Stilgar Episode VI: Return of the Sore Loser
Last Revised: 2001.03.01
After our first exchange, I thought that Stilgar was a polite but self-aggrandizing pseudoscience pusher with a penchant for dishonesty and rhetoric. After our second exchange, I realized that Stilgar's previously calm manner was a facade, and that he was actually a very angry person, prone to bullying and threatening. And now, I've discovered that Stilgar is a sore loser, too. When he realized he could not hope to debate me or intimidate me, he tried to sell his story to others, and finding limited success, he eventually resorted to trash-talking behind my back.
One Stilgar, or Two? (Feb 6, 2001)
The Trash Talking Begins (Feb 11, 2001)
More Trash Talk (Feb 12, 2001)
Outright Defamation (Feb 13, 2001)
More of the Same (Feb 14, 2001)
Unbelievable Request (Feb 18, 2001)
More Audacity (Feb 18, 2001)
Defamation Again (Feb 19, 2001)
Counter-Offer (Feb 20, 2001)
The first indication of his sore loser mentality was the fact that he continued his ridiculous charade about taking me to court, even when talking to others. Ted Collins wrote me a while ago to let me know that after reading the previous page, he decided to check out email@example.com for himself. It turns out that it's apparently legitimate, ie- Robert Lipka really is an MSc student. However, I was recently informed that Robert Lipka aka Stilgar has been claiming to be an MSc student on various locations around the Web (including Tigerclaws' web board) since 1994, even though he's still listed as an MSc student at his university! Something smells fishy around here ...
In any case, even without that piece of information, I already have strong reasons to doubt his claims of expertise. How could an MSc student could possibly write such blatantly unscientific drivel? How could an MSc student be incapable of defending his arguments with anything better than pseudoscience and bullying? For a time, I toyed with the idea that Robert Lipka may actually be Stilgar's big brother. If true, it would explain why they appear to be the same person, since this would mean that big brother is helping little brother pretend to be an MSc, by letting him use firstname.lastname@example.org as a return address and then forwarding any related E-mail to him. This would explain the sudden appearance of this bizarre "I am not Stilgar" protest, while simultaneously explaining how an "MSc student" could possess such poor grasp of logic and science.
Of course, that is just a theory, and since I have better things to do than investigate him, I may never know with certainty whether "Stilgar" and Robert Lipka are the same person. If they are, then he's simply lying (what a shock that would be). If they aren't, then it would reflect very poorly on Robert Lipka's judgement that he has been helping someone masquerade as him. Robert Lipka comes off looking rather foolish either way, but the "brothers" theory sounded rather far-fetched to me, so I initially dismissed it. However, Ted Collins recently E-mailed me to let me know that he eventually contacted Stilgar to ask him why he insisted on making an ass out of himself, and he responded:
The other e-mail is not mine, but in the family... he will be [suing] him over this (putting people's safety at risk) and other things. So, it is well you do not use it.
I will not be polite, I will let lawyers be polite to him.
Interesting, eh? Apart from more blustering about his "lawyers" (oooooh, does he have a whole legal staff now?), and his astounding claim about how I'm "putting people's safety at risk", he happened to mention that email@example.com was not his address, but rather, it was "in the family". However, his "From:" header was still "Robert Lipka" even though he was using the "Stilgar" Hotmail address, not Robert Lipka's school address. Rather an odd way to contradict rumours about Stilgar and Robert Lipka being one and the same, wouldn't you think?
So what do you think? Is it an MSc student who's acting like an ignorant brat, or is it an ignorant brat who's pretending to be an MSc student? Is it one person or two? Will we ever know? Does it even matter?
One of my readers (Denis Waddell) lives in Australia, saw this page, and decided to send Robert Lipka an E-mail "thanking" him for reflecting badly on his country and its education system. Lipka sent this reply:
Thank you kido. I now have one more item to show Mike's ISP in how he asks people to flame me. FYI, Mike is a uni reject with a minor engineering degree who has no idea what he is talking about (I would fail him at first year physics level). He has proven nothing except that he is stupid and ignorant as well as a nasty human being. Furthermore, I am also a SW fan. I did not argue with him about his silly SW vs ST page. He simply got my e-mail while attacking a guy named Stilgar (he confused me with someone else) who accused him of stealing copyrighted material from another SW site (not ST), and now he is publishing my details on the web asking children like you to flame me ... Give it up. Mike is making a fool of you by getting you involved in his problems.
P.S. If you live in Australia and you use this e-mail again, I will track you down and send the cops for a visit for taking part in stalking me. Leave it alone: Mike is trouble, and probably has a mental problem judging by his recent behaviour.
He seems to be getting angrier all the time. Notice how he claims I'm a "university reject" now, that I would have failed out of first year physics, and that I have something called a "minor engineering degree" (I had no idea that it was a minor; I wonder what I majored in). He also claims that I'm "stupid and ignorant", I'm a "nasty human being" (this from the guy who communicates exclusively with threats), and that I have a "mental problem". This level of personal attack, which borders on defamation, is a clear indication that his anger with me is approaching uncontrollability. Strangely enough, I find that this amuses me greatly. He does nothing to me with this sort of wildly inflammatory personal attack, but he does reveal his own impotence by talking trash instead of refuting my arguments. As they say in sports, he can talk trash all he wants, but come Game Day, that won't add up to much. Every time he's been brave enough to come out and play, he's gotten spanked. It seems that these trash-talking ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority are the only thing he's really good at.
Also notice how he is now very strident about his insistence that he and Stilgar have nothing to do with each other, even though my first message to firstname.lastname@example.org was answered not with a question about confused identities, but with a seamless continuation of my debate with Stilgar. The whole exchange is posted on my site; does he honestly expect to fool anyone? If he and Stilgar are not one and the same, then they sure did a good job of pretending to be! Either way, he only makes himself look worse each time he opens his mouth.
And finally, you may notice that he's not only accusing me of "stalking", but he's threatening to accuse anyone of stalking if they dare to send him an E-mail message! He seems to treat the concept of "stalking" the way a toddler treats a new toy, by bashing anybody and everybody with it when they come too close. I can hear it already: "Officer, here's a list of people who sent me E-mail. I want them all arrested for stalking me." Even when he's not E-mailing me directly, Robert Lipka is still good for a laugh.
Another reader (Francois Tremblay) took the initiative of asking Robert Lipka why he insisted on acting like a raving lunatic, and he received the following response:
You are spamming me because Wong asked. I do not want anything to do with the nasty, vindictive, and intellectualy deficient person that Wong is.
(Editor's note: notice how he assumes that everyone who E-mails him has been personally urged to do so by me. Doesn't it even remotely occur to him that people have actually been E-mailing him out of their own volition, after reading this page? I suspect that Robert Lipka simply refuses to believe that anyone would disagree with him unless they've been somehow unduly influenced. Maybe he thinks I've got Sith mind control powers :)
Also notice how he thinks it's "vindictive" for me to publish the truth on my website, by listing the identities and unabridged statements of both parties in this dispute. I had no idea that the publication of the truth could be considered "vindictive").
I am not the person Michael is arguing with. I am not Stilgar. Michael was stalking Stilgar whom I know, and along the way found out my name and e-mail as I know Stilgar.
(Editor's note: so now Stilgar is someone he "knows", and I was apparently "stalking" Stilgar by answering his unsolicited E-mail messages. Funny ... until now, I was being accused of "stalking" Robert Lipka, but suddenly I'm being accused of "stalking" Stilgar instead! He's apparently having trouble keeping his multiple identities straight)
Though I regard Michael both a nasty human being and an intellectual moron. You would not believe the amount of vulgar abuse he sent me to this account, or the idiotic arguments he calls science he tries to push on me.
(Editor's note: notice how he tries to insinuate that I've been harassing him and sending him abusive E-mail. The full, unabridged text of our exchange is here, so the public can easily judge for themselves whether his complaints of harassment are justified, particularly in light of the fact that he initiated every exchange. Judging from the responses I've received so far, Stilgar is not making himself any friends with these transparent and increasingly obnoxious attacks. Also notice how he's still attacking my scientific arguments without bothering to explain what's wrong with them. I guess it's easier to rely on ad hominem attacks than to produce a solid rebuttal).
He is a stark raving mad fanatic. Downright scary.
(Editor's note: at this point, I suppose you might as well start making your own jokes about how he can accuse anyone else of being "stark raving mad").
I would be careful with Michael. I know he has turned on people who have helped him in the past, as soon as they disagreed with him. Such is the case with Stilgar.
(Editor's note: this is very interesting. Notice how he's trying to insinuate that I might turn on my allies at any moment, and he uses Stilgar as an example! It's amazing ... I had no idea that Stilgar was a former ally, or that he "helped" me in the past. After all the strange things he's accused me of, I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that he would be audacious enough to add treachery to the list. Doesn't he realize that nobody is going to be gullible enough to swallow this?)
Morever, he steals material from other web sites and pretends this is fine because his site is about science and for "review purposes". Yeah. Right. Just like warez is for "educational purposes".
(Editor's note: notice how he repeats Stilgar's absurd claim that I've stolen copyrighted material from my friend Brian Young. Amazing, isn't it? Stilgar and Robert Lipka are supposedly two separate people, but their arguments are mysteriously identical! Their writing style is mysteriously identical! And did you notice that when Robert Lipka said he would no longer contact me, Stilgar mysteriously went silent at the same time, even though we were in the midst of a heated debate at the time? He's not doing a very good job of maintaining the illusion of two separate people; either that, or they are two separate people but Robert Lipka is still letting Stilgar answer all of his mail for him)
Besides, I looked, his site is full of inaccurate science, bad philosophy, copyrighted pictures, and material stolen from other SW and ST sites.
(Editor's note: now he's descending into outright defamation, accusing me of plagiarizing other sci-fi sites without a shred of evidence. Desperation and anger breed strange tactics, do they not? It's true that most of the pictures on this site are copyrighted material, but most of them are also covered under "fair use", a concept which I tried to explain to him but which he obviously never understood, judging by his bizarre attempt to compare criticism to software piracy. As for my original text articles, I either wrote them myself or properly identified the author from whom I was quoting. I consider it defamation for him to claim that my site is full of "stolen" material, since that is a suggestion of plagiarism)
Please do not bother me again. I regard letters about Michael as spam. I want to avoid this idiot as much as I can.
(Editor's note: I weep for his pain. No, really. I do! OK, maybe I don't. By the way, did you notice that he doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the Internet term "spam"? It's almost as bad as his misinterpretation of "stalking")
P.S. If you want at least somewhat reasonable web site about technology and SW, I recommend Curtis Saxton's site at http://www.theforce.net/swtc. It may not be fully accurate, but at least the webmaster there has a PhD and not a second rate BE (Bachelor of Engineering) like Wong. Curtis is also sane and polite as far as I know, and is able to work with other people.
(Editor's note: notice how he misrepresents my degree as a BE instead of a BASc. Second, he tries to imply that engineering is somehow inferior to physics in the Great Hierarchy of Knowledge, so all engineers are inferior to all physicists. The fact that university workloads and entrance requirements for engineering often exceed those for physics is apparently lost on him. In any case, by the time most university students graduate, we learn to grow beyond such boorish inter-disciplinary rivalries. I wonder if he's communicated his arrogant disdain for engineering to the engineering faculty dean at his own university.
But the crowning glory is yet to come. He's never been able to deal with my arguments so he invariably falls back on ad hominem attacks (ie- I can't possibly know what I'm talking about because I "only" have a BASc) and appeals to authority (ie- he can't possibly be wrong because he's trying to get an MSc). However, his worship of authority mysteriously evapourates when he turns to Curtis Saxton, whose site he describes as not "accurate" despite his PhD! Not only is he having trouble keeping his multiple identities straight, but he's apparently having trouble deciding whether appeals to authority are acceptable or not).
Well folks, I hope you've been enjoying this little journey into the mind of Robert Lipka. Does this guy sound like a well educated person to you? He doesn't sound that way to me. He sounds a lot more like someone who doesn't know when to admit he's beaten. He sure has entertainment value, though; whether it's seething anger, appeals to authority, woeful ignorance of science and law, or pointless defamatory statements, you just know he'll put on a good show.
It seems to be slowly dawning on Stilgar that his endless trash talking is having very little effect on me, apart from giving me more material for my Hate Mail page. Therefore, I have noticed that he is being increasingly harsh to others.
A reader named Barton Neu E-mailed me to let me know that he had sent him the following message:
You are unbelievable. Just apologize to Mike and be done with it. You are going to send the cops to peoples' houses for e-mailing you? Oh, the humanity! I enjoy Mike's site, it is probobly my favorite. And I would be pissed if a baby like you went crying to everyone and got it off the web (God forbid).Grow up, man.
Here is Stilgar's lovely response:
Shut up, troll. Coward - hiding behind a spam account with no real name.
You are spamming me as Mike asks - this is illegal and proves you are stupid for being so easily led. I am already talking to Mike's ISP about his spamming and flaming campaing. Mike is a nasty human being.
Editor's note: We all know that Stilgar is very angry about being exposed for what he truly is, but he's really taking it to the next level by starting a message with the words "Shut up, troll". Does he even know what a "troll" is? And where does he get off denigrating Barton for using an generic E-mail account, when he himself hid behind an anonymous E-mail account for the entire duration of our first exchange and the first part of our second exchange? He obviously thinks he can have his cake and eat it too; if someone exposes his real E-mail address, he should be arrested for "stalking", but anyone else who isn't forthright about his true E-mail address is a "coward". The rest of it is just repetitive.
I am not Stilgar. I know Stilgar. This is how Wong found out my e-mail.
Editor's note: He forgets to mention that he and Stilgar answer messages interchangeably, with the exact same arguments and the exact same writing style. They must be kindred souls :)
Wong is an intellectual moron. I have an MSc. Wong has a minor, basic, engineering degree from years ago. It took Wong almost twice as long to get his degree as normal (he must have failed a lot of subjects), look it up.
Editor's note: Who was it who said that in war, the truth is the first casualty? Stilgar obviously thinks this is war rather than debate, and he's thrown honesty to the winds (which is apparently nothing new for him). He claims to already have the MSc for which he's supposedly studying, and he further denigrates my engineering degree as "minor" and "basic" even though it was actually an honours degree at one of the pre-eminent engineering schools in my country (I suppose he'll start flaming the entire engineering profession now, as well as my country, my family, and for all I know, my dog). He also tries to convince Barton that I must have failed piles of courses because my co-op alternating work/school education (which he already knows about) took longer to complete than a conventional education.
All of this deception and flaming is designed for one purpose: to divert attention away from the fact that he was never able to win an argument with me.
Unlike Wong says, both Stilgar and I are SW fans. Wong is an idiot who calls a trekkie anyone who disagrees with him. He is a stark raving mad fanatic who steals from and attacks as much other SW fans as trekkies. The guy needs a shrink. He does it ALL THE TIME - just look at all the other famous and normal people he tries to pick a fight with to popularise his site.
Editor's note: I've lost count of the number of people who grievously misrepresent Star Wars and then try to deflect criticism by claiming to be Star Wars fans. This is debate, not war. You are either right or you are wrong, and allegiances don't enter into it. If a self-proclaimed "SW fan" says something which is totally nonsensical, he can't shout "friendly fire!" if I criticize him. Notice how he's still trying to portray this scenario as if I was harassing him, rather than him harassing me. He charges that I "pick fights" with others, when in reality, most of my conflicts are like the one I just had with him: somebody E-mails me out of the blue, and I argue with him. However, most of my opponents aren't such sore losers that they take it this badly if things don't go their way. This guy has achieved what I had once thought to be impossible: he has actually found a way to make Richie Rich, Ted Rogers, and the rest seem positively dignified and mature in comparison.
Stay away from Wong for your own safety. In the past Stilgar used to help Wong with his site - but as soon as Stilgar disagreed with Wong, Wong turned on Stilgar! He does this regularly to others as well.
Editor's note: Now this is definitely outright defamation. His claim that I turn on people who help me with my site is a pure and simple lie, designed out of malice in order to foster distrust among readers and supporters (although nobody is going to be gullible enough to believe him). I suppose I should thank him; if he ever does find the cojones to follow through with his endless empty threats of legal action against me, he is graciously providing me with enough ammunition to accuse him of defamation in retaliation.
His site is chock full of idiocy and has nothing to do with science - take it as an expert opinion.
Editor's note: Ladies and gentlemen, take notes: you will never see a finer example of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. Notice how he makes no attempt whatsoever to explain what's wrong with the site, or provide examples of its weaknesses. He simply dismisses it without explanation, using the supernatural power of his "expert opinion".
And do not listen to the arguments Wong puts up on his site as he edits and alters them as suits him, and gives no right to reply to the people he attacks.
Editor's note: More outright defamation. I have never altered anything but formatting and spelling/punctuation in a Hate Mail exchange. None of my opponents has ever had the audacity to claim that I committed such dishonest acts. Even Stilgar himself never made this charge until just now, and even then, it was a cowardly defamatory charge made behind my back. I don't always post an exchange in its entirety, although I did made a point of posting the complete unabridged text of my recent exchange with him. I did this because I realized early on that he would accuse me of distortion if I quoted anything less than the full text, but I didn't expect him to simply lie about it and pretend that I had done so anyway. However, the act of trimming down an unworkably long exchange to remove redundant, repetitive, off-topic, or just plain boring sections cannot be equated to his charge that I "alter" an opponent's arguments.
Moreover, his charge that I don't give people the right to reply is ridiculous in the extreme. Graham Kennedy sent a rebuttal to my criticism of his arguments along with a polite request that I post it in its entirety, and I respected his wishes. But more importantly, I couldn't deny him the right to reply even if I wanted to. The very nature of the Internet is that it gives everyone the right to reply. When we debated on Brian's web board last year, he said he would create a website of his own, to promote a more "accurate" view of Star Wars. Did I stop him from doing so? No. Did I even attempt to discourage him? No. He has no website not because I suppressed his right to reply, but because he's too lazy to make a website and too cowardly to give his opponents a target to shoot at. So by all means, Stilgar, I dare you: go make that reply. Post it somewhere, like that imaginary website you mentioned last year. Maybe your imaginary legal staff has web design skills, so you can put them to work on your imaginary web site :) When they're done, make sure your "lawyers" tell everybody about it. And when your rebuttal hits the Internet, I'll be waiting.
P.S. From now on you are agreeing to pay me $50 for each piece of spam about Mike you send to this address. Take it as a contract. That is, do not send me anymore crap about Mike. I do not want to have anything to do with this idiot.
Editor's note: ROTFLMAO!!! "Take it as a contract"? This is beautiful! Not only is he totally ignorant of nuclear fusion net-gain ignition requirements, the real meaning of Occam's Razor, the basic scientific method, the concepts of fair use and copyright law, radiative heat transfer principles, and the definitions of "stalking" and "spam", but he doesn't even understand simple contract law! Perhaps someone can explain to him that a contract is only valid if both parties agree to it. A contract for an exchange of goods and services cannot be made when there is no exchange of goods and services, and when there is no agreement on terms of compensation for said nonexistent goods and services.
P.S. 2 Want a really good SW site? Go here: http://www.theforce.net/swtc. At least the webmaster there (Curtis Saxton) is sane, sometimes does admit to being wrong, and unlike Wong, Curtis has a PhD and generally knows what he is talking about.
Editor's note: Oh, so I won't "admit to being wrong", eh? Classic weak debating tactic: if you can't get your opponent to agree with you, simply accuse him of being dogmatic. However, this accusation is no stronger than any of his other lies and distortions. I have never claimed perfection. For example, my initial interpretation of the sighting device on top of the STFC phaser pulse rifle was that it was a simple flashlight rather than a sighting device. Robert Wilson convinced me otherwise, and I updated the Ground Combat Technology pages accordingly. If I thought my arguments were all perfect, I wouldn't feel the need to update them any more, would I? However, while I have been proven wrong in the past, Robert Lipka was not the man to do it. His ignorant arguments on pseudoscience and law are trivially easy to shoot down, hence his habitual reliance on appeals to authority.
PS. You may notice that he seems to assume Curtis Saxton has more respect for him than I do. Well, let's just say that I know Curtis much better than Lipka does, and he's gravely mistaken. Curtis is more polite than I am, but that doesn't mean he has any more patience for pseudoscience or logical fallacies than I do.
On Valentine's Day, yet another reader (Brian Menadue) sent me notice that he was sending a message to Robert Lipka about this little soap opera:
Mr Robert Lipka.
I just have a couple of questions for you. First, are you currently taking medication for schizophrenia? If you are not you should probably look into it. Second, if you aren't mentally ill then why are you making an ass out of yourself? You have absolutely no case for stalking whatsoever. That is if you actually consulting a lawyer, which your lack of understanding of the law clearly shows to be highly unlikely. If you are consulting a lawyer then you may want to check his credentials. Better yet you could provide me with both his name and the name of his firm so I might determine the validity of your claims. Otherwise admit that you were lying, then shut the hell up. Oh and by the way I have sent this email of my own free will.
Have a nice day.
Stilgar responded within hours (while I was lining up for Valentine's Day flowers and planning a night out with my wife, Stilgar was apparently hunched over his keyboard, consumed by his need to say bad things about me; what a rich, full life he must have):
Let me copy for you what I sent to other people - I could not be bothered to write it yet again. It should explain most things:
Editor's note: at this point, he quoted the entire text he'd sent to Francois Tremblay and Barton Neu. Since those messages are already quoted in full on this page, it would be pointless to repeat them here. However, he also tacked on a short addition after the quoted messages:
READ MY LIPS: I do not give a shit. I am not Stilgar. My university e-mail account is being mail bombed because Mike asks people to do it. You are taking part in it. Your e-mail is the Nth of such disinformed messages I got. STOP BOTHERING ME.
Editor's note: I would like to know exactly where I ask people to "mail-bomb" him. I encourage people to speak their minds if they are so motivated, but that is hardly an incitement to mail-bombing. As usual, he is exaggerating his own troubles. I would bet good money that he doesn't receive a miniscule fraction of the E-mail that I get from my site every day.
Besides, if he really wants this to stop, he can simply come clean, tell the truth, take it like a man, and apologize for his asinine behaviour. People E-mail him because they can't believe how obnoxious he is. A simple apology would fix that problem, but he is obviously too prideful to even consider it. He has no one to blame but himself for the fact that people criticize his obnoxious behaviour. The beauty of the Internet is that we're all allowed to speak our minds, but people like Stilgar/Lipka seem to think it shouldn't be allowed.
A COUPLE OF CLUES: I have REAL science qualifications, and Mike DOES NOT. And I am telling you: Mike's site is a joke it has very little to do with real science. It is Mike's way of going on a personal "power trip". The bloke is crazy.
Editor's note: This is just more of his repetitive flaming and misinformation, with his predictable pattern of gradual escalation. He's gone from saying I have a "basic" Bachelor of Engineering degree to saying that I have no real qualifications at all.
SPAMMING IS ILLEGAL!!!
Editor's note: Will somebody at his university please sit him down, face to face, and carefully explain the definition of "spamming" to him? Maybe this person could also explain "stalking", "copyright", and "fair use" for him. Some basic definitions of scientific method would be useful too. Aw, hell. He just needs a whole new education, since the last one didn't seem to take.
Mike deserves far more dissing than he gets for his nasty behaviour.
Editor's note: this is interesting, isn't it? He obviously recognizes that the weight of public opinion is completely behind me on this (not surprising since nobody likes bullies, and he makes few friends by threatening everyone who corresponds with him). However, rather than look inward and consider the possibility that he just might be in the wrong on this one, he simply circles the wagons and assumes that there's some kind of injustice operating in the world that keeps people from seeing his side of things.
THIS IDIOCY TAKES AWAY MY TIME FROM DOING REAL SCIENCE. IF IT DOES NOT STOP, I WILL START CONTACTING THE ISPS OF THE SILLY PEOPLE WHO LISTEN TO MIKE AND MAKING COMPLAINTS!
Editor's note: you just knew he wouldn't be able to refrain from threatening Mr. Menadue, didn't you?
Would you believe that after running around defaming me behind my back, Stilgar had the gall to ask me for information?
Can you please explain to me in as much detail as you can what "Honours BASc in Mechanical Engineering" means precisely?
BASc stands for "Bachelor of Applied Science". Look it up (you do know how to do that, don't you?). BTW, by attempting to dig into my background instead of addressing my criticisms, it is becoming quite obvious that you realize that you are intellectually incapable of debating me directly on matters of science, law, or logic, so you have decided to focus all your energies on intensifying your incessant and logically fallacious appeals to authority. Doesn't it even occur to you how badly this reflects upon you?
Is BASc a Bachelor of Arts/Science, or Bachelor of Agricultural Science. Where does the Honours come in in this degree? Do you have to do a special research project to get the Honours? Or do you get the Honours automatically with finishing the degree, i.e. coursework. Do you need an extra year of study to get Honours? Does the degree exist without Honours, and if so when?
Has it ever occurred to you that any idiot with a computer can find this information by doing a simple web search? Why do you expect me to educate you about it?
Where does the "in Mechanical Engineering" come in? Can you tell me what subjects you have actually studied and at what level?
Of course, as soon as you reveal the truth about your "Stilgar" persona, as well as the full details of your educational history.
You seem awfully interested in the details of a person you dismiss as an "intellectual moron". Why, pray tell? And don't you realize what unmitigated gall you must have, in order to expect me to cheerfully take the time and effort to dig up my old transcripts from 8 years ago and list off the names of all of my various courses to you? Precisely what have you done to warrant any such efforts on my part, particularly when I know that you're just trying to fuel your endless fallacious appeals to authority?
The last time I checked, our only interaction over the past two months has been your incessant stream of alternating insults and threats, combined with your bizarre accusation that by answering those unwanted and unpleasant messages, I was "stalking" you. You have recently intensified your personal attacks to the level of outright defamation, E-mailing others and falsely accusing me of plagiarising other websites and altering my opponents' arguments. I fail to see how this history would motivate me to go out of my way for you.
(Editor's note: He seems rather ignorant of engineering. I am beginning to suspect that he confuses university mechanical engineering with the sort of "industrial engineering" that's taught in trade schools. He shouldn't be so careless with professional designations; lots of people put "engineer" in their titles (MCSEs call themselves engineers), but there's a huge difference between quasi-engineering and real engineering, which is applied science, taught at the university level and certified by professional associations. I wouldn't normally expect someone in university to be so totally ignorant of professional designations, but this is Stilgar we're talking about, after all).
Finally what is the normal duration of your degree?
Less than the 7 years during which you've been publicly claiming to be an MSc student. I don't see why you expect me to expend my own time and effort to dig up my entire educational history for your convenience, when you've done nothing whatsoever to warrant such considerations, and you still refuse to apologize for harassing and threatening me over the past two months.
I must say I'm surprised. You managed to make it through an entire (albeit short) E-mail message without any new threats. Maybe next time, you can try to make it through a whole message without appeals to authority, too (but then again, maybe that's over-optimistic; insults and appeals to authority seem to be the only things that escape your mouth lately).
PS. What happened to "I will not be contacting you or replying to you again?" Will you accuse me of "stalking" you when you receive this reply? You just can't leave somebody alone, can you?
Editor's note: the mail bounced off his mail server with an "unknown user" error when I sent it, so I must conclude that he has either blocked me somehow, or his mail server was down for a while. However, I wasn't going to waste any effort trying to get this response to him, so if it bounced into oblivion on the Internet, I guess that's just too bad. Brandon Bray later informed me that Stilgar claimed to have been "mail-bombed" and that he was blaming me for reporting his name and E-mail address (I guess it doesn't occur to him that if there was a problem with his E-mail server, and it did have something to do with our dispute, then the responsibility would be his, for behaving in such a manner as to incite people to such actions. His problem is that he thinks the solution is secrets and threats rather than forthrightness.
At this point, Brandon Bray heroically went out of his way in an attempt to stop this flamewar (it was to be an ultimately futile effort, but commendable nonetheless). He went to Stilgar and asked whether he would be willing to apologize, and you will never believe the response that Stilgar sent:
I can give:
Stilgar will admit to Mike that Stilgar has not fully shown that fusion can blow up a planet.
Stilgar will admit that the discussion has gotten silly and gone out of hand including actions on Stilgar's part.
I will stop e-mailing people with what I think of Mike.
Stilgar will not pursue any copyrights on the fusion argument he has on his site.
I and Stilgar promise not to ever make a web page on Mike Wong.
I and Stilgar promise not to ever report his site to SW TPTB for copyright infringement.
In return I want with no exceptions:
He takes off from his site all instances of "Robert Lipka" and email@example.com.
He stops calling Stilgar a trekkie, AND if he decides to keep the fusion posts on his site he CLEARLY states that Stilgar is a SW fan, and his disagreement is thus with ANOTHER SW fan.
He takes off all inflamatory material calling Stilgar a troll etc, and/or rewrites it in a neutral tone.
As I feel he has already done an irreversible damage by posting the details of "Robert Lipka and firstname.lastname@example.org", I need some kind of non-monetary payment as compensation. Namely I want him to take off all personal information on Graham Kennedy, and in particular his entire "discussion" of Kennedy's educational qualifications. Mike should strictly limit himself to disputing the technical information of Graham Kennedy's site. If he feels he has to explain, he can post on his site something along the lines that these pages on Graham Kennedy have been removed in agreement with Stilgar, on Stilgar's request, etc.
He will refrain in the future from posting on his site personal information on Stilgar, or anyone else, and limit his "flames" page to arguing about technology.
I or Stilgar reserve the right to publish the fusion argument on my own web page in the future when and if I ever have the time to do it.
Whew! Did you catch all of those conditions? He's not offering an apology; he's trying to take control of my site! There are some very interesting psychological revelations about Stilgar/Robert Lipka in this list of demands. Firstly, he still thinks he can keep up this ridiculous pretense that he and Stilgar are two separate people. But more importantly, you may notice from his generous (cough, cough) offer that he treats the truth as some sort of bargaining chip, ie- he will agree to tell the truth only if I agree to give him something in return. As Worf might say, this man has no honour. If he did, he would tell the truth simply because it's the right thing to do, and he would apologize for lying and defaming because that's also the right thing to do. He would then apologize and ask me, now that he's demonstrated some shred of integrity, that I kindly do him a favour and remove his name and E-mail address from my website. But instead, it's quite clear that even though he knows perfectly well that he's been dishonest (as demonstrated by his willingness to make these concessions), he feels no obligation whatsoever to tell the truth of his own accord. There is a fundamental clash of values here: I feel that the way to defend your name is to stand up, take no crap, say what you believe, and accept responsibility for your successes and your mistakes. That's the reason I make a point of attaching my real name to everything I do, and I take pride in the fact that I'm a stand-up guy and I don't hide. Lipka, on the other hand, seems to think that the way to defend your name is to shroud yourself in secrecy and jealously guard your identity, so that you never have to take responsibility for your public statements. It would be an understatement to say that I have no respect for his approach.
And now, let's examine his "offer" one item at a time:
He graciously offers to "admit" that his fusion argument is built on a foundation of vapour. I find that I simply can't relate to this behaviour. Is it groundless, or is it not? If he knows it doesn't work, then he is honour-bound to simply admit it and move on. If he thinks it does work, then he should offer up a genuine defense of it, and I can't imagine him offering this concession if he didn't know the argument was invalid. In any case, this does not indicate an honourable character.
He graciously offers to admit that he's become unreasonable. Again, he either knows he's been unreasonable or he doesn't. Either way, he has a moral obligation to tell the truth, irrespective of this ridiculous game of offering up little pieces of the truth in return for concessions.
He graciously offers to stop E-mailing people with his blatant defamatory lies about my conduct. How generous of him.
He graciously offers not to pursue his nonexistent exclusive copyright claim on the fusion argument in which I was actually the majority contributor. I'm bowled over by his generosity.
He offers not to make a web page about me. As if this guy is ever going to give people a target to shoot at.
He offers not to take the spiteful action of reporting my site to the licensing people. This is a bit like saying "I offer not to launch a frivolous lawsuit against you, in return for some concessions on your part". The word "unreasonable" doesn't begin to describe it.
Notice that nowhere in this list did he actually offer an apology, which is the only damned thing I was asking for. And now for his incredible list of demands:
He wants his name and E-mail taken off. Notice how he's completely misconstrued the whole situation. I do not offer concessions, or bargain with the truth. He has told a series of lies, and he knows that they're lies. He offers to sell me the truth in small pieces, in return for me covering up pieces of the truth which he finds inconvenient. That's not how it works; he's asking me to cover up a piece of information for him, and that's something which I have no moral or legal obligation to do. Therefore, if I were to do it, it would be a favour. He would therefore have to show that he deserves some sort of favour, by demonstrating a shred of integrity and apologizing profusely for his bullying and his defamation. It's obvious that he cannot understand this concept, and thinks in terms of back room deals, concessions, offers, and counter-offers. This is not politics, and I'm no politician. I don't work that way.
He wants me to start describing Stilgar as a Star Wars fan instead of a Trekkie, even though his argument is recycled junk Trekkie pseudoscience, and I have no evidence of his Star Wars leanings other than his own claims. In other words, he wants me to deliberately say something which I think is a falsehood, in return for him admitting something which he knows to be true. Again, I reiterate that this game of lies and concessions is not a game that I play.
He wants me to stop saying bad things about Stilgar. Doesn't it occur to him that I don't say bad things about Stilgar to gain position? I say them because I think they're true, and moreover, he knows perfectly well that they're true! He's offering to admit that the fusion argument was crap, which means that he knew it all along, and I was 100% right about him being a troll! This whole "truth" vs "falsehood" concept seems to elude him.
This next demand is priceless. Just after insisting that he's not a Trekkie, he demands that I stop criticizing Graham Kennedy's fraudulent appeals to authority! Doesn't it occur to him that it's difficult to claim he's not a Trekkie if he considers it a high priority to defend Graham Kennedy? Besides, people who rely on appeals to authority at the expense of direct argument are completely deserving of derision, whether they be named Graham Kennedy or Robert Lipka, and I don't intend to conceal my distaste for the practice. Moreover, this is yet another example of his demand that I conceal portions of the truth in return for his admission of the truth.
He wants me to sanitize my Hate Mail page so that it's nothing but a dry technical discussion. Sorry, but I receive a lot of compliments on the Hate Mail page. My readers like it, they often write to say they find it hilarious, and I have no intention whatsoever of altering it. You may notice, once again, that he's demanding that I conceal part of the truth (any non-technical parts of the messages I exchanged with the people on my Hate Mail page) in return for his admission of the truth. He also says I must refrain from publishing personal information. Again, I say that he's demanding concealment of the truth, which I have no legal or moral obligation to do. I concealed the E-mail addresses of guys like Richie Rich and Ted Rogers because I decided to be nice to them, in spite of our heated arguments. In fact, Richie Rich is not even a real name; I erased his real name at his request, after he apologized for his statements. This kind of decision is not mandatory, nor will it ever be. If someone behaves in an especially reprehensible way, then as far as I'm concerned, his true identity must be revealed, unless he gives me some good reason not to (and no, bullying doesn't count as a good reason).
His last demand is that he reserves the right to publish the fusion argument someday. This is a silly demand, since he has that right irrespective of whatever I might say, and by making it, he makes me wonder if he still doesn't understand basic copyright law, in spite of the voluminous explanations I sent him.
Well, there you have it! He offers to (finally) tell some of the truth, in exchange for me covering up parts of the truth which bother him and accepting various controls upon my freedom to write articles for my own website! His arrogance is unbelievable. Perhaps I should be impressed at his self-restraint for not asking me to do his dishes for him.
Of course, Stilgar continued to defame me behind my back while offering these concessions. Aron Kerkhof send the following message to him:
I'm just seeing if you're still replying to any Mike W. posts. I am emailing of my own volition because I too have had experience with idiots threatening that they are going to cancel my email account or shut my webserver down because I had a collection of intellectually unflattering messages from him. His name was Timothy Jones. He quickly learned that archives (even abridged archives) of other people's public posts with commentary are perfectly legal. Otherwise deja.com would be in big trouble, wouldn't they?
Another thing that he learned is that it's awful damned hard to get a guy's server canned when the guy in question is actually the person running the server. My fondest artifact from his epic threat-o-rama was the email he sent to email@example.com trying to get my account yanked. I lead him on for a few exchanges before I let him know it was actually me. It was beautiful. So anyway, feel free to try to get my account cancelled, for whatever psuedo-legal reason you can think of. I could use the laugh.
After awhile, Tim went away, because really, what else could he do? Certainly not apologize for being an ass, that would be too hard. I'm still here. I'm sure in due time you'll slink away, and Mike will remain. Do us a favor, and try to go away more quickly. Actually, no, keep it up. I haven't seen Mike update his site with this kind of fervor for quite some time now, and I rather like it. You clearly are inspiring him.
PS: You are Stilgar, you twink. Any other possibility makes you even more of a dumbass that you already appear to be. Come on!
Stilgar responded the next day, and Aron Kerkhof fired back. The exchange is here:
Please fell free to condense your "point" so that your uninformed ramble actualy has one.
AK: Fell free, huh? I'm sorry that big words like "feel" throw you. I will try to condense my reply accordingly.
I did not discuss the copyrighted thing with Mike - he took it off another SW site without permission. Legally a totally different situation. He does have Lucas et al copyrighted material and it will be a pleasure when they find him.
AK: You are wrong. What a shocker.
(Editor's note: Notice how Lipka is now insisting that I took the debate off another SW site witout permission, and that I have some legal liability. First off, he never bothered to ask whether I had permission. Since I consider Brian Young a friend and a generally nice guy, I never doubted for an instant that he would offer his permission if it were necessary, and he actually made a point of doing so, of his own accord, upon seeing the Stilgar page. Secondly, he must surely know by now that he has no legal case whatsoever, but he is still accusing me of breaking the law anyway).
Now he and his friends started mail bombing me - again this is illegal and any ISP will fry whoever is silly enough to do it (and a lawyer will have a field day).
AK: Bring it.
(Editor's note: Notice how he assumes that I and my friends have been mail-bombing him, without a shred of evidence, and he then proceeds to accuse me behind my back. There are stand-up guys out there, and then there's ... Robert Lipka).
I do not know what your impression of the situation is, but apparently you are sorely misinformed by a liar and a moron that Wong is.
You are all talk and no action.
(Editor's note: I leave you to make your own jokes about Stilgar having the gall to call me a liar).
If I were you, I would not get involved.
Too late. You can do nothing to me. Or to Mike. That might have been too verbose for you. Sorry.
(Editor's note: I like Aron's style )
I responded to Stilgar's "offer" by reiterating that I demand an apology, and that he tell the truth about his lies regarding copyright, his lies regarding his dual identity, his lies regarding his dismissal of fair use, his use of groundless pseudoscience in the fusion argument, and his fraudulent misrepresentation of engineering difficulties as scientific impossibilities in his Coruscant argument. Brandon sent that back to him, and reported his response back to me:
Mike says he will remove all instances of your real name and E-mail address from his site, just like you want, but stipulates he desires an apology from you for acting crazy and vengeful.
Answer: Stilgar says yes, as long as you appologise to him and explain why this whole thing started over a stale two-year old argument.
Editor's note: Amazing, isn't it? He wants me to apologize to him for starting this! Doesn't he remember how this started? Is he suffering from amnesia, or dementia? He E-mailed me, out of the blue, trying to bully me into taking down a transcript of a debate in which I was the majority participant!
Mike also wants you to admit that "Stilgar" and "Robert Lipka", are the same person.
Answer: Stilgar says "When hell freezes over."
Editor's note: Of course not. That would be the sort of thing a forthright person might do, and honesty just isn't in Stilgar's ethical vocabulary (if he has one at all).
Mike also wants you to admit that you have no copyright case whatsoever.
Answer: For the original arguement posted at Brian Young's, okay - but not for all the private exchanges after that.
Editor's note: Look at this! He is willing to admit that his copyright claim over the fusion argument is nonsense, which means that he realizes I'm right, but at the same time, he's still telling people such as Aron Kerkhof that I'm breaking the law by publishing it! Again, I reiterate: this man has no honour. And you may notice that he still thinks he can claim copyright over our E-mail exchange, when that simply isn't the case, for countless reasons. Not only would the material fail the creativity and originality requirements for copyright, but the laws governing private mail (and E-mail would undoubtedly be treated the same way) grant ownership to the recipient. In other words, I have the right to do whatever I want with mail that I receive. That's why people can't suppress embarrassing love letters that get publicly aired (even if they're royalty).
Mike wants you to admit your fusion argument does not hold water.
He says that while he has not yet proven his arguement, he will not admit that it is impossible and reserves the right to post his "proof" at a later date.
Editor's note: Of course, when he does post such "proof", it won't contain any fraudulent pseudoscience at all :)
Mike also wants you to admit that your Corsucant argument is also flawed.
Says that he will not do this, and that his Corsucant arguement is correct (despite the planet existed in the movie).
Editor's note: Brandon can obviously see the problem with Stilgar's basic approach, but Stilgar, despite his claims to vastly superior education, still cannot. Our observations of the planet Coruscant cannot be disproven by theory, particularly when that theory confuses engineering feasibility issues with scientific impossibilities. Yes, a huge planetary population will generate a lot of heat. But no, this heat does not represent a scientific impossibility. First and foremost, once something has been observed, it is no longer impossible by definition. Secondly, the temperature is nowhere near as great as he suggests (the "Sun side of Mercury"), and he ignores the possibility that they've used active methods to control it. Would such feats be difficult? Of course, but you could say the same about all of the stupendous feats of scale in the Star Wars galaxy. The point is that they are not scientific impossibilities, and that's a point which Stilgar (oops, of course, I mean the entirely separate life form who goes by the name of Robert Lipka in spite of astoundingly similar behaviour) simply fails to grasp.
Click here to return to the main Hate Mail page.