Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:58 am
Sadly the ST-v-SW.Net is no longer active. Just look at the the dates on the most recent posts.
-Mike
-Mike
Starfleet Jedi Forum
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/
And those who supply credentials are liable to be attacked and harassed even more - which is why I am uninterested in supplying "proof" of my formal education, and minimize the amount of personally identifiable information I put up on this website. Wong is welcome to come over to debate - as is any other SDN resident - if and only if he is willing to follow board rules.Mike DiCenso wrote:It's very unlikely IMHO that Wong himself will ever come over here to engage in any debate. His last excuse when challenged by Captain Newland to come over to the STrek-v-SWars.Net forum and debate him was that he (Wong) would not debate anyone who did not have a degree or other "credentials"
Socar wrote:I find that surprising, considering how many people (such as his own Governors and Senators) that he debates with on SDN all the time that don’t have degrees of any sort. Not sure exactly what he means by other “credentials” though. I do remember Captain Newland admitting to having almost no science knowledge though, so that could be it, even though he was more interested in debating tactics and stuff of that nature, so I don’t really see why that would mean he’s not worthy of debating.
It may be hypocritical; it may be illogical. However, it is the party line consistently given by Wong, loudly and repeatedly. The claim of that party line is that all educated individuals will inevitably fall in line with his claims - and that pro-Trek VS debaters are equivalent to creationists, of course. This ties into the claim often made on SDN that the debate is over and "won."Mike DiCenso wrote:With the first part there it is more one of politics. Wong can't afford to alienate some of those people. I don't recall the specifics anymore of what Captain Newland said about his own science knowledge. But that really isn't the point, as I recall Wong's response to the challenge ( believe Swede was acting as the messenger there). I believe CN's mentioning his lack of science knowledge and what-have-you was part of the post challenge reponse discussion. At any rate, it was pretty heated, and Wong's excuse was hypocritical to say the least given the past history of the man as even you point out.
Mike DiCenso wrote:It's very unlikely IMHO that Wong himself will ever come over here to engage in any debate. His last excuse when challenged by Captain Newland to come over to the STrek-v-SWars.Net forum and debate him was that he (Wong) would not debate anyone who did not have a degree or other "credentials"
As we have seen all too often in the past with Graham Kennedy and BerndJedi Master Spock wrote:
And those who supply credentials are liable to be attacked and harassed even more - which is why I am uninterested in supplying "proof" of my formal education, and minimize the amount of personally identifiable information I put up on this website. Wong is welcome to come over to debate - as is any other SDN resident - if and only if he is willing to follow board rules.
Mike DiCenso wrote:With the first part there it is more one of politics. Wong can't afford to alienate some of those people. I don't recall the specifics anymore of what Captain Newland said about his own science knowledge. But that really isn't the point, as I recall Wong's response to the challenge ( believe Swede was acting as the messenger there). I believe CN's mentioning his lack of science knowledge and what-have-you was part of the post challenge reponse discussion. At any rate, it was pretty heated, and Wong's excuse was hypocritical to say the least given the past history of the man as even you point out.
Which again is why Wong will never come over here. To do so would essentially be an admission that the debate is not over, nor truely won in any sense of the word. He would rather have you or any one of us come over to SDN so that he can place posts in the Hall of Shame, or otherwise delete, lock out, modify, and completely control it in order to make it look like he is winning. To come over here or go elsewhere is to give up the power and adulation he has come to crave.Jedi Master Spock wrote:
It may be hypocritical; it may be illogical. However, it is the party line consistently given by Wong, loudly and repeatedly. The claim of that party line is that all educated individuals will inevitably fall in line with his claims - and that pro-Trek VS debaters are equivalent to creationists, of course. This ties into the claim often made on SDN that the debate is over and "won."
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
The simple fact is that the vast majority of VS debaters are not possessed of the formal education of a bachelor's degree or any other measurable equivalent to 4 years of study within a post-secondary institution. This does not change the validity of their contributions one whit.
It certainly helps to have some training and experiance when discussing certain science and engineering related subjects, but there are plenty of self-educated hobbyists out there who do know the basics of the subjects. Also one of the reasons for the debates was to kind of provide some knowledge on real science for people by showing up the failings that often occur in space operas like ST and SW. However that kind of thing was long ago lost in the debates, replaced by the vicious one-upsmanship and elitism that we seen today.Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Even in serious academic fields (e.g., the mathematical sciences), those without formal educations can continue to contribute. In the considerably less scientific field of fandom studies, someone without a high school diploma may possess a better grasp of Star Wars than someone holding a doctorate in physics.
The fact that the board is part of a Trek vs Wars website in their mind probably justifies it having a Trek vs Wars forum by default.AnonymousRedShirtEnsign wrote:And about the debate being over thing, I think someone asked about that and why SD.net still has an active Trek v Wars forum a month ago or two and didn't really get a good answer.
Surely you jest Kane. Ever notice that not only are there nearly no Trekkies, or even no anti-ICSers, there are also nearly no conservatives or religious people. And these just so happen to be things Mike Wong strongly oppose. Coincidence? I'll let you decide, but the answer should be obvious.Kane Starkiller wrote:Actually Michael Wong is not above discussing various subjects with people with no formal training in science and engineering even though he does sometimes express his wish that only scientifically educated people should post scientific subjects on the internet.
Here are two threads from SD.net in which he does correspond about ST and SW subjects via e-mail:
+http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=93621
+http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=90971
So if any of you think you have valid points on various STvsSW subjects you are free to e-mail him. Response isn't guaranteed but he ceartainly doesn't categorically refuse to answer any e-mail whose senders don't have a technical background.
P.S. It always found it amusing to hear accusations of Michael Wong "oppressing" his boards through his "lieutenants". How is this possible on a web board? If you don't like it you leave, it's not as if web board is a country so you have no choice but to put up with a brutal regime. Yet SD.net has 3200 members. Why would thousands of members post on a board which is "oppresing" them? Or are you saying that all of those people are his "lieutenants"?
Oh sure sure. That's why there are constant heated discussions all over "Science, Logic and Morality" and "News and Politics" threads with dozens of people participating.Nonamer wrote:Surely you jest Kane. Ever notice that not only are there nearly no Trekkies, or even no anti-ICSers, there are also nearly no conservatives or religious people. And these just so happen to be things Mike Wong strongly oppose. Coincidence? I'll let you decide, but the answer should be obvious.
I should hope not.Mike DiCenso wrote:I also don't need a bunch of rabid nutjobs calling me at work, or my home to make threats or harass me because Wong or his lieutenants "accidently" release my personal information for everyone to see (this has happened at SDN to too many others in the past). That won't happen here to you.
He said "nearly no Trekkies", Kane, not that there were none. He is correct in that they do represent a relative minority of the overall population at SDN.Kane Starkiller wrote:Oh sure sure. That's why there are constant heated discussions all over "Science, Logic and Morality" and "News and Politics" threads with dozens of people participating.Nonamer wrote:Surely you jest Kane. Ever notice that not only are there nearly no Trekkies, or even no anti-ICSers, there are also nearly no conservatives or religious people. And these just so happen to be things Mike Wong strongly oppose. Coincidence? I'll let you decide, but the answer should be obvious.
And of course EnterpriseSovereign, Alyeska, Chris O'Farell etc. etc. are not Trek fans. No siree.