EAS is flaming us now

[Slartibartfast]

well . . . arent most ignorant arguments placed on the hatemail page, while ignoring hurt feelings?

I tend to agree with Alyeska on this one, though. Even if the past public debates stored there actually belong in Hate Mail (because of the other side's truly idiotic arguments), just the fact that there isn't a simple Debates page, only a Hate Mail page... it seems to imply that anyone debating Mike is stupid by default.

One thing would be to move bad debates against idiots once they are finished and it's been concluded that they are idiots, but they shouldn't take place there at all from the beginning (only exception is DarkStar of course)...

Note that this would apply to NEW debates (debates that are in progress). Mike's previous "debate" with the guy could perfectly belong to the Hate Mail section if they are as bizarre as he says and it is finished, which I believe it is.

[Slartibartfast]

By the way, one point of clarification on a much earlier remark from their board:

Our distaste of Wong and his band of snarling orcs comes from after the shock and horror of going to their website. Rampant cussing, Name-calling, insulting, disgusting, zealous hatred of Star Trek. When some of us went over to voice our personal opinions of you (on their own perrogative I might add), you attacked them like the pack of ravening orcs you were. And then you traced their IP address back here and started acusing US of sending "trolls" over there! You violated the sanctity of our board with baseless acusations.

Note highlighted portion: you actually can't trace someone's IP address to the board they came from, as it is based on their Internet connection, not the site they're currently browsing. You can only trace the HTTP_REFERER environment variable passed from their browsers if they direct-linked from there to here. The only person who can do that on this board is me, and I never received any request for such a trace, so I don't know where they got this idea.

I fail to see how they can accuse someone of tracing people to their boards, when these people basically barge in here and post "we come from the EAS board, now hear our stupidity".

[Slartibartfast]

I understand that the website has a specific focus, but what I see on this board is a common attitude of confrontation and belligerence that goes far beyond that -- to the point of accepting only one point of view, only one way to enjoy science fiction -- specifically Star Wars and Star Trek.

Okay, now how wrong is that argument? You say that we have only one way to enjoy science fiction, but the truth is that, unlike you, who really have only ONE way to enjoy Sci-Fi (by watching it and enjoying it without thinking really hard about it) we here have TWO ENTIRE METHODS to enjoy it: by watching the movies and reading the books (without really thinking hard about it) AND analysing it from a more scientific perspective.

See? If anything we are more open-minded than you:
You: 1 way to enjoy sci-fi
We: at least 2 ways to enjoy sci-fi

[Slartibartfast]

I still have to see a Trekkie saying "I think I like Star Trek more" and a Warsie yelling at him "That's subjective and therefore wrong!"

[MinutiaeMan]

I commend you on actually having the guts to come here and state your piece, but you still insist on promoting some mealy-mouthed swamp of opinion in which anyone who promotes any sort of standard for determining whether something is right or wrong must be close-minded.

Mr. Wong, I came here to apologize for my words and actions, not for my opinions. Whatever my beliefs, I feel that does not excuse my insult. That's all. When I was referring to attempted humor, I meant that in the context of my intentions at the time I made the comment. I can believe that a person or group of people are wrong or conduct themselves poorly, and yet not insult them personally or unfairly label an entire community -- and I failed to recognize that distinction.

I notice that in the mean time, you've been posting on the SCN and labelling the moderators and myself as Bernd's "followers" -- which is as gross a generalization as I've been trying to apologize for. How are the members and administration of a message board community automatically a cult lead by a single individual and of completely like mind?

Or are you just too goddamned stubborn to admit you were wrong without attaching a "but you're just as wrong" addendum to it?

"Stubborn" being anyone who refuses to accept your prepared opinion and your own standards? Stubborn being someone who refuses to debate you for some reason? Stubborn being someone who can feel that someone else might be committing the same errors that he himself has apologized for?

Fiction is fiction, involving the suspension of disbelief -- and if we want to believe that inside the story, a droid can be levitated, a person can be assimilated with nanotechnology, or a simple golden ring can for no apparent reason become heavier and shift its wearer into a nether-world, that's part of the fantasy. I have been trying to say that because the Star Trek and Star Wars universes are fictional, they're inherently subjective, and therefore standards can not be universal or enforced on others who choose to interpret the fictional worlds differently.

Among the textbook definitions of fantasy, you might find: "the power or process of creating esp. unrealistic or improbable mental images." (Webster's)

I don't object to your choice to discuss the Star Wars and Star Trek universes in your way. I've tried to make that clear.

You say that we have only one way to enjoy science fiction, but the truth is that, unlike you, who really have only ONE way to enjoy Sci-Fi (by watching it and enjoying it without thinking really hard about it) we here have TWO ENTIRE METHODS to enjoy it: by watching the movies and reading the books (without really thinking hard about it) AND analysing it from a more scientific perspective.

The whole purpose of my argument is that I am advocating multiple perspectives.

I've met numerous Star Trek fans who have vastly varying degrees of interest in the series. My immediate family are all dedicated fans of Trek, but they all think I'm crazy for going into the detailed stories and histories that I've created for my website. I've met fans whose hobby is to collect information on nearly-random specks of wreckage on the TV screen in one episode that aired more than ten years ago. There are people who are intensely devoted to a particular actor or character. We all enjoy the episodes and movies for their drama and action, and further focus on various elements as we choose.

What I do object to is blatant labeling such as "some mealy-mouthed swamp of opinion" simply because you don't agree with it.

Mr. Wong himself has said he's a fan of the original Star Trek series. What happened to "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations"? (I'm probably not the first person to ask that, but I haven't seen a reference on the site yet.)

If you wish to continue this discussion, Mr. Wong, please feel free to contact me via e-mail. Call me stubborn if you like. All I ask is some civility from here on out.

-- Dan Carlson

[Darth Wong]

Mr. Wong, I came here to apologize for my words and actions, not for my opinions.

Of course, because you believe in the mealy-mouthed swamp of opinion in which no opinion can possibly be wrong. Therefore, any absolute statement of competence tied to an obviously incorrect opinion is invariably an inexcusable insult in your mind. You do not distinguish between criticisms based on argument and criticisms based on personal attacks because they are both the same in your mind.

I notice that in the mean time, you've been posting on the SCN and labelling the moderators and myself as Bernd's "followers" -- which is as gross a generalization as I've been trying to apologize for.

Ah, I see. So the "horde of ravening orcs" comment is really no more inflammatory than "followers"

Fiction is fiction, involving the suspension of disbelief -- and if we want to believe that inside the story, a droid can be levitated, a person can be assimilated with nanotechnology, or a simple golden ring can for no apparent reason become heavier and shift its wearer into a nether-world, that's part of the fantasy.

And if you've suspended disbelief, you must recognize that this fictional universe can be analyzed in a rational way. There are certain conclusions which can be shown to be wrong or stupid.

I have been trying to say that because the Star Trek and Star Wars universes are fictional, they're inherently subjective

Why is a fictional scenario necessarily subjective? Interpretations of that scenario can be subjective, as yours are. Interpretations of the creator's intent are even more subjective. But fiction -> subjective is a logical leap which is unsupportable in any sense of the word. Are you saying it is impossible to create any work of fiction which can be analyzed in an objective manner? If so, justify this leap in logic.

What I do object to is blatant labeling such as "some mealy-mouthed swamp of opinion" simply because you don't agree with it.

As usual, you act as though you are being criticized simply for disagreeing, as if there is no actual right or wrong answer here. It is a simple matter of fact to say that your conclusions are wrong; your leap in logic from "fiction" to "subjective", for example, is completely unsupported.

Mr. Wong himself has said he's a fan of the original Star Trek series. What happened to "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations"? (I'm probably not the first person to ask that, but I haven't seen a reference on the site yet.)

No one said you can't exist and have your ignorant opinion. But I also have the right to say that it's ignorant. It is you who are seemingly oblivious to IDIC, since you are acting as though we don't have the right to speak our minds. It was not I who initiated this conflict by flaming an entire community as "ravening orcs"; it was you, remember?

If you wish to continue this discussion, Mr. Wong, please feel free to contact me via e-mail. Call me stubborn if you like. All I ask is some civility from here on out.

Big words from someone who flamed an entire community and continued to insult that community more when he offered his fake apology.

[Darth Servo]

Mr. Wong, I came here to apologize for my words and actions, not for my opinions.

Except that numbers are NOT the same thing as "opinions" and its the NUMBERS that this debate is all about. Mike's numbers prove that the Empire would easily crush the Federation and its allies and rabid Trekkies just can't stand it.

"Stubborn" being anyone who refuses to accept your prepared opinion and your own standards? Stubborn being someone who refuses to debate you for some reason? Stubborn being someone who can feel that someone else might be committing the same errors that he himself has apologized for?

If Mike has infact made errors then by all means, point them out. However, personal attacks on perceived character flaws have nothing to do with the conclusions of his website. And character attacks are by far the majority of things being posted at the other board in a pathetic attempt to discredit SD.net.

If youor anyone at the board in question think you can take Mike on in a debate, then by all means, do so. I pitty you guys if you do though. If you refuse that just adds to the evidence that all the name calling is just Trekkies who can't stand to see the Federation get slaughtered by the Empire.

I have been trying to say that because the Star Trek and Star Wars universes are fictional, they're inherently subjective, and therefore standards can not be universal or enforced on others who choose to interpret the fictional worlds differently.

If this is true, then NEITHER side can say which is stronger so all the whiny Trektards need to STFU. If OTOH, there is a way to perform an OBJECTIVE and SCIENTIFIC analysis, then you have to live with the results and not cry when they don't turn out the way you wanted.

The whole purpose of my argument is that I am advocating multiple perspectives.

But if we are trying to determine which side is stronger, which side is faster, etc we need to use OBJECTIVE methods and "how we enjoy" the movies/TV shows is irrelevant.

What I do object to is blatant labeling such as "some mealy-mouthed swamp of opinion" simply because you don't agree with it.

If your opinion is contradicted by the physical evidence, then it IS "some mealy-mouthed swamp of opinion"

Mr. Wong himself has said he's a fan of the original Star Trek series. What happened to "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations"? (I'm probably not the first person to ask that, but I haven't seen a reference on the site yet.)

Which is completely irrelevant to the debate about which side would win.

If you wish to continue this discussion, Mr. Wong, please feel free to contact me via e-mail. Call me stubborn if you like. All I ask is some civility from here on out.

He gives respect to those who deserve it. Idiots can and should expect to be labeled as such.

[Ender]

By the way, one point of clarification on a much earlier remark from their board:

Our distaste of Wong and his band of snarling orcs comes from after the shock and horror of going to their website. Rampant cussing, Name-calling, insulting, disgusting, zealous hatred of Star Trek. When some of us went over to voice our personal opinions of you (on their own perrogative I might add), you attacked them like the pack of ravening orcs you were. And then you traced their IP address back here and started acusing US of sending "trolls" over there! You violated the sanctity of our board with baseless acusations.

Note highlighted portion: you actually can't trace someone's IP address to the board they came from, as it is based on their Internet connection, not the site they're currently browsing. You can only trace the HTTP_REFERER environment variable passed from their browsers if they direct-linked from there to here. The only person who can do that on this board is me, and I never received any request for such a trace, so I don't know where they got this idea.

It's real simple Mike: The guy is a liar.
I fully stated I was from SD. His claiming that he did an IP trace is an attempt to make himself look more adept with computers then he is, and to paint us as cowards (interesting when they come over here with blocked and hidden IPs).

Their moderator is a liar. Plain and simple.

[Darth Wong]

I fully stated I was from SD. His claiming that he did an IP trace is an attempt to make himself look more adept with computers then he is, and to paint us as cowards (interesting when they come over here with blocked and hidden IPs).

Too true. Look at what Nathan F wrote in their announcements forum about his foray here:

And im using a firewall with IP blocker on so I doubt with someone with as little IQ as they have would be able to crack it.

And they still walk around holding their noses in their over their presumed moral superiority

And this guy is one of the fucking moderators! It's unbelievable that they still think they can act as though there is equal blame on both sides. We didn't even recognize their existence until recently, while they've been proudly brandishing their hatred of us for a long time. The above message is dated September 11, 2002. Yes, he was trolling our boards and trying to hide his IP (as if a firewall hides IP addresses. All it does is consolidate the IP's behind it into a single connection IP; the dumb-fuck is obviously confusing it with a proxy) on the anniversary of Sept 11.

[Slartibartfast]

I notice that in the mean time, you've been posting on the SCN and labelling the moderators and myself as Bernd's "followers" -- which is as gross a generalization as I've been trying to apologize for. How are the members and administration of a message board community automatically a cult lead by a single individual and of completely like mind?

Bingo! "ravening orcs"...

[Slartibartfast]

The whole purpose of my argument is that I am advocating multiple perspectives.

I've met numerous Star Trek fans who have vastly varying degrees of interest in the series. My immediate family are all dedicated fans of Trek, but they all think I'm crazy for going into the detailed stories and histories that I've created for my website. I've met fans whose hobby is to collect information on nearly-random specks of wreckage on the TV screen in one episode that aired more than ten years ago. There are people who are intensely devoted to a particular actor or character. We all enjoy the episodes and movies for their drama and action, and further focus on various elements as we choose.

Yet you say that our perspective is invalid, because they're different shows and not meant to be compared together, and that trying to objectively compare them is useless. Not a single person here said that liking "the prettier ships" or the "more interesting characters" is an invalid perspective.

On the other hand, we say that making up "subjective comparisons" like "Star Trek ships are faster because they look pretty and sleek" or "Picard would beat any Jedis because he's bald and bald people rulez!" or "Trek technology is more advanced because they use 'magic-go glowing thingies' instead of 'old brick fireplaces' for propulsion" is plain stupid, and retarded, and saying otherwise is retarded as well. Just like saying "2 + 2 = 5 because I like 5 better than 4!" is retarded.

[Slartibartfast]

Here's a hint for you Minuta Man:

Case 1: Analysing Fiction With Suspension of Diselief:

"Look, the ship is really flying thru space!"
"I wonder how fast it's going?"
"We'll, let's see, they got X distance away from the planet in N seconds..."


Case 2: Analysing Fiction, NO Suspension of Disbelief:

"Look, I can see the strings on that plastic thing!"
"I wonder how much weight those strings can hold..."
"Yes, let me see... what's the density of model kit plastic..."


What you are suggesting, is that somehow Suspension of Disbelief means that people KNOW stuff isn't real. It's the other way around: We PRETEND it IS real, that it IS really happening. Too bad that you can't say "I think that a Civic is faster than that ugly-ass Lamborghini, I mean the Lamborghini is ugly and flat, the Civic is round and pretty!" in real life, can you?

[Darth Servo]

It's unbelievable that they still think they can act as though there is equal blame on both sides.

Professional liars like them are incapable of telling the truth. They start to think thier lies are the truth.
Professional flamers like them are incapable of seeing any contradicting viewpoint as anything but flame. Anything contradicting their beloved P.O.V. is regarded as a personal attack.

[Master of Ossus]

Minutiae Man, I don't think you understand this board at all. Here, members do not do any bullshit jockeying for moral position. We debate FACTS, not subjective moral standards, here. If you are going to debate on your website by trying to act like Miss America all the time, fine. Do so in as gentlemanly a manner as you like. When you come to our board, however, you can drop the charade because we don't care. We care about the substance of an argument, and not the style in which it is presented.

[Master of Ossus]

And im using a firewall with IP blocker on so I doubt with someone with as little IQ as they have would be able to crack it.

And they still walk around holding their noses in their over their presumed moral superiority

And this guy is one of the fucking moderators! It's unbelievable that they still think they can act as though there is equal blame on both sides. We didn't even recognize their existence until recently, while they've been proudly brandishing their hatred of us for a long time. The above message is dated September 11, 2002. Yes, he was trolling our boards and trying to hide his IP (as if a firewall hides IP addresses. All it does is consolidate the IP's behind it into a single connection IP; the dumb-fuck is obviously confusing it with a proxy) on the anniversary of Sept 11.

Oh, but Mike, his opinion of it is that protects him from being traced, therefore his opinion must be infallible.

[CmdrWilkens]

Mike all we are doing is bashing on them for being ignorant and puffing ourselves up saying "oh we are so much smarter."

No, there is no chest-beating over the fact that we're smarter than the sort of retard who thinks creationism is a scientific theory or that an entire argument is nullified by a naughty word. One does not take excessive pride in scoring better than F.

So its ok to mock people for scoring an F? Given the nature of the insults here (justified or not) we are either taking pride in our own intelligence, which is chest beating, or we are insulting them for their stupidity, which is mocking. Sure they probably deserve it and I frankly find much of their "defense" laughable at best but that doesn't change the fact that continuing to focus on their failing (or our lack of failings) is an unproductive degeneration into male posturing.

It doesn't matter if we have evidence on our side its the adult equivalent of taunting at this point and personally it serves no purpose.

Gee, why don't we just shut down the board then? Do I really need to remind you of the site motto? Maybe they hang their hats on some pretension of being morally superior or more dignified; we don't. We hang our hat on having the facts and logic to back us up, not on style over substance fallacies.

My point is not that we shouldn't taunt people for foolishness but that, in this case, it has passed the point of putting them in their place and has degenerated to an "I'm better than you are" 'fest.

We can see their foolishness...it doesn't mean we need to mock it. I can see if someone is a retard...that doesn't mean I am justified to go up to his face and call him a retard or even do it behind his back. its childish on our part and unneccessarry.

If that someone is saying that you're the retard, and you discover that he has been doing so for years, are you saying that you still wouldn't say anything?

I'm saying that I would challenge them, as you did, and would point out their cowardice and stupidity in refusing to respond. What I wouldn't do is go into post after post after post ad nauseum, we've passed the point of justification and grown to the point where we are just lashing back rather than responding in a controlled and adult manner. It doesn't change any of the facts, it doesn't change who we are, and it doesn't give them any justification but I think it demeans us to keep harping on the same stupidity.

[Darth Wong]

Greg, I agree that it's unconstructive to continue describing their failings. They are what they are. However, I also feel it is premature to simply give up the ghost; I still want to debate this sanctimonious coward, and I don't intend to let him walk away so easily.

I intend to remind him, for at least a little while, of the gauntlet that's been thrown at his feet in the hopes that he might eventually summon up a backbone and accept the challenge. I don't see any reason to simply shut up and let him walk away with his nose high in the air.

[^^]

we need an ambulance and quick

BASTARD DOWN

[LordShaithis]

"No Prawn, we must not crush them. Bad Prawn, warmongering is wrong. Silly Prawn, we do not make invasions."

Do you people not see? Do you still believe diplomacy can succeed!?[/url][/list][/list][/code][/quote][/u][/i][/b]

[^^]

runaway BBcode!!

[Master of Ossus]

"No Prawn, we must not crush them. Bad Prawn, warmongering is wrong. Silly Prawn, we do not make invasions."

Do you people not see? Do you still believe diplomacy can succeed!?[/url][/list][/list][/code]

[/u][/i][/b][/quote]

Seeing as how NF Utvol, one of their moderators, has just apologized, YES. I do believe we can resolve this conflict through diplomacy.

[Rob Wilson]

You know I'm really busy, when two of my favourite Sci-Fi sites are attacking each other and I find out a week after the fact .

I like EAS (the Website) and have done for years, it's entertaining and the Starfleet museum is excellent (I much prefer their desgns and write ups to the dross from Enterprise). However I've never been to their board.

I think that the problem here stems from this, Minutiaman, this is a web board attached to a site that discusses what would happen if the two sides (St and SW) met in combat. Take a guess at why we then employ methods and discussions that need to compare the two against each other.

As to only ever having one way of enjoying Sci-fi... well that's patently untrue, we have Anime fans, Fantasy, Mecha fans, St fans, SW fans, Blakes 7 fans, Red Dwarf fans, Hard (written) Sf fans and Comedic (written) Sf fans, Tank warfare fans and, in my case at least, all the above wrapped up. If what you say is true, then I certainly could not enjoy Mecha or most Anime as the designs and concepts are laughable. Yet I do enjoy both, hell my first ever e-mail contact with Mike was pointing out an error on his page and defending ST. Amazing how we're friends, when according to his detractors, doubting his words is basis for him to flame me to crisp and dance on the remains.
Could it be that I provided evidence and proof for my points? Did I read his site fully first? Could it be that i never flamed him, so he didn't flame me back?

The purpose of the Web board(and for future reference SD.net is the Site, SD.net BBS is the web board) is the discussion of VS arguments and other associated matters, therefore why should you be shocked that we have to objectively analyse the combatants. On this web board the ground state is that any VS universes are to be judged by a standardised yardstick (Science and the real world) with both having to show why one would beat the other with known properties. To come here and rail against that state is frankly bewildering.

If I were posting on EAS's Forum, I would be working within it's postulates and assumptions, as would be expected. If there is no possibility of VS arguments there, then I wouldn't post any, it's that simple. If members of your board came here and ignored the ground rules, then while they were here they doubtless deserved everything they got.

Let me just ask, if it had a VS arguement, what ground rules would you state?

If there are things here you like, then please enjoy them - no one is forcing anyone to take part in the debates or in any subjects here.But if you take part in the debates then at least work within the stated guidelines and assumptions (post proof, Science is valid unless the Series says it circumvents it in certain areas -FTL travel/Mass Lightening, avoid fallacies, provide sources if challenged).

Oh and of course hit the repeatedly and persistantly stupid.

To summarise - if you want to treat it subjectively, that's fine, say it's your opinion and that's that. Don't however try to treat a subjective opinion as a basis for a debate. When debating you must treat a subject objectively, with known facts and well supported theories. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.
It's all well to say "They're Apples and Oranges", but even different friut can be judged against each other for stated criteria - "Which could survive a colision with the other from a distance of x with the least damage, a ripe, undamaged Golden Delicious Apple with these known parameters, or a ripe, undamaged Seville Orange with these known parameters?" Thickness of outer protective layer can be measured, elasticity of flesh can be measured, mass can be measured, Tendancy to bruise can be measured. Previous evidence of other examples of the same types of fruits subjected to similar forces can be measured and examined, and an answer produced, all without ever actually having to have the friut collide. All because you know their properties and have a set of valid scientific theorems to test them against and can compare them against known, equalised forces.

[Rob Wilson]

On the Debate placement part of thi, can I just point out that all the previous debates are in the Hate-mail section because they have all been against people that have used fallacies and bad science in their arguments. If someone didn't use those methods and actually provided a clean debate, I don't doubt they would go in a seperate section.

[Moonshadow]

"enters Nitpicky Mode" Hey aren't you forgetting B5ers? "exits Nitpicky mode and goes to find some caffine"

[Rob Wilson]

"enters Nitpicky Mode" Hey aren't you forgetting B5ers? "exits Nitpicky mode and goes to find some caffine"

It was a small samplingly only, so

(yeah, I didn't make a mistake at all, that's right, just got to keep telling myself that. ).