The Challenge


RSA is a legendary debater in his own mind. He has a unique knack for infuriating people because he never concedes error on any point (see the Edam debate; it is a serious tactical error to be stubborn on every single point because you can drag yourself down that way). For most debaters, this would be a severe problem, but not for RSA. You see, RSA never admits he's losing. It's a brilliantly simple tactic: no matter how obvious his defeat may be to a third-party observer, he always rants about how easily he's winning, and worse yet, he mocks his opponents for getting beaten so badly (but woe betide them if they insult him back, since he'll cry "ad hominem!" and declare victory).

Every point could be demolished, every piece of evidence he brings up could be proven false, it doesn't matter. In his own mind, he's always winning, and you're a sorry son of a bitch for trying to mess with the Master. You may scoff and say that self-declaration of victory is a ridiculous tactic, but it's particularly maddening when combined with his other tactic, which is the IronMan. The IronMan is another surprisingly effective tactic which is particularly well-suited to those of limited intelligence: simply outlast your opponent. You may demolish the IronMan's point once, twice, three, ten times, but he will never admit it. Eventually, fatigue will set in. There are only so many times that one can make the same rebuttals of the same points, only to watch him ignore or misrepresent the rebuttal and then declare victory. Eventually, you will tire of the repetition and give up, and then he declares victory. Why? Because from that day on, he will tell anyone and everyone who will listen that you "ran away" from him, thus conceding defeat.

These kinds of tactics are considered reprehensible by most Usenet debaters, and they have made him quite a few enemies. Kynes on alt.startrek.vs.starwars made a whole Robert Scott Anderson page (you may wish to avoid the link; it will tell you more about this guy than you probably ever want to know), and even fellow Trekkies such as the aforementioned Lord Edam have turned on him for bringing dishonour to the group with his churlish behaviour and false pretensions of superior knowledge. Perhaps his most staunch defender is one of my own board's most prolific and aggressive pro-Trek debaters, theDarkling. And while he bravely claimed that Darkstar made some valid points, even he had to confess that "if [RSA] is forced into a position where h has to admit defeat on one issue or throw sanity out the window he throws sanity out the window".

He's also not above outright lies and slander. On his website, he has the following rant:

He also has a new discussion board, which is interesting insofar as you get to see how a petulant child would run such a thing. Those he does not like get posts edited and their personal information altered, and threads which refer to anything contrary to his views get closed, after he says something about not having time to update the site. Oh, yes, very impressive . . . especially when you take into account how much time he spends reading and writing in the forums.

I can't say I'm too pleased to be accused of running such an arbitrary and quasi-fascist board, particularly since none of the other Trekkies on the board ever seem to notice or complain about these imagined offenses. This kind of behaviour is not the sort of thing that most board admins tolerate for long, but of course, he would crow that I was trying to "silence the opposition" if I simply got rid of him, so I left him alone for the time being.

However, the situation on my board got bad enough that despite my reluctance to over-use my admin powers on the board, some of the board members started their own poll in early August about banning him (the result was nearly split: 24 to 21 against him). Roughly 1 month later, the situation had worsened to the point that much of the traffic on the forum seemed to be Darkstar and his opponents insulting each other. And while Darkstar claimed they were persecuting him, it was pretty clear he was giving as good as he got. Witness his behaviour against Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman andMaster of Ossus, not to mention posts he helpfully labelled with titles like "You're almost as much of a waste of my time as K.A.N. or You're such a sad, sad little creature. More importantly, the forum seemed to be about nothing but him lately. I decided to start a new poll to see if the consensus had changed. This time, the votes were 61-30 against him: a clear majority. Naturally, Darkstar tried to defend himself, in the only way he knew how: a flurry of insults and accusations that everyone is afraid of him.

Finally, I decided I'd had enough. I decided to challenge him after growing tired of his constant baiting (particularly his habit of claiming that since he outlasted me on his Death Star thread, I must have "run away" (classic victory cry of the IronMan debater): Witness the exchange that followed (in the latter pages of the aforementioned new poll):

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?

Oooh, clever . . . trying to get me to piss off the other Trek debaters?

[Editor's note: notice how he deftly evades the point (that his earlier appeal to motive was not only fallacious but also based on an obvious falsehood) with another appeal to motive]

Sorry, not happening. The problems you have with me could apply to other parties, and you might not want to ban them. The difference is that I can get just as loud and obnoxious as you can, while still not falling for your cleverly deceitful sophistries, ridiculous debate style, or charlatanism.

OK Darkstar, fine. I challenge you to one-on-one debate. Face me, you little dipshit. I'm sick of you blathering on about how you could kick my ass if you only had a chance. Your chance is now.

If you want to have a proper debate, and if you are worried that you won't be able to keep the charlatanism to a minimum in a public debate, I'll even accept a private one.

But, if you really think you can keep a promise to maintain civility in a public forum, then let's get it on. But bear in mind that if you break that promise, it will be considered a concession.

Fuck off. You are setting up a condition where you can unilaterally declare victory at any time if you decide I'm not being nice to you. No conditions. No weaselling. No skirting around the issue, dancing around the bush, or style over substance fallacies. Our conduct during the debate will be judged by our peers afterwards, not used by you as an excuse to duck out whenever you're feeling overwhelmed, the way Gothmog did.

Yes or no. Answer me now.

[Editor's note: notice the clever tactics. First he brags that he can get "just as loud and obnoxious as you can" which is why I supposedly fear him more than normal Trekkies. So naturally, I call him out. Then he suddenly changes his tune, and offers either a private debate (what's the point in that?), or a public debate where any failure to maintain "civility" will be "considered a concession"! I don't know who he's expecting to fool with this evasion; after all, if he were to actually beat me, no amount of insults on my part would conceal it, so why does he suddenly fear incivility so much that he refuses to hold the debate without these pre-conditions? Why demand pre-conditions at all? Obviously, he's looking for an exit strategy, since he knows I'll insult him if he goads me (which he would) or uses his wide array of logical fallacies to evade points, and I don't like debating with a straitjacket on. As we shall see, he is intent upon adding condition after condition because he doesn't really want the debate to happen, so he'll try to pull a Gothmog and pretend that he really does want a debate, as long as I agree to various unreasonable conditions beforehand]

So, there I was, all set to deny you and your fellow Warsies the opportunity to claim, incorrectly, that I had refused to debate . . . however, as my mouse pointer dwelled on the "Submit" button, I decided to look over some of your other debates, and make sure I hadn't missed anything of import in reference to the creation of terms.

And there you were on the screen again, agreeing with Gothmog that a directly challenged party gets to set the terms. And as I switched windows, there you were, quoted at the top of my reply box, running away screaming like a little girl while trying to maintain your silly posturing.

You had your chance in the public threads, and you have consistently blown it. You challenged me to a public debate, and then ran screaming when I demanded it be a rational discussion.

I told you recently to get off your high horse. Seems like it just threw you.

(*) In anticipation of Warsie claims that I have lied about the massive edit of the message, I have posted the message-that-almost-was on a temporary page. The edit started at the point marked (*) above in the text. "The second challenge reply")

Should you wish to accept the terms, you are at liberty to come crawling back. If not, you are at liberty to continue to lie and posture about it, as I'm sure you intended to do anyway.

[Editor's note: And so the heavy rhetorical war begins. It turned out that he already had a long spin-doctoring page on his little website regarding this challenge (I suppose I shuld have anticipated that; he had quite the headstart on me). Instead of admitting that he doesn't want this debate to happen (hence his ridiculous "I can terminate the debate and declare victory at any time if you act badly in my judgement" condition or his offer of a private debate), he accuses me of cowardice for demanding what everyone wants: a no-holds-barred, public debate! You can see why he has the reputation he has; he is really quite good at insulting people, even when his position is hopelessly weak and he claims to be above that sort of thing. He didn't fool anyone besides himself (his rare Trekkie supporters such as Darkling vanished at this point), but he obviously thought he was putting on a good show. I decided to repeat the challenge, and add an ultimatum this time to force his hand. I was hoping to force him into the debate, but he would surprise me, as we shall see:]

As per the aforementioned Gothmog's commentary on the matter, "as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set the terms and topic...", which you agreed with him about, in reference to a direct challenge case like this one.

And in which he used the condition as an excuse to run away even though everyone could see that I was kicking his ass. Badly. If you actually beat me, it won't matter how many insults I use; everyone will still know who won (and it won't be you). But you know that, don't you? That's why you don't want this debate, and you want to add all sorts of bullshit conditions.

So, you have refused to debate in a more proper fashion as per the guidelines set out by the challenged party, and have effectively re-issued a challenge wherein you demand that you be allowed to debate the Wong way.

No, I have issued a challenge with no conditions whatsoever. Learn to read, asshole.

<snip a huge pile of bullshit posturing>

OK, asshole. I'll make this simple. Debate me or I'll ban your worthless ass. You have 24 hours.

[Editor's note: His reply was long-winded as usual, but it ended with an obvious attempt to goad me into carrying through and banning him:]

DarkStar: "If you had ever, even once, led me to believe for a moment that you could refrain from such childish behavior in a debate against me, I'd tell you to bring it on."

Wong: "OK Darkstar, fine. I challenge you to one-on-one debate. Face me, you little dipshit."

DarkStar: " . . . if you really think you can keep a promise to maintain civility in a public forum, then let's get it on."

Wong: "Don't give me any of these bullshit conditions, you evasive little chickenshit."

Gothmog: "Actually, as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set the terms and topic without going through such a process as we are going through."
Wong: "If I had specifically addressed the challenge to you personally, that would be the case." )))

[Editor's note: Notice how he oh-so-cleverly brings up the Gothmog debate in which I accepted similar terms, but ignored the part of my message where I pointed out that I didn't want to give him an escape route like the one Gothmog used, ie- I learned my lesson and I wasn't going to let another Trekkie squirm away from me]

DarkStar: "So, you have refused to debate in a more proper fashion as per the guidelines set out by the challenged party, and have effectively re-issued a challenge wherein you demand that you be allowed to debate the Wong way."

Wong: "No, I have issued a challenge with no conditions whatsoever." "Debate me or I'll ban your worthless ass."

Is that what this silly posturing of yours has been all about? Have we finally come to the crux of the issue? This thread was your attempt to test the waters and see how a banning of me would fly, but I've ended up with some surprise support, and a few votes in my favor, even on your loaded poll.

So, you challenge me to a debate, and then fail to follow your own stated beliefs, running away from an honest, evidence-based debate because that's your biggest fear. Having been caught in the act, you suddenly have to try to play off the fact that you're not just a pussy, but indeed a huge, gaping vagina. Then, the icing on the cake . . . you threaten to ban me. This is the only force you can apply in the situation . . . the only way you can hope to make me acquiesce to a debate which has nothing to do with the issues, but everything to do with ego and audience.

[Editor's note: at the risk of being repetitive, notice how he tries to distract attention from the simple fact that I've challenged him to an open debate and he refuses to accept. He uses endless appeals to motive: instead of talking about the challenge or making note of my explanation that I wasn't going to let another Trekkie squirm away from me the way Gothmog did, he spends all his time talking about my secret motivations, my ulterior motives, my hidden intentions, etc. Appeal to motive: if you want to really piss people off, learn to use it]

I've already told you and everyone else a hundred times . . . I'm not interested in ego and audience . . . I'm here for the facts and evidence.

So, I'm afraid I have to reply with the following:


[Editor's note: when you tell a board admin that "you're not just a pussy, but indeed a huge, gaping vagina", you're basically demanding to get banned. This was not what I expected; I figured he would buckle and agree to the debate. Instead, he put me in a position where I had no choice but to ban him, because you simply can't set a precedent where you allow people on your board to speak to you in that manner without repercussions. So I decided to ban him, and move onto a new battleground]

Ah, the irony. Darkstar hurls all manner of egregious insults and put-downs in my direction while whining that unless I accept his ridiculous one-sided conditions (in which he can claim victory the moment I return the favour!), I must be a "pussy".

In other words, you refuse to debate me without an exit strategy, ie- your pussy-ass conditions. And why do you need an exit strategy? Because you know perfectly well that you'll lose.


Fine. You're gone.

PS. Notice how he suddenly becomes incredibly rude and insulting, after pretending to be a paragon of Netiquette for the past two months. This is a calculated maneuver; as soon as I challenged him to a debate, he immediately knew the only way to minimize his losses would be to avoid the debate at all costs. First he tried to stipulate unreasonable conditions in which he could declare victory at any time, by simply baiting me with his usual politely worded put-downs and then running away when I insulted him in return. Then, I blew away the smokescreen and gave him an ultimatum, to face me or be banned, and he immediately tried to bait me into banning him with his incredibly foul personal insults, because that was the path he saw as producing the least damage. I knew he would never let me pin him down to a straight man to man debate, but the game is not over. There's still his website, which I will dismantle soon ...

[Editor's note: at this point, it was on to alt.startrek.vs.starwars, because I knew he would go there to spin-doctor his escape-route pre-condition into "evidence-based debate", and crow that I banned him out of fear rather than his own deliberate bear-baiting. Please note that some of the posts were very long-winded and repetitive (he can go on for quite a long time with those appeals to motive and character assassinations of his), so I didn't quote them in their entirety. Nevertheless, you may wish to view the original messages in alt.startrek.vs.starwars, in the "Darkfucker" thread, since Darkstar undoubtedly plans to accuse me of rhetorically selective deletion].

Hey Darkshit, the offer is still open. Debate me, you worthless little pussy-ass chickenshit. No pansy pre-conditions, escape routes, or other weaselly little sophistries. Grow a pair of balls.

Ha, ha!
Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has chosen to ban me altogether.

You mean "straitjacketed debate, where you get to claim victory the minute I do anything you don't like".

No, I meant "honest debate, where one need only worry about the evidence that will be presented, and not what new color of feces you'll fling". Hell, I can be just as obnoxious as you, and by your own statements in the first Superlaser Effect thread, I can keep up quite nicely with your rhetorical tricks. I wasn't going to be insulted or offended by your BS . . . I've been flamed enough, and have heard it all . . . but by demanding a rational discussion, I knew you wouldn't be able to employ such smokescreens and BS.

And claims of victory are irrelevant . . . I knew you'd spin-doctor the discussion to death after the fact . . . you're Wong, and that's what you do.

[Editor's note: You've got to love the way he tacks these lovely character assassinations onto every single message while holding his nose in the air and saying that I'm the one who habitually attacks the man rather than the argument]

The offer remains open. Debate me, you pansy little chickenshit. No pussy-ass pre-conditions. No weaselly escape routes or exit strategies. Grow a pair of balls. Fight like a man.

I already accepted! But (gasp!), I demanded a rational discussion. (Oh, the horror!) You ran away. You can posture all you like, but the fact is you ran like hell, and felt it necessary to ban me, too. Poor baby.

A real man isn't so scared of a debate of the evidence that he feels it necessary to ban a guy who asks for one.

To paraphrase: "Wong . . . I'm _laughing_ at the 'superior intellect'."

[Editor's note: it's amazing how much mileage he's trying to get out of that ban, isn't it? For someone like Darkstar, spin-doctoring is a reflex action. I'll say this for him: Darkstar is a more dangerous rhetorical tactician than I initially realized. I never would have thought he would make this much bullshit out of my attempt to challenge him; he has somehow tried to make it appear as if he was the one who challenged me! It was clearly time to call his bluff, and I decided to try turning the tables on him a little bit]

OK, fine. I'll call your bluff. We'll debate, and I will try to be more civil to you than you've been to me. If you want to be a pussy and declare victory the moment I say something you don't like, go ahead (as if anyone will buy it). Submit your first debate entry by Friday to my E-mail (click the E-mail link on my main Empire website). Four-day response window. 5 salvoes each. If you've got the balls.

Oh, and by the way, I just realized that if you're going to ask for a stipulation, I'm going to ask for one too. The minute you take a quote out of context in order to misrepresent its meaning, you forfeit.

PS. I almost forgot the topic! How about your silly-ass Death Star bullshit, although we must deal with your outrageous dismissal of all EU material first, since we can't discuss the Death Star without settling ground rules of evidence first.

[Editor's note: so, will he accept? Or will he demand more conditions?]

Having previously stated the following, [Editor's note: he linked to a list of terms on his website, which I reproduced here] I think it should be followed in its entirety.


1 The debate will occur in a special 'sticky' thread here, within this forum. This not only gives us both the opportunity to emote and emphasize in a manner that e-mail does not allow, but will also allow everyone to see what is really said, so that you can't whip out some stupid BS later about me editing your posts if and when I put them on my site. (N.B. As moderator (this is your site, after all), you will have the opportunity to edit, both while the debate is in progress, and afterward. You should not exercise this ability, because I will be watching). Any post to that thread by someone other than the two of us shall be immediately deleted, and the thread shall be closed upon conclusion of the debate. No additional posts of mine shall be deleted or edited anywhere on this discussion board by anyone.

2 Should either of us wish to post the debate on our site, we shall link directly to the debate thread within the first 25 words of the main page discussing it, and it shall be the first, topmost link of that page, with the link title being "the debate" or words to that effect, and not some microscopic link that no one will realize they can click. There shall be no effort to hide the link (Mike, this means that people will have the opportunity to read the debate itself first, if they so desire, as opposed to your spin-doctoring).

The following Terms are based on your own "Debate Preamble" page.

3. Subject Matter: The debate shall focus on the Death Stars, the Superlaser Effect, the destruction of Alderaan, and relevant related material. Neither of us is obligated to reply to personal attacks, mockery, posturing, et cetera, and personal attacks are not grounds for a claim of victory. The debate is to remain on-topic . . . all else is irrelevant.

4. Canon Policy: Though I would imagine that we both agree that the Canon Policy should be followed, it is likely that we do not agree what it is. Nevertheless, we shall follow my so-called 'interpretation' of the Canon Policy, to wit: The Absolute Canon is the films. The remainder of Canon (defined as the screenplays/scripts, novelisations, and NPR radio dramas) is accepted material. The Expanded Universe, Infinities, and "apocrypha" are excluded, as per Lucas.

5. Start, Order, and Limits: The opening day shall be Friday, September 13. Posting may begin at 12:00 noon, GMT. (I am 5 hours behind GMT during Daylight Savings Time, in the Central U.S. time zone, so that will be 7am local time for me. DST does not end until late October, so this should not interfere with the plan at all.) The first post shall occur by Sunday at 12:00 noon, GMT.

You will make the first post. There will be a total of ten posts . . . five each. Both of us get 72 hours to reply, starting from the cut-off time. This means that I will have until Wednesday at 12:00 noon, GMT, to reply. For ease, here is the schedule:

Pair One -
Opening: Friday the 13th, 12:00 noon GMT (standard cut-off time)
Cut-off: Sunday the 15th, standard time
My reply cut-off: Wednesday the 18th, standard time
Pair Two -
Your reply Cut-off: Saturday the 21st, standard time
My reply cut-off: Tuesday the 24th, standard time
Pair Three -
Your reply cut-off: Friday the 27th, standard time
My reply cut-off: Monday the 30th, standard time
Pair Four -
Your reply cut-off: Thursday the 3rd, standard time
My reply cut-off: Sunday the 6th, standard time
Final Pair -
Your reply cut-off: Wednesday the 9th, standard time
My reply cut-off: Saturday the 12th, standard time

Even if you should end up posting your first message at 12:01 GMT Friday, and even if I should reply by 12:11 GMT, you will still have until Saturday, the 21st at standard time to reply. This should be ample time to allow for almost any forseeable emergency on either part, especially if we end up replying quickly. On Saturday, the 12th of October, or at the completion of my last reply, whichever comes first, the thread will be closed and shall not be reopened for any reason.

6. Verbosity: I can get pretty wordy, at times, but we should both attempt to make a reasonable effort to keep word counts down when posting.

7. Evidence: Sources should be explained. Screencaps and so on are allowable, but not required, and should be kept to a reasonable minimum. Websites may be referenced, but the material used must conform to stated Canon Policy, and any conclusions on that site which are used must explicitly be referred to as failing to do so, if and when they do.

[Editor's note: yup, as I expected, a long-winded list of additional terms]

You're ignoring my stipulation that you concede if you're caught misrepresenting evidence, and you're also casting your bullshit interpretation of canon as a stipulation. What's the matter, Darkstar? Afraid to debate without being able to misrepresent evidence? Afraid to subject your rules of canon to debate?

Once again, I am calling your bluff. Debate me, accept my stipulation in exchange for yours, and don't try to slip in your bogus deletion of the entire EU as yet-another debate pre-condition. Your incompetent mis-reading of the continuity policy is a perfectly valid subject of debate.

PS. No debate on any discussion forum. We'll do it right here, in ASVS, where every post will be archived in Google forever and no one can be accused of editing posts after the fact or otherwise screwing around.

[Quoted] "Oh, and by the way, I just realized that if you're going to ask for a tipulation, I'm going to ask for one too. The minute you take a quote out of context in order to misrepresent its meaning, you forfeit."

Uh-huh. Riiiight.

Is that a yes or no? Will you give a fucking plain answer for once?

In case you hadn't noticed the usage that has been in play for the past several years, "Riiiight" is a sarcastic term having a meaning similar to replying with the term "Bullshit."

[Editor's note: in other words, "no". Can't say I'm surprised]

A further note is that your ban of me shall be countermanded. You can leave my account as read-only if you feel the need, but my Death Star site is in need of an update, and that update was to be culled from the recent arguments there.

No. You are banned forever. Nobody insults me the way you did on my board and visits there again. I know you were deliberately amping it up to goad me into banning you so you could pretend you were banned out of fear rather than disgust, but if you think I'm going to unban you from my board after what you said, you're even dumber than I thought.

That's two more pre-conditions you're trying to add: you want me to accept your bullshit definition of SW continuity and you also want me to un-ban you. NO MORE FUCKING CONDITIONS! You gave 1 stipulation, I gave 1 stipulation. Let's do it.

The above constitutes a confession that you plan to challenge my canon policy, and demand concession based on your belief that I have taken a quote out of context in reference to it. Talk about giving yourself an escape route . . .

What's the matter, Darkstar? Don't like the taste of your own medicine? If you're not misrepresenting evidence, you've got nothing to worry about, right? Are you afraid?

[Quoted] "Afraid to subject your rules of canon to debate?"

Not at all, but I foolishly thought you might want to debate something meatier than issues of canon. Of course, your plan of attack is clear, now. You want to debate canon, and then cry "Wah, he's taking a quote out of context!" the first time I quote something. Interesting how the 'taking something out of context' thing only applies to me. (rolls eyes)

Again, I ask: don't like the taste of your own medicine? This is certainly no worse than the condition you placed on me (and which I had decided to accept). I see you're basically admitting that you intend to take quotes out of context and twist their meaning, and you run away like a little girl whenever someone tries to force you to argue exclusively with UNADULTERATED evidence. Look, everybody! Darkstar can dish it out but he can't take it! Poor baby ...

[Quoted] "and don't try to slip in your bogus deletion of the entire EU as yet-another debate pre-condition."

Why should I bother? Not only are you afraid to debate about the Superlaser Effect on strictly canon grounds, but you've given yourself the Instant Debate Off-Ramp where anytime you feel I have taken a quote out of context, you get to declare victory.

Yes, those debate off-ramps aren't very sporting, are they? Why don't we debate without them, then? Or are you unwilling to admit that my debate off-ramp is no more unreasonable than yours? Are you trying to defend your right to twist quotes out of context and misrepresent them? Hmmm?

You're afraid to debate in a no-holds-barred fashion, Darkstar. That's obvious, even though you'll gleefully trade flames left, right, and centre with anyone else on Earth. You were looking for an excuse to evade my challenge, and now, you tacitly acknowledge the pansy-ass nature of your tactics BY SEEING WHAT'S WRONG WITH THEM WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE DOES IT.

I am the challenged party. I set the terms. This is your own statement.
Gothmog: "Actually, as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set the terms and topic without going through such a process as we are going through."
Wong: "If I had specifically addressed the challenge to you personally, that would be the case."

Yes, I said that to Gothmog. And since you ignored it the first time I posted it, I will post it again: "he used the condition as an excuse to run away even though everyone could see that I was kicking his ass. Badly." I don't intend to let a second weasel squirm away by using the same trick, Darkstar.

[Quoted] "PS. No debate on any discussion forum. We'll do it right here, in ASVS, where every post will be archived in Google forever and no one can be accused of editing posts after the fact or otherwise screwing around."

Suggestion accepted. My terms are accordingly revised.

I see you're going to fuck around with debate conditions until the end of time in order to make sure this doesn't happen. Very well, I will unilaterally start this debate without agreeing to your unreasonable terms since you refuse to agree to my counter-terms. You can bitch about your debate conditions until you're blue in the face but it won't matter. I intend to post to the newsgroup this Friday at midnight EST (not your ridiculous start time of noon GMT which is actually 8AM in my timezone; that is completely unreasonable). I expect your reply within four days (yes, four; unlike you, I actually have a life to maintain). I will discuss your mindlessly anti-scientific Death Star claims, but only AFTER demolishing your ridiculous attempts to misrepresent Star Wars' continuity policy. And if you don't like it, too bad because I'm firing the first salvo off this Friday and that's the way it goes. I'm sick of your delay tactics.

[Editor's note: at this point, Darkstar decides to show off the rapier-sharp, not-at-all sophomoric wit that he undoubtedly learned while being ass-raped by the football team in high school]

Various ST and SW character comments on Mike Wong's huge, gaping vagina:
Data: "The interior surface area is over ten to the sixteenth square kilometers. It will take seven hours to completely scan the surface."
Commodore Decker: "It's miles long, with a maw that can swallow a dozen starships!"
Riker (echoing): "An-y-bod-y?"
Admiral Pressman: "This chasm is large enough for us to maneuver in."
Uhura: "It could hold a crew of tens of thousands."
McCoy: "Or a crew of a thousand ten miles tall."
Luke: "Look at the size of that thing!"
Vader: "Impressive. Most Impressive."
R2-D2: (Whistles)
TMP Navigator: "We are now seventeen kilometers inside . . ."
Han: "What an interesting smell you've discovered!"
Enterprise-D: (Image of Enterprise maneuvering in the cavernous asteroid from "Pegasus")
McCoy: "My god, that's a big . . . "
Crusher: "The bottom's a little over five hundred meters."
Picard: "Be certain your tricorder makes a precise map of our route. It will be easy to get lost in here."

[Editor's note: more appeals to motive, attempts to claim victory without actually engaging in the debate, etc ...]

I have no debate off-ramp, but yours is damned unreasonable.
[Quoted] "You're afraid to debate in a no-holds-barred fashion, Darkstar."
I'm not afraid of such a debate . . . you know why? What the hell do you think we're doing right now, dipshit? We're engaging in a public slam-fest. That's what you want . . . that's all you've wanted . . . and you've got it. You can posture all day long about debate-this and debate-that . . . you're getting *precisely* what you wanted, right now.

I want a debate on the evidence, but you're scared to death of such a thing.

Huge. Gaping. Vagina.


The reason you have run from the condition of a rational discussion, and the reason you continue to run from it, even now, is because that would be tying your hand. You can't win to your satisfaction (where "your satisfaction" refers to your belief of how well you can spin-doctor the posts to your fawning disciples) in a rational debate where the evidence is open.

[Quoted] "I see you're going to fuck around with debate conditions until the end of time in order to make sure this doesn't happen. Very well, I will unilaterally start this debate without agreeing to your unreasonable terms since you refuse to agree to my counter-terms. You can bitch about your debate conditions until you're blue in the face but it won't matter."

Then you have already conceded:

1. You refuse to follow your own stated beliefs on the rights of debate terms formulation.
2. You refuse to accept the terms of rational discussion, unless you alone get to control the evidence and dictate its use.
3. You foolishly believe that tying my hands and keeping me from the evidence in this fashion is similar to the way I have tied your hands by not letting you let loose with your standard ad hominem smokescreens. This points to your fundamental (and fundamentalist) ignorance of the fact that a discussion focused _exclusively_ on the evidence and facts is, by definition, as fair and impartial as it gets.

Concession Accepted, O Keeper of the Huge, Gaping Man-Pussy.

"It's miles long, with a maw that can swallow a dozen starships!"

You can be as insulting as you like, and you can put as much skin-doctoring on this as you like. You're accelerating both, in what I assume is a desperate attempt to goad me into changing my course of action.

Too bad, because it won't happen. I'm launching the first salvo this Friday, nothing you can do will stop that, and if you walk away, everybody will know that the only colossal pussy around here is you.

I assume you will continue making an ass out of yourself over the next four days. Perhaps you think that if you continue posting all of these "Mike Wong is a giant pussy" rants, they will somehow lend weight to your bizarre claims about my integrity or supposed inability to debate logically.

Isn't it odd how someone who claims to champion rational debating has made such a complete ass out of himself by filling his posts almost exclusively with character assassinations ...

[Editor's note: he's been in full spin-doctorign mode for some time, trying every trick he could think of to claim victory before the debate. One of his funnier moments follows]

Wong, having run screaming from the idea of an evidence-based debate, has chosen to ban me altogether.

What's even funnier is that he revealed his own "secret identity" in the process . . . he's been sneaking around as AdmiralKanos all this time. Hmm . . . might have to go poking around in the threads to see how many times he mysteriously agreed with himself.

[Editor's note: Hmmm ... he thinks I've been "sneaking around" as Admiral Kanos? Admiral Kanos is one of the lead characters from my fanfic, and it's the site administrator account for my BBS. Who else would the site admin be on my BBS except for ... me? I've never tried to hide it, and if I wanted to "sneak around", I certainly could have chosen a less conspicuous account than the site admin! Is he so computer-illiterate that he doesn't know why I'd have a separate admin login and regular login? Attacks like this tell you more about the attacker than they do about the target; it gives us an idea of why [i]he[/i] changes aliases and conceals his identity. One of the ASVS regulars ("Iceberg") was one of many who took him to task for this bizarre attack]

"OK... Mike posts as the viewpoint character from his own fanfic that's been up for years (which is arguably one of the finest not just STvsSW fics but one of the finest crossover fics of ANY kind on the net)... and you're somehow SURPRISED that it's him? Besides the fact that AdmiralKanos is listed as the Admin (meaning the board owner and maybe 2-3 others), pretty much narrowing down the list of possible users of that name.

You're 19 years old and still in first grade, aren't you, Scott? Don't lie. There is no human way that - barring major cranial disability - anyone could CONCEIVABLY not figure out that "Admiral Kanos" and "Darth Wong" were the same person. Except maybe in Star Trek.

[Editor's note: time for more goading]

Still plan to run away on Friday like the pussy that you are, after posting dozens of messages rationalizing your cowardice?

Does this help you sleep at night, or is this some sort of creationist thing where you have to believe seven impossible things before breakfast?

By running from a rational discussion, you have demonstrated your huge and gaping status for all to see. By backpedaling when you realized how huge and gaping you were for that, you demonstrated your PR pandering. By attempting to inject a condition whereby you alone get to dictate the evidence and its use, while engaging in your bluster and BS, you have yet again demonstrated your huge and gaping status by running from a rational discussion, yet again.

Concession accepted.

Obviously, the answer is yes. You DO plan to run away like a screaming little girl on Friday, even though my debate salvo will contain NONE of the shenanigans that you're incessantly shrieking about in your desperate attempt to claim victory without actually engaging in battle.

Here's a hint, Darkstar: when people see somebody running away from a fight and screaming that the OTHER guy is the coward, nobody's going to believe him.

I throw the first punch on Friday. Run if you want. Cry if you must. But I'm coming for you, and there's nothing you can do about it. Now run home to Mommy and complain about the big bad bully again.

Continue to Round 1, Part 1

Return to main RSA page