Bernd Schneider finally answers my E-mail

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-22 08:36pm

NF_Utvol wrote:Oh, and on completely unrelated note:

What type of engineering do you have a degree in, Mike? I am just curious, as I am working towards a degree in engineering.

Mechanical. Like all forms of engineering, it has this interesting characteristic of promoting the silly notion that there is a right answer and a wrong answer, not just a lot of equally valid opinions. I guess that makes it "close-minded".

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2003-01-22 08:38pm

It appears to me that on EAS, it's okay to berate a person or a board unless/until they become aware of it. At that point you feign ignorance or attempt a backhanded apology complete with the requisite "Can't we all just get along?".

I haven't seen anything like this since the first "invasion" of Spacebattle by ASVS. No, strike that! The moderators of SB at the time showed great restraint and the members of SB dove right in to the debate. Some even came over to the unmoderated newsgroup to battle it out. They never demonstrated the abject cowardice EAS is.

Dammit! you've made me compliment Spacebattles

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-22 08:42pm

Phil, I must concur: spacebattles.com may not be perfect, but they aren't chickenshits like these clowns.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-22 08:45pm

Darth Wong wrote: Are these people deliberately trying to be pricks, or do they sincerely think that we will accept their bullshit?

Mike, these people are either deliberately trying to be pricks, or they ARE pricks. Let's see what they've done:

They deliberately perpetrated an invasion of this site, boasting of it openly on their board, and deliberately tried to annoy and irritate other members during that invasion.
They repeatedly insulted the board, which came from numerous members, including their moderators and administrators.
They ignored attempts at parley through a number of methods, but my favorite was the moderator who claimed that my response to a moderator's response was in violation of the terms of the cease-fire. This essentially meant that he had thought it was okay to UNILATERALLY declare the feud over, without giving the other side to even respond to the terms of the cease-fire which they made deliberately to buy them time.
They immediately locked their board, preventing members of our site from even discussing the matter with them.
They repeatedly edited and even deleted posts that made relevent points that were detrimental to EAS on their forum, which continued well after they were called on it. They did this for no reason other than to prevent their board members from understanding the truth.
They accused a member of this board of altering THEIR posts, even though he is not a moderator here and the original post could easily be found on the site.
They then claimed that they were morally superior, in spite of their repugnant behavior, because some of SD.net's denizens responded to their slandering of the board in GENERAL, as well as numerous posters and the founder of the board, without explanation.
They deliberately distorted the truth, so as to paint SD.net as being "anti-Trek," and claimed that we refused to allow our members to enjoy Star Trek. Apparently the only way they can enjoy Star Trek is if it is not only subjectively superior as a form of entertainment, but ALSO technologically superior. They have not posted any evidence, whatsoever, of either of these arguments being reasonable.
Having repeatedly claimed the previous to be true of our board, they then claimed it was unfair of members here to flame people who ignored objective evidence despite the fact that they flamed this board REPEATEDLY for its perceived slights on SUBJECTIVE statements.

Mike, these actions are not only unreasonable, but also ludicrous beyond any definition of the word. I find their behavior reprehensible, both before and after we discovered their original dishonesty.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-01-22 08:46pm

I'm getting tired of this little soap opera. Bernd Schneider isn't going to debate, and the EAS boarders aren't going to shut up. I don't think continued obsessing over them is productive.

Consider them scum if you want, but I'd really like to see us start discussing something interesting again.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-22 08:46pm

I also like the way they have the gall to claim that I delete contradictory opinions, while simultaneously saying that the board is a pit of flames where we're constantly swearing and yelling at each other.

Does the contradiction in the above statement not occur to them? How could we be a pit of flames if we're all in harmonious agreement and I personally eliminate all dissenters? What would we be arguing about? If I delete everyone who offends me, then why would the white-supremacist donkey-fucker Arminius, who called me a "nigger-king", have 167 posts on this board with not one word removed, until he finally started spamming like mad? Do they think that adding comments is the same as deleting points?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-22 08:47pm

Ted C wrote:I'm getting tired of this little soap opera. Bernd Schneider isn't going to debate, and the EAS boarders aren't going to shut up. I don't think continued obsessing over them is productive.

Consider them scum if you want, but I'd really like to see us start discussing something interesting again.

But remember, we don't want to possibly harm any feelings here.

So let's begin..

Huh..

How's the weather over there?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-22 08:47pm

Phil Skayhan wrote:It appears to me that on EAS, it's okay to berate a person or a board unless/until they become aware of it. At that point you feign ignorance or attempt a backhanded apology complete with the requisite "Can't we all just get along?".

NTM the fact that they repeatedly berate members of this board due to their SUBJECTIVE views (ie. liking or disliking Star Trek), while refusing to allow those same members to flame them (or anyone else) on OBJECTIVE statements, and SIMULTANEOUSLY claiming that opinions are irrefutable, as they are only opinions.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-22 08:49pm

Colonel Olrik wrote: But remember, we don't want to possibly harm any feelings here.

So let's begin..

Huh..

How's the weather over there?

Cold

Yeesh...why do they have this sense of opinion.

I'm sorry opinions are nice but they are too easily get out of hand when every one wants to be PC and nice.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-22 08:52pm

Ghost Rider wrote:I'm sorry opinions are nice but they are too easily get out of hand when every one wants to be PC and nice.

Mind you, they're only nice to each other. "Warsies", on the other hand, are fair game for the entire gamut of flames and absolute declarations of incompetence/error. And when we do it back to them, we're "close-minded"

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-22 08:53pm

To begin my rant, Its pretty hard to blame the warsies on slaming on us ethe faithfull like us.

Note that this thread was locked, but not because it attacked subjective opinions. It was locked because they didn't want to discuss "warsies" anymore. Boohoo. Frankly, their ASTONISHING lack of respect for subjective opinion, coupled with their disdain for others who refuse to pardon incorrect OBJECTIVE statements, is astonishing.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-01-22 08:54pm

Darth Wong wrote:[...] If I delete everyone who offends me, then why would the white-supremacist donkey-fucker Arminius, who called me a "nigger-king", have 167 posts on this board with not one word removed, until he finally started spamming like mad? Do they think that adding comments is the same as deleting points?

Humm, isn't like the usual Trekkie logic of extrapolation to infinity? If you comment on your Hate Mail page, then in your boards...
(Taking into acount the hundreds of posts everyday, this is more than a Herculean task..)

*shakes head* tsk, tsk...

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-22 08:57pm

Darth Wong wrote: Mind you, they're only nice to each other. "Warsies", on the other hand, are fair game for the entire gamut of flames and absolute declarations of incompetence/error. And when we do it back to them, we're "close-minded"

Very true...thanks for reminding me.

I guess to them we're wearing furs and have helmets and shields with strange symbols on them.

I still am wondering if we're so close-minded, why the hell did he lace that thing with some 10 different ways of saying "Wong you're an idgit and I see no reason to debate you because you'll just hurl insults like a phillistine."

If that was an apology, I think most people would've cocked an eyebrow and try to pop one in the nose.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-01-22 08:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:
NF_Utvol wrote:Oh, and on completely unrelated note:

What type of engineering do you have a degree in, Mike? I am just curious, as I am working towards a degree in engineering.
Mechanical. Like all forms of engineering, it has this interesting characteristic of promoting the silly notion that there is a right answer and a wrong answer, not just a lot of equally valid opinions. I guess that makes it "close-minded".

All I did was ask a simple question, engineer to engineer, there was no need for that. Oh, and BTW, im going for aerospace. Basically Mech. E. with a couple extra courses tacked on at the end.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-22 09:00pm

NF_Utvol wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
NF_Utvol wrote:Oh, and on completely unrelated note:

What type of engineering do you have a degree in, Mike? I am just curious, as I am working towards a degree in engineering.
Mechanical. Like all forms of engineering, it has this interesting characteristic of promoting the silly notion that there is a right answer and a wrong answer, not just a lot of equally valid opinions. I guess that makes it "close-minded".
All I did was ask a simple question, engineer to engineer, there was no need for that. Oh, and BTW, im going for aerospace. Basically Mech. E. with a couple extra courses tacked on at the end.

I hope you have what it's needed. It's not that hard. It'll do you good.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-22 09:02pm

Ghost Rider wrote:I guess to them we're wearing furs and have helmets and shields with strange symbols on them.

I still am wondering if we're so close-minded, why the hell did he lace that thing with some 10 different ways of saying "Wong you're an idgit and I see no reason to debate you because you'll just hurl insults like a phillistine."

If we're close-minded, how come they're the ones that have locked down their board registration for the time being?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-22 09:04pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
If we're close-minded, how come they're the ones that have locked down their board registration for the time being?

Because they want to show us how much worse they can be.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-01-22 09:05pm

NF_Utvol wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
NF_Utvol wrote:Oh, and on completely unrelated note:

What type of engineering do you have a degree in, Mike? I am just curious, as I am working towards a degree in engineering.
Mechanical. Like all forms of engineering, it has this interesting characteristic of promoting the silly notion that there is a right answer and a wrong answer, not just a lot of equally valid opinions. I guess that makes it "close-minded".
All I did was ask a simple question, engineer to engineer, there was no need for that. Oh, and BTW, im going for aerospace. Basically Mech. E. with a couple extra courses tacked on at the end.

Can't you give just one simple straight answer? You allways have to add a few spices? And are you implying you're taking on a tougher course, just because of those extra courses tacked?

BTW, Aerospace is basically the same thing as Mech. those extra courses are only the specialization in aerospace science and engineering, the same happens for Mechanical E., Materials E., Marine E. and a shit of othe enginnerings with a gournd base in mechanics. My own Uni has Aerospace and the first 3 years are the same thing.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-22 09:05pm

Yet again, the "Opinion Protection Squad" rears its ugly head.

No opinion can be wrong (except the opinion that opinions can be wrong)!
All opinions are sacred (except the ones that hold that not all opinions are valid)!
Declaring an opinion wrong makes you close-minded (unless it's the opinion that every opinion should be subjected to tests of validity)!
Open-mindedness means accepting all ideas as logically valid and never trying to evaluate their objective credibility!

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-01-22 09:25pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Are these people deliberately trying to be pricks, or do they sincerely think that we will accept their bullshit?
Mike, these people are either deliberately trying to be pricks, or they ARE pricks. Let's see what they've done:

They deliberately perpetrated an invasion of this site, boasting of it openly on their board, and deliberately tried to annoy and irritate other members during that invasion.

They repeatedly insulted the board, which came from numerous members, including their moderators and administrators.

They ignored attempts at parley through a number of methods, but my favorite was the moderator who claimed that my response to a moderator's response was in violation of the terms of the cease-fire. This essentially meant that he had thought it was okay to UNILATERALLY declare the feud over, without giving the other side to even respond to the terms of the cease-fire which they made deliberately to buy them time.

They immediately locked their board, preventing members of our site from even discussing the matter with them.

They repeatedly edited and even deleted posts that made relevent points that were detrimental to EAS on their forum, which continued well after they were called on it. They did this for no reason other than to prevent their board members from understanding the truth.

They accused a member of this board of altering THEIR posts, even though he is not a moderator here and the original post could easily be found on the site.

They then claimed that they were morally superior, in spite of their repugnant behavior, because some of SD.net's denizens responded to their slandering of the board in GENERAL, as well as numerous posters and the founder of the board, without explanation.

They deliberately distorted the truth, so as to paint SD.net as being "anti-Trek," and claimed that we refused to allow our members to enjoy Star Trek. Apparently the only way they can enjoy Star Trek is if it is not only subjectively superior as a form of entertainment, but ALSO technologically superior. They have not posted any evidence, whatsoever, of either of these arguments being reasonable.

Having repeatedly claimed the previous to be true of our board, they then claimed it was unfair of members here to flame people who ignored objective evidence despite the fact that they flamed this board REPEATEDLY for its perceived slights on SUBJECTIVE statements.

Mike, these actions are not only unreasonable, but also ludicrous beyond any definition of the word. I find their behavior reprehensible, both before and after we discovered their original dishonesty.

[*] They deliberately perpetrated an invasion of this site, boasting of it openly on their board, and deliberately tried to annoy and irritate other members during that invasion.

- We NEVER perpetrated an invasion of your site. Two members of SCN joined your board to respond to accusations made on this board. If anybody perpetrated an ivasion, it was your board. Many more members of SDNet joined SCN than vice versa. Also, we never attempted to aggravate your members in any way.

[*] They repeatedly insulted the board, which came from numerous members, including their moderators and administrators.

- Yes, we might have insulted your board. But only after you insulted OURS.

[*] They ignored attempts at parley through a number of methods, but my favorite was the moderator who claimed that my response to a moderator's response was in violation of the terms of the cease-fire. This essentially meant that he had thought it was okay to UNILATERALLY declare the feud over, without giving the other side to even respond to the terms of the cease-fire which they made deliberately to buy them time.

We were the ones who attempted to stop it the first time, and YOUR board kept bringing it back up!!! You, my friends, were the ones who didn't want peace. I don't want to hear that you tried to make peace, because you clearly did not. I do not want to hear your paranoid delusions that we made the cease fire to 'buy us time.' What would be the point of that? Nothing.

[*] They immediately locked their board, preventing members of our site from even discussing the matter with them.

Yes, we locked our board. We did it because your leader, Mike Wong, was promoting a board war! We took the fact that there were so many people were joining our board after this incident as a threat, and stopped registration.

[*] They repeatedly edited and even deleted posts that made relevent points that were detrimental to EAS on their forum, which continued well after they were called on it. They did this for no reason other than to prevent their board members from understanding the truth.

We did delete posts. I personally did not, but those responsible were a bit hasty in doing this. There was no call to delete posts. But it was not to prevent board members from 'understanding the truth'.

[*] They then claimed that they were morally superior, in spite of their repugnant behavior, because some of SD.net's denizens responded to their slandering of the board in GENERAL, as well as numerous posters and the founder of the board, without explanation.

- I don't even know how to start on this. We never claimed to be morally superiour. You have just as much right to your opinions as we do. And you must admit, the way your board acts, what with your blatheing on with profanity and vulgarities, it does not give you a very good look.

[*] They accused a member of this board of altering THEIR posts, even though he is not a moderator here and the original post could easily be found on the site.

- We never accused anybody of doing anything. It was claimed by one of our members that what was posted was not what he said. Since, seeing that he never had lied before, we decided to look into it further. I asked YOU if it had happened. If anything, I was giving you your fair chance to answer back and I was helping YOU.

[*] They deliberately distorted the truth, so as to paint SD.net as being "anti-Trek," and claimed that we refused to allow our members to enjoy Star Trek. Apparently the only way they can enjoy Star Trek is if it is not only subjectively superior as a form of entertainment, but ALSO technologically superior. They have not posted any evidence, whatsoever, of either of these arguments being reasonable.

- We never distorted any truth. We do not think that Trek is superiour to anything, in fact, it is lower than many things. When was it said that it was technologically superior? It never was. It is less technologically advanced, apparently, than Star Wars. SCN isnt even a SWvsST board, for crying out loud! We never even discuss SWvsST!!! Or STvs anything else, for that matter. If anybody distorts the truth in your statement, it was you.

[*] Having repeatedly claimed the previous to be true of our board, they then claimed it was unfair of members here to flame people who ignored objective evidence despite the fact that they flamed this board REPEATEDLY for its perceived slights on SUBJECTIVE statements.

- As far as I know, flaming someone is NOT the way to get them to agree with you.

Now, I can see that my arguments are futile, because you will continue to distort my words into something that will support your argument, no matter WHO is right. I am wasting my breath...

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-01-22 09:28pm

Warspite wrote: BTW, Aerospace is basically the same thing as Mech. those extra courses are only the specialization in aerospace science and engineering, the same happens for Mechanical E., Materials E., Marine E. and a shit of othe enginnerings with a gournd base in mechanics. My own Uni has Aerospace and the first 3 years are the same thing.

I am not implying I am taking a tougher course, because I am sure Mech. E has just as much specialization as A.E. And you are correct, the first 3 years are basically the same thing.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-01-22 09:31pm

NF_Utvol wrote:And you must admit, the way your board acts, what with your blatheing on with profanity and vulgarities, it does not give you a very good look.

Oh yeah, cause we're all here to win popularity contests.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-22 09:31pm

You invaded us first, it has already been debated (see thread below, where you also posted). Your board kept slandering us long before we even knew of your existence. Stop lying, it's pathetic, really. And if you do don't complain about the flames.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-22 09:36pm

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:
NF_Utvol wrote:And you must admit, the way your board acts, what with your blatheing on with profanity and vulgarities, it does not give you a very good look.
Oh yeah, cause we're all here to win popularity contests.

And the insults continue. Even though he could not refute the fact that the quality level of discussion here is orders of magnitude harder than in his forum.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-22 09:37pm

NF_Utvol wrote:Yes, we might have insulted your board. But only after you insulted OURS.

You lying sack of shit! You were flaming us LAST YEAR!!!!

Now, I can see that my arguments are futile, because you will continue to distort my words into something that will support your argument, no matter WHO is right. I am wasting my breath...

No, you are a lying sack of shit. If we had EVER seen a single ounce of honesty from you worthless assholes, we might not be forced to describe you as the contemptible little slugs that you are.