Register    Login    Forum    Members   Search    FAQ

Board index » Website and Open Database » Other websites




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:33 am 
Offline
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Posts: 1153
Location: Germany
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).

Quote:
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.


Quote:
Quote:
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:53 am 
Offline
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Posts: 1153
Location: Germany
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".


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:56 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Posts: 3824
Location: Quebec City
Who is like God arbour wrote:
Quote:
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... :)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:56 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2084
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 pm 
Offline
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Posts: 1153
Location: Germany
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 WILGA on Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:30 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6078
Location: Paradise Mountain
So the problem is there that Wong has a position, and you can only discuss with him by being forced to use a non-free email account.

I can understand the problem. Most people don't want to be forced to give an ISP related information only to engage into that kind of discussion, especially that kind of people (let's not fool ourselves, we've seen their behaviour, anyone is right to ask for a minimum of self defense, room to wiggle and protection).

Basically, there's some sort of barrier. It can be crossed, but it requires to lower your own defenses.
I perfectly understand why this is a problem and the original idea that's behind that thread.

A neutral and totally free talk ground would be the perfect place.

An exchange of emails, even from hotmail to hotmail if one of both parties want so should be acceptable.

Make proper and fair offers, and see how the other person reacts. Then you'll know if it's worth the hassle or not.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:58 pm 
Offline
Bridge Officer

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:06 pm
Posts: 90
Who is like God arbour wrote:
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.


So you basically broke the rules, got banned, and now lurk just to see what's going on.

Who is like God arbour wrote:
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.


I'm convinced that such a debate is possible. I see them quite often. Posters there generally put some kind of argument into their posts if they don't want to get disciplined. Of course, they also throw a lot of flames (and Mike himself will add virulent flames to his first reponse as often as not), but the flame content doesn't change the fact that there's an argument.

Who is like God arbour wrote:
3.) The size of his board is irrelevant. *snip lengthy details*


In a nutshell, there seem to be hundreds of active posters there, doing fine.

Who is like God arbour wrote:
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.


And exactly what would make debating here more fair?

As Mr. Oragahn has noted, you could always just debate by email, using an anonymous account if you so choose. You could expect the content to end up in Mike's Hate Mail pages, but you could post your own spin on it at a site of your choosing, as well.

Who is like God arbour wrote:
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.


To my knowledge, Mike seldom looks at other boards; he just gets unsolicited reports from people who use them.

And given that most of the people he insults in response were sniping at him in the first place, I don't see that you have a point. Again, it's hypocritical to call him cowardly when you don't have the courage to face him with your arguments. Not knowing your old SDN ID, I'll give you the credit of assuming you did attempt to argue your point, but just didn't do it very convincingly.

Who is like God arbour wrote:
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.


Well, you know you have multiple options for countering his arguments. You can post your rebuttal at SDN, send it by email, or even post it on a site of your own (like a free Blog, if nothing else) for others to see.

Insisting that he's a coward when he has a public website and participates in an active discussion board doesn't cut it, though.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:17 pm 
Offline
Bridge Officer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am
Posts: 214
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.



It's just that I find it hard to debate with someone who calls himself a Sith Lord. ESPECIALLY on his own board.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:42 pm 
Offline
Starship Captain

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Posts: 1016
Location: Undercover in Culture space
Who is like God arbour wrote:
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.


Ha. Shows what he knows. The last game I played was a computer one called 'Hardwar' and it wasn't that good for teaching tactics aside from running for your life when your power is low.

I was thinking of getting one of the Tom Clancy games 'cause I heard they were fun, but I haven't done it yet.

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?


Oh, my god. He compared me to Walker, Texas Ranger? I feel so dirty.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.


And that's one thing I've never understood. Why are there so many Darth etc. over there.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:59 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6078
Location: Paradise Mountain
SailorSaturn13 wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.



It's just that I find it hard to debate with someone who calls himself a Sith Lord. ESPECIALLY on his own board.


Dude, it's just a nickname. Sith Lords are cool btw.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:00 pm 
Offline
Starship Captain

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Posts: 1016
Location: Undercover in Culture space
Praeothmin wrote:
What about you guys? :)


The chicks.

I do it for the groupies and smiting everyone of my enemies on the electronic battlefield. Mike thinks I'm a liar now...well, wait till he sees my uber-active smiley cannon with a repeating plasma-vitamin C-tinker toy-egg plant launcher underneath the main barrel.

You really gotta see the swath I lay waste to when I squeeze the rubber duckies!!!!!

[rubber duckie squeaks and large areas of terra ferma explode, hurtling the rubber duckie to another section, where it squeaks and that section blows, throwing the duckie]


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:02 am 
Offline
Security Officer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am
Posts: 619
It's within his rights to stay on his board, it doesn't mean he is hiding. I would note that his claim of people here being uneducated is one of the most unbacked up claims I've ever seen. For the most part the educated of the world ignore this entire debate... but I'd be willing to bet if I got a government level scientist in here he'd be able to disprove 90% of the stuff he claims... notablly the fact that the educated join his side exclusively.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:35 am 
Offline
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Posts: 380
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world
God Arbour, while that is an interesting comparative essay, I'm not sure what it has to do with weather or not Wong is hiding at SDN. This seems to fit more into this thread -> http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=213&start=0 or in its own thread specifically about Mike Wong's behavior.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:47 pm 
Offline
Starship Captain

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Posts: 1016
Location: Undercover in Culture space
Cpl Kendall wrote:
GStone wrote:

So, if I got an account such as "gstonesdn@gmail.com", you or someone else would go to Wong and he would say it's okay for me to join, if they vouched for the address?

I get the impression he wouldn't let me in.


Maybe if you promised to debate within the rules of the forum and not troll. You see when someone vouches for your behaviour then they assume responsibility for your actions. So I doubt that you or anyone else from this board are going to find someone to sponser them. But you can try. I certainly am not going to do it.


I took your use of the word 'vouche' to mean that the account is not a sock puppet.

Then, let me ask you a hypothetical? If there was a thread to discuss whether something new that's been mentioned as to the heirarchy of the Wars canon and what it means for the policy of the board/site over at SDN and if I continue to post the same views there that I have over here (and other posters keep saying again and again that I'm not paying attention, though at the same time, I am following the policy of the board in other threads and sticking to it), would I be accused of breaking the rules of the board and be accused of various things, like wall of ignorance, broken record, etc. etc.?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:57 pm 
Offline
Redshirt

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:25 am
Posts: 26
Location: 321st EN BN.
Please bear in mind that one of the reasons Mike Wong has instituted the "free sign-up only for paid accounts" is also to cut down on useless invasions from other boards. We've been invaded by a group of racists from a white-supremacists board and other organized, but less worrisome, troll such as a group called "Elite Fitness".

Board invasions and trollishness are an unfortunate par for the course in the world of web-boarding, part of the terrain...

However, once upon a time we discovered a massive board called "Stormfront.org", a white-power website with, at the time, several thousand members. Considering the personal politics of many of us on the board (inter-racial relationships, athiests, Jews, gays, minority rights, etc) and the fact that white supremacist groups are known, in the past, of hunting down public personalities and assassinating them (see radio talk show host Alan Berg), it was decided best to put up a stumbling block to prevent casual abusers from wandering in and stirring trouble for no reason.

As for paid email accounts, I gotta say, I find them very handy. When I'm deployed, it may be weeks before I can get to a computer, and a paid account will store up messages, filter spam, and allow more attachments to get through than a free account. Plus it won't get deleted or "lose" things. For a measly few dollars a year, a paid account is a real boon.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Board index » Website and Open Database » Other websites


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron