Darkstar Poll

[Master of Ossus]

http://galactec.com/kynes/rsa.html
All you could want to know.

If DarkStar is the same individual as this Mr. Anderson, then both seem to have accumulated many friends....

He is the same guy. He also masquerades as Guardian2000, Scooter, and Scotty, along with (probably) several other names. All of his alternate personalities have many enemies.

Incidentally, anyone who really doesn't like DarkStar should go post/vote on my thread, "Who's the Stupidest SOB Alive?"

[Eframepilot]

I think DarkStar makes valid arguments and important contributions. He just has a very confrontational attitude (no worse than many Wars-side debaters here) and a tendency to make occasional mistakes when debating eight people at once. Compared to some of his opponents' grasp of science, he is Sir Isaac Newton. An example of a sub-argument in a current thread (The superlaser "trick"?) has proceeded like this:

Patrick Degan: I hate to have to tell you this, but atmospheric gasses do have solidity even at microscopic levels. That's sort of why there is such a thing as "atmospheric pressure".

DarkStar: I hope you are only claiming that there is solidity in reference to such things as ice crystals, dust particles, and so on, as opposed to actually claiming that the actual gases are solid.

Patrick Degan: I presume you are aware of how objects entering atmosphere encounter something called "friction"? Just what do you imagine is responsible for that?

DarkStar: Solidity is not a characteristic of individual atoms, contrary to your belief. You have misunderstood the concept of "collision" of atoms in a gas. I'm not going to go over the quantum physics with you . . . go educate yourself. I will point out as an example for you, though, that fermionic atoms of the same spin state, when cooled, do not collide unless it is head-on. Solid matter does not act this way, much to the chagrin of auto insurers.
and: Atoms are not solid objects. You have misunderstood the term "collision" used in reference to the atoms of a gas. Quantum physics will have your answer. Look up data on how fermionic atoms of the same spin-state will, when cooled, not collide unless they are moving head-on to one another. Auto insurers would rejoice if that occurred with solid objects.

Patrick Degan: I did look up the data —unfortunately for you. When you wrote this, you were aware, I trust, that fermionic atoms are entities which only exist in Bose-Einstein degenerate matter condensates which are formed only under conditions of exceptional compression and at absolute zero. Neither condition is in force in open space or within a planetary atmosphere.

Me again:

Degan displays an extreme lack of knowledge of scientific principles above. First he claims that "gasses" possess solidity. The hell? Then he clarifies that he is refering to the properties of atmospheric pressure and friction, which of course have nothing to do with solidity. DarkStar replies in a manner slightly too technical which flies clear over Degan's head. Degan seizes on the phrase "fermionic atoms", which believes applies solely to supercooled atoms, rather than ALL atoms with half-integer spin. I'm guessing Degan got his "knowledge" from a google search on the phrase "fermionic atom", as that leads to many online papers all about the trapping of supercooled atoms. Despite his utter ignorance of quantum mechanical vocabulary, Degan persists in claiming that "fermionic atoms" and "fermionic states" refer only to supercooled states, and, the last time I checked the thread, he continued to do so! No more intelligent Wars debaters have stepped in to correct him, either. This is EXACTLY the kind of scientific idiocy that Darth Wong berates so many Trekkies for.

DarkStar is not the worst debater ever to grace these boards. IMO he is one of the better debaters, especially compared to his some of his competition. He deserves respect for continuing to even bother to post here, despite the near-universal hatred displayed for him. (How many boards actually single out posters with the title "Village idiot"?) If DarkStar claimed that the sky was blue in defense of an argument, I am sure he would be disputed! DarkStar, I salute you!

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Darkstar is not a good debator. Even if he was right he is not a good debator.

[DarkStar]

No, I just stand by the evidence, and arguments which are not proven false. I question all ...

Shut the fuck up, Darkstar. I'm fed up with the way you steer every goddamned thread toward your pet peeves. You have been warned; I'm not kidding around this time.

Pet peeves? Um . . . when the hell did evidence become a pet peeve?

Perhaps you're simply pissy because I spoke to defend myself . . . this entire thread, after all, is little more than the DarkStar-bashing hour. Hell, the "poll" offers one vote of what, from this crowd, would be fawning Disciple-of-Wongian adoration, and three versions of "he's a moron".

How dare I stand up and return fire!

Your problem with me isn't so-called thread hijackings or my 'pet peeves' about silly little things like evidence. Your problem with me is that I am not one of your fawning disciples, I don't fall for your cleverly deceitful sophistries, and can stand my ground against your ridiculous debate style quite nicely, unaffected by your charlatanism.

[SPOOFE]

Pet peeves? Um . . . when the hell did evidence become a pet peeve?

When it stops being "evidence". Your "evidence" is really just "your interpretation". You interpret the rings from the Alderaan explosion to be caused by some "reverse Genesis effect". Yet you call this interpretation "evidence".

You interpret Lucas's quote that offhandedly mentions "a parallel universe" to mean "all the EU has no standing", an you call this interpretation "evidence".

You claim to be a rational and reasonable debator. This is both an insult to all rational and reasonable people, and to all debator's worldwide. Take a debate class sometime, Junior, and you'll find just how deficient you are in making a logically-progressing argument. I, as someone who participate in these debates simply because I find rational debate to be fun, find your attitude and dishonesty ("What dishonesty?" ) to be one of the most annoying and grating things in the world... you're an example of what's wrong with the vast majority of people on the planet: Poor grasp of logic.

And, of course, you feel validated by being "persecuted". Well, guess what, Chuckles... willfully ignorant morons are persecuted, too.

[Eframepilot]

He's certainly better than those who don't even bother to counter his arguments and just make colorful insults from his handle. When debated civilly, he replies are civil. He doesn't make threads dedicated solely to why others are the stupidest SOBs alive.

[Eframepilot]

Pet peeves? Um . . . when the hell did evidence become a pet peeve?

When it stops being "evidence". Your "evidence" is really just "your interpretation". You interpret the rings from the Alderaan explosion to be caused by some "reverse Genesis effect". Yet you call this interpretation "evidence".

You interpret Lucas's quote that offhandedly mentions "a parallel universe" to mean "all the EU has no standing", an you call this interpretation "evidence".

You claim to be a rational and reasonable debator. This is both an insult to all rational and reasonable people, and to all debator's worldwide. Take a debate class sometime, Junior, and you'll find just how deficient you are in making a logically-progressing argument. I, as someone who participate in these debates simply because I find rational debate to be fun, find your attitude and dishonesty ("What dishonesty?" ) to be one of the most annoying and grating things in the world... you're an example of what's wrong with the vast majority of people on the planet: Poor grasp of logic.

And, of course, you feel validated by being "persecuted". Well, guess what, Chuckles... willfully ignorant morons are persecuted, too.

You do realize that DarkStar cannot respond to any of this without being immediately accused of hijacking the thread back to his pet peeves?

[Robert Walper]

Are there any other pro-Trek debaters here?

That would be me. However, "pro-Trek" shouldn't be taken as meaning me agreeing "The Federation could beat the Empire". I think the Empire could destroy the Federation by it's sheer speed alone. I think some of the Imperial's numbers and firepower just need to be re-examined though, and more accurate and non-bias analysis of Federation numbers and firepower. Not that it would help that much...

[Guest]

Darkstar does an admirable job considering what he is up against at StarDestroyer.net. If Darth Wong wants to ban him all that does is show that Darkstar has been making good points. In fact, just due to the fact that this thread exists shows that Darth Wong and his disciples consider Darkstar's arguments threatening. You should take all of this as a compliment, Darkstar. You have almost singlehandedly derailed the purpose of this website by forcing the Disciples of Wong and the Sith Lord himself to argue against your assertions. You can look at it as taking the fight to the enemy.

I am really neutral in the vs. Debate. I enjoy science fiction in general, especially, Star Wars and Star Trek. I think Darth Wong is informative as many of the other people who discuss the various issues on this forum. However, if Darkstar is banned that is bascially a concession on the part of those who argue against him. It is like a little child putting his hands over his ears so he can't hear the other person talking.

[Crayz9000]

Darkstar does an admirable job considering what he is up against at StarDestroyer.net. If Darth Wong wants to ban him all that does is show that Darkstar has been making good points.

If you look at who's been banned so far, you'll notice that the only ones banned are those idiots (John Clarke, SITH GOD, etc.) who pretty much troll the boards.

[Patrick Degan]

Degan displays an extreme lack of knowledge of scientific principles above. First he claims that "gasses" possess solidity.

I said no such thing, as even a casual perusal of the thread in question reveals. I've already made a fool of DS for persisting in his lie about my words.

Then he clarifies that he is refering to the properties of atmospheric pressure and friction, which of course have nothing to do with solidity.

An irrelevant argument since I was not saying that atmospheric gasses are solid. However, even you will concede that they are material, I trust.

DarkStar replies in a manner slightly too technical which flies clear over Degan's head.

No, he tried to bullshit everybody with jargonese and got caught on that one as well.

Degan seizes on the phrase "fermionic atoms", which believes applies solely to supercooled atoms, rather than ALL atoms with half-integer spin. I'm guessing Degan got his "knowledge" from a google search on the phrase "fermionic atom", as that leads to many online papers all about the trapping of supercooled atoms. Despite his utter ignorance of quantum mechanical vocabulary, Degan persists in claiming that "fermionic atoms" and "fermionic states" refer only to supercooled states, and, the last time I checked the thread, he continued to do so! No more intelligent Wars debaters have stepped in to correct him, either.

Becase despite whatever DS believes in his BS, as well as yourself, there is a distinct difference between fermions and atoms in a fermionic state which operates only in the conditions existing in quantum degenerate gasses. You might actually try reading the pages cited before offering a commentary.

DarkStar is not the worst debater ever to grace these boards.

Oh yes he is.

IMO he is one of the better debaters, especially compared to his some of his competition.

As with DarkStar, I am not responsible for your fantasies.

He deserves respect for continuing to even bother to post here, despite the near-universal hatred displayed for him. (How many boards actually single out posters with the title "Village idiot"?) If DarkStar claimed that the sky was blue in defense of an argument, I am sure he would be disputed! DarkStar, I salute you!

Respect is earned, not granted. Persisting beyond all reason in defending an untenable position even after he's been called on it multiple times does not merit respect, but pity.

[Mr Bean]

Considering the source here LeRoy(GAT did you do what I asked yet?)

And then agian thats just more broken logic from you

Gee he got banned he must have proven Wong wrong about somthing


Just because who you come in contact every single day are 10-17 year old asses does not mean everyone is one

HELL! Let you give you an example from my own life, I was out hunting with a good friend named John, then that SOB was not paying attention shot and the bullet hit me in my shoulder that @%@%

Well after I got out of the hospital the first thing I did was get realy drunk in a pub with him

But then agian consider the source

[Cal Wright]

Would they charge admission?

[Master of Ossus]

He's certainly better than those who don't even bother to counter his arguments and just make colorful insults from his handle. When debated civilly, he replies are civil. He doesn't make threads dedicated solely to why others are the stupidest SOBs alive.

WHAT? Have you read "Ripping Apart DarkStar's Cowardly Attempt to Avoid Criticism?" Read it. You will see that he deserves everything that he gets. You will also realize that he is an absolutely terrible debater.

BTW, can we get a mod to check Eframepilot's ISP? I think that these last posts are reason to believe that he is really DarkStar smurfing.

[TheDarkling]

Master of Ossus:


I still dont think hes stupid enough to pull something like that and I also think he enjoys his outcast status, just because someone disagrees with doesnt mean that have some strange hidden objective.

My own opinion of Darkstar is nowhere near as low as most peoples on this board yet im not an impostor (or am I???)

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

You people are getting paranoid. He's not DarkStar

[TheDarkling]

I just cant stop being right .

[Singular Quartet]

You people are getting paranoid. He's not DarkStar

I was starting to think that, also... But tyhen again, a lot of us are insane anyways, and have everyright to be paranoid...

[VF5SS]

You people are getting paranoid. He's not DarkStar

I was starting to think that, also... But tyhen again, a lot of us are insane anyways, and have everyright to be paranoid...

*Waves arms* I'm not insane!

[aerius]

Resistance if futile!
Your board will be buried and assimilated with mountains of treknobabble!
Star Wars canon evidence is irrelevant!
Trek will rule!
You will be assimilated!

Thanks to the person that compared Dorkster to a borg drone, I owe you one but can't be bothered to go back thru all these pages to find you.

[Darth Wong]

Your problem with me isn't so-called thread hijackings or my 'pet peeves' about silly little things like evidence. Your problem with me is that I am not one of your fawning disciples, I don't fall for your cleverly deceitful sophistries, and can stand my ground against your ridiculous debate style quite nicely, unaffected by your charlatanism.

If that were the case, I would ban Darkling and every other Trekkie on this board. Do you really think I'm singling you out because you're such a remarkably devastating Trek debater that I should fear you, but not the rest?

Stop puffing up your own bloated ego, Darkstar. I'm singling you out because you're a deceitful little asshole who, despite your protests, obviously likes to debate while outnumbered (you could easily drop all of your active threads but one and focus on one debate if you wanted), because that way, you have an excuse for your sloppy, poorly researched arguments, your "accidental" errors of fact, and your habit of conveniently ignoring major rebuttal points (even when all 10 of your opponents are making the same point) for "lack of time". I think you know perfectly well that you could not hold up your end of a pure one-on-one debate, where you can't resort to excuses like "well, it's tough to get every point when I'm dealing with 10 people at once" or "I can't be expected to get all the facts straight when I'm dealing with 10 people at once" etc.

I think you like the idea of implying that a person who makes 10 sloppy, poorly researched arguments at once would necessarily make 1 coherent, accurate and logical argument if he could only concentrate, as long as you don't have to deliver the goods. So the result is that my board is clogged up with countless sloppy, poorly researched, irrational arguments from you, along with your annoying insistence that you could do better if you did not burden yourself with this self-imposed dilution.

[Master of Ossus]

He does seem to have an inability to admit defeat however on the flip side I dont think a pro wars guy has ever admitted defeat to him (they have conceded points however which I dont believe he has).

Has he even once demonstrated that the pro-Wars side was wrong on an entire issue? He's won a few points, but they tend to be fairly irrelevent ones. I don't think that the fact that the pro-Wars side has never admitted defeat to him is more or less irrelevent because I don't think we should unless he proves us wrong. I don't think he's ever done any better than a draw on any thread, and even those are debateably Wars victories (though some actually do become draws).

[Cal Wright]

Why would he ever come back and say he is wrong on something. It would defeat the entire purpose of coming to a thread, hijacking it and then acting like he is the diety of the topic. From the threads I have actually run into him on, it's just a constant reiteration of his previous posts, which do two things, err dont' do two things as I should say.
a)prove his point
b) prove others points wrong
c) (for people who can't count) prove his point

Like I said, ban him, dont' ban him. However, he does need to stop jumping into so many threads making up stuff and then trying to run circles around his post, others posts and the topic to not just look correct, but smarter and better than the other debaters. Maybe give him a post limit for each day.

[Darth Wong]

This is classic case of what happens to darkstars arguments, The Deathstar was another examlpe of this - while some valid points were raised alot of people were running around because Darkstar used the phrase "anti-Genesis effect".

Darkstar's points are only "valid" if you are completely ignorant of scientific methods. One does not invent imaginary mechanisms unless they are absolutely necessary in order to explain something. If you can successfully explain something without resorting to such inventions (or if the invention's success in that endeavour is no better than yours), then the logical principle of parsimony means that you slice it out, ie- Occam's Razor.

I know what you'll say: "stop beating me over the head with that damned Occam's Razor!" Well, too bad. It is a logical principle, and it is part of the scientific method.

When faced with two theories which appear to be deadlocked (as you say, although some would object), you can break the deadlock with Occam's Razor; that is precisely what Occam's Razor is for. In the Deathstar argument and the Borg KE argument, you argue that he makes valid points, but the "points" he makes are only that his alternate theory can match the existing theory (all attempts to show that it is vastly superior are due to his inherent self-promotional streak and are easily shot down), and since both theories invent an additional mechanism, they need to do more than merely match up to the mainstream theory; they need to convincingly crush it. They do not do this (even you acknowledge that it seems a toss-up either way), so their inclusion of extra mechanisms represents unnecessary multiplication of terms, ie- Occam's Razor means that it loses.

Do you understand this? When someone proposes an "alternate theory" which incorporates an extra mechanism, a tie is not enough. It has to convincingly whip the mainstream theory, or its extra mechanism means that it loses.

[Master of Ossus]

No, I just stand by the evidence, and arguments which are not proven false. I question all statements, including my own, to be sure that they hold weight. If they do not, I will not support them.

Bullshit. If you actually do read some of your arguments and think they hold weight, then you are a complete idiot. I don't think you'll admit to that very readily, so I have some examples of when you have not done so:

1. SW humans /= RL humans.
2. The Empire only has two capital ships classes.
3. MUM theory. And I hesitate to call it a theory.
4. Borg KE shields.
5. Tatooine was never controlled by the Empire.
6. Tatooine was controlled by the Old Republic.
7. Qui Gon stated that the Galaxy was not completely visited. All you have to do is invert some of the words.... And change the sentence.... And alter the grammar a little.

In all of those cases, it has been demonstrated that you do not have much knowledge of SW or ST, or that you do not look them over to see if they are valid, or that you DO look them over, but are too stupid to see their obvious flaws. Take your pick.