Dark Moose Rebuttal

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-06-11 05:59pm

http://mrpoesmorgue.com/swds/darkmooset ... moose.html

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-06-11 06:27pm

I didn't read DM's entire rant, but wow, the level of dishonesty is stunning, especially considering it's against a person who can't defend himself. Great Lord Poe!
Here's an example of what is acceptable to say over at the OS forums about the works' of other authors (imagine what the reaction would've been if it had been Hard Contact or Triple Zero):

Bad Things in the EU

The roll of toilet paper known as The Crystal Star.

+http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa? ... &start=420

A nitpick: ...or libeled her in anny way.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-06-11 06:45pm

Holy shit. I knew Dark Moosefucker was a dishonest piece of crap, but I never though he would go so far as to completely make things up about a video that are clearly not there. Where did he post these lies, on the official site? Someone really should call him out publicly on this.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-06-11 06:50pm

What a douchebag.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2006-06-11 06:54pm

Dark Moose wrote:This fan that made the video in question had been extremely critical of a particular author here, Karen Traviss, and the inclusion in her stories of troop numbers provided by Lucasfilm.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Traviss' cowriter (Kaufman? - I'm horrid with names) specifically say that LucasFilm did not assign a number to the clone army?

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-06-11 06:58pm

The Dark wrote:
Dark Moose wrote:This fan that made the video in question had been extremely critical of a particular author here, Karen Traviss, and the inclusion in her stories of troop numbers provided by Lucasfilm.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Traviss' cowriter (Kaufman? - I'm horrid with names) specifically say that LucasFilm did not assign a number to the clone army?

Yes, he did. However, MONTHS later, he retracted that statement and claimed that he was being quoted out of context (which he was not), without offering ANY explanation as to why he even said it in the first place, or why our interpretation of it was wrong.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2006-06-11 07:22pm

One quick note, Traviss and her umbilical-corded toady dug up Goldberg's post a year after it was originally posted (May 2005).

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-06-11 07:32pm

From that original discussion, Kaufman's only post was about the troop-numbers. They were never supposed to represent all of them.

That was his one statement. There was never anything to take out of context whatsoever.

Apparantly, Mr. Kaufman didn't realise that to be dishonest, you can't have evidence to the contrary lying around for everyone to see. :P

Tyrian2000 · Post by **Tyrian2000** » 2006-06-11 08:13pm

Gee, is that guy getting paid for that?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-06-11 08:20pm

How anyone can give him any credibility after that is beyond me.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-06-11 08:26pm

Stark wrote:How anyone can give him any credibility after that is beyond me.

You underestimate the levels of corruption and stupidity that are actively encouraged on the OS. Hell, they actually have a thread devoted to the inflation of the Mod staff's collective egos through the mindless worship of their syncophants. And there appears to be no sort of check on Mod behavior there either; if you're a member of the staff, you are above all regulations, and virtually all of the Moderators seem to share roughly the same mindset, even if some are less vocal, or at least somewhat more fair. Admins show up very infrequently, and seem to rely completely on the reports of the Mods; credibility simply isn't an issue.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-06-11 08:32pm

But seriously, there is now a page full of quotes from DM which are total fabrications. He's shown that as soon as the source was no longer available (as far as he knew) he could just spin all the shit he wanted. Why should anyone accept anything he has to say now?

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2006-06-11 09:00pm

Stark wrote:But seriously, there is now a page full of quotes from DM which are total fabrications. He's shown that as soon as the source was no longer available (as far as he knew) he could just spin all the shit he wanted. Why should anyone accept anything he has to say now?

Because they like to retain the Holonet member privileges for which they paid good money.

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2006-06-11 09:01pm

Holy fucking shit. I know he didn't just bring up Columbine and compare that to this animated bit. God he's a stupid fuck. But of course we are talking about the same man who tried to snipe against Saxton after this whole "don't talk about the authors!" moratorium after all.

Vehrec · Post by **Vehrec** » 2006-06-11 10:32pm

You know, I'm about as violent as C-3PO. I'll defend myself, but thats about it.
But this guy makes me mad. I have this sudden urge to punch someone in the face. Anyone know what this guy looks like so I can doodle it onto a sheet of paper and tape it to a punching bag? No sense of humor, no room for logic or debate. I can see why people like him create such a fuss.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-06-11 10:57pm

Vehrec wrote: I have this sudden urge to punch someone in the face. Anyone know what this guy looks like so I can doodle it onto a sheet of paper and tape it to a punching bag?

Don't say that. That's exactly the sort of thing he says that the "Talifans" do- threaten people with physical violence.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2006-06-11 11:52pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Vehrec wrote: I have this sudden urge to punch someone in the face. Anyone know what this guy looks like so I can doodle it onto a sheet of paper and tape it to a punching bag?
Don't say that. That's exactly the sort of thing he says that the "Talifans" do- threaten people with physical violence.

So? Adults are supposed to be held accountable to someone like that in what universe, again?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-06-12 12:03am

Eleas wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Vehrec wrote: I have this sudden urge to punch someone in the face. Anyone know what this guy looks like so I can doodle it onto a sheet of paper and tape it to a punching bag?
Don't say that. That's exactly the sort of thing he says that the "Talifans" do- threaten people with physical violence.
So? Adults are supposed to be held accountable to someone like that in what universe, again?

So what's your opinion on Traviss wanting to remove the tracheas of people who disagree with her?

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2006-06-12 12:12am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Eleas wrote:So? Adults are supposed to be held accountable to someone like that in what universe, again?
So what's your opinion on Traviss wanting to remove the tracheas of people who disagree with her?

The difference between threatening a paper representation of a person with physical violence and ripping out someone's larynx may be ever so subtle, but it's still a line that clearly distinguishes the merely frustrated from the mentally unwell. One other point may also be relevant, that being that one of these actions is a variant of "burning in effigy," while the other ranges from "assault and battery" to "premediated murder."

To equate the two in this context is to encourage the same sort of intellectual sloppiness that Traviss and her gibbering cohorts engage in. On the other hand, I'm all for pointing out, as you did, that there is a line.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-06-12 12:26am

Eleas wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Eleas wrote:So? Adults are supposed to be held accountable to someone like that in what universe, again?
So what's your opinion on Traviss wanting to remove the tracheas of people who disagree with her?
The difference between threatening a paper representation of a person with physical violence and ripping out someone's larynx may be ever so subtle, but it's still a line that clearly distinguishes the merely frustrated from the mentally unwell. One other point may also be relevant, that being that one of these actions is a variant of "burning in effigy," while the other ranges from "assault and battery" to "premediated murder."

To equate the two in this context is to encourage the same sort of intellectual sloppiness that Traviss and her gibbering cohorts engage in. On the other hand, I'm all for pointing out, as you did, that there is a line.

I completely agree. I just think the last thing we need is people giving Mark Douche* and company anything they can latch onto as "evidence" to back up their wild stories.

*Instead of "Dark Moose". Kind of goes with "KT Jelly", don't you think?

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2006-06-12 12:39am

DPDarkPrimus wrote: I completely agree. I just think the last thing we need is people giving Mark Douche* and company anything they can latch onto as "evidence" to back up their wild stories.

*Instead of "Dark Moose". Kind of goes with "KT Jelly", don't you think?

I find myself in agreement (on both counts...), but I'm also leery of the notion that we, by accomodating their histrionics, in some ways validate them. It's not incumbent on us to once again prove Traviss a liar about her treatment by fans. The burden of proof is not on us to demonstrate lack of guilt. And it is certainly not our responsibility to give credence to their view on what constitutes proper behaviour by adhering to standards specifically created to stifle dissent.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-06-12 01:34am

Why didn't you bring up his attempts to threaten wookieepedia despite not having the ability or right to represent LFL?

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-06-12 03:03am

Ender wrote:Why didn't you bring up his attempts to threaten wookieepedia despite not having the ability or right to represent LFL?

Because there's no link. It was a private message. I want to keep things concrete. I wonder if a screenshot, along with a full IP address would suffice? Who was that guy from wookiepedia again?

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2006-06-12 03:03am

Ender wrote:Why didn't you bring up his attempts to threaten wookieepedia despite not having the ability or right to represent LFL?

Honestly, I didn't know about it until now. It's repugnant, but not really surprising; exactly the sort of odious misbehavior that DM seems to thrive upon.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-06-12 03:38am

Hopefully the people over at the SW.com forums will see this page as well. It would be interesting to see just how many users have been banned by DM in issues related to KT and the circumstances surrounding the ban (a project for another day perhaps).

Oh, slightly off-topic, but I found it ironic. Over at her LJ, KT points to the new address of CUSWE, saying that "it's full of straight facts, facts, and nothing but facts". Of course, people familiar with CUSWE knows that it's far from the truth. One only has to look at it's Death Star pages where it says that the original DS was 120 km in diameter and the second 160 kilometer in diameter (although it says that the ItW "indicates" that it's 900 kim in diameter) and that the Executor was 8 km in diameter (although it says that: Note that the official Star Wars Databank indicates the Executor-class Star Destroyer measured 12,800 meters in length, while Star Wars: Star Pilot and the Wizards of the Coast website provide a length of 19,000 meters.). Hmm, whose research standards does that remind me of?

Wookieepedia is much more reliable than CUSWE in that people can correct stuff. CUSWE seems much more agenda driven than anything else (we all know how KT feels about wikis).
Sorry for going off-topic.