His response came today:Darth Wong wrote:Bernd, you obviously don't like me, but frankly, since we have not interacted except for an E-mail discussion of several years ago which you will note that I did NOT put up on my Hate Mail page, I see no reason for your continuing animosity. Moreover, I don't see how you claim the right to publicly slander me as a dishonest person without giving me the right to defend myself.
I don't know what standards of behaviour you think are acceptable, but if you believe that it's bad for me to publicly say bad things about a TV show but OK for you to publicly say bad things about a HUMAN BEING without giving him the right to defend himself, then you have a truly warped set of priorities.
I posted the following on your board:It was almost immediately deleted (or edited and replaced with blank space, to be more precise) by your moderators. I followed up with this:Darth Wong wrote:Who said anything about a dead horse? I don't want to debate about the feud that went on between your board (which is STILL slamming my board, as seen by Nathan F's comments to Alyeska) and mine.Bernd Schneider wrote:Regarding your challenge I see no sense in beating a dead horse. Feel free to declare yourself the winner of the debate.
No, I see that you have been saying for quite some time that my methods are wrong, my honesty lacking, and perhaps even my character faulty. You do not have the right to attack someone without giving him his day in court, Bernd. Unless you wish to either apologize for slandering me in public or admit publicly that you are a coward, answer the challenge.And finally, I posted this:Darth Wong wrote:Ah, so you're allowed to continue talking trash about my board, but I can't even ask Bernd for my day in court to defend myself from his constant public slander. I see.Perhaps you think I am being unreasonable. But the fact is that you know perfectly well that I haven't been talking about you until now, after discovering what's been going on. If you just found out that I had been running around all this time talking trash about you for years (not just Star Trek, but YOU as a person), how would you feel? Would you demand your day in court? An apology?Darth Wong wrote:Bernd, stop hiding behind your followers. If you're going to slander me in public, I demand my day in court. Your moderators are deleting or editing every post I make now, no matter how civil the wording is. I'm not sure how long this post will last before your censorship forces delete or destroy it, but do you think it's OK to slander people and then refuse to give them their day in court, Bernd?
Your self-righteous put-downs do not grant you the high road, Bernd. You have been slandering a man behind his back for years and you refuse to either apologize or give him his day in court. This is unacceptable behaviour and you know it. If I've got a problem with someone, I'll debate him. He will get his day in court. Can you say the same?
In short, "I'm better than you."Bernd Schneider wrote:I don't think that I owe you anything. I have been talking about you (or rather, about your website and forum) behind your back. I am sorry for anything personal that may have slipped into my criticism and, once again, I have to apologize for speaking of the SD.net members as a whole. I see, however, no obligation to inform you whenever I feel like talking about your website. Do I have to tell Brannon Braga when I criticize his writing? And it has not been "for years", but only since I discovered your SD.net forums last summer.
Let me elucidate why I (unwisely) brought up this topic at SCN. After our e-mail exchange about three years ago (which was, in retrospect, more pleasant than I remembered), I was content with the conclusion that we simply had two different ways of looking at science fiction, where I think that "fiction" is the more important part of the word. I could laugh about your inconsistent stirring up of different viewing angles (you know, Star Trek is scientific crap, is weak, and is evil). I could tolerate your selective application of science to problems in science fiction. I could live with the knowledge that only few people in the silly "vs." circles would listen to you anyway. But that has changed with the SD.net message board. It appalled me how you, who claimed a victim role for himself (offended by hordes of stupid trekkies or something along these lines) could set up a place where you do exactly the same with Star Trek and gather hundreds of followers for this campaign. Man, I almost believed you when you once told me that "trekkies" were the worst of all! I had no idea.
In my view, you have put yourself on trial, by creating your demagogical website and by supporting a message board where intolerance is being promoted. Your extremely one-sided views, your polemical bashing of everything and everyone Trek, your personal flames and insults leave no other interpretation but that you are out for trouble. Please don't complain if someone decides not to follow your way (which would be, engage in a "debate", in the course of which you would smugly comment on all of his "fallacies"). Your debates are pointless, they have never achieved any goal (maybe instead of boosting your ego). Your opponents were mostly flame warriors of that kind too, BTW. But
I'm not like that.
I won't speak for you, but I am not our for controversy elsewhere, be it in the web or in real life. I don't need anyone or anything to disprove, to blame, to ridicule, or sometimes to insult, only so I feel good. Ask yourself if
you can say the same about yourself.
Regarding my own website, it's so funny that you call it "pseudo-scientific", although it is not about scientific theories in Star Trek, let alone in any other fiction. I only strive to put things straight that would better perceived or valued differently in my opinion in order to make Star Trek more consistent. I have revised my findings countless times, even to the opposite, whenever new evidence became available or people told me I was wrong. I can do that because I am not adhering to dogmatism. I help developing sci-fi further, while you restrain it with the corset of your self-righteous ideas until it suffocates.
As for some of your posts getting edited, I agree that it wasn't correct. I admit that Felis has overreacted. We are all only human. But I will gladly excuse errors that have been made on both sides in this useless controversy. Your members and you yourself are welcome at the SCN, if you heed our principles not to swear, not to troll and not to flame other members. We are a community that is based on our common interest in Star Trek and other science fiction, and not "the mockery of stupid people". Of course, I can't speak for all our members. They are by no means my "followers". But I wholeheartedly agree with my fellow administrator Dan and the moderators that we want to keep out everything that is likely to cause an uproar.
No, I don't like you (at least not if you are in real life like you are in the web). But I would like to end this here, without sifting through your website and making an endless list of your fallacies. If you still call for satisfaction, I leave it to you to mock about me or my website likewise. I know that I may be wrong about many points. I know that much is a matter of interpretation. But I also know that I have done the right thing. I can't be everyone's friend, but I can help to extend our knowledge about a fascinating hobby.
Bernd Schneider
As I expected, he:
- Refuses to debate the issue
- Refuses to apologize for his constant stream of insults even though he fully admits I was civil to him in our E-mail conversation
- Uses this E-mail as an excuse to hurl yet more insults and invective about what a terrible person I am
- Continues to pretend that he's taking the high road (apparently, it's OK to insult someone constantly, as long as you don't swear)
Unbelievable.
PS. Also notice the constant "therapist" attacks, attempting to psychoanalyze my motivations, insinuate that I derive personal validation from insulting others (gee, I guess it's impossible that I'm simply expressing my honest opinion).
