Michael Wong is a hypocrite

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-16 09:35am

Franc28 wrote:In the latest Darkstar debate, Mr. Wong is complaining that "Darkstar" is making long, sentence-by-sentence replies instead of getting to the point. He had to list the fallacies of his opponent in a clear, simple manner.

But a couple years ago, on an argument on ethics as I remember, he did the exact opposite to me ! And when I listed HIS fallacies in a clear, simple manner, he was angry and refused to continue.

Actually, I do vaguely recall that argument. Do you want me to dig through my archives and find the E-mail in which you apologized to me for resorting to insults instead of rational debate? You're rewriting history, asshole.

If I had a nickel for every asshole who E-mailed me, wrote long boring messages which made me lose interest, and then took it as a triumph if I didn't bother replying more than once or twice (if at all), I would be a rich man. I wouldn't bother replying to Darkstar's boring messages if it weren't for the fact that he makes so much goddamned noise about his imagined superiority. Are you trying to make yourself a more visible target now with this trolling bullshit?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-16 09:37am

PS. I like the way you accuse me of logical fallacies in a thread which is basically dedicated to an ad-hominem attack.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-16 09:39am

PPS. For those who are curious, this guy E-mailed me with the bizarre argument that a literary description of a scene is just as objective as a picture of that scene.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-10-16 09:52am

Mr Bean wrote:He is Canadian. In Montreal acutaly, We have any memebers vaugly close to Montreal?

I'm a two-hour drive from Montreal, but I'm not going door to door with a Mike Wong survey.

Franc28 · Post by **Franc28** » 2002-10-16 10:08am

See, now he's crowing that he's right ! Without wanting to debate me !

If you still have it, look for our argument on utilitarianism... I kicked your ass four ways from Tuesday.

Franc28 · Post by **Franc28** » 2002-10-16 10:10am

BTW, I am not trolling. I am pointing out that you are a hypocrite. "Darkstar" is merely doing what you did to me during our argument.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-10-16 10:11am

Here's a thought, froggie. Why don't you challenge Mike to another debate, then? Say somewhere nice and public where neutral peers could evaluate the argument. If you whooped him once, I'm *sure* you think you could do it again.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2002-10-16 10:11am

Darth Wong wrote:PPS. For those who are curious, this guy E-mailed me with the bizarre argument that a literary description of a scene is just as objective as a picture of that scene.

What? Someone actually tried to claim that a "literary description of a scene is just as objective as a picture of that scene"?

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-10-16 10:13am

Hey moron why don't you just post your revolutionary arguments with wich you claimed to have kicked Wong's ass so that we can all see them and laugh at your idiocy.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-16 10:15am

Still no proof.

MW owns this board but I don't believe everything he says just because he says it. I read what he says and draw my own conclusions from that.

But you haven’t proved anything. Give us proof or shut up.

Captain Hornblower · Post by **Captain Hornblower** » 2002-10-16 10:16am

Do these guys all share one brain?

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-10-16 10:25am

Franc28 wrote:BTW, I am not trolling. I am pointing out that you are a hypocrite. "Darkstar" is merely doing what you did to me during our argument.

Excuse me, but the first rule of debate is to be able to back up anything you say. You have failed to do so. Either stop trolling or back up your claims. We have no use for those who speak big but carry no weapons.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2002-10-16 10:27am

Franc28 wrote:BTW, I am not trolling. I am pointing out that you are a hypocrite. "Darkstar" is merely doing what you did to me during our argument.

And to back this claim you have provided exactly how much proof? Oh, that's right, none.

Franc28 · Post by **Franc28** » 2002-10-16 10:29am

Are you guys dimwits or something ? THE ARGUMENT WAS LIKE TWO YEARS AGO. Do you all keep archives of your emails from two years ago ?

Secondly, my offer of debate is still and always open to Michael Wong, but I know he won't take it.
And I will support the thesis that "a literary description of a scene is just as objective as a picture of that scene". It is not a ridiculous thesis at all, in fact it is perfectly rational. I also had another thesis which I do not remember. Maybe Michael Wong can find my debate offer again, I don't know.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-10-16 10:34am

Hey why don't ya just debate with us whlle yer waiting for Wong?

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-10-16 10:35am

Ok, so if you CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER the debate, how do you know you won? You jump to WAY too many conclusions. You automatically assumed Wong wouldn't debate you again. From your reactions, I don't think any of us would want to spend the time debating with you. Mainly because you still CAN'T BACK UP ANY OF YOUR HIGH AND MIGHTY CLAIMS!

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-16 10:37am

Franc28 wrote:Are you guys dimwits or something ? THE ARGUMENT WAS LIKE TWO YEARS AGO. Do you all keep archives of your emails from two years ago ?

Yes.
My .pst file is ~900mb and have survived many diffrent computers.

If you don't keep records you just have unsupported claims and that's not proof.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2002-10-16 10:44am

Franc28 wrote:Are you guys dimwits or something ? THE ARGUMENT WAS LIKE TWO YEARS AGO. Do you all keep archives of your emails from two years ago ?

Frankly, no. And frankly, neither would I try to claim to have whooped someone's ass in an arguement from two years ago if I can not even so much as bring up some notable point from my best recall of the arguement. And frankly, Mr Wong seems have upper hand on this.

Secondly, my offer of debate is still and always open to Michael Wong, but I know he won't take it.
And I will support the thesis that "a literary description of a scene is just as objective as a picture of that scene". It is not a ridiculous thesis at all, in fact it is perfectly rational. I also had another thesis which I do not remember. Maybe Michael Wong can find my debate offer again, I don't know.

If it's so "perfectly rational" as you claim, why don't you give us an outline of why you think so, that way we can judge it for ourselves? Hmmm?

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2002-10-16 10:46am

Franc28 wrote:Are you guys dimwits or something ? THE ARGUMENT WAS LIKE TWO YEARS AGO. Do you all keep archives of your emails from two years ago ?

Yep.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-16 10:51am

He cannot recall specifics, but he's sure he won. Interestingly enough, that's exactly the same thing Darkstar says about every thread he ever participated in on this board

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-10-16 10:51am

I have kept nearly all the emails from my 6 year presence on the internet.
Stored on 2 CDs.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-16 10:52am

Honestly, Francois, I was trying to be nice by not answering your claim that a literary description of a scene is just as objective as a picture. That claim is so utterly moronic on so many different levels that silence is about as good as you're going to get.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-10-16 10:54am

I have something to say on that....

"A picture is worth a thousand words."

That rests the case.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-16 10:56am

One photoshop is worth a thosand pictures

Ryoga · Post by **Ryoga** » 2002-10-16 11:04am

So, how long until this hatfucker becomes the latest Village Idiot?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Michael Wong is a hypocrite

Re: Michael Wong is a hypocrite

Wow.