StarDestroyer.Net BBS

From both the Creationist site, and the SW vs. ST site.

On the Creationism site, probably the ASU Coward, because he was the most ignorant and immature out of all of them. I believe that he trolled around here in the early days of this board and was banned for threatening us as well.

On the SW vs. ST site, probably Ted Rogers. It started out with him spouting crap, and eventually degenerated into him insulting Mike. And that "72,000 g's would suck in all the light in the universe!" line is a classic. He's probably going around the web telling others that he somehow won that debate to this day.

SW Vs. ST: IXJac

Cretinism Vs. Science: Johnny Boyd

I'd say Stilgar overall. I never found the Creationism hate mail exchanges as amusing as the SWvsST ones. And the whole three episode thing, the legal threats, and "How did you get my e-mail address? I never e-mailed you!" and vague refrences to "Tigershark" or whoever the fuck it was as a "source" of how "dangerous" he could be were priceless.

Spam locked.

LET THERE BE LIFE!!!

Ok, this thread isn't really against the rules. Sure Straha is making polls left and right, but some of these threads are actualy decent enough topics people can talk about.

Besides, I just had to add myself to this poll.

I voted for myself...well, just because it's my little claim to fame at SD.net.

Stilgar was the funniest: "The Blowhard Strikes Back" was one of the best lines I've ever seen. He was just so completely paranoid that by the end you could almost see him looking over his shoulder out the window and making sure there was no way anyone could find him. Imagine his surprise when MW sent the e-mail back to his 'secret hidden account'.

Oh, and ASU coward was funny because of the sheer lengths he went to to hude his identity, IIRC he was the one that forged Hotmail headers, and that's just going too far.

John Riehle is my favorite. Just the beginning of the one is worth the price of admission.

TED ROGERS: I through making fun of you.

Ted Rogers for me. It takes a special kind of idiot to think that not only is seventy thousand gravities enough to suck up all the light in the universe, but that an accelerating mass actually produces gravity equal to its acceleration.

I'd say probably the First round of SBers, but Stilgar is a close second. I liked the way the SBers neatly organized their arguments, actually making a respectable go at it...only to be ruthlessly smacked down just the same.

FYI, when we first did our work on looking at Mikes stuff (E1701, BigBryan, and myself) we never intended Mike to see it. Thank Poe for sending it to Mike months after the last time I published the material.

You're saying you prepared an essay to nitpick MW's site and didn't intend him to see it? What on Earth is the point of attacking someone's claims if you don't give him the opportunity to defend himsefl against it?

Why do you think Mike labeled them the SB.com Babies?

My vote goes to Stilgar.

Eric the sailor was my favorite, that or AJT.

Boyd for me was more scary then funny, someone running about and saying it's not evil for God to kill babies or for someoen to do it on his command unnerved me. We can only hope he never runs for office in the South, because people would vote for him. Lunatic.

The Aliens wrote:You're saying you prepared an essay to nitpick MW's site and didn't intend him to see it? What on Earth is the point of attacking someone's claims if you don't give him the opportunity to defend himsefl against it?

We weren't debating Mike. We were debating people who were paroting Mike's site. They either posted a link or simply copy and pasted the information. Many of these people saw Mike's work as infalable, everything was right. The overall scope of our effort was to prove Mike wasn't always right and we succeded for relative ametures at the time.

Darth Yoshi wrote:Why do you think Mike labeled them the SB.com Babies?

My vote goes to Stilgar.

You of course know jack shit about the incident. After I found out that Mike had responded to the essay's I engaged in a few e-mail converstations with him after that point. I was never trying to hide from Mike, he was never the focal point of the topic. We were debating other people and were trying to deal point by point on certain issues of the evidence they posted.

When your in a debate and you prove someone elses point wrong, you are not obligated to contact the original creative thought behind your opponents information and tell that person said information was wrong. You are merely responsible for the debate at hand.

I will have to go with IXJAC and co. I really can't stand him in net life so it makes it better. The hatemail entry I most violently disagree with is jon boyd. I have talked with him quite a bit and besides that puritanism (really wish he would get laid) he's increadably polite and humorous. Now if we can only find the right woman to lead that boy astray heh......

If she does her job right we will have a perv who will be a threat to mike himself.

Robert De Lipka aka "Stigler" is my favorite. His hatemails have been given amusing names. Checkout "Stigler Episode IV : A false hope", "Stigler Episode V : The blowhard strikes back" and the "Stigler Episode VI : Return of the sore loser".

Alyeska wrote: We weren't debating Mike. We were debating people who were paroting Mike's site. They either posted a link or simply copy and pasted the information.

Makes no difference who's saying it, if it's all Mike's work then you're attacking his site.

Alyeska wrote:Many of these people saw Mike's work as infalable, everything was right. The overall scope of our effort was to prove Mike wasn't always right and we succeded for relative ametures at the time.

If you did so well in pointing out these glaring chasms of error, then why didn't you send it along yourself to see if he had any answers?

The Aliens wrote:Makes no difference who's saying it, if it's all Mike's work then you're attacking his site.

Bull fucking shit. Context means everything here. We were trying to prove to DOWs that Mike was not always correct therefor quoting his page was not automatic victory. We wanted those people to think on their own.

If you did so well in pointing out these glaring chasms of error, then why didn't you send it along yourself to see if he had any answers?

Because that was never our concern. After we learned he did recieve a copy I did trouble myself to talk with Mike on some of the issues and he did even make corrections in his own critique of the essays.

Fair enough, if keeping it from him was done for a legitmate reason.

The hate mail on the satan is jesus site is pretty funny