Split: Is it appropriate to say Wong is "hiding"?

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
Ted C
Bridge Officer
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:06 pm
Contact:

Split: Is it appropriate to say Wong is "hiding"?

Post by Ted C » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:01 pm

GStone wrote:I don't know how long to give Ted C. I'm not sure when I last saw his name at the bottom of the main page. I know Wong has known of this board for some time, but he has chosen so far to not show up.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Maybe he can even convey an invitation to Darth Wong, the writter of the article "Engineering and Star Trek". He should have the possibility to defend himself.
And why should he debate here, when he has a perfectly good board of his own that has a larger membership and predates this one by years?

I could just as easily ask why you don't sign up at SDN and start a thread on this subject there.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:57 pm

Ted C wrote:And why should he debate here, when he has a perfectly good board of his own that has a larger membership and predates this one by years?
Unlike his site, there are no rules for paying to post, even if they are there to stop sock puppet accounts from being created. Even if that wasn't a factor, JMS has said before that if Wong is civil and abids by the rules of the forum, he is welcome to join and post here.

The 'my board is older and has a larger membership than yours' argument strikes me as elitist reasoning based on school yard recess rules. Most of us are adults here, regardless of how much Ossus or Wong insist on saying we are nothing more than sychophantic children. Insisting that he would need to set the ground rules for the playing field and not anyone else speaks of immaturity.

There could even be another board used for the discussion. Deviant art, for instance, held a trek-wars thread. I haven't checked it out for a few weeks, but there are more places willing to hold such a debate other than SB.com, SDN, AVSV or this one. There are many many choices for third party hosting of such a discussion, where neither side is at the admin/mod controls.

But, what do I know. I'm just a sychophantic follower of Darkstar, someone who is just a kid and couldn't calculate the pythagorean theorem, if I had a map and Pythagoras himself.

It isn't as if the people here that are the more active posters are gonna hack this board's admin controls, find his ISP, track him down, etc. etc.
I could just as easily ask why you don't sign up at SDN and start a thread on this subject there.
I'm not giving him money that'd let me post, since I only have a free email account. The other option is to give him access the my ISP number. And there's no way I'm letting any part of his board find out that bit of knowledge.

When I first found his site and board, I went on to register, but then, I came across the notice of needing the pay to post. So, I stopped. However, even if he were to give me access to posting and waiving the fee, I wouldn't accept it, bringing us back to the ISP number reason.

He's within his right to stay behind the fence that's put up at his board, allowing only those that pay or don't have a free email account system to post. He's also free to go beyond that fence, lobbing a few bombs towards others before moving quickly back behind the fence. There's no internet ettiqute police force.

But, I'm out here, while he's insulating himself.

Ted C
Bridge Officer
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by Ted C » Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:12 pm

GStone wrote:
Ted C wrote:And why should he debate here, when he has a perfectly good board of his own that has a larger membership and predates this one by years?
Unlike his site, there are no rules for paying to post, even if they are there to stop sock puppet accounts from being created. Even if that wasn't a factor, JMS has said before that if Wong is civil and abids by the rules of the forum, he is welcome to join and post here.
I don't pay to post at SDN. Very few people do. Only people who want to use an anonymous email service like Hotmail need worry about it. I suppose if you're that worried about covering your tracks, it might be an issue.

And the fact that Mike can post here doesn't constitute a reason why he should.
GStone wrote:The 'my board is older and has a larger membership than yours' argument strikes me as elitist reasoning based on school yard recess rules. Most of us are adults here, regardless of how much Ossus or Wong insist on saying we are nothing more than sychophantic children. Insisting that he would need to set the ground rules for the playing field and not anyone else speaks of immaturity.
The fact remains that he has an established debate board which you choose not to use, yet you have the hypocrisy to complain that he won't come here to debate you.

That is a fairly "kiddie" attitude.
GStone wrote:There could even be another board used for the discussion. Deviant art, for instance, held a trek-wars thread. I haven't checked it out for a few weeks, but there are more places willing to hold such a debate other than SB.com, SDN, AVSV or this one. There are many many choices for third party hosting of such a discussion, where neither side is at the admin/mod controls.
Are you claiming that your arguments will be edited by the moderators there to make you look bad?
GStone wrote:But, what do I know. I'm just a sychophantic follower of Darkstar, someone who is just a kid and couldn't calculate the pythagorean theorem, if I had a map and Pythagoras himself.

It isn't as if the people here that are the more active posters are gonna hack this board's admin controls, find his ISP, track him down, etc. etc.
What makes you think he would want to hide his identify? He already has a very public website that posts his position for the world to see, with his name firmly attached.
GStone wrote:I'm not giving him money that'd let me post, since I only have a free email account. The other option is to give him access the my ISP number. And there's no way I'm letting any part of his board find out that bit of knowledge.
So it boils down to your desperate need to preserve your anonymity, eh?

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:25 pm

I've split this based on what I think the topic you two want to talk about is. If you want another title change, PM me.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:17 pm

And the fact that Mike can post here doesn't constitute a reason why he should.
Fully agreed!
I don't see why Mike should debate on a website if he doesn't feel like it, on a subject he feels has been done to death, and to which he has arrived at his conclusions.

I don't agree with many of Mike's conclusions in the ST vs SW debate, but were I Mike Wong, I would see no reason to come here and debate either.

Heck, being simply me, if I had a website that a lot of people debate on, I wouldn't want to go debate on another website on a subject that has been closed and locked in my mind a long time ago.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:44 pm

Ted C wrote:I don't pay to post at SDN. Very few people do. Only people who want to use an anonymous email service like Hotmail need worry about it.
And I've got one. That means I gotta get an account that lets me not pay and give him my ISP or pay him money when I'd prefer to use that money for something more important, like for food or paying off my credit card.

I've seen the threads. I've read the posts with my own eyes. I'm not letting any one of those sick freaks get access to my personal information. That makes it a real life security issue.
I suppose if you're that worried about covering your tracks, it might be an issue.
Real life security is an issue, though pressing charges for tresspassing, harrasment, conspiracy to commit tresspassing, conspiracy to commit harrasment and getting a restraining order are potential methods.
And the fact that Mike can post here doesn't constitute a reason why he should.
And why wouldn't he stay inside his well structured perimeter, only to come out to other boards when he's got other people signing up, too, for board invasions. My personal opinion is that he's power hungry, so why would he want to give up his control of the button?
The fact remains that he has an established debate board which you choose not to use, yet you have the hypocrisy to complain that he won't come here to debate you.
This is a very Vympel-like attitude. You quote me saying something and what my reply to your response is what you actually quote later on in the same damn post. Check it:

'There could even be another board used for the discussion. Deviant art, for instance, held a trek-wars thread. I haven't checked it out for a few weeks, but there are more places willing to hold such a debate other than SB.com, SDN, AVSV or this one. There are many many choices for third party hosting of such a discussion, where neither side is at the admin/mod controls.'

I talked of third party boards, such as Deviant Art. If he had the guts to debate me, I'd have no problem at a third party board.

You need to read my posts more carefully next time, so you can stop this behavior. It's very unbecoming of you.
That is a fairly "kiddie" attitude.
If what I did was a kiddie attitude, Wong's multiboard invasions are what precisely? The height of diplomacy?
Are you claiming that your arguments will be edited by the moderators there to make you look bad?
I'm not saying it'll happen for sure. There is a strong chance of it, though. However, he might ban me after I've replied only once or twice and a dozen of his followers have swarmed on me, saying the same thing, as if the number of people saying a view is more important than what is being said.

He might even make a poll out of it early on. 'Should I ban him before he infects the board too much and I have to make a major disinfection?'
What makes you think he would want to hide his identify? He already has a very public website that posts his position for the world to see, with his name firmly attached.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about him hiding his public identity. I'm referencing his 'hiding', the protectiong he gets by staying at SDN most of the time. Keeping himself from being out of the position of control that his board status gives him that he isn't getting elsewhere in his life.

He doesn't want to give up the control of being a site admin. The hiding is insulating himself in his title, having the secondary effect of the pay to prevent sock puppet accounts, the legions who flock to his every post.
So it boils down to your desperate need to preserve your anonymity, eh?
You really have a problem with understanding the extent of the security hazard many on SDN are.

Tell me, would you want strangers coming up to your home, taking pictures of your home, the people your with, your family? That is what many at SDN have openly conspired to do and you think my real life security concerns not as important as I'm making them out to be?
Jedi Master Spock wrote:I've split this based on what I think the topic you two want to talk about is. If you want another title change, PM me.
I don't have a problem with it.

User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:38 am

SDN is an Evil Sithy Lair with Emperor Darth Wong ruling it. A perfect protected area for Wong.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:49 am

Ted C wrote:And why should he debate here, when he has a perfectly good board of his own that has a larger membership and predates this one by years?
Ted C wrote:And the fact that Mike can post here doesn't constitute a reason why he should.
Praeothmin wrote:Fully agreed!
I don't see why Mike should debate on a website if he doesn't feel like it, on a subject he feels has been done to death, and to which he has arrived at his conclusions.
I don't agree with many of Mike's conclusions in the ST vs SW debate, but were I Mike Wong, I would see no reason to come here and debate either.
Heck, being simply me, if I had a website that a lot of people debate on, I wouldn't want to go debate on another website on a subject that has been closed and locked in my mind a long time ago.
1.)
I was member of his board and get banned after a few days. Now I'm again a member with a new user name. But I don't intend to risk this access. I use it only to see, what is happening on SDN.

2.)
I'm convinced, that a real debatte at SDN is not possible. SDN has a unique attitude concerning how to debatte, which is so nowhere else to find. I estimate, that 90% of the posts at SDN in the Star Trek vs. Star Wars part of this board consist only of flames. In these posts, one doesn't find one single argument.

3.)
The size of his board is irrelevant. SDN has 3174 members – that seems impressive But it isn’t: You will see, if you look at their members list.
There are 384 members, who have never posted at SDN. One of them is a member for at least two years. But he or she has never posted anything.
There are 233 members who have posted only one single time. Some of them are member for at least six and an half years.
There are 545 members who have posted more than one but less than ten times.
Altogether 1164 members have posted less than ten times. That’s circa a third of SDN, who count as member but don’t really participate. It is pity, that it isn’t shown, when a member has logged in the last time or has visited SDN as a guest the last time. The figures indicate however, that SDN is nothing more than hot air. The most members don’t really stay at SDN for long. Why would that be the case? Maybe they are all too stupid for SDN. How many members would SDN still have, if each member, who hasn't post in a year, would be erased?
Fact is: SDN has a hard core. And only that core would be meaningful for the prominence of SDN. It would be interesting to know, how big this core is really. To me, it seems to be a small community of talifans. Especially considering the attidute
How many people are posting regularly and oftentimes at SDN since their enlistment and can be considered as real SDN members? And considering the attitude of this board and the high count of short-time members, one has to assume, that the core is not a representative cross section of mankind.

4.)
Mike Wong is owner and administrator of this board. To debatte on his board would be a violation of the convention of a fair proceeding (especially considering Nr. 2 and 3), which would also apply to a debatte for the sake of its successful proceeding .

5.)
Mike Wong has no problem to look at other boards and flame persons from other boards, who aren't even members of his board and therefore aren't able to defend themself. That's not only dishonest but cowardly too. If he doesn't agree with them and he feels the urge to state this, he should do it in the board, in which the statement, with which he doesn't agree, was made and where he knows, that the debatters are able to defend themself because they can read his objection and have an access to answer them.

6.)
This subject was never discussed at SDN as far as I know. And he has only made an assertion without substance at the article "Engineering and Star Trek". If he would have arrived at his conclusions, he would have described these. He would have shown concretly, how he would build an warp core and how he would employ the "dead man's switch" principles wherever possible.

Dragoon
Bridge Officer
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:26 am
Location: California
Contact:

Post by Dragoon » Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:31 am

Guys, while I'm not a fan of SDN or Wong, calling SDN a "Evil Filthy Lair" and other such comments are not in good taste and certainly don't add anything but ire to any discussion. And I have to point out some holes in logic here (sorry Arbour).
Mike Wong is owner and administrator of this board. To debatte on his board would be a violation of the convention of a fair proceeding (especially considering Nr. 2 and 3), which would also apply to a debatte for the sake of its successful proceeding .
By that logic, JMS shouldn't be debateing at all on this board because he's the Admin (and I believe he owns it as well).
Mike Wong has no problem to look at other boards and flame persons from other boards, who aren't even members of his board and therefore aren't able to defend themself. That's not only dishonest but cowardly too. If he doesn't agree with them and he feels the urge to state this, he should do it in the board, in which the statement, with which he doesn't agree, was made and where he knows, that the debatters are able to defend themself because they can read his objection and have an access to answer them.
By participating in threads such as this, are we not guilty of something very similar? Yes, we all know that Wong could come over and defend himself, but the fact of the matter is he isn't here to defend himself, his board or anything of that nature. Talking about someone en absentia does not seem exactly polite.

User avatar
AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
Jedi Knight
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world

Post by AnonymousRedShirtEnsign » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:26 am

I have to agree with Dragoon on this one, there is just no need for these comments. Mike Wong can do what he damn well pleases and it isn't our place to tell him what to do or think. At SDN he makes the rules the way he wants them, so why would he go elsewhere as he already has a place where things are the way he wants them. I fully agree with God Arbour's idea of extending an invitation to Wong to come here and defend himself as several other have done. However given their treatment and what has just been said I can see how he would view this board as a hostile place where he won't be listened to. As for various members wanting to debate him on a spacific issue or in general, maybe you should email him and challenge him to a debate on a neutral site, via email or wherever you want. And yes it is hypocritical to bitch about Wong sniping at us or anyone else when SDN and some of its members are a constant source of debate here. We ought to strive to be better than this.

To answer God Arbour's question I would estimate around 150-200 frequent posters at SDN, though significantly less in the Trek and Wars related stuff, 50 maybe. In comparison I'd say we have about 30.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:33 am

Dragoon wrote:Guys, while I'm not a fan of SDN or Wong, calling SDN a "Evil Filthy Lair" and other such comments are not in good taste and certainly don't add anything but ire to any discussion. And I have to point out some holes in logic here (sorry Arbour).
Mike Wong is owner and administrator of this board. To debatte on his board would be a violation of the convention of a fair proceeding (especially considering Nr. 2 and 3), which would also apply to a debatte for the sake of its successful proceeding .
By that logic, JMS shouldn't be debateing at all on this board because he's the Admin (and I believe he owns it as well).
1.)
Nr. 2 and 3 doesn't apply to JMS or this board. Here is a debate under worldwide accepted rules for debates possible.

2.)
There is no hole in my logic but in your conclusion. If Darth Wong wish to have a fair debatte and think, he can't have it here, he can demand that JMS and he choose a neutral board. That was even already suggested by
GStone wrote:There could even be another board used for the discussion. Deviant art, for instance, held a trek-wars thread. I haven't checked it out for a few weeks, but there are more places willing to hold such a debate other than SB.com, SDN, AVSV or this one. There are many many choices for third party hosting of such a discussion, where neither side is at the admin/mod controls.
Mike Wong has no problem to look at other boards and flame persons from other boards, who aren't even members of his board and therefore aren't able to defend themself. That's not only dishonest but cowardly too. If he doesn't agree with them and he feels the urge to state this, he should do it in the board, in which the statement, with which he doesn't agree, was made and where he knows, that the debatters are able to defend themself because they can read his objection and have an access to answer them.
By participating in threads such as this, are we not guilty of something very similar? Yes, we all know that Wong could come over and defend himself, but the fact of the matter is he isn't here to defend himself, his board or anything of that nature. Talking about someone en absentia does not seem exactly polite.
That's why we discuss to invite him at all. To give him the possibility to defend himself. But we to not outright flame him. JMS wouldn't allow this.

Furthermore, the difference is, as I have shown, that he has no problem to participate at debates at this board as long as he keeps polite. But that isn't warranted at SDN.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:53 am

Mike Wong can do what he damn well pleases and it isn't our place to tell him what to do or think.
I don't know Canadian law.

In Germany, libel is a criminal offence, especially if done publicly. One could argue, that it isn't a libel for those, who have agreed to such a treatment by becoming member of his board. But even such a consent is not unlimited. And he even does libel persons, who are not member of his board.

No, he can't "do what he damn well pleases". If he would live in Germany, I would have charged him already for his criminal offences and because his libels are connected with his status as an engineer, he would even run the risk to lose his accreditation (what he does privatly is nearly (but not totally) irrelevant for his accreditation, but if he misbehave as an engineer, it is very relevant for the possibility to revoke his accreditation).
Mike Wong wrote:You should be aware that a professional engineer is held to the highest ethical standards by law and that your public accusations of habitual dishonesty are quite serious, with potential professional and legal repercussions to me for which YOU could be held responsible. Slander and public defamation are not trivial offenses, Robert, and you have crossed the line. I am not exaggerating or bluffing, and you may consult legal texts if you wish to confirm the truth of this fact.
Maybe he should act on these "highest ethical standards".

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:56 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:
Quote:
Mike Wong can do what he damn well pleases and it isn't our place to tell him what to do or think.

I don't know Canadian law.

In Germany, libel is a criminal offence, especially if done publicly. One could argue, that it isn't a libel for those, who have agreed to such a treatment by becoming member of his board. But even such a consent is not unlimited. And he even does libel persons, who are not member of his board.

No, he can't "do what he damn well pleases". If he would live in Germany, I would have charged him already for his criminal offences and because his libels are connected with his status as an engineer, he would even run the risk to lose his accreditation (what he does privatly is nearly (but not totally) irrelevant for his accreditation, but if he misbehave as an engineer, it is very relevant for the possibility to revoke his accreditation).

Mike Wong wrote:
You should be aware that a professional engineer is held to the highest ethical standards by law and that your public accusations of habitual dishonesty are quite serious, with potential professional and legal repercussions to me for which YOU could be held responsible. Slander and public defamation are not trivial offenses, Robert, and you have crossed the line. I am not exaggerating or bluffing, and you may consult legal texts if you wish to confirm the truth of this fact.

Maybe he should act on these "highest ethical standards".
Ok, the Highest Ethical Standards that Mike Wong was talking about certainly only apply to an engineer's job, because if that's not the case, then I'm afraid that half the engineers I know, or those that I work with should have their Degrees revoked...

That being said, many engineers see themselves as above most people when competence is concerned, and it is a common enough character flaw.
Doesn't bother me.
Shoudln't bother you.

And the insults that are thrown on an internet board, unless they actually threaten a person's well-being, isn't illegal, and really isn't worth the hassle a lawsuit would create.

I'm pretty sure his "serious" admonishment was simply to try rattling Darkstar's cage.

That being said, it is also very true that by doing exactly what Mike is accused of doing, we are not putting ourselves in very good light for others to judge us... :)

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:56 pm

SailorSaturn13 wrote:SDN is an Evil Sithy Lair with Emperor Darth Wong ruling it. A perfect protected area for Wong.
... an "Evil Sithy Lair?"

Er... if I knew if someone could take that statement seriously, I would be more sure as to whether or not I should be warning you for flaming right now or just laughing. That, and I half suspect the subject of that statement might actually like that characterization given all the "Darths" over there.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 pm

Praeothmin wrote:Ok, the Highest Ethical Standards that Mike Wong was talking about certainly only apply to an engineer's job, because if that's not the case, then I'm afraid that half the engineers I know, or those that I work with should have their Degrees revoked...
Ethic has little to do with engineering, although there is such thing like engineering ethics [1]. But it is primary a question of behaviour. What is good and what is bad behaviour?
This is an example from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE):
  • 1.] Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.
  • 2.] Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.
  • 3.] Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
  • 4.] Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.
  • 5.] Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
  • 6.] Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.
  • 7.] Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision."
Please take note of Nr. 3.] and 6.] !!!

Praeothmin wrote:That being said, many engineers see themselves as above most people when competence is concerned, and it is a common enough character flaw.
It is not a crime to have a character flaw. But these engineers don't appear in internet and insult other persons and boast with their degree and address other peoples like idiots only because they have not studied engineering.

Praeothmin wrote:And the insults that are thrown on an internet board, unless they actually threaten a person's well-being, isn't illegal, and really isn't worth the hassle a lawsuit would create.
Internet is a public medium. More people worldwide can read, what he has written about some people [2] [3] [4], who have sometimes nothing do to with him, in internet, as if he would have written it in a local paper. His behaviour is not only illegal in Germany, it is even a criminal offence [§§ 185 ff. StGB]. If such insults would be uncommon, I wouldn't say anything. But if you look at his posts, you will notice, that many posts of him are nothing but insulting and don't include "objective and truthful" arguments [see below].

Praeothmin wrote:That being said, it is also very true that by doing exactly what Mike is accused of doing, we are not putting ourselves in very good light for others to judge us... :)
There is a difference, if I judge him or his behaviour from a juridical point of view, "objective and truthful" or if I would attack him without proven facts.

I have not said, something like this:
    • Darth Wong wrote:It really is nothing more than a handful of obsessive, uneducated crackpots. It's pretty sad, really. And for all their handwaving and accusations, none of them can explain why all of the scientists, engineers, and military veterans in this debate happen to be on my side. I guess relevant education and experience must be the "bias" they're referring to.
      Darth Wong wrote:Claims of scientific education aren't worth the bandwidth they use, unless they come with enough information for you to verify their accuracy. Doesn't matter whether it's some obvious liar like GStone or one of the more clever creationist debaters.
      Darth Wong wrote:
      GStone wrote:there are loads of examples of people learning military tactics without being in the military
      In other words, his military training was the tutorial level of Halo.
      Darth Wong wrote:What do you expect from GStone et al? None of them have any real education, so they don't respect the qualifications. It's just like creationists who presume to tell real scientists how wrong they are. As the old saying goes, they don't even know how little they know.
      Darth Wong wrote:You can't compete with these kiddies for sheer doggedness. They don't have real lives. All you can do is produce superior quality rather than quantity, backed up by vastly superior credentials, and trust in the fact that knowledgeable readers will be able to see the difference. The fact that they can sway the ignorant and uneducated is of no concern.
      Darth Wong wrote:You will never prove to AVOCADO's satisfaction that he broke the rules because he's too goddamned stupid to understand when he's committed a fallacy or ignored an argument which he did not understand. That's always been a problem with the truly stupid: they don't understand anything but the very simplest arguments, so they ignore most of what they see and honestly can't seem to understand why they're being accused of ignoring points or disregarding evidence.

      That's why we have our Parting Shots forum: so that a reader who is reasonably intelligent can judge whether the banning was justified, in an open and transparent manner. The ban victim himself will rarely see why, except in the case of those who deliberately provoked the banning.
      Darth Wong wrote:
      GStone wrote:-Have I ever fired a gun? Answer: Yes.
      -Did it take me long? Answer: No, I'm a natural shot.
      -Have I ever fired a gun on someone? Answer: Yes.
      -Have I ever been in a knife fight? Answer: Yes.
      -Have I ever fought unarmed against someone with a gun or without one? Answer: Yes to both.
      -Have I ever watched men die and/or were they part of the ones I've lead? Answer: Yes to both.'
      GStone is Walker, Texas Ranger?
      Dart Wong wrote:It's like arguing with really small children. They might as well reply to everything you say with "I know you are but what am I?" and "I'm right a hundred times!" "I'm right a million times!" "I'm right infinity times plus one!!!!!!"

      They will never be able to explain why the doctors, scientists, engineers, and military people gravitate to my side of the fence. They will never be able to admit that they're nothing but a bunch of uneducated kiddies and losers.
That are only quotations from one single thread. You will notice, that he makes insulting statements about persons, from which he knows nothing.

Nobody minds, if he states his opinion and substantiate it with his expert knowledge in an objective and truthful manner. But that's not, what he does. He commits criminal offences. And that is not OK.

And if I outline his behaviour with concret quotations and links to these and summarize his behaviour under the elements of an criminal offence in an objective and truthful manner, is it not a libel.

It's from my profession exactly what he should do in his profession.
Last edited by Who is like God arbour on Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply