author:guar dian2000&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=480&sa=N&filter=0 > >>>What, you think I've edited your original post somehow? I'm not > >>>snipping to suit my purposes... I've already addressed the point > >>>or claim, or else it was snipped due to irrelevance. > >> > >> It was not irrelevant. Here is one such example: > >> > >>>> I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such > >>>> a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen... > >> > >>>> ... to more of your waste. > >> > >> > >> Snipping, in this one case, completely changed the context of the > >> statement. > > > >Yes. I took the liberty of making a point out of his statement, instead of > >it just being a stupid and irrelevant insult. > > So, by your own admission, you changed the context of his statement to suit > your purposes. Not at all. I could have snipped the entire thing due to its irrelevance. > >> Snipping my post will not help you, > >> since my post will still exist for people to look at. > > > >Precisely. > > Well, if snipping relevant words of other people's post won't help you, why do > you continue to do it? Why does anyone snip? > >I occasionally flame, but never slander. > > I'll grant that calling a person a gaping vagina is a flame, but claiming to > people on other boards (which I won't mention for the purposes of privacy) > that the person in question runs away from debate is slander of a sort. There was no slander involved. > You incorrectly pointed out what his behavior was. He said that he wanted a > debate free from things like your tendancy to change the context of > statements. You immediately claimed that he was running away and did not want > to debate. > > Hypocrite. Any hypocrisy on my part is a result of your utter failure to understand anything. After all, *I* was the one who wanted a debate free from his usual charlatanism. You've misread/misunderstood who was saying or doing what. > >>>And if you really think that jackasses are to be ignored, what the hell > >>>are you doing here? I mean, if you think I'm a jackass, you must be of the > >>>impression that they are, too . . . in which case this must be a big empty > >>>room for you. > >> > >> Since you claim to be a bastion of logic, let's take that statement > >> logically: > >> > >> Jackasses are to be ignored. > >> DarkStar is a jackass. > >> Therefore, the pro-Wars debaters on ASVS are to be ignored. > > > >I'd already pointed out the fact that the Warsies (not the pro-Wars debaters > >. . . there is a difference) are far worse jackasses then I could ever hope > >to be (if I even ever hoped to be one). This is not an example of faulty > >logic . . . it is another example of short attention span on the part of a > >reader. > > Yes, but following the rules of deduction, you cannot have three premises. You are the one trying to make it a deductive argument. Adjust your terms accordingly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drewcifer Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 01:18:06 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ::log:: XMT IDC: "DarkStar" MSG TXT: [snips of dialog between RSA and JH] >>>>> What, you think I've edited your original post somehow? I'm not >>>>> snipping to suit my purposes... I've already addressed the point >>>>> or claim, or else it was snipped due to irrelevance. >>>> >>>> It was not irrelevant. Here is one such example: >>>> >>>>>> I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such >>>>>> a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen... >>>> >>>>>> ... to more of your waste. >>>> >>>> >>>> Snipping, in this one case, completely changed the context of the >>>> statement. >>> >>> Yes. I took the liberty of making a point out of his statement, instead of >>> it just being a stupid and irrelevant insult. Thank you for admitting that you edited my post. (Perhaps, instead, I should have followed your lead and snipped your irrelevant insult of my insult.) >> >> So, by your own admission, you changed the context of his statement to suit >> your purposes. > > Not at all. I could have snipped the entire thing due to its irrelevance. Regardless of your personal opinions and assessments, changing the spirit and context of what someone else has said is dishonest. In the future, myself (and many others I presume) would prefer that you use your OWN words to express your thoughts and opinions rather than alter the words of others. And, if you felt my statement was entirely irrelevant, why did you choose to respond to it? It is illogical for you to respond to the irrelevant, is it not? I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the group's treatment of you. I assumed that it was primarily your insufferable personality traits, but clearly it is the hypocrisy, arrogance, and delusion of your self appointed role in debates (and the universe in general) as the Sole Guardian of Truth and Logic that has earned you the position of ASVS whipping boy. Good day, sir. Drewcifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 01:33:16 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <5NadnSgsUbajoyCgXTWc3Q@comcast.com> -------- "Drewcifer" wrote in message news:B9E240CE.8102%valis1NOTFORSPAM@mindspring.com... > ::log:: XMT IDC: "DarkStar" MSG TXT: > > [snips of dialog between RSA and JH] > > >>>>> What, you think I've edited your original post somehow? I'm not > >>>>> snipping to suit my purposes... I've already addressed the point > >>>>> or claim, or else it was snipped due to irrelevance. > >>>> > >>>> It was not irrelevant. Here is one such example: > >>>> > >>>>>> I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such > >>>>>> a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen... > >>>> > >>>>>> ... to more of your waste. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Snipping, in this one case, completely changed the context of the > >>>> statement. > >>> > >>> Yes. I took the liberty of making a point out of his statement, instead of > >>> it just being a stupid and irrelevant insult. > > Thank you for admitting that you edited my post. I did no such thing. Are you aware of what you're posting to? > > Not at all. I could have snipped the entire thing due to its irrelevance. > > Regardless of your personal opinions and assessments, changing the spirit > and context of what someone else has said is dishonest. Illogical. We all know what was said. I replied to the relevant portion. Your original post was not altered in any way. > I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the group's > treatment of you. No, you were quite wrong . . . and becoming moreso. Instead of listening, you're trying to make a point . . . and to hell with anything which doesn't correspond to that point. You will make an excellent Warsie. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drewcifer Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:37:39 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ::log:: XMT IDC: "DarkStar" MSG TXT: > > "Drewcifer" wrote in message > news:B9E240CE.8102%valis1NOTFORSPAM@mindspring.com... >> ::log:: XMT IDC: "DarkStar" MSG TXT: >> >> [snips of dialog between RSA and JH] >> >>>>>>> What, you think I've edited your original post somehow? I'm not >>>>>>> snipping to suit my purposes... I've already addressed the point >>>>>>> or claim, or else it was snipped due to irrelevance. >>>>>> >>>>>> It was not irrelevant. Here is one such example: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such >>>>>>>> a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen... >>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... to more of your waste. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Snipping, in this one case, completely changed the context of the >>>>>> statement. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. I took the liberty of making a point out of his statement, > instead of >>>>> it just being a stupid and irrelevant insult. >> >> Thank you for admitting that you edited my post. > > I did no such thing. Are you aware of what you're posting to? > >>> Not at all. I could have snipped the entire thing due to its > irrelevance. >> >> Regardless of your personal opinions and assessments, changing the spirit >> and context of what someone else has said is dishonest. > > Illogical. We all know what was said. I replied to the relevant portion. > Your original post was not altered in any way. > >> I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the group's >> treatment of you. > > No, you were quite wrong . . . and becoming moreso. Instead of listening, > you're trying to make a point . . . and to hell with anything which doesn't > correspond to that point. > > You will make an excellent Warsie. > > You are not noticed. Your presence is ignored, your words forgotten. Drewcifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:47:49 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DBCEB6C.1040603@shaw.ca> -------- Drewcifer wrote: > ::log:: XMT IDC: "DarkStar" MSG TXT: > I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the group's > treatment of you. I assumed that it was primarily your insufferable > personality traits, but clearly it is the hypocrisy, arrogance, and delusion > of your self appointed role in debates (and the universe in general) as the > Sole Guardian of Truth and Logic that has earned you the position of ASVS > whipping boy. That's exactly it. Darkstar believes his opinions are the 'bible truth' and all others are damnable lies spread by Satan himself. When in fact, his opinions are worth no more than anyone else's, and are worth considerable less than people who work on the inside like Saxton and Ordover. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:11:33 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DBCF0FC.6030000@shaw.ca> -------- C.S.Strowbridge wrote: > Drewcifer wrote: >> "DarkStar" MSG TXT: >> I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the >> group's treatment of you. I assumed that it was primarily your >> insufferable personality traits, but clearly it is the hypocrisy, >> arrogance, and delusion of your self appointed role in debates (and >> the universe in general) as the Sole Guardian of Truth and Logic that >> has earned you the position of ASVS whipping boy. > > That's exactly it. Darkstar believes his opinions are the 'bible truth' > and all others are damnable lies spread by Satan himself. When in fact, > his opinions are worth no more than anyone else's, and are worth > considerable less than people who work on the inside like Saxton and > Ordover. Oh, one more. Once Darkstar tried to claim that Gaskills comments on the website overruled Gaskills explanation of those same comments. I truly doubt Timmy would have even dreamt of pulling that shit. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drewcifer Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 02:51:54 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: > C.S.Strowbridge wrote: >> Drewcifer wrote: >>> "DarkStar" MSG TXT: > >>> I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the >>> group's treatment of you. I assumed that it was primarily your >>> insufferable personality traits, but clearly it is the hypocrisy, >>> arrogance, and delusion of your self appointed role in debates (and >>> the universe in general) as the Sole Guardian of Truth and Logic that >>> has earned you the position of ASVS whipping boy. >> >> That's exactly it. Darkstar believes his opinions are the 'bible truth' >> and all others are damnable lies spread by Satan himself. When in fact, >> his opinions are worth no more than anyone else's, and are worth >> considerable less than people who work on the inside like Saxton and >> Ordover. > > Oh, one more. Once Darkstar tried to claim that Gaskills comments on the > website overruled Gaskills explanation of those same comments. I truly > doubt Timmy would have even dreamt of pulling that shit. > > C.S.Strowbridge > haha Darkstar may truly be insane. There's probably a letter in Lucas' trashcan from Darkstar that begins, "Dear Mr. Lucas, I am writing to inform you that your statements about canon are wrong." I never held the group in contempt for constantly berating DS; I just mistakenly assumed that it was his behavior, not his bs, that earned him his ASVS anti-mascot dogtags. But even his recent attempt at relative civility couldn't mask his arrogance and deluded thinking. I will be switching newsreaders soon and Darkstar maybe be my first kill-filter entry, with an epitaph of "failed at thinking" :) Drewcifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drewcifer Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 02:19:55 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: > Drewcifer wrote: >> ::log:: XMT IDC: "DarkStar" MSG TXT: > > > >> I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the group's >> treatment of you. I assumed that it was primarily your insufferable >> personality traits, but clearly it is the hypocrisy, arrogance, and delusion >> of your self appointed role in debates (and the universe in general) as the >> Sole Guardian of Truth and Logic that has earned you the position of ASVS >> whipping boy. > > That's exactly it. Darkstar believes his opinions are the 'bible truth' > and all others are damnable lies spread by Satan himself. When in fact, > his opinions are worth no more than anyone else's, and are worth > considerable less than people who work on the inside like Saxton and > Ordover. > > C.S.Strowbridge > In hindsight, I think I knew that already, but I really wanted to try and give him the benefit of the doubt. That policy bites me in the ass frequently, but it is my nature, and I accept the consequences. Drewcifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:50:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "Drewcifer" wrote in message news:B9E24F4B.810F%valis1NOTFORSPAM@mindspring.com... > ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: > > > Drewcifer wrote: > >> ::log:: XMT IDC: "DarkStar" MSG TXT: > > > > > > > >> I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the group's > >> treatment of you. I assumed that it was primarily your insufferable > >> personality traits, but clearly it is the hypocrisy, arrogance, and delusion > >> of your self appointed role in debates (and the universe in general) as the > >> Sole Guardian of Truth and Logic that has earned you the position of ASVS > >> whipping boy. > > > > That's exactly it. Darkstar believes his opinions are the 'bible truth' > > and all others are damnable lies spread by Satan himself. When in fact, > > his opinions are worth no more than anyone else's, and are worth > > considerable less than people who work on the inside like Saxton and > > Ordover. > > > > C.S.Strowbridge > > > > In hindsight, I think I knew that already, but I really wanted to try and > give him the benefit of the doubt. That policy bites me in the ass > frequently, but it is my nature, and I accept the consequences. > In this place that will happen often enough, if you need a prime example look up "Transcend" and then look at the number of times I interceded on his behalf only to be rewarded with...insolence and venom. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:21:17 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DBD71D9.5010609@shaw.ca> -------- Drewcifer wrote: > ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: >>Drewcifer wrote: >>>I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the group's >>>treatment of you. I assumed that it was primarily your insufferable >>>personality traits, but clearly it is the hypocrisy, arrogance, and delusion >>>of your self appointed role in debates (and the universe in general) as the >>>Sole Guardian of Truth and Logic that has earned you the position of ASVS >>>whipping boy. >> >>That's exactly it. Darkstar believes his opinions are the 'bible truth' >>and all others are damnable lies spread by Satan himself. When in fact, >>his opinions are worth no more than anyone else's, and are worth >>considerable less than people who work on the inside like Saxton and >>Ordover. > > In hindsight, I think I knew that already, but I really wanted to try and > give him the benefit of the doubt. That policy bites me in the ass > frequently, but it is my nature, and I accept the consequences. I hardly think the consequences were bad. You were able to confirm your suspicions with regards to Darkstar and ASVS. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drewcifer Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:23:05 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: > Drewcifer wrote: >> ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: >>> Drewcifer wrote: > >>>> I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the group's >>>> treatment of you. I assumed that it was primarily your insufferable >>>> personality traits, but clearly it is the hypocrisy, arrogance, and >>>> delusion >>>> of your self appointed role in debates (and the universe in general) as the >>>> Sole Guardian of Truth and Logic that has earned you the position of ASVS >>>> whipping boy. >>> >>> That's exactly it. Darkstar believes his opinions are the 'bible truth' >>> and all others are damnable lies spread by Satan himself. When in fact, >>> his opinions are worth no more than anyone else's, and are worth >>> considerable less than people who work on the inside like Saxton and >>> Ordover. >> >> In hindsight, I think I knew that already, but I really wanted to try and >> give him the benefit of the doubt. That policy bites me in the ass >> frequently, but it is my nature, and I accept the consequences. > > I hardly think the consequences were bad. You were able to confirm your > suspicions with regards to Darkstar and ASVS. > > C.S.Strowbridge > Agreed. I just had high hopes for Darkstar, that he wasn't really the way he appears to be. Granted, I'm too sensitive for my own good at times, but it's depressing to see that he truly has a closed mind. I too disagree with some of things said around here, but I /like/ that. A diverse newsgroup is a good newsgroup for me. I tend to learn more from people and positions that I disagree with than a roomful of people blowing sunshine up my skirt. Drewcifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:37:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DBDCA34.4143B50@daltonator.net> -------- Drewcifer wrote: > > ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: > > > Drewcifer wrote: > >> ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: > >>> Drewcifer wrote: > > > >>>> I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the group's > >>>> treatment of you. I assumed that it was primarily your insufferable > >>>> personality traits, but clearly it is the hypocrisy, arrogance, and > >>>> delusion > >>>> of your self appointed role in debates (and the universe in general) as the > >>>> Sole Guardian of Truth and Logic that has earned you the position of ASVS > >>>> whipping boy. > >>> > >>> That's exactly it. Darkstar believes his opinions are the 'bible truth' > >>> and all others are damnable lies spread by Satan himself. When in fact, > >>> his opinions are worth no more than anyone else's, and are worth > >>> considerable less than people who work on the inside like Saxton and > >>> Ordover. > >> > >> In hindsight, I think I knew that already, but I really wanted to try and > >> give him the benefit of the doubt. That policy bites me in the ass > >> frequently, but it is my nature, and I accept the consequences. > > > > I hardly think the consequences were bad. You were able to confirm your > > suspicions with regards to Darkstar and ASVS. > > > > C.S.Strowbridge > > > > Agreed. I just had high hopes for Darkstar, that he wasn't really the way he > appears to be. Granted, I'm too sensitive for my own good at times, but it's > depressing to see that he truly has a closed mind. > > I too disagree with some of things said around here, but I /like/ that. A > diverse newsgroup is a good newsgroup for me. I tend to learn more from > people and positions that I disagree with than a roomful of people blowing > sunshine up my skirt. > You wear a skirt? -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drewcifer Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:41:57 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ::log:: XMT IDC: "Dalton" MSG TXT: > Drewcifer wrote: >> >> ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: >> >>> Drewcifer wrote: >>>> ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: >>>>> Drewcifer wrote: >>> >>>>>> I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the >>>>>> group's >>>>>> treatment of you. I assumed that it was primarily your insufferable >>>>>> personality traits, but clearly it is the hypocrisy, arrogance, and >>>>>> delusion >>>>>> of your self appointed role in debates (and the universe in general) as >>>>>> the >>>>>> Sole Guardian of Truth and Logic that has earned you the position of ASVS >>>>>> whipping boy. >>>>> >>>>> That's exactly it. Darkstar believes his opinions are the 'bible truth' >>>>> and all others are damnable lies spread by Satan himself. When in fact, >>>>> his opinions are worth no more than anyone else's, and are worth >>>>> considerable less than people who work on the inside like Saxton and >>>>> Ordover. >>>> >>>> In hindsight, I think I knew that already, but I really wanted to try and >>>> give him the benefit of the doubt. That policy bites me in the ass >>>> frequently, but it is my nature, and I accept the consequences. >>> >>> I hardly think the consequences were bad. You were able to confirm your >>> suspicions with regards to Darkstar and ASVS. >>> >>> C.S.Strowbridge >>> >> >> Agreed. I just had high hopes for Darkstar, that he wasn't really the way he >> appears to be. Granted, I'm too sensitive for my own good at times, but it's >> depressing to see that he truly has a closed mind. >> >> I too disagree with some of things said around here, but I /like/ that. A >> diverse newsgroup is a good newsgroup for me. I tend to learn more from >> people and positions that I disagree with than a roomful of people blowing >> sunshine up my skirt. >> > > You wear a skirt? > -- > Rob "Roby" Dalton > http://daltonator.net > > "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda Umm, no, it's ummmm.....a kilt. Yeah, that's it, a kilt. Drewcifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:45:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DBDCC05.EF1D55DE@daltonator.net> -------- Drewcifer wrote: > > ::log:: XMT IDC: "Dalton" MSG TXT: > > > Drewcifer wrote: > >> > >> ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: > >> > >>> Drewcifer wrote: > >>>> ::log:: XMT IDC: "C.S.Strowbridge" MSG TXT: > >>>>> Drewcifer wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> I am beginning to see that I was quite naive in my assement of the > >>>>>> group's > >>>>>> treatment of you. I assumed that it was primarily your insufferable > >>>>>> personality traits, but clearly it is the hypocrisy, arrogance, and > >>>>>> delusion > >>>>>> of your self appointed role in debates (and the universe in general) as > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> Sole Guardian of Truth and Logic that has earned you the position of ASVS > >>>>>> whipping boy. > >>>>> > >>>>> That's exactly it. Darkstar believes his opinions are the 'bible truth' > >>>>> and all others are damnable lies spread by Satan himself. When in fact, > >>>>> his opinions are worth no more than anyone else's, and are worth > >>>>> considerable less than people who work on the inside like Saxton and > >>>>> Ordover. > >>>> > >>>> In hindsight, I think I knew that already, but I really wanted to try and > >>>> give him the benefit of the doubt. That policy bites me in the ass > >>>> frequently, but it is my nature, and I accept the consequences. > >>> > >>> I hardly think the consequences were bad. You were able to confirm your > >>> suspicions with regards to Darkstar and ASVS. > >>> > >>> C.S.Strowbridge > >>> > >> > >> Agreed. I just had high hopes for Darkstar, that he wasn't really the way he > >> appears to be. Granted, I'm too sensitive for my own good at times, but it's > >> depressing to see that he truly has a closed mind. > >> > >> I too disagree with some of things said around here, but I /like/ that. A > >> diverse newsgroup is a good newsgroup for me. I tend to learn more from > >> people and positions that I disagree with than a roomful of people blowing > >> sunshine up my skirt. > >> > > > > You wear a skirt? > > -- > > Rob "Roby" Dalton > > http://daltonator.net > > > > "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda > > Umm, no, it's ummmm.....a kilt. Yeah, that's it, a kilt. > Uh huh... -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drewcifer Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:59:35 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ::log:: XMT IDC: "Dalton" MSG TXT: [snip] >>>> I tend to learn more from people and positions that I disagree with than a >>>> roomful of people blowing sunshine up my skirt. >>>> >>> >>> You wear a skirt? >>> -- >>> Rob "Roby" Dalton >>> http://daltonator.net >>> >>> "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda >> >> Umm, no, it's ummmm.....a kilt. Yeah, that's it, a kilt. >> > > Uh huh... > Rob "Roby" Dalton > http://daltonator.net > > "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda Aye laddie, doan be insultin' me kilt now. Comfortable in all seasons it tis, and scrathin' me arse is lot easier than wearing them sissie pants. Drewcifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:47:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DBDDA8B.F7F31747@daltonator.net> -------- Drewcifer wrote: > > ::log:: XMT IDC: "Dalton" MSG TXT: > > [snip] > >>>> I tend to learn more from people and positions that I disagree with than a > >>>> roomful of people blowing sunshine up my skirt. > >>>> > >>> > >>> You wear a skirt? > >>> -- > >>> Rob "Roby" Dalton > >>> http://daltonator.net > >>> > >>> "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda > >> > >> Umm, no, it's ummmm.....a kilt. Yeah, that's it, a kilt. > >> > > > > Uh huh... > > Rob "Roby" Dalton > > http://daltonator.net > > > > "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda > > Aye laddie, doan be insultin' me kilt now. Comfortable in all seasons it > tis, and scrathin' me arse is lot easier than wearing them sissie pants. > But you look like Baron now. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drewcifer Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:53:39 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ::log:: XMT IDC: "Dalton" MSG TXT: > Drewcifer wrote: >> >> ::log:: XMT IDC: "Dalton" MSG TXT: >> >> [snip] >>>>>> I tend to learn more from people and positions that I disagree with than >>>>>> a >>>>>> roomful of people blowing sunshine up my skirt. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You wear a skirt? >>>>> -- >>>>> Rob "Roby" Dalton >>>>> http://daltonator.net >>>>> >>>>> "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda >>>> >>>> Umm, no, it's ummmm.....a kilt. Yeah, that's it, a kilt. >>>> >>> >>> Uh huh... >>> Rob "Roby" Dalton >>> http://daltonator.net >>> >>> "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda >> >> Aye laddie, doan be insultin' me kilt now. Comfortable in all seasons it >> tis, and scrathin' me arse is lot easier than wearing them sissie pants. >> > > But you look like Baron now. I'm still new here - is that worse than wearing a skirt? What's behind door #3? How about I post 47 different definitions of skirt, and pick the one I like best? Let's see, I like this one: 3. To evade or avoid: /to skirt the issue/. Drewcifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:59:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DBDDD8F.44CB3D6B@daltonator.net> -------- Drewcifer wrote: > > ::log:: XMT IDC: "Dalton" MSG TXT: > > > Drewcifer wrote: > >> > >> ::log:: XMT IDC: "Dalton" MSG TXT: > >> > >> [snip] > >>>>>> I tend to learn more from people and positions that I disagree with than > >>>>>> a > >>>>>> roomful of people blowing sunshine up my skirt. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> You wear a skirt? > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Rob "Roby" Dalton > >>>>> http://daltonator.net > >>>>> > >>>>> "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda > >>>> > >>>> Umm, no, it's ummmm.....a kilt. Yeah, that's it, a kilt. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Uh huh... > >>> Rob "Roby" Dalton > >>> http://daltonator.net > >>> > >>> "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda > >> > >> Aye laddie, doan be insultin' me kilt now. Comfortable in all seasons it > >> tis, and scrathin' me arse is lot easier than wearing them sissie pants. > >> > > > > But you look like Baron now. > > I'm still new here - is that worse than wearing a skirt? What's behind door > #3? > Strowbridge. > How about I post 47 different definitions of skirt, and pick the one I like > best? Let's see, I like this one: 3. To evade or avoid: /to skirt the > issue/. ROFLOL! -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drewcifer Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:11:42 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- ::log:: XMT IDC: "Dalton" MSG TXT: > Drewcifer wrote: >> >> ::log:: XMT IDC: "Dalton" MSG TXT: >> >>> Drewcifer wrote: >>>> >>>> ::log:: XMT IDC: "Dalton" MSG TXT: >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>>>>>> I tend to learn more from people and positions that I disagree with >>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> roomful of people blowing sunshine up my skirt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You wear a skirt? >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Rob "Roby" Dalton >>>>>>> http://daltonator.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda >>>>>> >>>>>> Umm, no, it's ummmm.....a kilt. Yeah, that's it, a kilt. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Uh huh... >>>>> Rob "Roby" Dalton >>>>> http://daltonator.net >>>>> >>>>> "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda >>>> >>>> Aye laddie, doan be insultin' me kilt now. Comfortable in all seasons it >>>> tis, and scrathin' me arse is lot easier than wearing them sissie pants. >>>> >>> >>> But you look like Baron now. >> >> I'm still new here - is that worse than wearing a skirt? What's behind door >> #3? >> > > Strowbridge. Is he wearing a skirt too? >> How about I post 47 different definitions of skirt, and pick the one I like >> best? Let's see, I like this one: 3. To evade or avoid: /to skirt the >> issue/. > > ROFLOL! Careful, that's not very lady-like. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:11:01 -0800 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as ) on Sun, 27 Oct 2002 23:34:59 -0600... > >"John Hansen" wrote in message >news:g4coruc3qjq222doon58b35vfon7n1o4pe@4ax.com... > >>>>> exception, they fail to do the former . . . indeed, I've >>>>> had to point out the flaw in my own argument before. >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>> The latter, however, they excel at... >>>> >>>> Would you kindly direct me to that example? >>> >>> Example of what quoted point? >> >> See emphasis. I've never seen you point out a major flaw in >> your own argument before. > >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22denying+the+antecedent%22+ >group:alt.startrek.vs.starwars&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9a1k10% >243728b%241%40ID-82121.news.dfncis.de&rnum=1 You pointed out a minor mistake in your logic, while ignoring the large mistakes you made concerning semantics; namely, the first definition of "rule of thumb" clearly said that it was a rule based on experience rather than science. Instead, you said that it followed the second definition and was hence imprecise. Stop playing word games with us. That's basically all you have been doing all along; twisting our words to fit your views, using little-used definitions of words to define statements, and the like. >>>> Have you researched your own behaviors, by any chance? The only reason >>>> that I disrespect you now is because of your own utter lack of respect. >>> >>> Funny, since the reason I show no respect to many of the folks >>> here is their long history of disrespect toward me. >> >> The first post that I have in my own archive (dating back to May 2001) in >> which you concern yourself with the ST vs SW debate here. > >April 2000 is my first post, according to Google. Sounds about >right to me. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:alt.startrek.vs. >starwars+author:guardian2000&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=480 >&sa=N&filter=0 Well, fine, so I wasn't entirely accurate. Your ignoring my main point and nitpicking the actual *date*, however, falls under the fallacy of Disproving a Minor Point. I reiterate: I've provided unaltered evidence showing that you are usually the first to engage in foul play during a debate. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary? >>>> Snipping, in this one case, completely changed the context of the >>>> statement. >>> >>> Yes. I took the liberty of making a point out of his statement, >>> instead of it just being a stupid and irrelevant insult. >> >> So, by your own admission, you changed the context of his >> statement to suit your purposes. > >Not at all. I could have snipped the entire thing due to its irrelevance. Yes, you could have. At least it wouldn't have been changing the context of a statement. >>>> Snipping my post will not help you, >>>> since my post will still exist for people to look at. >>> >>>Precisely. >> >> Well, if snipping relevant words of other people's post won't >> help you, why do you continue to do it? > >Why does anyone snip? To shorten the lengths of posts by removing irrelevant (read: from three or four posts ago) information. Nice diversion, by the way. I ask a question and you answer with another one. >>>I'd already pointed out the fact that the Warsies (not the pro-Wars >>>debaters... there is a difference) are far worse jackasses then I >>>could ever hope to be (if I even ever hoped to be one). This is not >>>an example of faulty logic... it is another example of short attention >>>span on the part of a reader. >> >> Yes, but following the rules of deduction, you cannot have three >> premises. > >You are the one trying to make it a deductive argument. Adjust your terms >accordingly. It doesn't matter if I state it as a deductive argument or an inductive argument. You still have three premises, one of which is an invalid generalization. Any suggestions? >> >I occasionally flame, but never slander. >> >> I'll grant that calling a person a gaping vagina is a flame, but claiming >> to people on other boards (which I won't mention for the purposes of >> privacy) that the person in question runs away from debate is slander >> of a sort. > >There was no slander involved. I suppose you'll attempt to redefine slander now. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=slander 1. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. 2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) 1. A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc) 1. To defame; to injure by maliciously uttering a false report; to tarnish or impair the reputation of by false tales maliciously told or propagated; to calumniate. 2. To bring discredit or shame upon by one's acts. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc) 1: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another 2: the act of defaming [syn: aspersion, calumny, defamation] v : charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone. (WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University) 1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation 2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person (Merriam-Webster Online) Interestingly, every one of these definitions says that your false accusations against Wong were slander. The first says oral. The others say "utterance" and "dissemination", which can be applied to the Internet. >> You incorrectly pointed out what his behavior was. He said that he wanted >> a debate free from things like your tendancy to change the context of >> statements. You immediately claimed that he was running away and did not >> want to debate. >> >> Hypocrite. > >Any hypocrisy on my part is a result of your utter failure to understand >anything. After all, *I* was the one who wanted a debate free from his >usual charlatanism. You've misread/misunderstood who was saying or doing >what. You accuse him of charlatanism. Let's look at *that* definition, shall we? http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=charlatan charlatan. N. A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) charlatan. One who prates much in his own favor, and makes unwarrantable pretensions; a quack; an impostor; an empiric; a mountebank. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.) charlatan n : a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes [syn: mountebank] (WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University) Main Entry: char·la·tan Function: noun 1 : QUACK 2 2 : one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability : FRAUD, FAKER (Merriam-Webster Online) So, you revert again to slander in accusing Wong of being a man who "prates much in his own favor and makes unwarrantable pretensions." Let's see, Wong is the one with the bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering while you're the former helpdesk guy who prates much in your own favor. Fallacy of Appeal to Appearance. I see a black pot and a somewhat tarnished kettle here. Guess which one you are? (I don't even have to post the full text of Wong's challenge or your reply, but I might as well since this is the end of the post.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |If that were the case, I would ban Darkling and every other Trekkie on |this board. Do you really think I'm singling you out because you're such |a remarkably devastating Trek debater that I should fear you, but not |the rest? Oooh, clever . . . trying to get me to piss off the other Trek debaters? Sorry, not happening. The problems you have with me could apply to other parties, and you might not want to ban them. The difference is that I can get just as loud and obnoxious as you can, while still not falling for your cleverly deceitful sophistries, ridiculous debate style, or charlatanism. |I think you know perfectly well that you could not hold up your end of a |pure one-on-one debate On the contrary . . . with an honest pro-Wars debater, I only have half the work. Take a look at Cromag . . . he hasn't tried to slip lies under my radar, like you . . . hasn't tried to waylay me with bullshit personal attacks, like you . . . hasn't tried to run from the debate and go looking up my educational institutions, like you. You wouldn't know how to be a good, decent, honest debater. You have to throw up smokescreens, attack from behind, fling insults like a monkey throwing feces, and do all sorts of other bullshit. That's your definition of one-on-one debate. If you had ever, even once, led me to believe for a moment that you could refrain from such childish behavior in a debate against me, I'd tell you to bring it on. However, you wouldn't be able to hold your inner bastard in check for long. You have an image to maintain . . . disciples to impress . . . propaganda to peddle. So, I post the facts, and let them speak for themselves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK Darkstar, fine. I challenge you to one-on-one debate. Face me, you little dipshit. I'm sick of you blathering on about how you could kick my ass if you only had a chance. Your chance is now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I said: "You wouldn't know how to be a good, decent, honest debater. You have to throw up smokescreens, attack from behind, fling insults like a monkey throwing feces, and do all sorts of other bullshit. That's your definition of one-on-one debate." Wong replies: "Face me, you little dipshit" Thank you for proving my point. I said: "If you had ever, even once , led me to believe for a moment that you could refrain from such childish behavior in a debate against me, I'd tell you to bring it on. However, you wouldn't be able to hold your inner bastard in check for long. You have an image to maintain . . . disciples to impress . . . propaganda to peddle." Wong replies: "I'm sick of you blathering on about how you could kick my ass if you only had a chance." I'm really quite sorry, Wong, but I do believe I specifically mentioned that I'd tell you to bring it on, on the condition that you refrained from your childish behavior. Do you think you can do that? Do you think you can focus exclusively on the arguments and the evidence, and not the man? I'm not sure you can do that. Your disciples might be disappointed . . . you might even have to back off from an argument you can't win when you can't fling feces at the opposition as a smokescreen. If you want to have a proper debate, and if you are worried that you won't be able to keep the charlatanism to a minimum in a public debate, I'll even accept a private one. But, if you really think you can keep a promise to maintain civility in a public forum, then let's get it on. But bear in mind that if you break that promise, it will be considered a concession. You game? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |"If you had ever, even once , led me to believe for a moment that you |could refrain from such childish behavior in a debate against me, |I'd tell you to bring it on. However, you wouldn't be able to hold |your inner bastard in check for long. You have an image to maintain... |disciples to impress . . . propaganda to peddle." Don't give me any of these bullshit conditions, you evasive little chickenshit. Yes or no. Answer the fucking challenge. Quote: |I'm really quite sorry, Wong, but I do believe I specifically mentioned |that I'd tell you to bring it on, on the condition that you refrained |from your childish behavior. Do you think you can do that? Do you think you can focus exclusively on the arguments and the evidence, and not the man? Answer the challenge and find out, asshole. Stop evading. Yes or no. Quote: |I'm not sure you can do that. Your disciples might be disappointed... |you might even have to back off from an argument you can't win when |you can't fling feces at the opposition as a smokescreen. If you want |to have a proper debate, and if you are worried that you won't be able |to keep the charlatanism to a minimum in a public debate, I'll even |accept a private one. Stop dancing around the fucking challenge, Darkstar. Yes or no. And it will be a very public debate. Quote: |But, if you really think you can keep a promise to maintain civility |in a public forum, then let's get it on. But bear in mind that if you |break that promise, it will be considered a concession. Fuck off. You are setting up a condition where you can unilaterally declare victory at any time if you decide I'm not being nice to you. No conditions. No weaselling. No skirting around the issue, dancing around the bush, or style over substance fallacies. Our conduct during the debate will be judged by our peers afterwards, not used by you as an excuse to duck out whenever you're feeling overwhelmed, the way Gothmog did. Yes or no. Answer me now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:43:36 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "John Hansen" wrote in message news:bejqruc97l4tamaksmi8ia622lno1ia7qs@4ax.com... > "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly > disguised as ) on Sun, 27 Oct 2002 > 23:34:59 -0600... > > > >"John Hansen" wrote in message > >news:g4coruc3qjq222doon58b35vfon7n1o4pe@4ax.com... > > > >>>>> exception, they fail to do the former . . . indeed, I've > >>>>> had to point out the flaw in my own argument before. > >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>>>> The latter, however, they excel at... > >>>> > >>>> Would you kindly direct me to that example? > >>> > >>> Example of what quoted point? > >> > >> See emphasis. I've never seen you point out a major flaw in > >> your own argument before. > > > >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22denying+the+antecedent%22+ > >group:alt.startrek.vs.starwars&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9a1k10% > >243728b%241%40ID-82121.news.dfncis.de&rnum=1 > > You pointed out a minor mistake in your logic, while ignoring the large > mistakes you made concerning semantics; namely, the first definition of > "rule of thumb" clearly said that it was a rule based on experience rather > than science. Instead, you said that it followed the second definition and > was hence imprecise. Not sure what the hell you think you're talking about, but here's the definition: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=rule%20of%20thumb > Stop playing word games with us. Word games? Aww, I'm so sorry! How dare I apply the proper meanings of words in the proper context, and not allow those words to be abused! Damn me to hell! In case you hadn't noticed, John, I don't particularly give a shit about Warsie opinions of me. And, since you are focused solely on opinions of me, and are evidently bent on proving that yours is of the Warsie calibre (with the same lackluster Warsie logic backing it), your opinion of me has rapidly devolved into one of the aforementioned opinions. > That's basically all you have been doing > all along; twisting our words to fit your views, using little-used > definitions of words to define statements, and the like. Ah, yes . . . little-used definitions like the one constituting 12 and 2/3rds of 13 definitions for "parallel", or however-much majority for "real". I'm such a meanie for doing that! > > >>>> Have you researched your own behaviors, by any chance? The only reason > >>>> that I disrespect you now is because of your own utter lack of respect. > >>> > >>> Funny, since the reason I show no respect to many of the folks > >>> here is their long history of disrespect toward me. > >> > >> The first post that I have in my own archive (dating back to May 2001) in > >> which you concern yourself with the ST vs SW debate here. > > > >April 2000 is my first post, according to Google. Sounds about > >right to me. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:alt.startrek.vs. > >starwars+author:guardian2000&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=480 > >&sa=N&filter=0 > > Well, fine, so I wasn't entirely accurate. Dozenth time for everything. > Your ignoring my main point and nitpicking the actual *date*, No, dipshit, I was showing you examples which did not fit your limited, biased, narrow view. > however, falls under the fallacy of Disproving a Minor Point. Disproving points is a fallacy to you? You're further gone than I thought. > I reiterate: I've provided unaltered evidence showing that you are usually > the first to engage in foul play during a debate. Can you provide any > evidence to the contrary? I *did*. Your claims to the contrary are based on your faulty data, and that is your undoing. > >>>> Snipping, in this one case, completely changed the context of the > >>>> statement. > >>> > >>> Yes. I took the liberty of making a point out of his statement, > >>> instead of it just being a stupid and irrelevant insult. > >> > >> So, by your own admission, you changed the context of his > >> statement to suit your purposes. > > > >Not at all. I could have snipped the entire thing due to its irrelevance. > > Yes, you could have. At least it wouldn't have been changing the context > of a statement. If you would rather be irrelevant . . . oh, wait, that is your preference. You've come to attack me. You idiots don't seem to understand that the man is irrelevant. The evidence and arguments are what's relevant . . . not this ego-driven wankfest you want to engage in. > > >>>> Snipping my post will not help you, > >>>> since my post will still exist for people to look at. > >>> > >>>Precisely. > >> > >> Well, if snipping relevant words of other people's post won't > >> help you, why do you continue to do it? > > > >Why does anyone snip? > > To shorten the lengths of posts by removing irrelevant (read: from three > or four posts ago) information. > > Nice diversion, by the way. I ask a question and you answer with another > one. I was getting you to answer your own question, Mr. Dumb as a Brick. See, that's why it's impossible to have a conversation with Warsies. Subtlety flies right over their head, and they'll be sure to accuse you of something bad should you employ it (or even if you don't). > >>>I'd already pointed out the fact that the Warsies (not the pro-Wars > >>>debaters... there is a difference) are far worse jackasses then I > >>>could ever hope to be (if I even ever hoped to be one). This is not > >>>an example of faulty logic... it is another example of short attention > >>>span on the part of a reader. > >> > >> Yes, but following the rules of deduction, you cannot have three > >> premises. > > > >You are the one trying to make it a deductive argument. Adjust your terms > >accordingly. > > It doesn't matter if I state it as a deductive argument or an inductive > argument. You still have three premises, one of which is an invalid > generalization. Any suggestions? *I* don't have three premises. It's your bed you've made . . . lie in it. > >> >I occasionally flame, but never slander. > >> > >> I'll grant that calling a person a gaping vagina is a flame, but claiming > >> to people on other boards (which I won't mention for the purposes of > >> privacy) that the person in question runs away from debate is slander > >> of a sort. > > > >There was no slander involved. > > I suppose you'll attempt to redefine slander now. > > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=slander > > Interestingly, every one of these definitions says that your false > accusations against Wong were slander. If false statements are a condition of slander, then there was no slander involved. If slander were simply making statements injurious to another person's reputation, you might have something . . . but, alas, you don't. Indeed, given your recent experience with slander, I'd have thought you'd understand it better. > >> You incorrectly pointed out what his behavior was. He said that he wanted > >> a debate free from things like your tendancy to change the context of > >> statements. You immediately claimed that he was running away and did not > >> want to debate. > >> > >> Hypocrite. > > > >Any hypocrisy on my part is a result of your utter failure to understand > >anything. After all, *I* was the one who wanted a debate free from his > >usual charlatanism. You've misread/misunderstood who was saying or doing > >what. > > You accuse him of charlatanism. Let's look at *that* definition, shall we? > > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=charlatan > > So, you revert again to slander in accusing Wong of being a man who > "prates much in his own favor and makes unwarrantable pretensions." Thank you for choosing one of the definitions that was not the most common, as per standard Warsie doctrine. > Let's see, Wong is the one with the bachelor's degree in mechanical > engineering while you're the former helpdesk guy Aww, such a good little bitch, to leave out any other information. Like I said, you make an excellent Warsie. > who prates much in your own favor. Self-defense does not equal prating, you ignorant twit. > (I don't even have to post the full text of Wong's challenge or your > reply, but I might as well since this is the end of the post.) If you "might as well", then why didn't you? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:31:19 -0800 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as ) on Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:43:36 -0600... >> >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22denying+the+antecedent%22+ >> >group:alt.startrek.vs.starwars&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9a1k10% >> >243728b%241%40ID-82121.news.dfncis.de&rnum=1 >> >> You pointed out a minor mistake in your logic, while ignoring the large >> mistakes you made concerning semantics; namely, the first definition of >> "rule of thumb" clearly said that it was a rule based on experience rather >> than science. Instead, you said that it followed the second definition and >> was hence imprecise. > >Not sure what the hell you think you're talking about, but here's the >definition: > >http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=rule%20of%20thumb The fact of the matter is that the first, and most commonly used definition of the term "rule of thumb" refers to a guideline established through practice. I'm not particularly sure why you are of the opinion that people will always use the least common definition in interviews. >> Stop playing word games with us. > >Word games? Aww, I'm so sorry! How dare I apply the proper meanings of >words in the proper context, and not allow those words to be abused! Damn >me to hell! Yes, maybe that's where you belong. >In case you hadn't noticed, John, I don't particularly give a shit about >Warsie opinions of me. And, since you are focused solely on opinions of >me, and are evidently bent on proving that yours is of the Warsie calibre >(with the same lackluster Warsie logic backing it), your opinion of me has >rapidly devolved into one of the aforementioned opinions. My opinion of you went down the toilet about a year ago. Not that it's preventing me from at least trying to maintain a facade of civility here. After all, I thought, why don't I at least try to prove that I had a good reason for losing my respect of you? >> That's basically all you have been doing >> all along; twisting our words to fit your views, using little-used >> definitions of words to define statements, and the like. > >Ah, yes . . . little-used definitions like the one constituting 12 and >2/3rds of 13 definitions for "parallel", or however-much majority for >"real". I'm such a meanie for doing that! Context is an important factor in choosing a definition. (Merriam-Webster) Main Entry: 2.parallel Function: noun Date: 1551 1 a : a parallel line, curve, or surface b : one of the imaginary circles on the surface of the earth paralleling the equator and marking the latitude; also : the corresponding line on a globe or map -- see LAT. illustration c : a character || used in printing especially as a reference mark 2 a : something equal or similar in all essential particulars : COUNTERPART b : SIMILARITY, ANALOGUE 3 : a comparison to show resemblance : a tracing of similarity 4 a : the state of being physically parallel : PARALLELISM b : an arrangement of electrical devices in a circuit in which the same potential difference is applied to two or more resistances with each resistance being on a different branch of the circuit -- compare SERIES c : an arrangement or state that permits several operations or tasks to be performed simultaneously rather than consecutively Now, which of these definitions would you say applies to the term "parallel universes?" Certainly not the definitions applying to map-making or theoretical mathematics... at least I'd hope not... >> Your ignoring my main point and nitpicking the actual *date*, > >No, dipshit, I was showing you examples which did not fit your limited, >biased, narrow view. Hm, am I trolling you now, since you've reverted to calling me a dipshit? I guess I really do know how to push your buttons. Tsk, tsk. >> however, falls under the fallacy of Disproving a Minor Point. > >Disproving points is a fallacy to you? You're further gone than I thought. Taking things out of context again, I see. Disproving a minor point while ignoring the main argument is considered a fallacy. (I can't remember the Latin name for that fallacy, in case you're wondering. Besides, it's informal and many definitions don't quite agree.) >> I reiterate: I've provided unaltered evidence showing that you are usually >> the first to engage in foul play during a debate. Can you provide any >> evidence to the contrary? > >I *did*. Your claims to the contrary are based on your faulty data, and >that is your undoing. I saw nothing that disproved my assertion in the evidence that you provided. >>>>> Yes. I took the liberty of making a point out of his statement, >>>>> instead of it just being a stupid and irrelevant insult. >>>> >>>> So, by your own admission, you changed the context of his >>>> statement to suit your purposes. >>> >>>Not at all. I could have snipped the entire thing due to its irrelevance. >> >> Yes, you could have. At least it wouldn't have been changing the context >> of a statement. > >If you would rather be irrelevant . . . oh, wait, that is your preference. >You've come to attack me. You idiots don't seem to understand that the man >is irrelevant. The evidence and arguments are what's relevant . . . not >this ego-driven wankfest you want to engage in. In this case, the unofficial debate is concerning you, myself, and Wong. Therefore, it is not a case of the fallacy of ad hominem; there is no other argument concerned. Ad hominem only applies when, instead of focusing on an established debate, one turns his focus to the opponent. >> >Why does anyone snip? >> >> To shorten the lengths of posts by removing irrelevant (read: from three >> or four posts ago) information. >> >> Nice diversion, by the way. I ask a question and you answer with another >> one. > >I was getting you to answer your own question, Mr. Dumb as a Brick. > >See, that's why it's impossible to have a conversation with Warsies. >Subtlety flies right over their head, and they'll be sure to accuse you of >something bad should you employ it (or even if you don't). I answered the question of "Why does anyone snip?" Did I have to? No, I already knew the answer. The question that I asked, however, was "Why do you continue to snip relevant words of other people's posts?" That question != your question. I eliminate paragraphs that have been quoted three or four times to shorten length. You, however, snip portions of sentences to suit your purposes, then claim that it was to shorten length. The evidence supporting me is in this very thread... and there's probably more in other threads. >> >> Yes, but following the rules of deduction, you cannot have three >> >> premises. >> > >> >You are the one trying to make it a deductive argument. Adjust your terms >> >accordingly. >> >> It doesn't matter if I state it as a deductive argument or an inductive >> argument. You still have three premises, one of which is an invalid >> generalization. Any suggestions? > >*I* don't have three premises. It's your bed you've made . . . lie in it. The argument in question had three premises: Jackasses are to be ignored, Warsies are jackasses, DarkStar is a jackass. It's invalid. >> I suppose you'll attempt to redefine slander now. >> >> http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=slander >> >> Interestingly, every one of these definitions says that your false >> accusations against Wong were slander. > >If false statements are a condition of slander, then there was no slander >involved. If slander were simply making statements injurious to another >person's reputation, you might have something . . . but, alas, you don't. >Indeed, given your recent experience with slander, I'd have thought you'd >understand it better. False statements are lies, which depending on the context may or not be slander (I don't think you can slander a microwave oven, for example, although you can lie about one). False accusations against a person are slander. Anyway, I made *one* post on SCN concerning you that could have been termed slanderous, but promptly shut up after you complained. You, however... that's another matter. You've continued to accuse Wong of being an ass, an idiot, et cetera... even after being asked to shut up. >> >Any hypocrisy on my part is a result of your utter failure to understand >> >anything. After all, *I* was the one who wanted a debate free from his >> >usual charlatanism. You've misread/misunderstood who was saying or doing >> >what. >> >> You accuse him of charlatanism. Let's look at *that* definition, shall we? >> >> http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=charlatan >> >> So, you revert again to slander in accusing Wong of being a man who >> "prates much in his own favor and makes unwarrantable pretensions." > >Thank you for choosing one of the definitions that was not the most common, >as per standard Warsie doctrine. Would it have helped if I chose "A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud." instead? It's the first one on the list, after all. Or this one, which is the only one listed on Merriam-Webster.com: "1 : QUACK 2 2 : one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability: FRAUD, FAKER" So charlatan is synonymous with quack, fraud, and faker. The definitions of those words are plainly apparent to any native English speaker. It was also plainly apparent which context you were using it in, since it has only one context. Are you trying to tell me that 'charlatan' has a more subtle definition that isn't listed in any dictionary? See? You may deny it, but you're playing word games with me by attempting to redefine everything. (You picked a bad word to redefine, by the way.) >> Let's see, Wong is the one with the bachelor's degree in mechanical >> engineering while you're the former helpdesk guy > >Aww, such a good little bitch, to leave out any other information. >Like I said, you make an excellent Warsie. What other information am I to go on? You certainly have not provided any reasonable credentials. You could certainly claim to have a bachelor's degree, but how am I to know it? Based on available information, the only possible conclusion is that you are/were on staff at the University of Southern Mississippi. That does not preclude the possibility of your having a degree higher than a high school diploma, but I don't know that. >> who prates much in your own favor. > >Self-defense does not equal prating, you ignorant twit. Ah, now I'm an ignorant twit. Such wit, such brevity... >> (I don't even have to post the full text of Wong's challenge or your >> reply, but I might as well since this is the end of the post.) > >If you "might as well", then why didn't you? I just did. You snipped it. Fine, what do I care? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:27:01 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "John Hansen" wrote in message news:d09sru85kr6pppfrnhdt78c2meae7dhmgb@4ax.com... > "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly > disguised as ) on Mon, 28 Oct 2002 > 12:43:36 -0600... > > >> >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22denying+the+antecedent%22+ > >> >group:alt.startrek.vs.starwars&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9a1k10% > >> >243728b%241%40ID-82121.news.dfncis.de&rnum=1 > >> > >> You pointed out a minor mistake in your logic, while ignoring the large > >> mistakes you made concerning semantics; namely, the first definition of > >> "rule of thumb" clearly said that it was a rule based on experience rather > >> than science. Instead, you said that it followed the second definition and > >> was hence imprecise. > > > >Not sure what the hell you think you're talking about, but here's the > >definition: > > > >http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=rule%20of%20thumb > > The fact of the matter is that the first, and most commonly used > definition of the term "rule of thumb" refers to a guideline established > through practice. > > I'm not particularly sure why you are of the opinion that people will > always use the least common definition in interviews. That's the Warsie position, not mine. Get a clue. > >In case you hadn't noticed, John, I don't particularly give a shit about > >Warsie opinions of me. And, since you are focused solely on opinions of > >me, and are evidently bent on proving that yours is of the Warsie calibre > >(with the same lackluster Warsie logic backing it), your opinion of me has > >rapidly devolved into one of the aforementioned opinions. > > My opinion of you went down the toilet about a year ago. Not that it's > preventing me from at least trying to maintain a facade of civility here. Your facade of civility doesn't exist, and given what you base your opinion on, it is quite irrelevant. I've never been one to be concerned with Rabid Warsie opinions of me or their personal attacks and lies, but now I really just don't care about what Warsies think. And why should I? I've known for a long time that there's no rationality in the Warsie groupthink mindset. That's why I just use you for my own purposes. > After all, I thought, why don't I at least try to prove that I had a good > reason for losing my respect of you? You don't have a good reason. The only reason, objectively speaking, anyone should have for a loss of respect of me is that I have lost any and all patience for Rabid Warsie BS, be it from the ignorant arguments they fervently make, or the stupid personal attacks they love to engage in. At the moment, I'm simply enjoying the act of mocking them. And, come to think of it, I suppose that makes me more like them at the moment. Perhaps it is time for a break. > >> That's basically all you have been doing > >> all along; twisting our words to fit your views, using little-used > >> definitions of words to define statements, and the like. > > > >Ah, yes . . . little-used definitions like the one constituting 12 and > >2/3rds of 13 definitions for "parallel", or however-much majority for > >"real". I'm such a meanie for doing that! > > Context is an important factor in choosing a definition. Yes, it is. That is why you cannot bear to place the words in context. For example: > > (Merriam-Webster) > Main Entry: 2.parallel Bingo. You've already failed, because you wish to take the term "parallel universe", strip it apart, find a definition you like for a part of it, and recombine it into something not resembling the original term. And even worse, you do this with a limited definition, when more extensive sources have been provided (dictionary.com) . . . and you've even used it before! And you wonder why I question your intelligence and motivations? > > >> Your ignoring my main point and nitpicking the actual *date*, > > > >No, dipshit, I was showing you examples which did not fit your limited, > >biased, narrow view. > > Hm, am I trolling you now, since you've reverted to calling me a dipshit? > I guess I really do know how to push your buttons. Tsk, tsk. No, dipshit. Just calling them like I see them. Your continuing insistence on taking the wrong viewpoint of fact and of what I say in regards to it is a large part of your problem. > >> however, falls under the fallacy of Disproving a Minor Point. > > > >Disproving points is a fallacy to you? You're further gone than I thought. > > Taking things out of context again, I see. Disproving a minor point while > ignoring the main argument is considered a fallacy. That's just it, you ignorant pest. I did not ignore the main argument. > >> I reiterate: I've provided unaltered evidence showing that you are usually > >> the first to engage in foul play during a debate. Can you provide any > >> evidence to the contrary? > > > >I *did*. Your claims to the contrary are based on your faulty data, and > >that is your undoing. > > I saw nothing that disproved my assertion in the evidence that you > provided. That's because you are blind, or stupid. I'm not particularly concerned with which it is. > >>>>> Yes. I took the liberty of making a point out of his statement, > >>>>> instead of it just being a stupid and irrelevant insult. > >>>> > >>>> So, by your own admission, you changed the context of his > >>>> statement to suit your purposes. > >>> > >>>Not at all. I could have snipped the entire thing due to its irrelevance. > >> > >> Yes, you could have. At least it wouldn't have been changing the context > >> of a statement. > > > >If you would rather be irrelevant . . . oh, wait, that is your preference. > >You've come to attack me. You idiots don't seem to understand that the man > >is irrelevant. The evidence and arguments are what's relevant . . . not > >this ego-driven wankfest you want to engage in. > > In this case, the unofficial debate is concerning you, myself, and Wong. Uh-huh . . . it's "unofficial debate". Riiiight. > >> >Why does anyone snip? > >> > >> To shorten the lengths of posts by removing irrelevant (read: from three > >> or four posts ago) information. > >> > >> Nice diversion, by the way. I ask a question and you answer with another > >> one. > > > >I was getting you to answer your own question, Mr. Dumb as a Brick. > > > >See, that's why it's impossible to have a conversation with Warsies. > >Subtlety flies right over their head, and they'll be sure to accuse you of > >something bad should you employ it (or even if you don't). > > I answered the question of "Why does anyone snip?" Did I have to? No, I > already knew the answer. The question that I asked, however, was "Why do > you continue to snip relevant words of other people's posts?" That > question != your question. The answer is the same, and the question, though worded improperly, is too. > I eliminate paragraphs that have been quoted three or four times to > shorten length. You, however, snip portions of sentences to suit your > purposes, then claim that it was to shorten length. And I'm a bad bad bad man because I shorten more unnecessary length than you? > >> >> Yes, but following the rules of deduction, you cannot have three > >> >> premises. > >> > > >> >You are the one trying to make it a deductive argument. Adjust your terms > >> >accordingly. > >> > >> It doesn't matter if I state it as a deductive argument or an inductive > >> argument. You still have three premises, one of which is an invalid > >> generalization. Any suggestions? > > > >*I* don't have three premises. It's your bed you've made . . . lie in it. > > The argument in question had three premises: Jackasses are to be ignored, > Warsies are jackasses, DarkStar is a jackass. It's invalid. Then stop making it! > > >> I suppose you'll attempt to redefine slander now. > >> > >> http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=slander > >> > >> Interestingly, every one of these definitions says that your false > >> accusations against Wong were slander. > > > >If false statements are a condition of slander, then there was no slander > >involved. If slander were simply making statements injurious to another > >person's reputation, you might have something . . . but, alas, you don't. > >Indeed, given your recent experience with slander, I'd have thought you'd > >understand it better. > > False statements are lies, which depending on the context may or not be > slander (I don't think you can slander a microwave oven, for example, > although you can lie about one). False accusations against a person are > slander. Like I said, you have recent experience with it. I do not. > Anyway, I made *one* post on SCN concerning you that could have been > termed slanderous, but promptly shut up after you complained. You, > however... that's another matter. You've continued to accuse Wong of being > an ass, an idiot, et cetera... even after being asked to shut up. I'm not attacking Wong, dipshit. I'm being attacked. Learn to distinguish the difference. As I recall, my last major insult spree against Wong was the "huge, gaping vagina" bit I used to goad him into accepting his own debate precepts. > >> >Any hypocrisy on my part is a result of your utter failure to understand > >> >anything. After all, *I* was the one who wanted a debate free from his > >> >usual charlatanism. You've misread/misunderstood who was saying or doing > >> >what. > >> > >> You accuse him of charlatanism. Let's look at *that* definition, shall we? > >> > >> http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=charlatan > >> > >> So, you revert again to slander in accusing Wong of being a man who > >> "prates much in his own favor and makes unwarrantable pretensions." > > > >Thank you for choosing one of the definitions that was not the most common, > >as per standard Warsie doctrine. > > Would it have helped if I chose "A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, > and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud." > instead? I wasn't suggesting that Wong is someone who doesn't prate much in his own favor, or make unwarrantable pretensions. Indeed, those come part and parcel with Wong. He's also a person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to knowledge he does not have . . . he's a quack, a fraud. I was pointing out, though, that you picked one you thought you could twist, in the very manner you falsely accuse me of. How evil of you! > See? You may deny it, but you're playing word games with me by attempting > to redefine everything. (You picked a bad word to redefine, by the way.) No, I'm pointing out that you're being an idiot. > >> Let's see, Wong is the one with the bachelor's degree in mechanical > >> engineering while you're the former helpdesk guy > > > >Aww, such a good little bitch, to leave out any other information. > >Like I said, you make an excellent Warsie. > > What other information am I to go on? None! Come on, dammit, figure out the lesson to be learned here. 1. Do you think I want you raving lunatics to know anything about me? You'd happily see me dead. 2. What matters more . . . what I say, or who you perceive me to be? > >> who prates much in your own favor. > > > >Self-defense does not equal prating, you ignorant twit. > > Ah, now I'm an ignorant twit. Such wit, such brevity... . . . such correctness. > >> (I don't even have to post the full text of Wong's challenge or your > >> reply, but I might as well since this is the end of the post.) > > > >If you "might as well", then why didn't you? > > I just did. You snipped it. Fine, what do I care? No, you didn't. You left most of it out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:04:37 -0800 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <9lvurugok3n93dkeb9nsh31hav6mh7rhaf@4ax.com> -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as ) on Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:27:01 -0600... You only keep confirming the points that I bring up, especially when you snip and ignore them, or change the context to suit your purposes. I say, "It depends on the context of the word," and provide the most relevant context. You reply, "You chose the second context when there were dozens more..." I think, "Do me a favor and take English 101." Maybe this will say something about your mentality? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Would it have helped if I chose "A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, > and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud." > instead? I wasn't suggesting that Wong is someone who doesn't prate much in his own favor, or make unwarrantable pretensions. Indeed, those come part and parcel with Wong. He's also a person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to knowledge he does not have... he's a quack, a fraud. I was pointing out, though, that you picked one you thought you could twist, in the very manner you falsely accuse me of. How evil of you! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your own words condemn you! I say that you have repeatedly slandered Wong, and what do you do? You repeat your baseless accusations! Thank you for proving my point. Indeed, you -- yes, you -- have twisted MY words around and accused ME of trying to change the meaning of "charlatan"! The only person you're convincing is yourself, which is rather sad. Other Trekkies don't like you. Warsies naturally don't like you. B5ers don't like you. I certainly hope that you don't act this way in real life, since if you did, you'd probably have very few friends. You are a baldfaced liar, DarkStar. I consider this discussion ended on the grounds that you are incapable of truthfully debating. Concession accepted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 02:11:24 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <7rScnWanWcSwCSKgXTWcqg@comcast.com> -------- "John Hansen" wrote in message news:9lvurugok3n93dkeb9nsh31hav6mh7rhaf@4ax.com... > Your own words condemn you! I say that you have repeatedly slandered Wong, > and what do you do? You repeat your baseless accusations! Baseless? Your blindness is itself blinding. > You are a baldfaced liar, DarkStar. If you were not so blind, you would not believe that. > I consider this discussion ended on the grounds that you are incapable > of truthfully debating. As I told you, you were not interested in learning anything, despite your claims to the contrary . . . you were simply trying to score points, as your use of the term "debate" belies . . . not to mention your failure to take up the offer made so long ago to talk to me directly. > Concession accepted. None offerred. Wrong again, John. However, you may find solace in the fact that you have not left me utterly unmoved . . . for you see, although you were wrong about me in every respect, the mere accusation that I have been behaving with wanton hostility and attempted ego bashing (in a manner similar to your average Rabid Warsie) is very disquieting. And, upon considering my recent treatment of the morons I commonly encounter (Burnett and my responses to his retardation spring to mind), I find that I may indeed have crossed my own aesthetic line. This is not to say that I was wrong (after all, he is quite retarded), but to have slipped closer to Warsie behavior in any degree just makes me feel rather icky inside. As they say . . . "what you resist, you become". Well, I don't think that's happened yet . . . but it might be a good thing to go ahead and 'flush my systems'. That, in addition to the necessity of site updates, suggests to me that it's time for a brief break from ASVS. I'll be back. But, for now, stay tuned: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWupcoming.html http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWhi.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:38:44 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DC018E9.6010600@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > That, in addition to the necessity of site updates, suggests to me that it's > time for a brief break from ASVS. Translation: I'm getting my ass kicked so bad that even I realize it. > I'll be back. Translation: I need a few weeks to think up a new alias. > But, for now, stay tuned: Translation: Here's something to laugh at while I'm gone. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:16:00 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DBEDE49.3020504@shaw.ca> -------- John Hansen wrote: > "DarkStar" >>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22denying+the+antecedent%22+ >>>>group:alt.startrek.vs.starwars&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9a1k10% >>>>243728b%241%40ID-82121.news.dfncis.de&rnum=1 >>> >>>You pointed out a minor mistake in your logic, while ignoring the large >>>mistakes you made concerning semantics; namely, the first definition of >>>"rule of thumb" clearly said that it was a rule based on experience rather >>>than science. Instead, you said that it followed the second definition and >>>was hence imprecise. >> >>Not sure what the hell you think you're talking about, but here's the >>definition: >> >>http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=rule%20of%20thumb > > The fact of the matter is that the first, and most commonly used > definition of the term "rule of thumb" refers to a guideline established > through practice. > > I'm not particularly sure why you are of the opinion that people will > always use the least common definition in interviews. See, that's strange. Cause he accused me of doing the same thing. He said, 'real,' can't mean, 'primary, opposed to secondary,' cause it wasn't the first definition in the dictionary. I guess the rules change to suit Darkstar's theory. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drewcifer Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 01:34:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- Well Darkie, I had a lot to say in reply to your post, but John Hansen (in message 55dmruci14kmmvfb535u58fogrso2pnc7i@4ax.com ) has already addressed most of the issues I wanted to. I agree with his reply and see no need to repeat most of his post. However: > However, I consider how a person plays the game to be important . . . it > says a lot about the person. I agree with you more than you may ever know. >>>> I have found some of your ideas interesting, but you're such >>>> a pompous ass, I would rather consume my own waste than listen Your snip of what I said implies that I am simply not willing to listen and that is not the case. If you feel that I am not listening, please come out and say so directly. Changing the spirit and context of what I said is dishonest and I would prefer that you use your words to express your feelings rather than alter my words. >>> And that is why you fail. >> >> Fail at what? > > Thinking. If you are under the impression that much of what I say is > chaff, but that there is wheat there, then your choice to disregard the > wheat simply because chaff exists is irrational. haha I assume that you meant to say "thinking rationally", but the concept of "failing at thinking" cracks me up. Reminds me of those black cloud squiggles above people's heads in the comics. Anyhow, make no mistake, I don't disregard the 'wheat', not by a long shot. But, life is short, and many things bide for my time. It takes a supreme effort to wade through most of your posts, seperating the tons of chaff for a few kernals of wheat and quite frankly, it is often not worth my time to do so. If the truth is out there, I will eventually taste it in the bread. And so often I only have time to taste the bread. > Warsies play the game with lies[...] What you see as lies most others apparently see as differences in opinion, perspective, and/or interpretation. > [...] slander [...] Like a wise man once said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." > [...] and threats of violence. Like another wise man once said: "Watch your step. This place can get a little rough." ASVS is a tough crowd, thicken up your skin a little. If you really felt threatened, you should have reported the incident in question to the proper authorities. I would appreciate a link to the post where this occured. > And if you really think that jackasses are to be ignored, what the hell are > you doing here? I often indulge in a bit of jackassery myself. My point was that some people act like jackasses as a lifestyle, other do it just as a hobby. It's the career jackasses that I avoid. Have a nice day. Drewcifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Oct 2002 21:58:41 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <20021024175841.02502.00000140@mb-fv.aol.com> -------- >You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I >commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual >dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > Your lies will avail you not. The truth is my shield, and with it, I am invincible(At least in a logical arena. Using truth as a shield against, say, a bullet or broadsword, is not recommended). >The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, and >unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. > Assertions without evidence or logic to back them up are the epitome of a defeated debator. It means nothing. >As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions >will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and >defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic >is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. > Your projection is amusing me. You call us disconnected from fact, when you distort and lie about Lucas and his policies. You claim to hold only logic, when we all see you mutilate the scientific method. >Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy >debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their >foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch >and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive >yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic >concepts you have created. > Unsupported declarations of victory mean nothing, Robert Scott Anderson. Go back to the Shadow. >It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the >irrational can't allow themselves to see it. > That is what we all know, and why we know you, ultimately, will never win. Your lack of logic is your own defeat. >You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > You saying this is the epitome of irony. In short, Robert Scott Anderson, Guardian 2000, Dark Star, your feeble last attempts are nothing in the face of me, or any of the other debators. Look at your allies! One deluded troll! Who else? Elim? Timothy? They were useless when they raged here last. It's over, Dark Star, and you will be just one more troll in our history, refusing to accept reality. In closing, I say to you: Concession Accepted. -- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:47:26 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DB8949E.A63E57BC@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Sir Nitram wrote: > > >You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I > >commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual > >dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > > > > Your lies will avail you not. The truth is my shield, and with it, I am > invincible(At least in a logical arena. Using truth as a shield against, say, a > bullet or broadsword, is not recommended). Graeme Dice ########## You hit the Timothy Jones with the blessed +7 Occam's Razor --more-- #%.......# The Timothy Jones dies --more-- #.......T# The Timothy Jones gasps "I'm right!" --more-- #...T..L@\ An Illogical Beast appears out of nowhere --more-- #..>.....# The Illogical Beast hits! You are confused! --more-- #........# The Illogical Beast hits! The Illogical Beast hits! --more-- ########## You Die...--more-- Do you want your possessions identified? [ynq] (y) y Weapons a - a blessed rustproof +7 Occam's Razor (weapon in hand) Armor b - a blessed +6 Logic Dragon Scale Mail (being worn) --more-- Final Attributes: You were logical. You were right. You are dead. --more-- Creatures Vanquished: a Timothy Jones Graeme Dice -- Writing at the same time as Shakespeare was Miguel Cervantes. He wrote Donkey Hote. The next great author was John Milton. Milton wrote Paradise Lost. Then his wife died and he wrote Paradise Regained. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 25 Oct 2002 01:15:49 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <20021024211549.12495.00000138@mb-ml.aol.com> -------- >Sir Nitram wrote: >> >> >You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I >> >commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual >> >dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. >> > >> >> Your lies will avail you not. The truth is my shield, and with it, I am >> invincible(At least in a logical arena. Using truth as a shield against, >say, a >> bullet or broadsword, is not recommended). > >Graeme Dice >########## You hit the Timothy Jones with the blessed +7 Occam's Razor >--more-- >#%.......# The Timothy Jones dies --more-- >#.......T# The Timothy Jones gasps "I'm right!" --more-- >#...T..L@\ An Illogical Beast appears out of nowhere --more-- >#..>.....# The Illogical Beast hits! You are confused! --more-- >#........# The Illogical Beast hits! The Illogical Beast hits! --more-- >########## You Die...--more-- > Do you want your possessions identified? [ynq] (y) y >Weapons >a - a blessed rustproof +7 Occam's Razor (weapon in hand) >Armor >b - a blessed +6 Logic Dragon Scale Mail (being worn) >--more-- >Final Attributes: >You were logical. >You were right. >You are dead. >--more-- >Creatures Vanquished: >a Timothy Jones > But no Shield Of Truth +10. So you died. -- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:28:36 -0700 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <5glhruogaff9mril1rluu3vhlajn49khqo@4ax.com> -------- nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as <20021024211549.12495.00000138@mb-ml.aol.com>) on 25 Oct 2002 01:15:49 GMT... >>Sir Nitram wrote: >>> >>> >You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I >>> >commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual >>> >dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. >>> > >>> >>> Your lies will avail you not. The truth is my shield, and with it, I am >>> invincible(At least in a logical arena. Using truth as a shield against, >>say, a >>> bullet or broadsword, is not recommended). >> >>Graeme Dice >>########## You hit the Timothy Jones with the blessed +7 Occam's Razor >>--more-- >>#%.......# The Timothy Jones dies --more-- >>#.......T# The Timothy Jones gasps "I'm right!" --more-- >>#...T..L@\ An Illogical Beast appears out of nowhere --more-- >>#..>.....# The Illogical Beast hits! You are confused! --more-- >>#........# The Illogical Beast hits! The Illogical Beast hits! --more-- >>########## You Die...--more-- >> Do you want your possessions identified? [ynq] (y) y >>Weapons >>a - a blessed rustproof +7 Occam's Razor (weapon in hand) >>Armor >>b - a blessed +6 Logic Dragon Scale Mail (being worn) >>--more-- >>Final Attributes: >>You were logical. >>You were right. >>You are dead. >>--more-- >>Creatures Vanquished: >>a Timothy Jones >> > >But no Shield Of Truth +10. So you died. A +10 Shield of Truth would be pretty damned hard to get. Most shields evaporate after being enchanged to +7. I'd prefer confusion resistance, honestly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:16:49 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20021024175841.02502.00000140@mb-fv.aol.com... > >You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I > >commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual > >dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > > > > Your lies will avail you not. The truth is my shield, and with it, I am > invincible The truth is *my* shield, and my weapon. You have stated my position nicely, but I find it odd that you seem to be claiming it for yourself. > You call us disconnected from fact, when you distort and lie about > Lucas and his policies. You cannot claim that. It is you and your side that must "get around" Lucas and LFL. This requires you to "distort and lie about Lucas and his policies". I place Lucas at the top, and accept his words as those of sovereign authority. > > >Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy > >debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their > >foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch > >and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive > >yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic > >concepts you have created. > > > > Unsupported declarations of victory mean nothing The support has already been presented . . . you had nothing that could refute it. As the old joke goes: "When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, yell like hell." You Warsies have been yelling like hell, and loudly, too . . . the Attention message was my way of letting you know that you were still wrong, and to go have a nice warm cup of shut-the-fuck-up. I find you laughable and pitiable all at the same time. And every time I start to think that maybe there's hope for Rabid Warsies to find redemption, some idiot says something, and the groupthink carries you even further from hope. It's not my job to save your stupid ass from your own idiocy. I'm here to test my arguments . . . the Canon Policy argument holds, because you have nothing but lies and distortions to fight it with, and even those suck. Your concession has therefore been pre-accepted for your convenience. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 25 Oct 2002 20:51:56 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <20021025165156.05367.00000385@mb-fw.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20021024175841.02502.00000140@mb-fv.aol.com... >> >You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. >I >> >commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual >> >dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. >> > >> >> Your lies will avail you not. The truth is my shield, and with it, I am >> invincible > >The truth is *my* shield, and my weapon. You have stated my position >nicely, but I find it odd that you seem to be claiming it for yourself. > This is clearly false. You lie to the left, right, center, and everywhere else. This is clearly seen by everyone else. On the other hand, this reveals yet another of your nonsense tactics. The 'I'm not, you are!!!!' one. >> You call us disconnected from fact, when you distort and lie about >> Lucas and his policies. > >You cannot claim that. It is you and your side that must "get around" >Lucas and LFL. This requires you to "distort and lie about Lucas and his >policies". I place Lucas at the top, and accept his words as those of >sovereign authority. > I can claim it, for it is truth. We use all availiable quotes from Lucas, Lucasfilm, and the associated people/companies to create the continuity policy. You distort the truth and throw out proof. >> >> >Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy >> >debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their >> >foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to >bitch >> >and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive >> >yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic >> >concepts you have created. >> > >> >> Unsupported declarations of victory mean nothing > >The support has already been presented . . . you had nothing that could >refute it. > >As the old joke goes: > >"When the facts are against you, argue the law. >When the law is against you, argue the facts. >When the facts and the law are against you, yell like hell." > >You Warsies have been yelling like hell, and loudly, too . . . the Attention >message was my way of letting you know that you were still wrong, and to go >have a nice warm cup of shut-the-fuck-up. > >I find you laughable and pitiable all at the same time. And every time I >start to think that maybe there's hope for Rabid Warsies to find redemption, >some idiot says something, and the groupthink carries you even further from >hope. > >It's not my job to save your stupid ass from your own idiocy. I'm here to >test my arguments . . . the Canon Policy argument holds, because you have >nothing but lies and distortions to fight it with, and even those suck. > >Your concession has therefore been pre-accepted for your convenience. > Your lies mean nothing to me, Dark Star. Nor anyone else. We all see the truth of the situation, and we all see you lying to yourself and everyone else. -- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:23:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20021025165156.05367.00000385@mb-fw.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20021024175841.02502.00000140@mb-fv.aol.com... > >> >You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. > >I > >> >commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual > >> >dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > >> > > >> > >> Your lies will avail you not. The truth is my shield, and with it, I am > >> invincible > > > >The truth is *my* shield, and my weapon. You have stated my position > >nicely, but I find it odd that you seem to be claiming it for yourself. > > > > This is clearly false. You lie to the left, right, center, and everywhere else. > This is clearly seen by everyone else. And they're wrong . . . much like Burnett, who claims a lie on my part because he doesn't understand English. Or Wayne, who claims a lie on my part because he's Wayne, and I'm not. All it would take for me to be truthful would not be for my claims to change . . . they already correspond to fact and reason. What would be required is for you to get your head out of your ass. > On the other hand, this reveals yet another of your nonsense tactics. The 'I'm > not, you are!!!!' one. Since I do not choose to spend my time accusing people of various things, I'm not the one who starts the whole charade. Then, some lying Warsie comes in and says "Oh, you do irrational or unethical thing X" . . . usually something I've seen Warsies doing the entire time, but never saw fit to whine about in Warsie fashion. In theory, I shouldn't defend at all . . . the claim is untrue and off-topic, and is to be ignored on both grounds. However, you and your ilk don't comprehend that. > >> You call us disconnected from fact, when you distort and lie about > >> Lucas and his policies. > > > >You cannot claim that. It is you and your side that must "get around" > >Lucas and LFL. This requires you to "distort and lie about Lucas and his > >policies". I place Lucas at the top, and accept his words as those of > >sovereign authority. > > > > I can claim it, for it is truth. I do not understand how you can be so mistaken. Seriously, I try to give you guys every benefit of the doubt, but you make it impossible when you pull something stupid like the above comment. You try to justify it with the following: > We use all availiable quotes from Lucas, Lucasfilm, and the associated > people/companies to create the continuity policy. So do I. The difference is that you use those quotes in a disorganized and disjointed fashion, using the chaos of your thinking to try to support your view. It's like trying to understand the U.S. Constitution without understanding its direct basis or the words within it, but instead by trying to squeeze it into the frame of the Magna Carta. You just aren't going to get relevant data that way. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:20:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DB88059.9E8635FA@daltonator.net> -------- So sorry nobody agrees with you. Want a hankie? -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Pretty," Donos said. "What do we blow up first?" --"Solo Command", Aaron Allston ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:12:34 -0700 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote > So sorry nobody agrees with you. Want a hankie? He'd just jerk off in it so he'd have liquid soap for the week. Anyway, its too bad he can't admit he screwed up, big time. This whole mess is really quite simple: The EU can't dictate changes to the canon, while the canon can dictate changes to the EU (See Boba Fett entry.) That's why Lucas called it the parallel universe. He doesn't allow the EU to intrude on the timeline of the canon films, (a select period of time) but everything before, after, and in between is fair game. He has also stated that the EU will be the only legitimate continuation of the canon. There will be no episodes 7,8, and 9. But you can't argue with a fanatic. And that's why Robbie most certainly is. -- "There's nothing more boring than a stupid hero or stupid villain who you could just run rings around because they're so stupid. It's not very realistic, and it's just not interesting for me." --Timothy Zahn, February 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:51:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:_xOdne01sOJwJCqgXTWc2Q@comcast.com... > > Warsies: > You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > Tell you what Robert. I will accept your theory as fact if you can show to me how the Hearsay rule allows Steve Sansweet to testify as to what George Lucas thinks. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) Date: 25 Oct 2002 05:19:43 -0700 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <2d3e5dbf.0210250419.7f318c2e@posting.google.com> -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:<_xOdne01sOJwJCqgXTWc2Q@comcast.com>... > Warsies: > > You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I > commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual > dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > > The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, and > unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. > > As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions > will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and > defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic > is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. > > Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy > debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their > foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch > and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive > yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic > concepts you have created. > > It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the > irrational can't allow themselves to see it. > > You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > > DSG2k Could you just have said "In my opinion, I'm right. You're wrong." Or even just "I'm right. You're wrong. Get over it."? NOOOOOOOOOOO You go "Blah blah blah, I'm right, blah blah blah..." BTW, a newsgroup, a dicussion board, trekkies, and someone who WORKED with Lucasfilm are all against you. Perhaps they're right? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:16:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <1dkirugug0rc2jk5qbstva39o9h5fu7ch2@4ax.com> -------- On 25 Oct 2002 05:19:43 -0700, big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) wrote: >"DarkStar" wrote in message news:<_xOdne01sOJwJCqgXTWc2Q@comcast.com>... >> Warsies: >> >> You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I >> commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual >> dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. >> >> The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, and >> unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. >> >> As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions >> will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and >> defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic >> is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. >> >> Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy >> debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their >> foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch >> and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive >> yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic >> concepts you have created. >> >> It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the >> irrational can't allow themselves to see it. >> >> You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. >> >> DSG2k > > >Could you just have said "In my opinion, I'm right. You're wrong." Or >even just "I'm right. You're wrong. Get over it."? > >NOOOOOOOOOOO You go "Blah blah blah, I'm right, blah blah blah..." > >BTW, a newsgroup, a dicussion board, trekkies, and someone who WORKED >with Lucasfilm are all against you. Perhaps they're right? But DarkStar is always right, he's the smartest person in the world EVER, and he knows more about science than an NG full of of college science students and graduates, a Ph. D in theoretical astrophysics and more about Star Wars than the people who work with it day in and day out and have done so for years. Gee, in retrospect it all seems so obvious... -- Iceberg, the Dancing Black Mage With only a single word/The future is decided Our beat is/A shining diamond Into the true sky into the true sky/Our life shining into the sky - "Try Again," Macross 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@trek-wars.info> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:41:49 +0100 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- It must've been some good cheese - that mushroom's talking to me. And it says its name is CaptainSheridan > "DarkStar" wrote in message news:<_xOdne01sOJwJCqgXTWc2Q@comcast.com>... > > Warsies: > > > > You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I > > commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual > > dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > > > > The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, and > > unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. > > > > As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions > > will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and > > defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic > > is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. > > > > Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy > > debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their > > foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch > > and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive > > yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic > > concepts you have created. > > > > It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the > > irrational can't allow themselves to see it. > > > > You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > > > > DSG2k > > > Could you just have said "In my opinion, I'm right. You're wrong." Or > even just "I'm right. You're wrong. Get over it."? > > NOOOOOOOOOOO You go "Blah blah blah, I'm right, blah blah blah..." > > BTW, a newsgroup, a dicussion board, trekkies, and someone who WORKED > with Lucasfilm are all against you. Perhaps they're right? Darkstar is right, sort of. The real story of star wars is just the films (etc). The EU isn't the real story of star wars, it's just ideas of what star wars might be, ideas Lucas agrees are possible. Most of these ideas come from people who try to make them realistic probabilities, but some (the infinities labels) are way out there. (still others Lucas has refused to agree are even possible - see Fanfic) The problems arrise when you have two people discussing what we are debating - the real story of Trek and Wars, or the realistic probable ideas that the franchise owner agrees are possible? Clearly, Darkstar believes we should restrict ourselves to the real stories only. Pretty much everybody else realises that if we want to have any discussions lasting more than three posts we need to extend Star Wars to more than just the real stories, and that everything Lucas agrees might be possible should also be considered unless/until it is shown to be impossible (canon contradiction) so you see, Darkstar is right. He's just right about something different to the rest of us. -- Lord Edam de Fromage AIM:Sorborus www.trek-wars.info ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:07:01 -0700 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- Wow, that was well said. You must be sober. "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@trek-wars.info> wrote > Darkstar is right, sort of. > > The real story of star wars is just the films (etc). The EU isn't the > real story of star wars, it's just ideas of what star wars might be, > ideas Lucas agrees are possible. Most of these ideas come from people > who try to make them realistic probabilities, but some (the infinities > labels) are way out there. (still others Lucas has refused to agree are > even possible - see Fanfic) > > The problems arrise when you have two people discussing what we are > debating - the real story of Trek and Wars, or the realistic probable > ideas that the franchise owner agrees are possible? > > Clearly, Darkstar believes we should restrict ourselves to the real > stories only. Pretty much everybody else realises that if we want to > have any discussions lasting more than three posts we need to extend > Star Wars to more than just the real stories, and that everything Lucas > agrees might be possible should also be considered unless/until it is > shown to be impossible (canon contradiction) > > so you see, Darkstar is right. He's just right about something different > to the rest of us. > > > -- > Lord Edam de Fromage > AIM:Sorborus > www.trek-wars.info ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phong Nguyen Date: 28 Oct 2002 05:39:57 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in news:urjqlne16p80b6 @corp.supernews.com: > Wow, that was well said. You must be sober. > ::blink:: Complementing Edam, Wayne?? -- Phong Nguyen | pnguyen7_at+mail-usf=eduspam | AIM: JediPhong "There's a story about a C-124 and an F-4 on intersecting taxiways at Rhein-Main long ago. The F-4 driver asked Ground what the Globe-master's intentions were. It is said that the C-124 pilot opened the clamshell doors in the nose and announced, 'I'm going to eat you.'" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:51:40 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "Phong Nguyen" wrote in message news:Xns92B55FFE87F3phongnguyenusanet@130.133.1.4... > "Wayne Poe" wrote in news:urjqlne16p80b6 > @corp.supernews.com: > > > Wow, that was well said. You must be sober. > > > ::blink:: > > Complementing Edam, Wayne?? > When looking at Edam after rading DS its like...well like the things in the "Sierra Mist" commercials, really refreshing. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phong Nguyen Date: 28 Oct 2002 13:26:10 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "Greg Burnett" wrote in news:apjbs2$21nfe$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de: > "Phong Nguyen" wrote in message > news:Xns92B55FFE87F3phongnguyenusanet@130.133.1.4... >> "Wayne Poe" wrote in news:urjqlne16p80b6 >> @corp.supernews.com: >> >> > Wow, that was well said. You must be sober. >> > >> ::blink:: >> >> Complementing Edam, Wayne?? >> > > When looking at Edam after rading DS its like...well like the things > in the "Sierra Mist" commercials, really refreshing. > True dat. -- Phong Nguyen | pnguyen7_at+mail-usf=eduspam | AIM: JediPhong "There's a story about a C-124 and an F-4 on intersecting taxiways at Rhein-Main long ago. The F-4 driver asked Ground what the Globe-master's intentions were. It is said that the C-124 pilot opened the clamshell doors in the nose and announced, 'I'm going to eat you.'" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:21:21 -0800 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "Phong Nguyen" wrote > "Wayne Poe" wrote in news:urjqlne16p80b6 > > Wow, that was well said. You must be sober. > > > ::blink:: > Complementing Edam, Wayne?? A backhanded compliment, but one nevertheless. Mark it on your calendar. I think I've complimented Lord Edam at total of three times since 1999. I'll be back to calling him a semantic whore shortly, though. -- I know that's wrong of course, but I just dislike logic. ---Guardian 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phong Nguyen Date: 29 Oct 2002 17:54:20 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in news:urs6mmcd21qv8c@corp.supernews.com: > > "Phong Nguyen" wrote > >> "Wayne Poe" wrote in news:urjqlne16p80b6 > >> > Wow, that was well said. You must be sober. >> > >> ::blink:: > >> Complementing Edam, Wayne?? > > A backhanded compliment, but one nevertheless. Mark it on your > calendar. I think I've complimented Lord Edam at total of three times > since 1999. I'll be back to calling him a semantic whore shortly, > though. > True, but in the face of RSA I think I can understand. -- Phong Nguyen | pnguyen7_at+mail-usf=eduspam | AIM: JediPhong "There's a story about a C-124 and an F-4 on intersecting taxiways at Rhein-Main long ago. The F-4 driver asked Ground what the Globe-master's intentions were. It is said that the C-124 pilot opened the clamshell doors in the nose and announced, 'I'm going to eat you.'" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:10:19 -0400 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DBA943B.E89FF9AC@daltonator.net> -------- Lord Edam de Fromage wrote: [snip] > so you see, Darkstar is right. He's just right about something different > to the rest of us. > No, no, no. He wants to restrict it nevertheless, to "play fair". -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Pretty," Donos said. "What do we blow up first?" --"Solo Command", Aaron Allston ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:27:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "CaptainSheridan" wrote in message news:2d3e5dbf.0210250419.7f318c2e@posting.google.com... > BTW, a newsgroup, a dicussion board, trekkies, and someone who WORKED > with Lucasfilm are all against you. Perhaps they're right? The members of the NG and discussion board who are against me are unable to give a logical reason as to why they are against me. The person who worked for LucasBooks (but who thinks he worked for Lucasfilm) doesn't know one way or the other . . . first, he's not Lucas or LFL, and second, his own site's statement of policy utterly ignores Lucas's own statements. Perhaps you're wrong. Ever consider that? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:54:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:AiKdne_YluK1OyegXTWc2Q@comcast.com... > > "CaptainSheridan" wrote in message > news:2d3e5dbf.0210250419.7f318c2e@posting.google.com... > > > BTW, a newsgroup, a dicussion board, trekkies, and someone who WORKED > > with Lucasfilm are all against you. Perhaps they're right? > > The members of the NG and discussion board who are against me are unable to > give a logical reason as to why they are against me. The person who worked > for LucasBooks (but who thinks he worked for Lucasfilm) doesn't know one way > or the other . . . first, he's not Lucas or LFL, and second, his own site's > statement of policy utterly ignores Lucas's own statements. http://theforce.net/jedicouncil/interview/saxton.shtml Perhaps you coudl point out as to where he was confused about his employers. He states clearly (and continuously) that he was employed by DK (Dorling-Kindersley) and that LF editors helped him out...the very same LucasFILM (emphasis mine) who are mentioned at the rear of the book. Once again this plays into your deception about Lucasbooks which is NOT a seperate company but rather a DIVISION of LucasFilm which means they are the same company subject to the same company-wide policies. Please do try again. > > Perhaps you're wrong. Ever consider that? > I have, not because of your evidence though. When I saw the Lucas quote I thought "well this changes everything." However that was before I read the WHOEL quote thuroughly and actually btohered to think to myself. I had to ask myself whetehr this was a clear change (from the VERY clear way the policy had been stated previously) or was this just language I was missing. That's when I saw the "intrude" part and noticed that Lucas was just, once again, reminding us of the hierarchy: Canon comes first and the EU gets to fill in the blanks. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:44:54 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3DBEF320.1080703@shaw.ca> -------- Greg Burnett wrote: > "DarkStar" wrote: >>Perhaps you're wrong. Ever consider that? > > I have, not because of your evidence though. When I saw the Lucas quote I > thought "well this changes everything." However that was before I read the > WHOEL quote thuroughly and actually btohered to think to myself. I had to > ask myself whetehr this was a clear change (from the VERY clear way the > policy had been stated previously) or was this just language I was missing. > That's when I saw the "intrude" part and noticed that Lucas was just, once > again, reminding us of the hierarchy: Canon comes first and the EU gets to > fill in the blanks. That's pretty much what happened with me, without the typos. When I first saw the quote I thought it was a new canon policy. Then I saw the whole quote and recognized that my initial interpretation was wrong. in the proper context it's not a change in policy, just an emphasis of the existing Canon > EU hierarchy. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) Date: 31 Oct 2002 15:31:08 -0800 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <2d3e5dbf.0210311531.5f2b3774@posting.google.com> -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:... > "CaptainSheridan" wrote in message > news:2d3e5dbf.0210250419.7f318c2e@posting.google.com... > > > BTW, a newsgroup, a dicussion board, trekkies, and someone who WORKED > > with Lucasfilm are all against you. Perhaps they're right? > > The members of the NG and discussion board who are against me are unable to > give a logical reason as to why they are against me. Sure.... > The person who worked for LucasBooks (but who thinks he worked for Lucasfilm) You missed the WITH. Or has Skywalker Ranch been cut off from Lucasfilm? > doesn't know one way or the other . . . first, he's not Lucas or LFL, and >second, his own site's statement of policy utterly ignores Lucas's own >statements. Sure... > Perhaps you're wrong. Ever consider that? Me? WRONG? IMPOSIBLE! HOW COULD YOU THINK SUCH A THING? YOU ARE INSANE! MAD! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scoot2000" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:50:57 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:_xOdne01sOJwJCqgXTWc2Q@comcast.com... > > Warsies: > > You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I > commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual > dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > > The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, and > unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. > > As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions > will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and > defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic > is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. > > Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy > debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their > foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch > and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive > yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic > concepts you have created. > > It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the > irrational can't allow themselves to see it. > > You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > You're intellectual dishonesty is stagering, as is your continued adherence to lies and mis-quotes, the standard trekkie response. I have it on good authority that you are wrong because George Lucas once said, after hitting his thumb while pounding in a nail, "Goddamn hammer." "Hammer," when referred back to its ancient Indo-European dialect beginnings, means "ignoring the expansion" (literally: "forget the invading hordes of Hittites, let's just make the walls taller"). Clearly by referring to "ignoring the expansion" as being damned he was condemning any attempts to remove the EU from the continuity of Star Wars. You are obviously wrong if you ignore this quote. On a similar note, it reminds me of when I first considered approaching the subject of continuity. It was the time I took the ferry over to Coonsville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so I decided to go over to Morganville, which was what they called Coonsville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where was I? Oh yeah...the important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt...which was the style at the time. You could not get any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones. I trust you can all see how this relates to my point. So, Darkstar, you were wrong, you are wrong, you continue to be wrong. You refuse to see my logic, which is clearly superior to yours. Until you accept that you are living a lie. Shithead. Scoot2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: strikeforce16m@yahoo.com (Strikeforce) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:28:28 GMT Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: <3db97039.10690932@newsgroups.bellsouth.net> -------- On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:14:29 -0500, "DarkStar" wrote: > >Warsies: Trekkie > >You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. Lie > I commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual >dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. Blatant Lie > >The fact remains that you are wrong. Dishonest Lie > You were wrong, you are wrong, and unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. Lie, Lie, again Lie >As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions >will not alter. Ugly Lie >I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic >is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. Outright Lie > Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy >debate is over. Another Lie >You lost. Lie Lie Lie Lie >Logic won. No quantity of fools and their foolish notions can defeat reason. Liberal Lie >You are at liberty to continue to bitch >and moan about your failure, Thank you for your permission >and you will no doubt continue to deceive yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic >concepts you have created. Conservative Lie >It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the >irrational can't allow themselves to see it. w00t >You're wrong. No you are! (no you! no you! no! yes! no! yes! etc) >Accept this fact, and move on. Ladies first > >DSG2k > Strikeforce the insurmountable ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shogoki Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:52:57 -0600 Subject: Re: Attention Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:14:29 -0500, "DarkStar" wrote: > >Warsies: > >You have made a grand effort to ignore the truth of the Canon Policy. I >commend your stubbornness, though I cannot commend the intellectual >dishonesty which that stubbornness defended. > >The fact remains that you are wrong. You were wrong, you are wrong, and >unless and until the Canon Policy changes, you will continue to be wrong. > >As with any opinion based on a total disconnection with fact, your opinions >will not alter. I could be subtle and gentle, or I could be forceful and >defiant . . . no approach utilizing logic will get through to you, and logic >is the only tool of value . . . I will use no other. > >Unless and until something new and interesting comes up, the Canon Policy >debate is over. You lost. Logic won. No quantity of fools and their >foolish notions can defeat reason. You are at liberty to continue to bitch >and moan about your failure, and you will no doubt continue to deceive >yourselves (and try to deceive others) into believing in the idiotic >concepts you have created. > >It is of no consequence. The rational wins the day . . . even if the >irrational can't allow themselves to see it. > >You're wrong. Accept this fact, and move on. > >DSG2k > No.