---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 23 Oct 2002 23:52:02 GMT Subject: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: <20021023195202.10542.00003946@mb-mp.aol.com> -------- I had brief delusions I could write something on par with the TJFAQ, which was definately a great tool against the greatest tool in the debates(ha, I made a funny). Then I realized I have a short attention span, no HTML skills, and no webspace. So I wrote this instead. Unsupported Denial. One of his most common tactics, Robert will counter a well thought out, logical rebuttal with no holes.. By sticking his fingers in his ears and singing I Can't Hear You. This is an incredibly frustrating act, before we even get into the incredible dishonesty involved. Imagine a carefully thought out argument, being replied to with just the word 'False' or 'Incorrect' or, if Robert is feeling especially ballsy, 'Lie'. No evidence against the validity of the argument is ever presented, Robert just says No and expects this to be as good as divine gospel. When demands for proof are made, he moves to his next... Vague References. This tactic isn't quite as frustrating, as it's easy to tell Robert has reached a point where he's trapped. He can't just say 'No' and get it heard, so he resorts to referring to things he thinks his opponents will never find. This usually takes the form of a cut-and-paste 'Already answered' reply. Sometimes he's a little more elaborate, but never enough to actually offer up evidence. Funnily enough, actual digging via Google and SD.net's archive's reveal he's never actually won an argument, just claimed he has over and over... Bad Science. A favorite of Trekkies all over, the misuse of science and it's basics is at the core of Robert's debating. From magical energy-matter conversion instead of basic energy transfer, to using Voyager-Sci terms like 'Temporal Incursion' when talking about everyday terms(I'm not kidding. Check out SD.net's Hate Mail section, Debates, Robert Scott Anderson.), Robert has abandoned the real laws of science for whatever will hold up his theory. Filibuster Attack. When cornered and with no way out, Robert resorts to his most feared tactic. Not feared for it's logic, or honesty, or anything actually viable, but feared because it's painfully boring. Easily exceeding more than 100kb of text to say what 20kb could, he attempts to win by making his opponent's brains fall out their ears in an attempt to escape his bullshit. Page upon page of useless nonsense, never actually proving anything, just trying to make his opponents admit defeat to avoid reading every line. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 02:17:47 GMT Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: <3DB757DE.3030809@shaw.ca> -------- Sir Nitram wrote: > I had brief delusions I could write something on par with the TJFAQ, which was > definately a great tool against the greatest tool in the debates(ha, I made a > funny). Then I realized I have a short attention span, no HTML skills, and no > webspace. So I wrote this instead. You forgot Unfalsifiability. Any information that can be interpreted to agree with Darkstar's theory is assumed to be correct. Any information that can't be interpreted to agree with his theory is assumed to be overridden. Since there is no chance of counter-evidence his theory fails. BTW, I just started talking an entry level Psychology course, and Darkstar is a textbook example on how not to apply critical thinking skills. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Oct 2002 03:11:01 GMT Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: <20021023231101.26648.00003357@mb-mh.aol.com> -------- >Sir Nitram wrote: > >> I had brief delusions I could write something on par with the TJFAQ, which >was >> definately a great tool against the greatest tool in the debates(ha, I made >a >> funny). Then I realized I have a short attention span, no HTML skills, and >no >> webspace. So I wrote this instead. > > > >You forgot Unfalsifiability. > Of course. Sorry. Unfalsifiability(Contributed by C.S. Strowbridge) Logically, it is impossible to prove a negative. This is a well known fact, and is usually not a problem in debates(Where any reasonable person concludes all the negatives are, in fact, so, without proof to the positive. If that makes sense), but Robert exploits this to his perceived advantage. This is outlined most obviously in his Death Star debates, where he demands someone prove his mechanism impossible. Since it's not possible to prove such a negative, it becomes very frustrating to try and deal with him. Parisomy, And It's Misuse. The Law Of Parsimony is sometimes mislabeled as Occam's Razor, but both come to the same base conclusion: The least number of unknowns in a theory, the better. If we postulate that grass is green because our eyes see the colour green on grass, we're probably right. If someone postulates grass is purple because of some unknown mechanism, it's because they've been on illegal drugs for a while. In Robert's debates, however, whatever theory has the least grounding in science and observation, with the highest number of unknowns, wins. Any attempt to properly employ it will cause him to initiative a well-practiced Filibuster Attack, in an attempt to deflect notice away. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 01:12:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20021023231101.26648.00003357@mb-mh.aol.com... > >Sir Nitram wrote: > > > >> I had brief delusions I could write something on par with the TJFAQ, which > >was > >> definately a great tool against the greatest tool in the debates(ha, I made > >a > >> funny). Then I realized I have a short attention span, no HTML skills, and > >no > >> webspace. So I wrote this instead. > > > > > > > >You forgot Unfalsifiability. > > > > Of course. Sorry. > > Unfalsifiability(Contributed by C.S. Strowbridge) > > This is outlined > most obviously in his Death Star debates, where he demands someone prove his > mechanism impossible. I never suggested that Wong had to prove the mechanism impossible. What he should've tried to do, however, was prove that the theory was invalid because of nonconformity with the evidence . . . and that was something he could not possibly hope to achieve (and certainly not by arguing for DET instead). > Parisomy, And It's Misuse. > > The Law Of Parsimony is sometimes mislabeled as Occam's Razor, but both come to > the same base conclusion: The least number of unknowns in a theory, the better. Actually, it's 'the fewest unneeded entities, the better'. > In Robert's debates, however, whatever theory has the least grounding in > science and observation, with the highest number of unknowns, wins. If that had been my position, I'd have agreed with DET. It had some grounding in science, sure (as did mine), but the assertions made from that basis did not and do not hold up against the observations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Spyder Date: 24 Oct 2002 10:11:56 GMT Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: -------- ..and then "DarkStar" said: >> Parisomy, And It's Misuse. >> >> The Law Of Parsimony is sometimes mislabeled as Occam's Razor, but both > come to >> the same base conclusion: The least number of unknowns in a theory, the > better. > > Actually, it's 'the fewest unneeded entities, the better'. How could that be true? Unneeded entities should be either lots or 0. If an entity's unneeded then it shouldn't be there by definition. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:49:00 GMT Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: <3DB82416.9040906@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "Sir Nitram" wrote: >>This is outlined most obviously in his Death Star debates, where he >>demands someone prove his mechanism impossible. > > I never suggested that Wong had to prove the mechanism impossible. What he > should've tried to do, however, was prove that the theory was invalid > because of nonconformity with the evidence . . . and that was something he > could not possibly hope to achieve (and certainly not by arguing for DET > instead). Your theory is invalid cause it's undefined. Saying, 'Matter in and energy out.' is leaving your theory undefined. Until your theory is defined to the point were falsifiability is possible it is considered invalid. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 01:06:38 -0500 Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: <04icna-9UcJ6ECqgXTWc3A@comcast.com> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20021023195202.10542.00003946@mb-mp.aol.com... What's funny is that all of these "occur" because you seem to have the attention span and memory capacity of a gnat . . . which explains a lot about the high bandwidth of ASVS. > Unsupported Denial. > Imagine a carefully thought out argument, > being replied to with just the word 'False' or 'Incorrect' or, if Robert is > feeling especially ballsy, 'Lie'. You stupid idiot . . . I only drop to one-word responses when I've answered the claim several times before, and to the exact same people. > Vague References. > > This usually takes the form of a cut-and-paste 'Already answered' reply. I got tired of cutting and pasting the original answer. If you idiots can't do the research before a) asking the same question over and over or b) making yet another ignorant claim that happens to have been made before (and occasionally by the same person), then you're hardly worthy of my time. > Bad Science. > > A favorite of Trekkies all over, the misuse of science and it's basics is at > the core of Robert's debating. Science must give way to logic. Where the current laws of science grossly fail to explain and contradict what is seen, we must employ logic to learn the rules of what we see. That is not my bad science . . . it's your bad logic, and forgetfulness of what did and didn't happen in the canon. > Filibuster Attack. A one-man filibuster attack, huh? Riiiight. My messages to Wong were precisely as long as they needed to be, so that they would explain . . . slowly . . . the situtation to him, and not allow him outlets to make straw men even more absurd than his standard fare. Logic and fact are not games to be played by the small-minded, or those with short attention spans. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 23:46:44 -0700 Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: <9e5fru4rk9v7iq5r1kbastqmgbtdirg6qs@4ax.com> -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as <04icna-9UcJ6ECqgXTWc3A@comcast.com>) on Thu, 24 Oct 2002 01:06:38 -0500... >> Unsupported Denial. > >> Imagine a carefully thought out argument, >> being replied to with just the word 'False' or 'Incorrect' or, if Robert >is >> feeling especially ballsy, 'Lie'. > >You stupid idiot . . . I only drop to one-word responses when I've answered >the claim several times before, and to the exact same people. PKB. >> Vague References. >> >> This usually takes the form of a cut-and-paste 'Already answered' reply. > >I got tired of cutting and pasting the original answer. If you idiots can't >do the research before a) asking the same question over and over or b) >making yet another ignorant claim that happens to have been made before (and >occasionally by the same person), then you're hardly worthy of my time. Here's .oood"""""""booo. .o"" |`. | | ""o. oP" |`. | `.| | | "Yo o8 `. | `.| |. | | `8o d' `.| |. | `. | | `b d"-------*====+====+====+====+-------"b 8' `. INNNNINNNNINNNNINNNNI `8 8 `. INNNNINNNNINNNNINNNNI 8 ,8----------+====*====+====+====+----------8. 8' `. `| |`. |gnnnnnnnn|. `8 8 `. |`. | `.|8 |. | `. 8 8-----------+----+----*8---+----+-----------8 8 `. | `| |8,gnnnn:.| `. 8 8. `| |`. |8P".| "Yb|..png.`. ,8 `8----------+----+----+----+---8+-8--`"----8' 8 | `. | `|n. |`.dP| 8`. n 8 8. | `| |"YbnnndP.| `bnnP ,8 Y.-------+----+----+----+----+-------.P Y. | | `. | `| |`. ,P "8. | cg | `| |`. | `. 8" "Y_ | mm | 19|89 | `.| _P" `'"oo_ | | `.| _oo""' `"""boooooood"""' get a clue: http://groups.google.com >> Bad Science. >> >> A favorite of Trekkies all over, the misuse of science and it's basics is >at >> the core of Robert's debating. > >Science must give way to logic. Where the current laws of science grossly >fail to explain and contradict what is seen, we must employ logic to learn >the rules of what we see. > >That is not my bad science . . . it's your bad logic, and forgetfulness of >what did and didn't happen in the canon. Oh my. This coming from the one who has absolutely no grasp of logic. Hello, dumbass, even 9th grade logic courses illustrate all the fallacies you use. >> Filibuster Attack. > >A one-man filibuster attack, huh? Riiiight. They do it in Congress; some old Senators are famous for it. >My messages to Wong were >precisely as long as they needed to be, so that they would explain . . . >slowly . . . the situtation to him, and not allow him outlets to make straw >men even more absurd than his standard fare. Logic and fact are not games >to be played by the small-minded, or those with short attention spans. NOT HAVING TIME TO READ A FUCKING BOOK IS NOT INDICATIVE OF A FUCKING SHORT ATTENTION SPAN! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 03:18:28 -0500 Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: -------- "John Hansen" wrote in message news:9e5fru4rk9v7iq5r1kbastqmgbtdirg6qs@4ax.com... > Oh my. This coming from the one who has absolutely no grasp of logic. That's gotta be the most hysterical quote of your post. Coming in a close second is: > NOT HAVING TIME TO READ A FUCKING BOOK IS NOT INDICATIVE OF A FUCKING SHORT > ATTENTION SPAN! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:14:57 +1300 Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:uxWdnYa5_pFQMSqgXTWc3w@comcast.com... > > "John Hansen" wrote in message > news:9e5fru4rk9v7iq5r1kbastqmgbtdirg6qs@4ax.com... > > > Oh my. This coming from the one who has absolutely no grasp of logic. > > That's gotta be the most hysterical quote of your post. Coming in a close > second is: > > > NOT HAVING TIME TO READ A FUCKING BOOK IS NOT INDICATIVE OF A FUCKING > SHORT > > ATTENTION SPAN! Yet you cannot grasp what he is saying. Now I would say that is amusing, except that we have seen it from you time and again, it hardly raises an eybrow anymore. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:36:18 -0700 Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: <1q4gru898lfg9m8gg3p7v42ifqj0ruoofm@4ax.com> -------- DarkStar, I have four words for you: SHUT THE FUCK UP! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) Date: 24 Oct 2002 05:23:08 -0700 Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: <2d3e5dbf.0210240423.1130ad74@posting.google.com> -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:<04icna-9UcJ6ECqgXTWc3A@comcast.com>...> A one-man filibuster attack, huh? Riiiight. My messages to Wong were > precisely as long as they needed to be, so that they would explain . . . > slowly . . . the situtation to him, and not allow him outlets to make straw > men even more absurd than his standard fare. Logic and fact are not games > to be played by the small-minded, or those with short attention spans. 20 000 and 17 000 words. That's how long your third and fifth replies were. Not 2000. 20 000. Not reading that isn't showing a short attention span. It's showing you don't want to read well...a lot of junk. And I love how when the debate ends, you go call Mike, ASVS and SD.net all small-minded. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Oct 2002 21:45:41 GMT Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: <20021024174541.02502.00000135@mb-fv.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20021023195202.10542.00003946@mb-mp.aol.com... > >What's funny is that all of these "occur" because you seem to have the >attention span and memory capacity of a gnat . . . which explains a lot >about the high bandwidth of ASVS. > Ad Hominem Attack, along with Vague References. >> Unsupported Denial. > >> Imagine a carefully thought out argument, >> being replied to with just the word 'False' or 'Incorrect' or, if Robert >is >> feeling especially ballsy, 'Lie'. > >You stupid idiot . . . I only drop to one-word responses when I've answered >the claim several times before, and to the exact same people. > Vague References, with Ad Hominem. >> Vague References. >> >> This usually takes the form of a cut-and-paste 'Already answered' reply. > >I got tired of cutting and pasting the original answer. If you idiots can't >do the research before a) asking the same question over and over or b) >making yet another ignorant claim that happens to have been made before (and >occasionally by the same person), then you're hardly worthy of my time. > Vague Reference. >> Bad Science. >> >> A favorite of Trekkies all over, the misuse of science and it's basics is >at >> the core of Robert's debating. > >Science must give way to logic. Where the current laws of science grossly >fail to explain and contradict what is seen, we must employ logic to learn >the rules of what we see. > A technically correct statement, but used to support a false condition. This falls under the as-yet-unwritten category of Blatant Lie. >That is not my bad science . . . it's your bad logic, and forgetfulness of >what did and didn't happen in the canon. > Ad Hominem attack. At least it's not an Unknown Warsie, though it may qualify as a Timsult. >> Filibuster Attack. > >A one-man filibuster attack, huh? Riiiight. My messages to Wong were >precisely as long as they needed to be, so that they would explain . . . >slowly . . . the situtation to him, and not allow him outlets to make straw >men even more absurd than his standard fare. Logic and fact are not games >to be played by the small-minded, or those with short attention spans. > Another Blatant Lie. Thank you for drawing my attention to another of your dishonest tactics, so I may detail it for those who aren't aware of your lies. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 04:11:38 -0500 Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20021024174541.02502.00000135@mb-fv.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20021023195202.10542.00003946@mb-mp.aol.com... > > > >What's funny is that all of these "occur" because you seem to have the > >attention span and memory capacity of a gnat . . . which explains a lot > >about the high bandwidth of ASVS. > > > > Ad Hominem Attack, along with Vague References. > > >> Unsupported Denial. > > > >> Imagine a carefully thought out argument, > >> being replied to with just the word 'False' or 'Incorrect' or, if Robert > >is > >> feeling especially ballsy, 'Lie'. > > > >You stupid idiot . . . I only drop to one-word responses when I've answered > >the claim several times before, and to the exact same people. > > > > Vague References, with Ad Hominem. > > >> Vague References. > >> > >> This usually takes the form of a cut-and-paste 'Already answered' reply. > > > >I got tired of cutting and pasting the original answer. If you idiots can't > >do the research before a) asking the same question over and over or b) > >making yet another ignorant claim that happens to have been made before (and > >occasionally by the same person), then you're hardly worthy of my time. > > > > Vague Reference. > > >> Bad Science. > >> > >> A favorite of Trekkies all over, the misuse of science and it's basics is > >at > >> the core of Robert's debating. > > > >Science must give way to logic. Where the current laws of science grossly > >fail to explain and contradict what is seen, we must employ logic to learn > >the rules of what we see. > > > > A technically correct statement, but used to support a false condition. This > falls under the as-yet-unwritten category of Blatant Lie. > > >That is not my bad science . . . it's your bad logic, and forgetfulness of > >what did and didn't happen in the canon. > > > > Ad Hominem attack. At least it's not an Unknown Warsie, though it may qualify > as a Timsult. > > >> Filibuster Attack. > > > >A one-man filibuster attack, huh? Riiiight. My messages to Wong were > >precisely as long as they needed to be, so that they would explain . . . > >slowly . . . the situtation to him, and not allow him outlets to make straw > >men even more absurd than his standard fare. Logic and fact are not games > >to be played by the small-minded, or those with short attention spans. > > > > Another Blatant Lie. Thank you for drawing my attention to another of your > dishonest tactics, so I may detail it for those who aren't aware of your lies. Thank you for proving my case so well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 25 Oct 2002 16:32:38 GMT Subject: Re: [TROLL] Darkstar's tactics Message-ID: <20021025123238.10994.00000016@mb-fh.aol.com> -------- >Thank you for proving my case so well. > You never had a case, little boy. Now run along. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero