Michael Wong is a hypocrite

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-10-16 11:06am

I would think that he should get a more creative title, such as 'troll with amnesia'

Franc28 · Post by **Franc28** » 2002-10-16 11:09am

So I guess we can add "bad liar" to "hypocrite". What else can I say after such a ridiculous post by Michael Wong.

And yet you don't reject scientific studies just because they're "written", don't you ? STUPID, STUPID, STUPID ! By your argument, we can't accept anything that has no pictures with it as scientific, because text, even if objective, has less value !

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

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

And you are a fuckwit who has not backed up a single claim with any proof. Goodbye.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-10-16 11:12am

Not as if he would really leave....

Evil Jerk · Post by **Evil Jerk** » 2002-10-16 11:16am

What a fucking moron.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-10-16 11:16am

Now that his memory is coming back, perhaps he could give a little more background on this so-called debate.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-10-16 11:18am

I doubt this little puck is worth Mike taking the time out of his busy life to squish, but hey, we can all hope.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-10-16 11:23am

Up until now I wasn't gonna say a thing (Mike is a big boy, he can take care of himself)... But now Franc28 has gone too far. He has used a line from 'The Weakest Link'!

Burn

troll, burn

!

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-10-16 11:29am

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-10-16 11:29am

(should have posted that one earlier)

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-10-16 11:32am

Franc28 wrote:And yet you don't reject scientific studies just because they're "written", don't you ? STUPID, STUPID, STUPID ! By your argument, we can't accept anything that has no pictures with it as scientific, because text, even if objective, has less value !

This person has obviously never even SEEN a research paper. They are LOADED with pictures.

By the way, your statement is a strawman and false dilema. To my knowledge, Mike has never said written documents cannot be accepted at all. Their lower objectiveness in relation to pictures does not mean throw them out completely. Again, this is SOOO typical of Dark Star's thinking on the EU.

ClaysGhost · Post by **ClaysGhost** » 2002-10-16 12:15pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Franc28 wrote:And yet you don't reject scientific studies just because they're "written", don't you ? STUPID, STUPID, STUPID ! By your argument, we can't accept anything that has no pictures with it as scientific, because text, even if objective, has less value !
This person has obviously never even SEEN a research paper. They are LOADED with pictures.

By the way, your statement is a strawman and false dilema. To my knowledge, Mike has never said written documents cannot be accepted at all. Their lower objectiveness in relation to pictures does not mean throw them out completely. Again, this is SOOO typical of Dark Star's thinking on the EU.

Leave papers out of it. They're not relevant. A paper without either words or pictures would be useless in both cases. I have seen research papers that are mostly plots, and papers that are completely text, and the objective worth of one is not more than the objective worth of another because of that.

That's all an aside w.r.t. research papers. If I had a photograph of a scene, and a written eye-witness description, I know which I'd take as more objective, and it wouldn't be the witness.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-16 12:32pm

Franc28 wrote:So I guess we can add "bad liar" to "hypocrite". What else can I say after such a ridiculous post by Michael Wong.

How about "Francois Tremblay can't debate his way out of a paper bag, despite his claims of superior skills?" You claimed to be a superior debater, so much so that I was "afraid" of you. Everyone asked you to back up your claim. You made the mistake of trying. I think everyone can see now what kind of a feeble debater you are. Your arguments rely mostly on personal attacks, and when you try to debate the subject itself, you only make an ass of yourself, as seen below:

And yet you don't reject scientific studies just because they're "written", don't you? STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!

The text of a scientific study is not objective evidence, dumb-ass. It is an analysis of objective evidence. It may be a very good analysis and we should still pay it attention on that basis (as opposed to "rejecting" it, as per your shameless false dilemma fallacy), but make no mistake: a research paper is not, in and of itself, objective evidence. It may contain objective evidence (eg- electron micrographs of microstructure in a materials-science paper, for example), but the hierarchy is:

Objective evidence
Numbers quantifying objective evidence
Text descriptions of objective evidence

You make no distinction between the three. That is why you are wrong. Your approach is typical for that of a scientifically illiterate philosopher; subjective and wrong. You may claim objectivity because you keep a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" on your night-stand, but you obviously don't understand it.

By your argument, we can't accept anything that has no pictures with it as scientific, because text, even if objective, has less value!

Text has less value than objective evidence because it is a description thereof; it adds another layer between you and the evidence. It limits your view of the evidence to the POV of the person who writes the description. Are you honestly so stupid that you can't understand this? If you handed in a materials-science paper in school with verbal descriptions of micrographs instead of actual micrographs, your teacher would mark it with a big red WTF. Just as I'm sure most readers are mentally annotating your argument right now.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

Well, now we know that your tastes in television are as poor as your grasp of scientific methods.

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2002-10-16 12:39pm

I want to listen to a flame war

Failed Glory · Post by **Failed Glory** » 2002-10-16 02:07pm

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged?! Hahahaha. Nice touch.

Don't you think the opposite of actual information uptake is true of most people, who wish the easiest input of data, though:

1) Opinions or interpretations that seem like evidence (rhetoric) spouted by others respected by you
2) Any numbers that ever appear in text or voice, in any form, regardless of interpretation or actual meaning (see Enron, Tyco)
3) Evidence that actually proves a point

Maybe that's why our good friend from Quebec is confused as to the difference between actual evidence and the ideal uptake form of information for data beyond your analysis.

If you have his text vs. picture argument, I'm sure we're all interested in seeing at least the synopsis...

Ignorant_Boy · Post by **Ignorant_Boy** » 2002-10-16 03:02pm

What texts is the guy talking about anyway? The novels? I'm sure a interpretation of a movie scene is just as objective as the scene itself...

Francois: If I record the Titanic sinking with a video camera and then write an description of it sinking from what I saw with my eyes, which one do you think most historians are gonna pay attention to?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-10-16 03:23pm

I liked the picture...as for this

Sharing one brain would still delegate far too much cognitive thinking.

Oh and as for his "do people keep records"...yes, because just for fuckwits like you who think two years-five years down the road you think you can try and weasel victory...be it internet or real-life.

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2002-10-16 03:54pm

Its the only benifit of AOL, all E-mails are saved online not on my computer, At last count there was 435mb in my save files

thecreech · Post by **thecreech** » 2002-10-16 04:01pm

first he says Michael Wong is a hypocrite and then he has the balls to say that he is not trolling... We are dealing with a special type of moron here.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-10-16 04:04pm

SOURCE ONE:

Witness at scene of landing wrote:Captain Smith's B-17 was obliderated

SOURCE TWO

Witness with camera wrote:

Well, was Captain Smith's plane vaporized, of simply damaged to the point where is was no longer combat effective? There's the evidence, you decide.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-16 04:06pm

One, two, three four, I declare a Flame War...

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-10-16 04:10pm

You know, I really don't think Francois will be returning. Especially since he will get his ass handed to him the moment he tries his lame rebuttles without evidence.

Failed Glory · Post by **Failed Glory** » 2002-10-16 04:19pm

No doubt, text based on pictures can leave out details and be less than informative.

But can't pictures lie as well?

If you saw the Lusitania torpedoed by a U-boat, you assume the Germans were attacking civilians, because that's what was apparent at the time.

It turns out she was full of weapons and the submarine fired on a legitimate target.

And can't pictures without the accompanying explaination be inferred outside their actual meaning?

Lies can take many forms...

Ignorant_Boy · Post by **Ignorant_Boy** » 2002-10-16 04:38pm

The Lusitania was full of weapons?

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-10-16 04:39pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:You know, I really don't think Francois will be returning. Especially since he will get his ass handed to him the moment he tries his lame rebuttles without evidence.

It'll depend. I think he may actually believe he has the wit to take Mike on in a debate. Then again, he's French, so his surrender is inevitable.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Michael Wong is a hypocrite

Let me take a shot at this.