---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:48:57 -0400 Subject: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7BEFF9.3040400@stardestroyer.net> -------- Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions. Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't answered me. Will notify the group if anything changes. --------- http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire Long live the Empire! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:16:49 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D7BEFF9.3040400@stardestroyer.net... > Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged > Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled > and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally > declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a > straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions. > Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't > answered me. > > Will notify the group if anything changes. > I see he's spreading lies all over, now. Here are the facts: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason L. Miles Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:20:30 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <2uionu4i814op258pfvm5ej977q3uieecs@4ax.com> -------- On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:16:49 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: > >"Michael Wong" wrote in message >news:3D7BEFF9.3040400@stardestroyer.net... >> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged >> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled >> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally >> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a >> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions. >> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't >> answered me. >> >> Will notify the group if anything changes. >> > >I see he's spreading lies all over, now. Here are the facts: > >http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185 > You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and hit you over the head with a Death Star II. -- "This is Grand Moff Miles, Lord Vader, I am heading to the Milky Way with my 95,089 ship Oversector Group, I don't expect much resistance. Don't worry about sending Death Stars as support." Jason L. Miles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 21:20:17 -0700 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- Jason L. Miles opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as <2uionu4i814op258pfvm5ej977q3uieecs@4ax.com>) on Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:20:30 GMT... >On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:16:49 GMT, "DarkStar" >wrote: > >> >>"Michael Wong" wrote in message >>news:3D7BEFF9.3040400@stardestroyer.net... >>> Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged >>> Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled >>> and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally >>> declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a >>> straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions. >>> Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't >>> answered me. >>> >>> Will notify the group if anything changes. >>> >> >>I see he's spreading lies all over, now. Here are the facts: >> >>http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185 >> >You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and hit you over the head >with a Death Star II. Dalton, this needs FUQing. Preferably in the T&I section. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow" Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:27:57 +0300 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <25Ye9.65$yj4.10883@read2.inet.fi> -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:BVXe9.410224$Aw4.17129454@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Michael Wong" wrote in message > news:3D7BEFF9.3040400@stardestroyer.net... > > Just in case anyone's curious, I finally got fed up and challenged > > Darkstar/Guardian2000/RSA to one-on-one debate earlier today. He waffled > > and wanted to add various conditions to it so that he could unilaterally > > declare victory if I was rude to him. I told him to just give me a > > straight yes or no answer, with no bullshit escape-clause conditions. > > Since then, he's posted in three other threads on my board but he hasn't > > answered me. > > > > Will notify the group if anything changes. > > > > I see he's spreading lies all over, now. Here are the facts: > > http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185 Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely. Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats so blatantly obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never occured and that the towers are still there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:30:01 +1000 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3d7c782a$0$1751$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- > Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely. > Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats so blatantly > obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never occured and > that the towers are still there. > Don't give him ideas... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) Date: 9 Sep 2002 14:49:48 -0700 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <2d3e5dbf.0209091349.7a2449e1@posting.google.com> -------- "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message news:<3d7c782a$0$1751$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > > Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely. > > Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats so > blatantly > > obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never occured and > > that the towers are still there. > > > Don't give him ideas... Chris, do you, a Pro-Trek debater, think DarkStar's a fucking idiot? (judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:45:17 +1000 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3d7d78dd$0$1752$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- > Chris, do you, a Pro-Trek debater, think DarkStar's a fucking idiot? > (judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably > yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS) Thanks......I think? And yes he is a fucking idiot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fenix_burns@yahoo.com (Eleas) Date: 9 Sep 2002 23:00:54 -0700 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) wrote in message news:<2d3e5dbf.0209091349.7a2449e1@posting.google.com>... > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message news:<3d7c782a$0$1751$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > > > Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely. > > > Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats so > blatantly > > > obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never occured and > > > that the towers are still there. > > > > > Don't give him ideas... > > Chris, do you, a Pro-Trek debater, think DarkStar's a fucking idiot? > (judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably > yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS) I'd be surprised if he didn't. I've butted heads with Chris in the past (that's just how things go here) but there are two crucial differences between Chris and Scooter: 1. Chris fights battles he can win, while Scooter does the opposite, bringing crashing defeat on the Trek side time and again. Is it any wonder all other trekkies hate the Last Bastard of Trek? 2. Chris is on a crusade against the Wars contingent. Scooter is on a crusade against reality. -- Björn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:47:30 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7E3E42.D3C6245A@daltonator.net> -------- Eleas wrote: > > big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) wrote in message news:<2d3e5dbf.0209091349.7a2449e1@posting.google.com>... > > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message news:<3d7c782a$0$1751$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > > > > Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely. > > > > Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats so > > blatantly > > > > obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never occured and > > > > that the towers are still there. > > > > > > > Don't give him ideas... > > > > Chris, do you, a Pro-Trek debater, think DarkStar's a fucking idiot? > > (judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably > > yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS) > > I'd be surprised if he didn't. I've butted heads with Chris in the > past (that's just how things go here) but there are two crucial > differences between Chris and Scooter: > > 1. Chris fights battles he can win, while Scooter does the opposite, > bringing crashing defeat on the Trek side time and again. Is it any > wonder all other trekkies hate the Last Bastard of Trek? > 2. Chris is on a crusade against the Wars contingent. Scooter is on a > crusade against reality. The third difference being that Chris can actually get on with his enemies (ie Wayne) -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "All tribal myths are true, for a given value of 'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:25:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3D7E3E42.D3C6245A@daltonator.net... > Eleas wrote: > > > > big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) wrote in message news:<2d3e5dbf.0209091349.7a2449e1@posting.google.com>... > > > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message news:<3d7c782a$0$1751$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > > > > > Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely. > > > > > Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats so > > > blatantly > > > > > obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never occured and > > > > > that the towers are still there. > > > > > > > > > Don't give him ideas... > > > > > > Chris, do you, a Pro-Trek debater, think DarkStar's a fucking idiot? > > > (judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably > > > yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS) > > > > I'd be surprised if he didn't. I've butted heads with Chris in the > > past (that's just how things go here) but there are two crucial > > differences between Chris and Scooter: > > > > 1. Chris fights battles he can win, while Scooter does the opposite, > > bringing crashing defeat on the Trek side time and again. Is it any > > wonder all other trekkies hate the Last Bastard of Trek? > > 2. Chris is on a crusade against the Wars contingent. Scooter is on a > > crusade against reality. > > The third difference being that Chris can actually get on with his > enemies (ie Wayne) > I think the biggest difference is that Chris can actually concede points and doesn't take points conceded to him to be the next holy grail of failed warsiedom. -- 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: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:38:27 +1000 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3d7e9e94$0$1755$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:alm2q6$1s0js9$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3D7E3E42.D3C6245A@daltonator.net... > > Eleas wrote: > > > > > > big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) wrote in message > news:<2d3e5dbf.0209091349.7a2449e1@posting.google.com>... > > > > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message > news:<3d7c782a$0$1751$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > > > > > > Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely. > > > > > > Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats so > > > > blatantly > > > > > > obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never > occured and > > > > > > that the towers are still there. > > > > > > > > > > > Don't give him ideas... > > > > > > > > Chris, do you, a Pro-Trek debater, think DarkStar's a fucking idiot? > > > > (judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably > > > > yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS) > > > > > > I'd be surprised if he didn't. I've butted heads with Chris in the > > > past (that's just how things go here) but there are two crucial > > > differences between Chris and Scooter: > > > > > > 1. Chris fights battles he can win, while Scooter does the opposite, > > > bringing crashing defeat on the Trek side time and again. Is it any > > > wonder all other trekkies hate the Last Bastard of Trek? > > > 2. Chris is on a crusade against the Wars contingent. Scooter is on a > > > crusade against reality. > > > > The third difference being that Chris can actually get on with his > > enemies (ie Wayne) > > > > I think the biggest difference is that Chris can actually concede points and > doesn't take points conceded to him to be the next holy grail of failed > warsiedom. > All of your overwhelming love for me just comes through ;) AND WAYNE AND I WILL NEVER GET ON! YOU HEAR THAT POE? ITS NEVER OVER!!!!! :P ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:59:01 -0700 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message news:3d7e9e94$0$1755$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > The third difference being that Chris can actually get on with his > > > enemies (ie Wayne) > > > > > > > I think the biggest difference is that Chris can actually concede points > and > > doesn't take points conceded to him to be the next holy grail of failed > > warsiedom. > > > > All of your overwhelming love for me just comes through ;) > > AND WAYNE AND I WILL GET IT ON! YOU HEAR THAT POE? I WANT TO BE YOUR LOVE SLAVE!!!!! > > :P > > (Modded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:07:18 -0700 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Chris O'Farrell" wrote > All of your overwhelming love for me just comes through ;) > > AND WAYNE AND I WILL NEVER GET ON! YOU HEAR THAT POE? ITS NEVER OVER!!!!! > > :P That's it! The "Wedge's Gamble" page goes up! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fenix_burns@yahoo.com (Eleas) Date: 11 Sep 2002 04:03:55 -0700 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message news:<3d7e9e94$0$1755$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:alm2q6$1s0js9$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3D7E3E42.D3C6245A@daltonator.net... > > > Eleas wrote: > > > > > > > > big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) wrote in message > news:<2d3e5dbf.0209091349.7a2449e1@posting.google.com>... > > > > > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message > news:<3d7c782a$0$1751$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > > > > > > > Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely. > > > > > > > Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats > so > blatantly > > > > > > > obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never > occured and > > > > > > > that the towers are still there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't give him ideas... > > > > > > > > > > Chris, do you, a Pro-Trek debater, think DarkStar's a fucking idiot? > > > > > (judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably > > > > > yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS) > > > > > > > > I'd be surprised if he didn't. I've butted heads with Chris in the > > > > past (that's just how things go here) but there are two crucial > > > > differences between Chris and Scooter: > > > > > > > > 1. Chris fights battles he can win, while Scooter does the opposite, > > > > bringing crashing defeat on the Trek side time and again. Is it any > > > > wonder all other trekkies hate the Last Bastard of Trek? > > > > 2. Chris is on a crusade against the Wars contingent. Scooter is on a > > > > crusade against reality. > > > > > > The third difference being that Chris can actually get on with his > > > enemies (ie Wayne) > > > > > > > I think the biggest difference is that Chris can actually concede points > and > > doesn't take points conceded to him to be the next holy grail of failed > > warsiedom. > > > > All of your overwhelming love for me just comes through ;) > > AND WAYNE AND I WILL NEVER GET ON! YOU HEAR THAT POE? ITS NEVER OVER!!!!! > > :P But you two already got it on, didn't you? I have some pretty x-rated pictures to prove it...-ggkh...ghkk... *quickly succumbs to Lord Poe's powers* -- Björn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:03:25 +0300 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <0jGf9.172$6c7.10054@read2.inet.fi> -------- "Eleas" wrote in message news:b789f8d6.0209110303.7ec2ca42@posting.google.com... > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message news:<3d7e9e94$0$1755$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:alm2q6$1s0js9$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > news:3D7E3E42.D3C6245A@daltonator.net... > > > > Eleas wrote: > > > > > > > > > > big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) wrote in message > > news:<2d3e5dbf.0209091349.7a2449e1@posting.google.com>... > > > > > > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message > > news:<3d7c782a$0$1751$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > > > > > > > > Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely. > > > > > > > > Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats > > so > > blatantly > > > > > > > > obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never > > occured and > > > > > > > > that the towers are still there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't give him ideas... > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris, do you, a Pro-Trek debater, think DarkStar's a fucking idiot? > > > > > > (judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably > > > > > > yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS) > > > > > > > > > > I'd be surprised if he didn't. I've butted heads with Chris in the > > > > > past (that's just how things go here) but there are two crucial > > > > > differences between Chris and Scooter: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Chris fights battles he can win, while Scooter does the opposite, > > > > > bringing crashing defeat on the Trek side time and again. Is it any > > > > > wonder all other trekkies hate the Last Bastard of Trek? > > > > > 2. Chris is on a crusade against the Wars contingent. Scooter is on a > > > > > crusade against reality. > > > > > > > > The third difference being that Chris can actually get on with his > > > > enemies (ie Wayne) > > > > > > > > > > I think the biggest difference is that Chris can actually concede points > > and > > > doesn't take points conceded to him to be the next holy grail of failed > > > warsiedom. > > > > > > > All of your overwhelming love for me just comes through ;) > > > > AND WAYNE AND I WILL NEVER GET ON! YOU HEAR THAT POE? ITS NEVER OVER!!!!! > > > > :P > > But you two already got it on, didn't you? I have some pretty x-rated > pictures to prove it...-ggkh...ghkk... *quickly succumbs to Lord Poe's > powers* Would those powers consist of actually seeing the images in question, and subsequently dying from shock? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:29:16 +1000 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3d7f452d$0$1752$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- "Eleas" wrote in message news:b789f8d6.0209110303.7ec2ca42@posting.google.com... > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message news:<3d7e9e94$0$1755$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:alm2q6$1s0js9$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > news:3D7E3E42.D3C6245A@daltonator.net... > > > > Eleas wrote: > > > > > > > > > > big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) wrote in message > > news:<2d3e5dbf.0209091349.7a2449e1@posting.google.com>... > > > > > > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message > > news:<3d7c782a$0$1751$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > > > > > > > > Yes, looks like he's laying out the facts nicely. > > > > > > > > Give it up DS, you'll never convince anyone of something thats > > so > > blatantly > > > > > > > > obvious, you might as well claim that the 9/11 incident never > > occured and > > > > > > > > that the towers are still there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't give him ideas... > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris, do you, a Pro-Trek debater, think DarkStar's a fucking idiot? > > > > > > (judging from your post and the fact your IQ is above 12, probably > > > > > > yes, but I need it a complete answer that cannot be twisted by DS) > > > > > > > > > > I'd be surprised if he didn't. I've butted heads with Chris in the > > > > > past (that's just how things go here) but there are two crucial > > > > > differences between Chris and Scooter: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Chris fights battles he can win, while Scooter does the opposite, > > > > > bringing crashing defeat on the Trek side time and again. Is it any > > > > > wonder all other trekkies hate the Last Bastard of Trek? > > > > > 2. Chris is on a crusade against the Wars contingent. Scooter is on a > > > > > crusade against reality. > > > > > > > > The third difference being that Chris can actually get on with his > > > > enemies (ie Wayne) > > > > > > > > > > I think the biggest difference is that Chris can actually concede points > > and > > > doesn't take points conceded to him to be the next holy grail of failed > > > warsiedom. > > > > > > > All of your overwhelming love for me just comes through ;) > > > > AND WAYNE AND I WILL NEVER GET ON! YOU HEAR THAT POE? ITS NEVER OVER!!!!! > > > > :P > > But you two already got it on, didn't you? I have some pretty x-rated > pictures to prove it...-ggkh...ghkk... *quickly succumbs to Lord Poe's > powers* > *red beam of a laser scope suddenly appears on Eleas's head* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:06:16 -0700 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote > The third difference being that Chris can actually get on with his > enemies (ie Wayne) Oww...that sounds bad if you read it fast.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:42:32 -0700 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <5JAf9.869$Yc.245032085@news.inreach.com> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:untjqb2tldf32c@corp.supernews.com... > > "Dalton" wrote > > > The third difference being that Chris can actually get on with his > > enemies (ie Wayne) > > Oww...that sounds bad if you read it fast.... > > and being a "Normal" ASVS denizen I did originally. and worse yet I made a joke about it and posted the joke. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:05:37 +0300 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:untjqb2tldf32c@corp.supernews.com... > > "Dalton" wrote > > > The third difference being that Chris can actually get on with his > > enemies (ie Wayne) > > Oww...that sounds bad if you read it fast.... Yes, but who are we to discriminate young love? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:24:06 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "His Divine Shadow" wrote in message news:D3Bf9.37$6c7.2608@read2.inet.fi... > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > news:untjqb2tldf32c@corp.supernews.com... > > > > "Dalton" wrote > > > > > The third difference being that Chris can actually get on with his > > > enemies (ie Wayne) > > > > Oww...that sounds bad if you read it fast.... > > Yes, but who are we to discriminate young love? > We are able to do it when it involves that much body hair. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:34:55 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D7BEFF9.3040400@stardestroyer.net... Aww, poor baby . . . now he's basically saying 'let me debate dirty or I'll ban you' My reply to his second challenge attempt, after he ran screaming from the first: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185 His reply: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=192 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow" Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:47:32 +0300 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:Oz0f9.413582$Aw4.17284235@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Michael Wong" wrote in message > news:3D7BEFF9.3040400@stardestroyer.net... > > Aww, poor baby . . . now he's basically saying 'let me debate dirty or I'll > ban you' > > My reply to his second challenge attempt, after he ran screaming from the > first: > http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185 > > His reply: > http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=192 Essentially MW: Debate me DS: Not without special rules so I can focus on those instead of actually debating you, you meanie! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:48:47 +0800 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "His Divine Shadow" wrote in message news:DM0f9.234$yj4.21220@read2.inet.fi... > Essentially > MW: Debate me > DS: Not without special rules so I can focus on those instead of actually > debating you, you meanie! He doesn't even realize that about half the group already wants to ban him (we once voted on this, remember, and it didn't pass by a small margin,) so if Wong bans him for any reason, he'll be doing a favor to that half of the group. About 40% of the total wants to keep him as a joke (and we were kind of low on proper Trekkies of any categorization back then,) so I'm sure they won't scream if Wong threw him out (they might even be relieved, because they had been so harassed by the stupidity since then.) Perhaps 10% think he makes real contributions, and even then, they seem to have _severe_ reservations. I think they'll accede to the others' wishes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:40:33 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "His Divine Shadow" wrote in message news:DM0f9.234$yj4.21220@read2.inet.fi... > Essentially > MW: Debate me > DS: Not without special rules so I can focus on those instead of actually > debating you, you meanie! Oh, hardly. Like any StarDestroyer.Net thread, he was hoping it could turn into a Let's-Flame-DarkStar hour, so he could stay substance-free, and just attack his opponent. By demanding a debate based on the evidence, I was restricting the level of BS he could employ. That would mean no flinging of insults like monkeys fling feces, no clever sophistries hidden under mounds of lies and personal attacks, and none of his peculiar Kynesian efforts, such as his attempt to contact individuals at Graham Kennedy's educational institution. The highlight reel: DarkStar: "If you had ever, even once, led me to believe for a moment that you could refrain from such childish behavior in a debate against me, I'd tell you to bring it on." Wong: "OK Darkstar, fine. I challenge you to one-on-one debate. Face me, you little dipshit." DarkStar: " . . . if you really think you can keep a promise to maintain civility in a public forum, then let's get it on." Wong: "Don't give me any of these bullshit conditions, you evasive little chickenshit." (((http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Debate-1-negotiations.html Gothmog: "Actually, as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set the terms and topic without going through such a process as we are going through." Wong: "If I had specifically addressed the challenge to you personally, that would be the case." ))) DarkStar: "So, you have refused to debate in a more proper fashion as per the guidelines set out by the challenged party, and have effectively re-issued a challenge wherein you demand that you be allowed to debate the Wong way." "Should you wish to accept the terms, you are at liberty to come crawling back." Wong: "No, I have issued a challenge with no conditions whatsoever." "Debate me or I'll ban your worthless ass." DarkStar: "So, you challenge me to a debate, and then fail to follow your own stated beliefs, running away from an honest, evidence-based debate because that's your biggest fear. Having been caught in the act, you suddenly have to try to play off the fact that you're not just a pussy, but indeed a huge, gaping vagina. Then, the icing on the cake . . . you threaten to ban me. This is the only force you can apply in the situation . . . the only way you can hope to make me acquiesce to a debate which has nothing to do with the issues, but everything to do with ego and audience. I've already told you and everyone else a hundred times . . . I'm not interested in ego and audience . . . I'm here for the facts and evidence. So, I'm afraid I have to reply with the following: GO AHEAD AND BAN ME, YA BIG PUSSY." Wong: "Fine. You're gone." Once you adapt to his BS, as I did in the threads which I posted on his board, you find that he's really not as impressive as he makes himself out to be. Now, my opinion of him is even lower . . . he challenges, I demand honesty, and he bans me. This is your vanguard? The Great Warsie Hope? Sheesh. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "WeeMadAndo" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:03:50 +1000 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:Qh3f9.418181$Aw4.17391398@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "His Divine Shadow" wrote in message > news:DM0f9.234$yj4.21220@read2.inet.fi... > > > Essentially > > MW: Debate me > > DS: Not without special rules so I can focus on those instead of actually > > debating you, you meanie! > > Oh, hardly. Like any StarDestroyer.Net thread, he was hoping it could turn > into a Let's-Flame-DarkStar hour, so he could stay substance-free, and just > attack his opponent. By demanding a debate based on the evidence, I was > restricting the level of BS he could employ. That would mean no flinging > of insults like monkeys fling feces, no clever sophistries hidden under > mounds of lies and personal attacks, and none of his peculiar Kynesian > efforts, such as his attempt to contact individuals at Graham Kennedy's > educational institution. Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain credibility in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it. I myself can't claim to be a genius in tech threads as I'm just finishing up my majors History, Ancient Civs and Political Science at university, but if someone was to debate politics and culture within the sci-fi canon, then I'd be happy to jump in. On another note, I was not a follower of Wong to begin with. After going head to head with Brian Young many years ago over some B5 weapon calcs that I worked on I was converted through logic and reason. As I worked my way through Wongs, Youngs and Saxtons pages I came to realise that these people did indeed, have a clue. Graham Kennedy's site, like Tigerclaws B5Tech are both highly questionable when it comes to tech issues, but are great for culture and other points.] So don't abuse me about being a one-eyed alpaca-fucker, sit down and debate properly. -- WeeMadAndo Blue sparks and white smoke, the two most expensive components of any electrical system. Once you've used them, it costs a fortune to replace them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 02:30:43 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "WeeMadAndo" wrote in message news:aljjrd$1qajak$1@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de... > Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain credibility > in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it. An honest, rational discussion does not require questions of credibility to ever pop up. That's why Wong always poses those questions. Besides, his attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . they never debated. An honest, rational discussion deals with the issues, the evidence, the arguments . . . foreign territory to some. Hence my decision to place it there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "WeeMadAndo" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:41:44 +1000 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:nPcf9.536367$m91.21740489@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "WeeMadAndo" wrote in message > news:aljjrd$1qajak$1@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de... > > > Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain > credibility > > in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it. > > An honest, rational discussion does not require questions of credibility to > ever pop up. That's why Wong always poses those questions. Besides, his > attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . they never debated. An honest and rational discussion SHOULDN'T require those questions, but in some cases they just have to be asked. Especially when some 12 y/o starts claiming that he has a degree in astrophysics in order to make his points have that little bit more credibility. > An honest, rational discussion deals with the issues, the evidence, the > arguments . . . foreign territory to some. Hence my decision to place it > there. Evidence, the key point in a Sci-Fi arguement. Which is precisely why here in ASVS the rules of canon laid down by the makers of the shows and movies are followed. -- WeeMadAndo Blue sparks and white smoke, the two most expensive components of any electrical system. Once you've used them, it costs a fortune to replace them. -- WeeMadAndo Blue sparks and white smoke, the two most expensive components of any electrical system. Once you've used them, it costs a fortune to replace them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:23:12 -0600 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7D8FD0.38423E8B@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "WeeMadAndo" wrote in message > news:aljjrd$1qajak$1@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de... > > > Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain > credibility > > in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it. > > An honest, rational discussion does not require questions of credibility to > ever pop up. That's why Wong always poses those questions. Besides, his > attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . they never debated. Really? What do you call the arguments they had in this newsgroup back in 1998? > An honest, rational discussion deals with the issues, the evidence, the > arguments . . . foreign territory to some. Yes, it's foreign territory to you, because you manufacture evidence to suit yourself. -- Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m. Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time? A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:30:25 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <5Tqf9.550443$m91.22325757@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D7D8FD0.38423E8B@sk.sympatico.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "WeeMadAndo" wrote in message > > news:aljjrd$1qajak$1@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain > > credibility > > > in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it. > > > > An honest, rational discussion does not require questions of credibility to > > ever pop up. That's why Wong always poses those questions. Besides, his > > attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . they never debated. > > Really? What do you call the arguments they had in this newsgroup back > in 1998? I call them not-directly-related to Wong's pages against Kennedy. "I use this category to criticize articles I see on the Net. People listed in this category may or may not have ever had direct correspondence with me." - Wong > > > An honest, rational discussion deals with the issues, the evidence, the > > arguments . . . foreign territory to some. > > Yes, it's foreign territory to you, because you manufacture evidence to > suit yourself. > Oh, yes, of course, I have changed every single copy of every canon movie to represent what I'm talking about. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "WeeMadAndo" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:06:19 +1000 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- DarkStar" wrote in message news:5Tqf9.550443$m91.22325757@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3D7D8FD0.38423E8B@sk.sympatico.ca... > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > "WeeMadAndo" wrote in message > > > news:aljjrd$1qajak$1@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain > > > credibility > > > > in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it. > > > > > > An honest, rational discussion does not require questions of credibility > to > > > ever pop up. That's why Wong always poses those questions. Besides, his attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . they never debated . > > > > Really? What do you call the arguments they had in this newsgroup back > > in 1998? > > I call them not-directly-related to Wong's pages against Kennedy. "I use > this category to criticize articles I see on the Net. People listed in this > category may or may not have ever had direct correspondence with me." - Wong No. You said "Besides, his attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . they never debated". Thus your claim that you were only referring to his webpage is refuted by your own words. -- WeeMadAndo Blue sparks and white smoke, the two most expensive components of any electrical system. Once you've used them, it costs a fortune to replace them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:14:31 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "WeeMadAndo" wrote in message news:alltqh$1r8hte$1@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de... > DarkStar" wrote in message > news:5Tqf9.550443$m91.22325757@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3D7D8FD0.38423E8B@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > "WeeMadAndo" wrote in message > > > > news:aljjrd$1qajak$1@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain > > > > credibility > > > > > in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it. > > > > > > > > An honest, rational discussion does not require questions of > credibility > > to > > > > ever pop up. That's why Wong always poses those questions. Besides, > his attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . they never debated . > > > > > > Really? What do you call the arguments they had in this newsgroup back > > > in 1998? > > > > I call them not-directly-related to Wong's pages against Kennedy. "I use > > this category to criticize articles I see on the Net. People listed in > this > > category may or may not have ever had direct correspondence with me." - > Wong > > No. You said "Besides, his attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . > they never debated". Thus your claim that you were only referring to his > webpage is refuted by your own words. Does Wong's page deal with a debate between the two, in the fashion of other debates on his hate-mail page? No. It deals with Kennedy's pages. Therefore, my statement, if not taken so wildly out of context, is absolutely accurate. Any discussions which occurred in 1998 may be relevant for Wong's motivations in making the pages, but not the content. Do you understand? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:30:10 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:r1vf9.562849$2p2.23203041@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "WeeMadAndo" wrote in message > news:alltqh$1r8hte$1@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de... > > DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:5Tqf9.550443$m91.22325757@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > > news:3D7D8FD0.38423E8B@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "WeeMadAndo" wrote in message > > > > > news:aljjrd$1qajak$1@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain > > > > > credibility > > > > > > in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it. > > > > No. You said "Besides, his attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . > . > > they never debated". Thus your claim that you were only referring to his > > webpage is refuted by your own words. > > Does Wong's page deal with a debate between the two, in the fashion of other > debates on his hate-mail page? No. It deals with Kennedy's pages. > Therefore, my statement, if not taken so wildly out of context, is > absolutely accurate. Any discussions which occurred in 1998 may be relevant > for Wong's motivations in making the pages, but not the content. Do you > understand? > Lets review this again: ---- Path: uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.stealth.net!news.stealth .net!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giga news.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for- mail From: "DarkStar" Newsgroups: alt.startrek.vs.starwars References: <3D7BEFF9.3040400@stardestroyer.net> Subject: Re: Darkfucker X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-GC-Trace: gv1-Ze/aU1c6tn6s8IV9Mu3MmV7+SYyGXaCdfrIDd0= Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 21:30:43 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Lines: 18 X-Trace: sv3-VwCqZJ2onuun8X1l7RGyYfZqTZ7JAh6EbJL0iL3zQzMFPBJddD5xoMQ8Y+kJB5gdvAr5jYRC UZY2cFw!YF3p1+eT6GtwSRNzBMoBkIZQbzW/3mpc/pbNiSwdMT23h+VtNOctY6Krr7IeKECqDbdA CyQF91PB!nWIBTQ4ZNTim3CrJSljcHajOsjnaRoPa X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 02:30:43 GMT Xref: uni-berlin.de alt.startrek.vs.starwars:343026 "WeeMadAndo" wrote in message news:aljjrd$1qajak$1@ID-21694.news.dfncis.de... > Well, when people misrepresent their background in order to gain credibility > in an arguement they deserve to have questions asked about it. An honest, rational discussion does not require questions of credibility to ever pop up. That's why Wong always poses those questions. Besides, his attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . they never debated. An honest, rational discussion deals with the issues, the evidence, the arguments . . . foreign territory to some. Hence my decision to place it there. ---- You state, and I quote: "Besides, his [Mike Wong's] attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . they never debated." You state, without qualifier that they never debated, which is a bald faced lie. -- 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: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:15:41 -0600 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7E993D.5305F09E@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Cmdrwilkens wrote: > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:r1vf9.562849$2p2.23203041@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > You state, and I quote: > > "Besides, his [Mike Wong's] attack on Kennedy is against his webpages . . . > they never debated." > > You state, without qualifier that they never debated, which is a bald faced > lie. Abnd they did debate as well. Mike's correction about the logarithmic scaling came after Kennedy mentioned it on ASVS. -- Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m. Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time? A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:25:22 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <6tAf9.313629$On.12832740@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:alm32s$1rl8l0$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > You state, without qualifier that they never debated, which is a bald faced > lie. > Your ignorance is striking. You misread, you have been informed of this, and yet you continue. Give it up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:25:20 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:6tAf9.313629$On.12832740@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:alm32s$1rl8l0$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > You state, without qualifier that they never debated, which is a bald > faced > > lie. > > > > Your ignorance is striking. You misread, you have been informed of this, > and yet you continue. Give it up. > You made a statement that was clear and concise which left no room for qualifiers except through the most stretched connection. that statement is flat out false and even WITH the qualifier that you seem to be searching for you would be incorrect as well. -- 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: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 03:20:20 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7EB6C2.7080302@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "Graeme Dice" wrote: >>>An honest, rational discussion deals with the issues, the evidence, the >>>arguments . . . foreign territory to some. >> >>Yes, it's foreign territory to you, because you manufacture evidence to >>suit yourself. > > Oh, yes, of course, I have changed every single copy of every canon movie to > represent what I'm talking about. No, you just lie about what they show. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:26:04 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D7EB6C2.7080302@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "Graeme Dice" wrote: > > >>>An honest, rational discussion deals with the issues, the evidence, the > >>>arguments . . . foreign territory to some. > >> > >>Yes, it's foreign territory to you, because you manufacture evidence to > >>suit yourself. > > > > Oh, yes, of course, I have changed every single copy of every canon movie to > > represent what I'm talking about. > > No, you just lie about what they show. Funny, anyone can see exactly what I'm talking about in the movie. Except you, evidently. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:41:13 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7ED7C9.7060104@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>>An honest, rational discussion deals with the issues, the evidence, the >>>>>arguments . . . foreign territory to some. >>>> >>>>Yes, it's foreign territory to you, because you manufacture evidence to >>>>suit yourself. >>> >>>Oh, yes, of course, I have changed every single copy of every canon >>>movie to represent what I'm talking about. >> >>No, you just lie about what they show. > > Funny, anyone can see exactly what I'm talking about in the movie. Except > you, evidently. Really? Then why are you the only one that can't see the debris? Why is that? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:06:14 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D7ED7C9.7060104@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>>An honest, rational discussion deals with the issues, the evidence, the > >>>>>arguments . . . foreign territory to some. > >>>> > >>>>Yes, it's foreign territory to you, because you manufacture evidence to > >>>>suit yourself. > >>> > >>>Oh, yes, of course, I have changed every single copy of every canon > >>>movie to represent what I'm talking about. > >> > >>No, you just lie about what they show. > > > > Funny, anyone can see exactly what I'm talking about in the movie. Except > > you, evidently. > > Really? Then why are you the only one that can't see the debris? Why is > that? Debris? From . . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:19:30 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7F8925.7030107@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>Funny, anyone can see exactly what I'm talking about in the movie. >>>Except you, evidently. >> >>Really? Then why are you the only one that can't see the debris? Why is >>that? > > Debris? From . . . From the asteroids. You claim all the asteroids we saw destroyed were destroyed in the same fashion. But we can clearly see debris when the two asteroids collided. Something you claim doesn't exist. Add to that the Voyager asteroid where an almost identical debate arose. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:21:13 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D7F8925.7030107@shaw.ca... > But we can clearly see debris when the > two asteroids collided. True. > Something you claim doesn't exist. False. Reference: "asteroidlets", on my page. > Add to that the Voyager asteroid where an almost identical debate arose. False. Reference: my page. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:22:27 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:Qh3f9.418181$Aw4.17391398@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "His Divine Shadow" wrote in message > news:DM0f9.234$yj4.21220@read2.inet.fi... > > > Essentially > > MW: Debate me > > DS: Not without special rules so I can focus on those instead of actually > > debating you, you meanie! > > Oh, hardly. Like any StarDestroyer.Net thread, he was hoping it could turn > into a Let's-Flame-DarkStar hour, so he could stay substance-free, and just > attack his opponent. By demanding a debate based on the evidence, I was > restricting the level of BS he could employ. That would mean no flinging > of insults like monkeys fling feces, no clever sophistries hidden under > mounds of lies and personal attacks, and none of his peculiar Kynesian > efforts, such as his attempt to contact individuals at Graham Kennedy's > educational institution. > > The highlight reel: > Very nice, lets see what this works out to: DS: Debate me but don't insult me because it would hurt my ego MW: I don't give a shit about your ego, debate anyway Get off your white horse Dark Star. Whetehr a eprson insults you or not has no bearing on the content of their posts. If you don't have the gonads to accept barbs along with a rebuttal post then you have no buisness debating Star Trek versus Star Wars. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) Date: 9 Sep 2002 14:46:12 -0700 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <2d3e5dbf.0209091346.5f0ac869@posting.google.com> -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:... > "Michael Wong" wrote in message > news:3D7BEFF9.3040400@stardestroyer.net... > > Aww, poor baby . . . now he's basically saying 'let me debate dirty or I'll > ban you' > > My reply to his second challenge attempt, after he ran screaming from the > first: > http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185 > > His reply: > http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=192 So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any other debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big dummyhead you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 02:27:29 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "CaptainSheridan" wrote in message news:2d3e5dbf.0209091346.5f0ac869@posting.google.com... > So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any other > debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big dummyhead > you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that? It means he'll be locked in to a debate on the facts and evidence, not on schoolyard namecalling and silly bluster. I'm familiar with the territory of facts and evidence, and though I can see right through his BS and point it out for all to see, I see no point in allowing myself to be a target of it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:23:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:lMcf9.546325$2p2.22424484@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "CaptainSheridan" wrote in message > news:2d3e5dbf.0209091346.5f0ac869@posting.google.com... > > > So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any other > > debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big dummyhead > > you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that? > > It means he'll be locked in to a debate on the facts and evidence, not on > schoolyard namecalling and silly bluster. I'm familiar with the territory > of facts and evidence, and though I can see right through his BS and point > it out for all to see, I see no point in allowing myself to be a target of > it. > So in other words you want to limit and constrict his language and the flow of his posts simply because you don't have the balls to accept ridicule for the monstrously stupid ideas you have put forth. Perfectly reasonable. -- 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: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:33:53 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:aljvrm$1rn89h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:lMcf9.546325$2p2.22424484@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "CaptainSheridan" wrote in message > > news:2d3e5dbf.0209091346.5f0ac869@posting.google.com... > > > > > So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any other > > > debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big dummyhead > > > you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that? > > > > It means he'll be locked in to a debate on the facts and evidence, not on > > schoolyard namecalling and silly bluster. I'm familiar with the > territory > > of facts and evidence, and though I can see right through his BS and point > > it out for all to see, I see no point in allowing myself to be a target of > > it. > > > > So in other words you want to limit and constrict his language and the flow > of his posts simply because you don't have the balls to accept ridicule "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where have you been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the personal attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from every which way? I want an honest, rational discussion. If you consider that a limitation and constriction on him . . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:58:18 -0600 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7E790A.3A5186FF@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where have you > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the personal > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from every > which way? > > I want an honest, rational discussion. No, you don't want an honest discussion. You want a discussion where you can misrepresent evidence. Graeme Dice -- Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m. Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time? A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason L. Miles Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:02:46 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:58:18 -0600, Graeme Dice wrote: >DarkStar wrote: > > > >> "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where have you >> been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the personal >> attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from every >> which way? >> >> I want an honest, rational discussion. > >No, you don't want an honest discussion. You want a discussion where >you can misrepresent evidence. In Darkstar's mind, that's the only kind of honest discussion there is. -- "This is Grand Moff Miles, Lord Vader, I am heading to the Milky Way with my 95,089 ship Oversector Group, I don't expect much resistance. Don't worry about sending Death Stars as support." Jason L. Miles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:15:10 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <22vf9.306313$On.12507995@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D7E790A.3A5186FF@sk.sympatico.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where have you > > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the personal > > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from every > > which way? > > > > I want an honest, rational discussion. > > No, you don't want an honest discussion. You want a discussion where > you can misrepresent evidence. That is not an honest discussion, therefore your hypothesis is invalid. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:23:12 -0600 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7E8CF0.6AF580CC@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3D7E790A.3A5186FF@sk.sympatico.ca... > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where have > you > > > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the personal > > > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from > every > > > which way? > > > > > > I want an honest, rational discussion. > > > > No, you don't want an honest discussion. You want a discussion where > > you can misrepresent evidence. > > That is not an honest discussion, therefore your hypothesis is invalid. Ahhh. I see then. You are now stating that you want to start over and begin having honest discussions instead of all the dishonest ones started in the past. -- Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m. Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time? A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:28:20 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D7E8CF0.6AF580CC@sk.sympatico.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3D7E790A.3A5186FF@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where have > > you > > > > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the personal > > > > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from > > every > > > > which way? > > > > > > > > I want an honest, rational discussion. > > > > > > No, you don't want an honest discussion. You want a discussion where > > > you can misrepresent evidence. > > > > That is not an honest discussion, therefore your hypothesis is invalid. > > Ahhh. I see then. You are now stating that you want to start over and > begin having honest discussions instead of all the dishonest ones > started in the past. No . . . unfortunately the precedent of dishonest Warsie debating tactics has been long-established, and I doubt there's much that can bring a change to that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:45:05 -0700 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as ) on Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:28:20 GMT... >> > > > I want an honest, rational discussion. >> > > >> > > No, you don't want an honest discussion. You want a discussion where >> > > you can misrepresent evidence. >> > >> > That is not an honest discussion, therefore your hypothesis is invalid. >> >> Ahhh. I see then. You are now stating that you want to start over and >> begin having honest discussions instead of all the dishonest ones >> started in the past. > >No . . . unfortunately the precedent of dishonest Warsie debating tactics >has been long-established, and I doubt there's much that can bring a change >to that. Oh, indeed. Blame the Warsies if you have a problem. I suppose you'll go crying to Mommy next about how unfairly we mistreat you. You know, Anderson, I used to have some respect for you back in 2000-2001. I've lost all of that respect for you now, given what you've done over the past several months. Hatfucker. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 02:51:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D80398E.D915C863@daltonator.net> -------- DarkStar wrote: [snip] > No . . . unfortunately the precedent of dishonest Warsie debating tactics > has been long-established, and I doubt there's much that can bring a change > to that. The fuck? Did you take our playbook and replace every instance of "Trekkie" with "Warsie" or something? It's amazing. Everything you accuse us of has already been done by your "distinguished colleagues" in years past. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "All tribal myths are true, for a given value of 'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 08:44:31 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3D80398E.D915C863@daltonator.net... > DarkStar wrote: > > [snip] > > > No . . . unfortunately the precedent of dishonest Warsie debating tactics > > has been long-established, and I doubt there's much that can bring a change > > to that. > > The fuck? Did you take our playbook and replace every instance of > "Trekkie" with "Warsie" or something? It's amazing. Everything you > accuse us of has already been done by your "distinguished colleagues" in > years past. Then perhaps the modern state of Warsie tactics proves the old saying: "What you resist, you become". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:31:30 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:22vf9.306313$On.12507995@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3D7E790A.3A5186FF@sk.sympatico.ca... > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where have > you > > > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the personal > > > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from > every > > > which way? > > > > > > I want an honest, rational discussion. > > > > No, you don't want an honest discussion. You want a discussion where > > you can misrepresent evidence. > > That is not an honest discussion, therefore your hypothesis is invalid. > Then why did you not accept Mike's condition without pause? Seriously do you actually have to work to be this hypocritical or does it come naturally? -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:29:31 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <%wAf9.565193$m91.22856207@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:alm35d$1qci8u$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:22vf9.306313$On.12507995@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3D7E790A.3A5186FF@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where > have > > you > > > > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the > personal > > > > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from > > every > > > > which way? > > > > > > > > I want an honest, rational discussion. > > > > > > No, you don't want an honest discussion. You want a discussion where > > > you can misrepresent evidence. > > > > That is not an honest discussion, therefore your hypothesis is invalid. > > > > Then why did you not accept Mike's condition without pause? Because Mike accepted my condition of rational discussion. He then immediately asked for a short-circuit of this, demanding full control of the evidence and any interpretation for himself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:27:11 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:%wAf9.565193$m91.22856207@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:alm35d$1qci8u$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:22vf9.306313$On.12507995@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > > news:3D7E790A.3A5186FF@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where > > have > > > you > > > > > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the > > personal > > > > > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction > from > > > every > > > > > which way? > > > > > > > > > > I want an honest, rational discussion. > > > > > > > > No, you don't want an honest discussion. You want a discussion where > > > > you can misrepresent evidence. > > > > > > That is not an honest discussion, therefore your hypothesis is invalid. > > > > > > > Then why did you not accept Mike's condition without pause? > > Because Mike accepted my condition of rational discussion. He then > immediately asked for a short-circuit of this, demanding full control of the > evidence and any interpretation for himself. > Much the way that you demanded a short cut to victory by being able to judge what was "rational." Do you try hard to be a hypocrite or does it come naturally? -- 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: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 03:40:48 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7EBB8F.1030209@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "Graeme Dice" wrote: >>>I want an honest, rational discussion. >> >>No, you don't want an honest discussion. You want a discussion where >>you can misrepresent evidence. > > That is not an honest discussion, therefore your hypothesis is invalid. Sorry, bub. We've seen your arguments, we've seen the lies. You: 'These two explosions are identical! Therefore I'm right!' Us: 'No they're not. You see debris in this one and none in the other.' You: 'These two explosions are identical! Therefore I'm right!' Us: 'No, there's debris. Right there.' You: 'These two explosions are identical! Therefore I'm right!' Us: 'What are you blind? Fucking retarded? Look, I'll even highlight the debris.' You: 'These two explosions are identical! Therefore I'm right! And stop insulting me.' C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:36:53 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:lWqf9.302068$On.12325380@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:aljvrm$1rn89h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:lMcf9.546325$2p2.22424484@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "CaptainSheridan" wrote in message > > > news:2d3e5dbf.0209091346.5f0ac869@posting.google.com... > > > > > > > So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any other > > > > debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big dummyhead > > > > you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that? > > > > > > It means he'll be locked in to a debate on the facts and evidence, not > on > > > schoolyard namecalling and silly bluster. I'm familiar with the > > territory > > > of facts and evidence, and though I can see right through his BS and > point > > > it out for all to see, I see no point in allowing myself to be a target > of > > > it. > > > > > > > So in other words you want to limit and constrict his language and the > flow > > of his posts simply because you don't have the balls to accept ridicule > > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where have you > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the personal > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from every > which way? > > I want an honest, rational discussion. If you consider that a limitation > and constriction on him . . . > A rational debate does not preclude barbs aimed at an opponent. They are tactics desiged to draw attention to weak points in an opponnents argument and you can either accept them and deal with the facts or deal solely with the barbs. If you don't have the willpower to do the former then you don't belong in a debate. -- 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: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:30:50 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:alm3fg$1q6a8n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:lWqf9.302068$On.12325380@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:aljvrm$1rn89h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:lMcf9.546325$2p2.22424484@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "CaptainSheridan" wrote in message > > > > news:2d3e5dbf.0209091346.5f0ac869@posting.google.com... > > > > > > > > > So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any other > > > > > debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big dummyhead > > > > > you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that? > > > > > > > > It means he'll be locked in to a debate on the facts and evidence, not > > on > > > > schoolyard namecalling and silly bluster. I'm familiar with the > > > territory > > > > of facts and evidence, and though I can see right through his BS and > > point > > > > it out for all to see, I see no point in allowing myself to be a > target > > of > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > So in other words you want to limit and constrict his language and the > > flow > > > of his posts simply because you don't have the balls to accept ridicule > > > > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where have > you > > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the personal > > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from > every > > which way? > > > > I want an honest, rational discussion. If you consider that a limitation > > and constriction on him . . . > > > > A rational debate does not preclude barbs aimed at an opponent. They are > tactics desiged to draw attention to weak points in an opponnents argument > and you can either accept them and deal with the facts or deal solely with > the barbs. If you don't have the willpower to do the former then you don't > belong in a debate. If he doesn't have the willpower to refrain from the silly, childish antics such as barbs, then he doesn't belong in any debate, much less one where it shall be a rational discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 11 Sep 2002 06:39:02 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <20020911023902.24292.00000130@mb-mc.aol.com> -------- >If he doesn't have the willpower to refrain from the silly, childish antics >such as barbs, then he doesn't belong in any debate, much less one where it >shall be a rational discussion. > > > "The only debates without insults are also without honesty. That's why polititions are so polite" A cookie to the first one to guess who I'm quoting. Skywarp:"Starscream, What's Megatron's plan this time? Starscream:"Who cares? You just Know it's going to be evil. And evil is always fun." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:01:46 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7EEAAB.1020101@shaw.ca> -------- Setesh wrote: >>If he doesn't have the willpower to refrain from the silly, childish antics >>such as barbs, then he doesn't belong in any debate, much less one where it >>shall be a rational discussion. > > "The only debates without insults are also without honesty. That's why > polititions are so polite" > > A cookie to the first one to guess who I'm quoting. I don't know, but he deserves a fucking medal. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:28:13 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:eyAf9.453900$Aw4.18928137@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:alm3fg$1q6a8n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:lWqf9.302068$On.12325380@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:aljvrm$1rn89h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:lMcf9.546325$2p2.22424484@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > "CaptainSheridan" wrote in message > > > > > news:2d3e5dbf.0209091346.5f0ac869@posting.google.com... > > > > > > > > > > > So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any other > > > > > > debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big > dummyhead > > > > > > you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that? > > > > > > > > > > It means he'll be locked in to a debate on the facts and evidence, > not > > > on > > > > > schoolyard namecalling and silly bluster. I'm familiar with the > > > > territory > > > > > of facts and evidence, and though I can see right through his BS and > > > point > > > > > it out for all to see, I see no point in allowing myself to be a > > target > > > of > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in other words you want to limit and constrict his language and the > > > flow > > > > of his posts simply because you don't have the balls to accept > ridicule > > > > > > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where have > > you > > > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the personal > > > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from > > every > > > which way? > > > > > > I want an honest, rational discussion. If you consider that a > limitation > > > and constriction on him . . . > > > > > > > A rational debate does not preclude barbs aimed at an opponent. They are > > tactics desiged to draw attention to weak points in an opponnents argument > > and you can either accept them and deal with the facts or deal solely with > > the barbs. If you don't have the willpower to do the former then you don't > > belong in a debate. > > If he doesn't have the willpower to refrain from the silly, childish antics > such as barbs, then he doesn't belong in any debate, much less one where it > shall be a rational discussion. > If you don't have the balls to take some barbs then you have no right to claim a place in a versus sci-fi debate. -- 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: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:21:54 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:alojhq$1srl47$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:eyAf9.453900$Aw4.18928137@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:alm3fg$1q6a8n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:lWqf9.302068$On.12325380@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > news:aljvrm$1rn89h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > news:lMcf9.546325$2p2.22424484@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > "CaptainSheridan" wrote in message > > > > > > news:2d3e5dbf.0209091346.5f0ac869@posting.google.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any > other > > > > > > > debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big > > dummyhead > > > > > > > you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that? > > > > > > > > > > > > It means he'll be locked in to a debate on the facts and evidence, > > not > > > > on > > > > > > schoolyard namecalling and silly bluster. I'm familiar with the > > > > > territory > > > > > > of facts and evidence, and though I can see right through his BS > and > > > > point > > > > > > it out for all to see, I see no point in allowing myself to be a > > > target > > > > of > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in other words you want to limit and constrict his language and > the > > > > flow > > > > > of his posts simply because you don't have the balls to accept > > ridicule > > > > > > > > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where > have > > > you > > > > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the > personal > > > > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction from > > > every > > > > which way? > > > > > > > > I want an honest, rational discussion. If you consider that a > > limitation > > > > and constriction on him . . . > > > > > > > > > > A rational debate does not preclude barbs aimed at an opponent. They are > > > tactics desiged to draw attention to weak points in an opponnents > argument > > > and you can either accept them and deal with the facts or deal solely > with > > > the barbs. If you don't have the willpower to do the former then you > don't > > > belong in a debate. > > > > If he doesn't have the willpower to refrain from the silly, childish > antics > > such as barbs, then he doesn't belong in any debate, much less one where > it > > shall be a rational discussion. > > > > If you don't have the balls to take some barbs then you have no right to > claim a place in a versus sci-fi debate. I've proven again and again that I have the balls to take barbs. He has proved he doesn't have the balls to debate without them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 23:42:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:SvVf9.591250$2p2.24443704@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:alojhq$1srl47$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:eyAf9.453900$Aw4.18928137@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:alm3fg$1q6a8n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:lWqf9.302068$On.12325380@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > > news:aljvrm$1rn89h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > > news:lMcf9.546325$2p2.22424484@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "CaptainSheridan" wrote in message > > > > > > > news:2d3e5dbf.0209091346.5f0ac869@posting.google.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So despite the fact you've had no problems insulting in any > > other > > > > > > > > debates, you're saying if Mike so much as calls you a big > > > dummyhead > > > > > > > > you can scream "I WIN!" Where the fuck is the fun in that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means he'll be locked in to a debate on the facts and > evidence, > > > not > > > > > on > > > > > > > schoolyard namecalling and silly bluster. I'm familiar with > the > > > > > > territory > > > > > > > of facts and evidence, and though I can see right through his BS > > and > > > > > point > > > > > > > it out for all to see, I see no point in allowing myself to be a > > > > target > > > > > of > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in other words you want to limit and constrict his language and > > the > > > > > flow > > > > > > of his posts simply because you don't have the balls to accept > > > ridicule > > > > > > > > > > "You don't have the balls to accept ridicule"??? Uh, dude, where > > have > > > > you > > > > > been for all this time . . . have you not seen the flames, the > > personal > > > > > attacks, and all the other Warsie stupidity flung in my direction > from > > > > every > > > > > which way? > > > > > > > > > > I want an honest, rational discussion. If you consider that a > > > limitation > > > > > and constriction on him . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > A rational debate does not preclude barbs aimed at an opponent. They > are > > > > tactics desiged to draw attention to weak points in an opponnents > > argument > > > > and you can either accept them and deal with the facts or deal solely > > with > > > > the barbs. If you don't have the willpower to do the former then you > > don't > > > > belong in a debate. > > > > > > If he doesn't have the willpower to refrain from the silly, childish > > antics > > > such as barbs, then he doesn't belong in any debate, much less one where > > it > > > shall be a rational discussion. > > > > > > > If you don't have the balls to take some barbs then you have no right to > > claim a place in a versus sci-fi debate. > > I've proven again and again that I have the balls to take barbs. He has > proved he doesn't have the balls to debate without them. > Says who? You? That's about the most laughable thing I've ever heard. You, the man who believes that his interpretation outweighs everyone else's can tell Mike Wong how he has to debate because that's the style he likes? You have as much right to demand civility as our friend Wes Hutchings did. -- 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: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:27:51 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- Ha, ha! Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has chosen to ban me altogether. What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time. Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many times he mysteriously agreed with himself. My reply to his second challenge attempt, after he ran screaming from the first: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=185 His reply: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=192 The rest comes later . . . you can figure it out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DasBastard Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:48:42 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:27:51 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: >Ha, ha! > >Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has >chosen to ban me altogether. I can never decide whether you are delusional or a lying coward. Probably a lot from column A, a little from column B, judging by the fact that you think anyone will agree with your chickenshit spin once they peruse the relevant posts on SD.net >What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the >process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time. >Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many >times he mysteriously agreed with himself. You are as clumsy as you are stupid. Mike never made a secret of the fact that he also posted as AdmiralKanos - check the system forums, you failed abortion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:35:18 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- DarkStar wrote: > Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has > chosen to ban me altogether. You mean "straitjacketed debate, where you get to claim victory the minute I do anything you don't like". The offer remains open. Debate me, you pansy little chickenshit. No pussy-ass pre-conditions. No weaselly escape routes or exit strategies. Grow a pair of balls. Fight like a man. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 20:43:12 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:fZ4f9.15971$Vm6.205669414@news.primus.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has > > chosen to ban me altogether. > > You mean "straitjacketed debate, where you get to claim victory the > minute I do anything you don't like". No, I meant "honest debate, where one need only worry about the evidence that will be presented, and not what new color of feces you'll fling". Hell, I can be just as obnoxious as you, and by your own statements in the first Superlaser Effect thread, I can keep up quite nicely with your rhetorical tricks. I wasn't going to be insulted or offended by your BS . . . I've been flamed enough, and have heard it all . . . but by demanding a rational discussion, I knew you wouldn't be able to employ such smokescreens and BS. And claims of victory are irrelevant . . . I knew you'd spin-doctor the discussion to death after the fact . . . you're Wong, and that's what you do. > The offer remains open. I already accepted! But (gasp!), I demanded a rational discussion. (Oh, the horror!) You ran away. You can posture all you like, but the fact is you ran like hell, and felt it necessary to ban me, too. Poor baby. > Debate me, you pansy little chickenshit. No > pussy-ass pre-conditions. No weaselly escape routes or exit strategies. . . . no Wongian pussiness . . . > Grow a pair of balls. Fight like a man. A real man isn't so scared of a debate of the evidence that he feels it necessary to ban a guy who asks for one. To paraphrase: "Wong . . . I'm _laughing_ at the 'superior intellect'." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 17:00:06 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- > A real man isn't so scared of a debate of the evidence that he feels it > necessary to ban a guy who asks for one. OK, fine. I'll call your bluff. We'll debate, and I will try to be more civil to you than you've been to me. If you want to be a pussy and declare victory the moment I say something you don't like, go ahead (as if anyone will buy it). Submit your first debate entry by Friday to my E-mail (click the E-mail link on my main Empire website). Four-day response window. 5 salvoes each. If you've got the balls. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:00:38 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:gZ7f9.16463$NZ7.212405494@news.primus.ca... > > A real man isn't so scared of a debate of the evidence that he feels it > > necessary to ban a guy who asks for one. > > OK, fine. I'll call your bluff. We'll debate, and I will try to be more > civil to you than you've been to me. If you want to be a pussy and > declare victory the moment I say something you don't like, go ahead (as > if anyone will buy it). Submit your first debate entry by Friday to my > E-mail (click the E-mail link on my main Empire website). Four-day > response window. 5 salvoes each. If you've got the balls. Having previously stated the following: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWd.html I think it should be followed in its entirety. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 18:12:13 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- DarkStar wrote: > Having previously stated the following: > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWd.html > I think it should be followed in its entirety. You're ignoring my stipulation that you concede if you're caught misrepresenting evidence, and you're also casting your bullshit interpretation of canon as a stipulation. What's the matter, Darkstar? Afraid to debate without being able to misrepresent evidence? Afraid to subject your rules of canon to debate? Once again, I am calling your bluff. Debate me, accept my stipulation in exchange for yours, and don't try to slip in your bogus deletion of the entire EU as yet-another debate pre-condition. Your incompetent mis-reading of the continuity policy is a perfectly valid subject of debate. PS. No debate on any discussion forum. We'll do it right here, in ASVS, where every post will be archived in Google forever and no one can be accused of editing posts after the fact or otherwise screwing around. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 02:06:24 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:T09f9.16611$VA.214650196@news.primus.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > Having previously stated the following: > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWd.html > > I think it should be followed in its entirety. > > You're ignoring my stipulation that you concede if you're caught > misrepresenting evidence, and you're also casting your bullshit > interpretation of canon as a stipulation. The above constitutes a confession that you plan to challenge my canon policy, and demand concession based on *your* belief that I have taken a quote out of context in reference to it. Talk about giving yourself an escape route . . . > Afraid to subject your rules of canon to debate? Not at all, but I foolishly thought you might want to debate something meatier than issues of canon. Of course, your plan of attack is clear, now. You want to debate canon, and then cry "Wah, he's taking a quote out of context!" the first time I quote something. Interesting how the 'taking something out of context' thing only applies to me. (rolls eyes) > and don't try to slip in your bogus deletion of the entire EU as yet-another debate pre-condition. Why should I bother? Not only are you afraid to debate about the Superlaser Effect on strictly canon grounds, but you've given yourself the Instant Debate Off-Ramp where anytime you _feel_ I have taken a quote out of context, you get to declare victory. *I* am the challenged party. *I* set the terms. This is your own statement. Gothmog: "Actually, as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set the terms and topic without going through such a process as we are going through." Wong: "If I had specifically addressed the challenge to you personally, that would be the case." http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Debate-1-negotiations.html > PS. No debate on any discussion forum. We'll do it right here, in ASVS, > where every post will be archived in Google forever and no one can be > accused of editing posts after the fact or otherwise screwing around. Suggestion accepted. My terms are accordingly revised. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWd.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:38:45 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7D5B35.9080400@stardestroyer.net> -------- DarkStar wrote: > The above constitutes a confession that you plan to challenge my canon > policy, and demand concession based on *your* belief that I have taken a > quote out of context in reference to it. > > Talk about giving yourself an escape route . . . What's the matter, Darkstar? Don't like the taste of your own medicine? If you're not misrepresenting evidence, you've got nothing to worry about, right? Are you afraid? > Not at all, but I foolishly thought you might want to debate something > meatier than issues of canon. > > Of course, your plan of attack is clear, now. You want to debate canon, > and then cry "Wah, he's taking a quote out of context!" the first time I > quote something. Interesting how the 'taking something out of context' > thing only applies to me. (rolls eyes) Again, I ask: don't like the taste of your own medicine? This is certainly no worse than the condition you placed on me (and which I had decided to accept). I see you're basically admitting that you intend to take quotes out of context and twist their meaning, and you run away like a little girl whenever someone tries to force you to argue exclusively with UNADULTERATED evidence. Look, everybody! Darkstar can dish it out but he can't take it! Poor baby ... > Why should I bother? Not only are you afraid to debate about the > Superlaser Effect on strictly canon grounds, but you've given yourself the > Instant Debate Off-Ramp where anytime you _feel_ I have taken a quote out of > context, you get to declare victory. Yes, those debate off-ramps aren't very sporting, are they? Why don't we debate without them, then? Or are you unwilling to admit that my debate off-ramp is no more unreasonable than yours? Are you trying to defend your right to twist quotes out of context and misrepresent them? Hmmm? You're afraid to debate in a no-holds-barred fashion, Darkstar. That's obvious, even though you'll gleefully trade flames left, right, and centre with anyone else on Earth. You were looking for an excuse to evade my challenge, and now, you tacitly acknowledge the pansy-ass nature of your tactics BY SEEING WHAT'S WRONG WITH THEM WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE DOES IT. > *I* am the challenged party. *I* set the terms. This is your own > statement. > > Gothmog: "Actually, as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set > the terms and topic without going through such a process as we are going > through." > Wong: "If I had specifically addressed the challenge to you personally, > that would be the case." > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Debate-1-negotiations.html Yes, I said that to Gothmog. And since you ignored it the first time I posted it, I will post it again: "he used the condition as an excuse to run away even though everyone could see that I was kicking his ass. Badly." I don't intend to let a second weasel squirm away by using the same trick, Darkstar. I see you're going to fuck around with debate conditions until the end of time in order to make sure this doesn't happen. Very well, I will unilaterally start this debate without agreeing to your unreasonable terms since you refuse to agree to my counter-terms. You can bitch about your debate conditions until you're blue in the face but it won't matter. I intend to post to the newsgroup this Friday at midnight EST (not your ridiculous start time of noon GMT which is actually 8AM in my timezone; that is completely unreasonable). I expect your reply within four days (yes, four; unlike you, I actually have a life to maintain). I will discuss your mindlessly anti-scientific Death Star claims, but only AFTER demolishing your ridiculous attempts to misrepresent Star Wars' continuity policy. And if you don't like it, too bad because I'm firing the first salvo off this Friday and that's the way it goes. I'm sick of your delay tactics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jesus Christ" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:28:18 +1200 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- snip > I see you're going to fuck around with debate conditions until the end > of time in order to make sure this doesn't happen. Very well, I will > unilaterally start this debate without agreeing to your unreasonable > terms since you refuse to agree to my counter-terms. You can bitch about > your debate conditions until you're blue in the face but it won't > matter. I intend to post to the newsgroup this Friday at midnight EST > (not your ridiculous start time of noon GMT which is actually 8AM in my > timezone; that is completely unreasonable). I expect your reply within > four days (yes, four; unlike you, I actually have a life to maintain). I > will discuss your mindlessly anti-scientific Death Star claims, but only > AFTER demolishing your ridiculous attempts to misrepresent Star Wars' > continuity policy. And if you don't like it, too bad because I'm firing > the first salvo off this Friday and that's the way it goes. I'm sick of > your delay tactics. My son, hath thou forgotten that he hath no knowledge other than that of a 19 year old varsity first year? The planet revolves around him.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 04:45:00 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D7D5B35.9080400@stardestroyer.net... > DarkStar wrote: > > The above constitutes a confession that you plan to challenge my canon > > policy, and demand concession based on *your* belief that I have taken a > > quote out of context in reference to it. > > > > Talk about giving yourself an escape route . . . > > What's the matter, Darkstar? Don't like the taste of your own medicine? > If you're not misrepresenting evidence, you've got nothing to worry > about, right? Are you afraid? Oh, puh-leeze! Having a condition which can *only* be placed on me, and (with no judges) can *only* be violated on the grounds of your opinion, is not my "medicine" at all. Asking for a rational discussion is one thing. But, given your subjective use of the term "misrepresent", and your declaration that you will use it at the first sign of trouble in a Canon discussion, *you have already conceded*. Do you understand that, Mike? You have conceded in advance, because you have agreed to a rational discussion, *on the condition* that you get an escape clause which you have already declared the use of, before the debate has even begun. *This means that I cannot disagree with your subjective interpretation of any quote*, because you will cry foul. That's a far, far cry from me telling you to restrict your arguments to the evidence and facts, and leave the personal attacks out of it. > > Not at all, but I foolishly thought you might want to debate something > > meatier than issues of canon. > > > > Of course, your plan of attack is clear, now. You want to debate canon, > > and then cry "Wah, he's taking a quote out of context!" the first time I > > quote something. Interesting how the 'taking something out of context' > > thing only applies to me. (rolls eyes) > > Again, I ask: don't like the taste of your own medicine? This is > certainly no worse than the condition you placed on me (and which I had > decided to accept). A plain and simple lie. The rational discussion condition was not exclusive to you. Unlike certain people who come to mind, I _can_ have a rational discussion without resorting to dirty tricks. > I see you're basically admitting that you intend to > take quotes out of context and twist their meaning, and you run away > like a little girl whenever someone tries to force you to argue > exclusively with UNADULTERATED evidence. I would *only* be admitting that if there was an objective criteria which we were going by. However, because you have imposed the restriction only on me, *any disagreement on interpretation* is instantly in your favor. > Look, everybody! Darkstar can dish it out but he can't take it! Poor baby ... If you even knew what I was dishing out, this might be funny. I demanded something perfectly fair . . . no Wong Way smokescreens and feces-flinging . . . and you have demanded total control of all the evidence, going so far as to restrict my access to evidence so that you'll have all my arguments readily available. I laugh at you. I laugh at your arrogance . . . I laugh at your silly belief that you are superior. You must think everyone a fool to make your attempts to cheat so transparent. > > Why should I bother? Not only are you afraid to debate about the > > Superlaser Effect on strictly canon grounds, but you've given yourself the > > Instant Debate Off-Ramp where anytime you _feel_ I have taken a quote out of > > context, you get to declare victory. > > Yes, those debate off-ramps aren't very sporting, are they? Why don't we > debate without them, then? Or are you unwilling to admit that my debate > off-ramp is no more unreasonable than yours? I have no debate off-ramp, but yours is damned unreasonable. > You're afraid to debate in a no-holds-barred fashion, Darkstar. I'm not afraid of such a debate . . . you know why? What the hell do you think we're doing right now, dipshit? We're engaging in a public slam-fest. That's what you want . . . that's all you've wanted . . . and you've got it. You can posture all day long about debate-this and debate-that . . . you're getting *precisely* what you wanted, right now. I want a debate on the evidence, but you're scared to death of such a thing. Huge. Gaping. Vagina. > > *I* am the challenged party. *I* set the terms. This is your own > > statement. > > > > Gothmog: "Actually, as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set > > the terms and topic without going through such a process as we are going > > through." > > Wong: "If I had specifically addressed the challenge to you personally, > > that would be the case." > > > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Debate-1-negotiations.html > > Yes, I said that to Gothmog. And since you ignored it the first time I > posted it, I will post it again: "he used the condition as an excuse to > run away even though everyone could see that I was kicking his ass. > Badly." I don't intend to let a second weasel squirm away by using the > same trick, Darkstar. And I see you failed to read my reply, in which I correctly pointed out that whatever Gothmog did was irrelevant. I am not Gothmog. According to your own statements, a specifically addressed individual challenge grants the challenged party the right to set terms. The reason you have run from the condition of a rational discussion, and the reason you continue to run from it, even now, is because that would be tying your hand. You can't win to your satisfaction (where "your satisfaction" refers to your belief of how well you can spin-doctor the posts to your fawning disciples) in a rational debate where the evidence is open. > I see you're going to fuck around with debate conditions until the end > of time in order to make sure this doesn't happen. Very well, I will > unilaterally start this debate without agreeing to your unreasonable > terms since you refuse to agree to my counter-terms. You can bitch about > your debate conditions until you're blue in the face but it won't > matter. Then you have already conceded: 1. You refuse to follow your own stated beliefs on the rights of debate terms formulation. 2. You refuse to accept the terms of rational discussion, unless you alone get to control the evidence and dictate its use. 3. You foolishly believe that tying my hands and keeping me from the evidence in this fashion is similar to the way I have tied your hands by not letting you let loose with your standard ad hominem smokescreens. This points to your fundamental (and fundamentalist) ignorance of the fact that a discussion focused _exclusively_ on the evidence and facts is, by definition, as fair and impartial as it gets. Concession Accepted, O Keeper of the Huge, Gaping Man-Pussy. "It's miles long, with a maw that can swallow a dozen starships!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:56:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: <3D7D7B90.4080508@stardestroyer.net> -------- You can be as insulting as you like, and you can put as much skin-doctoring on this as you like. You're accelerating both, in what I assume is a desperate attempt to goad me into changing my course of action. Too bad, because it won't happen. I'm launching the first salvo this Friday, nothing you can do will stop that, and if you walk away, everybody will know that the only colossal pussy around here is you. I assume you will continue making an ass out of yourself over the next four days. Perhaps you think that if you continue posting all of these "Mike Wong is a giant pussy" rants, they will somehow lend weight to your bizarre claims about my integrity or supposed inability to debate logically. Isn't it odd how someone who claims to champion rational debating has made such a complete ass out of himself by filling his posts almost exclusively with character assassinations ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 05:25:29 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- You can post all day long. It won't phase me, because you have already conceded, repeatedly. You see, you had every opportunity to take me on right in your own backyard. You declined. You challenged me to a debate, and as per my terms, you had every opportunity to take me on in a rational discussion, without all the BS. You declined. You challenged me a second time, hoping to have all of your BS included. I declined, and pointed out what you had done. I pissed you off. You have therefore backpedaled, attempting to un-decline from the first challenge, on the condition that you get to maintain complete control over the use of evidence. That condition constitutes a concession. I figured that if I pissed you off a little bit more, you might actually say "hey, fine, okay, a fair debate using reason, evidence, and logic". However, your fear of such a debate is obviously staggering, given your repeated and continuing retreats from the opportunity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:00:41 +0800 Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:dnff9.429111$Aw4.18020601@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > You can post all day long. It won't phase me, because you have already > conceded, repeatedly. I can go over it in detail, but let me just say that your worldview is so far off, you don't stand a real chance of winning, or even getting anyone else to support your rule. Your stipulation is that the debate be kept civil is probably reasonable assuming REASONABLE application of the rule, and one that Wong HAS agreed to (and still won by a huge margin) in the past, despite being backstabbed. Between his desire to get the debate going, his CONFIDENCE he can win with or without the "smokescreen" that you think he needs so much, and the last bit of kind heart he has for you, he agrees if you agree to his only stipulation so far. His objection is because he does not want you to have an excuse to leave at all, and _perhaps_ because we'll all enjoy your death more with Wong's specially added Insults(tm) Fireworks effects, not because he needs them to kill you. His stipulation that you do not badly misrepresent the evidence is also reasonable PROVIDING it is applied reasonably. Think using DarkStar logic, DarkStar. You think wih him agreeing (for any reason) to your civility stuff is to strip him of the smokescreen tactics he normally uses, right? Without such a smokescreen, it will be logical that he couldn't really fool anyone if he just takes your interpretation and claims you twisted the quote, is that reasonable? That means he has to show why your interpretation is so twisted in a short time, OR no one would acknowledge the result. If he succeeds to convince most of us, then it is a reasonable application. If not, he is subjected to ridicule. You get the chance to prove your interpretation is at least acceptably logical. He gets a chance to show it is not. And we've agreed he can't use flames as a smokescreen (as if he needs them.) How is that not fair? As for him using a twist? If you can show it, even if there's no official escape, you still win. And what right do you have to insist on what even you agree is merely your INTERPRETATION of the canon rules MUST be the one used in debate anyway? Especially when the majority on EITHER ASVS or the SD.net BBS (the two main venues) will have OBJECTED to your ruling (and don't tell me you don't know this?) You might also consider the difference in scope of victory. It is not even ADVANTAGEOUS for you to use that ruling as a presumption, because it strips your victory (which you hope for) of any meaning. It is like me debating photorp power, but the only ST source I'll let you use is ST:V (and we all know how great the torps are there.) Obviously, I'll win, but it is totally meaningless, since the evidence set is not the one 'internationally recognized.' My 'victory' is meaningless. You don't get a smear. In fact, I do, for insisting on such a silly rule set. Same applies to you, to a slightly lesser degree. If you want to use that ruling and have it accepted, first, you have to turn that assumption into an internationally recognized one. That means, in part, winning a debate on acceptable evidence with your opponents. Since you AREN'T doing that, the common rules had not changed. You cannot shortcut. Face it - Wong's stipulations are PERFECTLY reasonable. You have no reason to reject them. In fact, you have no reason to reject the original challenge. -- Kazuaki Shimazaki ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:10:34 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:alkg4d$1pco8q$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > Your stipulation is that the debate be kept civil is probably reasonable > assuming REASONABLE application of the rule Which was the intent. > Between his desire to get the debate going, his CONFIDENCE he can win with > or without the "smokescreen" that you think he needs so much, and the last > bit of kind heart he has for you, he agrees if you agree to his only > stipulation so far. His "only stipulation" is total control of the evidence and any interpretation of it, based on his own subjective decision, with concession the immediate outcome of any disagreement. He has stated that he will employ this debate off-ramp during the Canon discussion. What's so hard to figure out about that? > His objection is because he does not want you to have an > excuse to leave at all, and _perhaps_ because we'll all enjoy your death > more with Wong's specially added Insults(tm) Fireworks effects, not because > he needs them to kill you. He needs them, badly, to scratch me. That's why he refused when I denied them to us both, and why he wants total control of the evidence now. > His stipulation that you do not badly misrepresent the evidence is also > reasonable PROVIDING it is applied reasonably. Think using DarkStar logic, > DarkStar. You think wih him agreeing (for any reason) to your civility stuff > is to strip him of the smokescreen tactics he normally uses, right? Without > such a smokescreen, it will be logical that he couldn't really fool anyone > if he just takes your interpretation and claims you twisted the quote, is > that reasonable? Kaz, I think you're missing an important point. The "rational discussion" clause curtails the ability to engage in BS from either of us. Wong's "misrepresentation of evidence" clause curtails _my_ ability to disagree with his chosen belief of a quote, a Canon visual, what he says, or anything else. If I disagree with his chosen interpretation of a quote . . . for instance, if he uses Cromag's argument that Lucas's multiple comments on the other/parallel world/universe of the EU simply refers to it being done by another company, and not the EU's content . . . then by default, I cannot disagree. If he uses whoever-it-was's argument that there is no visible band encircling Alderaan, then even if I have drawn all over the Alderaan frames to point this fact out, I cannot disagree, by default. If I quote something stupid he says in the debate (a la the whole Patrick Degan vs. Particle Physics thing) and he tries to hide and cover up what he meant, and claim that he was saying something else entirely (even though he never says what it was), I cannot disagree, by default. > That means he has to show why your interpretation is so > twisted in a short time, OR no one would acknowledge the result. Why? There are no judges, so he can explain himself in his website's spin-doctoring, and even if he's still on clearly weak ground after that even to Warsies, do you really think anyone will call him on it? > If he succeeds to convince most of us, then it is a reasonable application. If > not, he is subjected to ridicule. To "convince most of us"? Why bother? In case you hadn't noticed, I've already engaged in extensive commentary on what I undiplomatically refer to as "Warsie Groupthink". One of the primary directives of groupthink is that any thoughts from outside the group are either highly suspect or dead wrong, meaning that convincing "most of us" usually requires little more than saying that X is wrong. > And what right do you have to insist on what even you agree is merely your > INTERPRETATION of the canon rules MUST be the one used in debate anyway? I don't agree that it is my interpretation . . . you'll note that I refer to it as the "so-called interpretation". There's a big difference between declaring something X and declaring it the so-called X. As far as me having the right to do it, Wong's own beliefs on the rights of the challenged party are my basis. Further, it has the advantage of allowing one to get to a meatier subject without wrangling about what Lucas said, what Cerasi said, et cetera. And hell, Wong's own site has Canon, Quasi-Canon, and Official . . . a separation unknown elsewhere. > Especially when the majority on EITHER ASVS or the SD.net BBS (the two main > venues) will have OBJECTED to your ruling (and don't tell me you don't know > this?) . . . which just goes to prove what I said above, about how he has an easy escape route which no one will call him to the carpet for using. > Obviously, I'll win, but it is totally meaningless, since the evidence set is not the one 'internationally > recognized.' The non-canon is not internationally recognized Star Wars fact, either. I discovered . . . to my surprise, actually . . . that there's a significant percentage of Star Wars fans online who are referred to as "Movie Purists", and there have been numerous discussions (most of the deleted, unfortunately) on the Canon Policy at the Jedi Council Forums on TheForce.Net. The fact that the majority of Vs. sites choose to use "EU Completist" data sets does not imply international recognition. Indeed, I consider the fact that most Vs. sites feel it necessary to argue for EU Completism is very telling, indeed. Further, statements have been made that Warsies don't need the non-canon to beat Trek tech. Well, where's the beef? > If you want to use that ruling and have it accepted, first, you have to turn > that assumption into an internationally recognized one. That means, in part, > winning a debate on acceptable evidence with your opponents. Since you > AREN'T doing that, the common rules had not changed. You cannot shortcut. If he wanted to have a rational discussion on the canon policy, I'd consider it . . . but not when he gets absolute control of the evidence and the interpretations of it, and I am unable to disagree without it being an instant concession. That's just bullshit, and I will not take part in it. > Face it - Wong's stipulations are PERFECTLY reasonable. You have no reason > to reject them. There is no way his stipulation of evidence control is reasonable. > In fact, you have no reason to reject the original challenge. I didn't reject the original challenge . . . he did. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:32:27 GMT Subject: Re: Darkfucker Messag