Virus-X Debate Challenge

This exchange is presented in more complete form along with reader commentary here, and was precipitated by some of his online posts which are documented here (starting around page 3).

Opening E-mail

November 15, 2003

OK, if you're this "Virus X" character, I hear that you've been trash-talking me for a long time. Now's your chance to debate me directly. Please identify yourself (Virus X is not a real name, the last time I checked) and send me the arguments with which you have supposedly destroyed my claims regarding the Death Star, Imperial firepower, etc.

He tries to change the subject to Religion

And you are, Rebecca? I don't know anybody by that name, nor have I seen any materials by anyone by that name. As for my identity, it's never been a secret. If you've my e-mail, you know that my real name always comes through, and that both my MSN and Yahoo profiles have my real name. Therefore, you know full well that I am Isaac Bishop Junior.

Sorry, that was accidentally sent from my wife's mail client.

And as for trash talking, if stating that just because Michael Wong say something that I don't automatically believe it's true is trash talk, so be it. If stating that it's stupid to talk down to people just because you think you're smarter than they are since you have a piece of paper called a degree is trash talk, ok. If standing up and disagreeing with the practice of saying that those that fail to fall into Michael Wong's line are intellectually inferior, ok, you got me, again. If thinking that it's stupid to denegrate someone because they don't understand what I call "dumbed down" physics, hey, you've got my number. Last, but certainly not least, at least I'm not of poor enough breeding to launch websites bashing other peoples' theological beliefs.

[Editor's note: that's a nice soapbox he's got there, eh? And where did this religion angle come from?]

Interesting. So you think that any criticism of religion automatically makes you an inferior race, eh?

My best friends are practicing witches, athiests, Hindus, Muslims, etc., and all are intelligent and of good enough upbringing enough to never attempt to insult people based on their faith, regardless of any so-called bad past experiences, and they're mature enough to not hold everyone responsible for the actions of 1 or 2.

I insult the faith, not all of the people who have been misled into following it. Hate Christianity, not the Christian.

[Editor's note: I actually married a Christian despite his asinine claims about my hatred for them. However, I just couldn't help using that twist upon the old standby line "Hate the sin, not the sinner", although I suspect he didn't find it nearly as amusing as I did]

Then, at least I'm not the type to call someone a "gutless coward" a thousand miles away on the Internet, then try to cover my tracks by saying any threat of retaliation against this ignorant type of personal attack is beneath them, in order to make the person that was insulted look like the guilty party. If you see Michael Wong, you can tell him I said all this, too, if it'll make you happy, Rebecca.

Sorry, you're still a gutless coward. You were challenged to debate me, and you continue to trash talk but you do not accept the challenge. I'll give you another chance: grow a pair of balls and debate me. You can debate me on theology or you can debate me on sci-fi; it doesn't matter. You obviously know you have no argument on either subject, so you resort to attacking the messenger by saying he should be more respectful of other peoples' ignorance. Gee, I've never seen THAT approach before ...

He's still harping on Religion

November 16, 2003

Sorry, that was accidentally sent from my wife's mail client.

Ok, accidents do happen. No biggie.

Interesting. So you think that any criticism of religion automatically makes you an inferior race, eh?

No, actually I think it makes you an inferior person.

Wow, so instead of refuting those criticisms, you simply whine that whoever made them must be an inferior person. Lovely logic.

I couldn't care less about your race, or what you think of mine.  I'm Goth, and in that circle, we've neither time nor tolerance for that sort of mindset, and don't deal with that class of person, period, even if they're family.

In other words, you have no actual rebuttal to the argument, so you simply hate the person who made it. No problem, I can see why you would want to react that way if you run into an argument you can't handle.

As Jessie Ventura once was stupid enough to say while in public office:  "Religion is a sham, and a crutch for the weak-minded".  I think that racism and predjudice are shams, an crutches for the weak-minded, including Jessie.  I've got better things to do, than engage in it, so I don't.

Yes yes, attack anyone who says something you disagree with, rather than addressing his criticism directly. Not a new tactic, I'm afraid.

I insult the faith, not all of the people who have been misled into following it. Hate Christianity, not the Christian.

Then maybe you should grow up and experience more of the world and real life.  Most people that are serious about their commitments to their faiths consider themselves indistinguishable from them.  An insult against Jesus Christ, for instance, offends me on a person level, and I'm not very likely to stay quiet about it.  In fact, I don't.

Then why don't you address the criticism, instead of rabidly attacking the messenger?

The closer friend of mine that is a practicing witch does not take very kindly to those that are stupid and boorish enough to insult her faith, and is a lot more vocal about it, than I ever will be.

Do you EVER get tired of insulting people for making arguments you can't handle?

While I don't look down on athiests, I won't be looked down upon by them, either, because I see nothing superior about them in any way, shape or form, over myself, or any other person of faith.

This is not about "looking down" on people; it is about criticising a morally and intellectually bankrupt system of thought.

In fact, if you want to be technical, athiesm is a sin, so, as Christians say, hate the sin, love the sinner.

Prove that atheism is a sin.

Sorry, you're still a gutless coward. You were challenged to debate me, and you continue to trash talk but you do not accept the challenge. I'll give you another chance: grow a pair of balls and debate me. You can debate me on theology or you can debate me on sci-fi; it doesn't matter. You obviously know you have no argument on either subject, so you resort to attacking the messenger by saying he should be more respectful of other peoples' ignorance. Gee, I've never seen THAT approach before ...

And I'm sorry you're just an ignorant 2-year old that doesn't know anything about Life, the Universe and Everything.  Go read a book, or something.  As I've already stated, as time permits, sure, I'll debate with you and I'll keep it level and cool, though I doubt you'll be able to, because you haven't demonstrated such an ability, to date.

Oh right, this comes from the person whose entire correspondence with me has been filled with accusations about my "inferior breeding", my "class of person", wild-eyed ranting about how I'm "stupid and boorish" for daring to run over your favourite sacred cow, etc. I guess the phrase "throwing stones from a glass house" has never occurred to you before, eh?

I do believe I've already stated that I'm working like a draft horse, and simultaneously working on a website.  Like yours, it'll have a section dedicated to responses, and you're more than welcome to go there and register your doubtlessly innumerable complaints, but, as I'm sure you didn't air the content of your website prior to it's publication, I won't either.  I'm sure you know what websites I've been to, and left topics on.  If you choose not to go there and speak out like everyone else, that's your problem, and you're left with no other option than to shut up and wait.  And, quite frankly, I did e-mail you once before, a long time ago, in response to a point you'd posed, complete with an article written by an accredited source refuting your point.  You never answered, and I assumed that it was because of what your website had posted right across the top:  'Due to the volume of e-mails, it would be impossible to answer or even see them all, especially coupled with such things as the demands of a professional and private life'.  I assumed that had been what happened, and didn't run around saying ignorant things like:

"Sorry, you're still a gutless coward. You were challenged to debate me, and you continue to trash talk but you do not accept the challenge."

Believe me, I've been warned in advance that that's your standard fare, and that's how you conduct things, so I'm not surprised.  Oh, well.

(yawn) yet more attempts to attack me and make excuses for your cowardice, in lieu of answering my challenge to back up your tough talk, eh? Don't tell me to waste my time chasing you around to all of the places you might choose to visit on the Internet, or asking me to speculate about websites which don't exist and which you promise to write someday. And do not pretend that you have no more obligation to answer me than I have to answer you; I have never bothered attacking you anywhere, while you have been attacking me personally BY NAME in various places around the Internet for quite a while now. The obligation is YOURS to respond when I challenge you to back up your loudmouth insults.

[Editor's note: amazing, isn't it? He acts as though he's never attacked me personally, so I'm out of line for calling him out!]

If you want to debate me on theology, all you've got to do is ask a question or pose an actual point, and, once again, when I'm able to return to downtime and stop working, I'll answer, just as I have, now.

I have already posed an actual point; many of them, in fact. They're all on my website. According to YOU, my points are apparently so weak that to merely make them proves I must be "stupid and boorish". You have made a unilateral accusation against me. The onus is on YOU to either back up your shit or concede.

I'm not pretending that I'll change your mind, because, quite frankly, the closed-minded are incapable of change or positive spiritual evolution.  All I do is answer questions, as I have the answers to provide, or find those that do have them.  Plain and simple, dude.

You spend a lot of time talking about how my arguments are all wrong; now back it up. You want me to make the first argument? Fine.

Your turn.


Once again: your turn.

He starts calling me a "bigot" and tries to run away

Dude, in case you didn't quite read the entirty of the last e-mail, there are other things to do, besides answer whining e-mails bemoaning the fact that you're prejudiced.  Shut up and get over yourself, I'm busy.  If you've got a question to ask, ask it.  Otherwise, find something else to do; I know I have.

You claim I'm prejudiced. Prove it. How does criticizing the Bible make me a bigot?

No, in other words, I just don't like you, because you're prejudiced, and I don't like any bigots, no matter who they are.  Again, read the previous paragraph.  I'm not arguing your stupid bigotry, and you certainly haven't said anything intelligent to justify it (not that you could, because there is no justification for bigotry) for me to respond to.

Again, you claim I'm a "bigot". Prove it.

Yawn.  Whatever guy.  As for attacking those you don't agree with, I'll remember that the next time I read about you and Darkstar.

Here's a hint, dumb-ass: if you're going to attack somebody, you have to back it up. I can back up my criticisms of Darkstar; this is a guy who thinks that the focal length of every 35mm camera in the world is fixed at 35mm, and who thinks his homemade "Canon Policy" has higher standing than the one put out by Lucasfilm. You, on the other hand, scream that I'm "prejudiced", yet you refuse to back that up. I say again: either back up your bullshit or concede.

Tell me why I should even bother adressing bigots, in the first place?  I really couldn't care less if you live a bigoted life and a bigoted family.  Just don't bring that garbage to me, or mine.  We don't tolerate it.  When we see racists and other bigots, we turn our heads and walk away from them.  They merit little else.  As for my 'rabid' attack on Ventura, if that's what you call 'rabid', you really need to get out more.

In other words, you don't have the brains or the balls to back up your accusation that criticizing Christianity makes me a bigot, so you will continue to insult me while evading the argument.

Do you ever get tired of waking up every morning and realizing you're a bigot?  Do you ever get tired of making stupid attempts to provoke pointless arguments?  Probably not; hence, you're still an instigating bigot.


See above.

If you don't like my morality, more power to you.  Again, I'm not in any position that requires my justification of any thought or action to bigots (such as yourself).

See above.

Prove that Christianity is morally bankrupt.

And, considering God said quite clearly you were to glorify Him, that kind of proves the point.  Whether you choose to believe it is up to you; I personally don't care if you do, or don't.

Yes you do, otherwise you wouldn't be running around insulting me personally for saying that the Bible is a joke.

Yep.  This comes in response to a person that criticize my degree, because he refuses to recognize anything past his own nose, and from the same person that says I'm morally bankrupt, due to my Christian upbringing.  Oh, and my home is constructed of brick, thank you.

You're morally bankrupt because you're an evasive, cowardly little pussy who flings shit and doesn't have the brains or balls to back it up when challenged, not because you were raised Christian. As I already said, many Christians are good people who have simply been misled. Unfortunately, you do not appear to be one of them.

If your little feelings are hurt, I'm sorry.  However, as opposed to reading this long and probably pointless rant, I'm going back to important things.  If you want to talk to me, you know how to, and how to address me.  If I wanted to address you and find you, I know and knew how, as well.

Excuse me Mr. Coward, but you are making personal accusations against me, so you have to back it up. The only accusation I have made against you as an individual is that you are a coward, and frankly, your conduct during this exchange has verified that quite beautifully. All you can do is hurl insults while saying that you don't care. You care enough to run around attacking someone by name all over the Internet, but not enough to respond when that person finally takes notice of you and asks you to back up your bullshit? You really think this will fool anyone?

[Editor's note: and his response to my website which he claims to be full of "lies" is ...]

I'm not reading your website; I'm reading my e-mail.  If you have a question, ask it, or be quiet and leave me alone, until I have time for such childishness.

It's not a question: it's a challenge for you to back up your claims that my website is bigoted. After all, YOU HAVE MADE THAT CLAIM, AND YOU REFUSE TO BACK IT UP WHEN CHALLENGED. What part of this do you not understand?

Your turn.

Already answered this in the preceeding paragraph.

No you didn't. You claimed that the arguments on my website somehow make me a bigot. YOU have already made a claim; I am merely asking you to back it up. There's your question. Now answer it, or you will merely reveal yourself to be the gutless pussy that everyone already says you are.

The same applies to my other website. Moreover, you have been running around claiming that you have ALREADY effortlessly demolished all of my arguments on both of my pet subjects. Surely you could simply quote one of these oh-so-irrefutable debunkings if you are as pressed for time as you say, but then again, that would imply that you were not bullshitting all along. It looks like you're just not a big enough man to take responsibility for your own mistakes and confess that you were talking trash because you didn't want to admit my arguments are stronger than you let on.

PS. It must be hard to sit up straight in front of your computer with no backbone.

He pretends he's willing to debate

November 20, 2003

[Editor's note: obviously stung by the public lambasting he was taking from members of the forums here, he offers to debate the subject and acts as if he does not have dozens of prepared arguments on MSN already]

Ok, while I've got a few minutes, let's hear your take on the display of firepower in "The Die is Cast", and "The Empire Strikes Back".

No problem. Read this:

If you disagree with its conclusions (and don't lie to me; you have publicly claimed that my conclusions are easily refuted and in fact have been successfully refuted many times), then surely you should be able to point out what's wrong with them rather than asking me to repeat myself.

Why do you keep ducking this debate? Do you really think anyone's going to buy your bullshit claim that I haven't made an argument yet despite throwing up an entire PUBLIC WEBSITE full of arguments which has been up for YEARS?

He tries to run away again

[Editor's note: he tries to hinge his "running away" hopes on the notion that my website does not count as a Star Wars vs Star Trek argument]

So, in other words, you're not going to answer the question.  Well, then I guess I'm just wasting my time.  I've told you once that I'm on a limited temporal budget, due to personal and work demands, and, in light of that, you continue to dance in circles, and talk about everything else that has absolutely nothing to do with the Star Wars v. Star Trek debate, and to further waste my time with more garbage like your reply to my simple question to start the debate.

You're pathetic, you know that? I provided MEGABYTES worth of arguments on the SW vs ST debate, and you say I have not made an argument?

[Editor's note: you might find it interesting that he said "I'm still working on my own website to rebut Wong's and the text is about 90% done." on the Yahoo groups way back in August 2002, more than a year before this E-mail exchange. Yet now, he acts as though he's never seen my website before]

If anyone's ducking, it's you, and I'm beginning to tire, fast.

It's obvious that you're just going to weasel out of this by claiming that you don't have time to read my website even though you publicly claim to have REFUTED it, which is impossible if you haven't already read it! So either you're a fucking liar or a coward; take your pick.

But I grow weary of your flimsy excuses, so I will take this one away from you. You want my argument on SW vs ST firepower with respect to TDIC and TESB and you refuse to simply read it off my website? Fine, I'll paraphrase myself for you right here:

  1. TDiC demonstrates sufficient Trek firepower to cause less destruction at surface level than a large asteroid strike, with non-persistent fireballs, no visible ejecta whatsoever, and in fact, less surface luminosity than is generated from a large forest fire. In fact, the ONLY evidence that the ships in orbit were capable of anything more than surface-level destruction was one of several possible interpretations of a piece of dialogue, which is to say no conclusive evidence at all. Contrast this to their various attempts to destroy asteroids in "Rise" and "Pegasus" and "Cost of Living", which are consistent with their observed firepower in TDiC but not with the unreasonable extrapolations derived from optimistic interpretations of dialogue that are common to wild-eyed Trekkie fanatics.

  2. The common use of TESB as a maximum benchmark (rather than a ridiculously conservative lower limit) for Imperial firepower is actually a joke in light of the fact that Slave-1 was effortlessly pulverizing multi-kilometre wide asteroids in AOTC. It's precisely analogous to saying that you saw an M1 Abrams' 120mm smoothbore punch through drywall, so you're going to take that as a firepower limit for a 120mm smoothbore even though a comparatively miniscule handgun can do the same thing, and the published specs for a 120mm smoothbore are much higher. Having said that, the calculations show that it takes around a third of a megaton to vape one of those asteroids as shown, although ISD guns are actually much more powerful than that.

I work for a living, and there are people that depend on me, so I don't have time for bullcrap, and I'm not going to make time for it, either.  This is your only warning.  Get in it gear, or get out of my face.

Same to you, asshole. I'm only repeating the arguments made on my website, and your pathetic dodge that "you have not made an argument until you make it personally to me via E-mail even if you've already published it on the Internet'" is not going to fool anyone, or look like anything but the pathetic delaying action that it is. Now that I have taken it away from you, what will your next excuse be? Your dog ate your homework?

I'll check my e-mail, again, in a couple of days.  If there is no answer to my question, then I'll just have to assume that you're attempting to dodge the debate, and instead, indulge yourself in a mudslinging festival.  Save that crap for someone that has both the time & patience for it.

This sounds really funny coming from someone whose entire communication consists of whining and excuses and who responded to a challenge to back up his claims about having ALREADY refuted my website by claiming that he doesn't have time to read it. You may think you are very clever at playing games, but no one is fooled. Grow a backbone and respond, coward.

He runs to Darkstar for help!

November 21, 2003

[Editor's note: instead of responding, he sent a message to Darkstar and cc'd it to me]

So is Wong always this intelligent, or is he just being especially stupid, today? I wish I had the time to immediately respond. I also wish I knew his address, so I could go and kick his ass in front of his wife and kids. People who talk crap that they'd never say in person across a distance of hundreds of km/miles piss me off.

ROTFLMAO!! Running to Darkstar for help, eh? Even he doesn't stoop to your pathetically infantile tactics of answering points with vague threats of physical violence, dipshit. Grow a backbone and either answer my E-mail or concede. Grown men do not bluster about physical violence when they're losing an argument.

More Hot Air

November 22, 2003

[Editor's note: after he bragged on Yahoo about his "electronics engineering" on Yahoo and how it gave him a background similar to mine (yes, he claims to have an engineering background even though he doesn't know the difference between speed and acceleration), one of my readers alerted me to his Yahoo online profile, which looks like this:

Yahoo! ID: frombfecanton
Real Name: Isaac Bishop Jr.
Location: Plymouth Township, MI
Age: 32
Marital Status: Single And Looking
Gender: Male
Occupation: Electronics Technician

I posted it in the commentary thread (linked at the top of this page), and some of my users had a good laugh at his expense. He was lurking in my forums and watching the thread, so he became quite upset (interesting behaviour for someone who claims he doesn't have time to even E-mail me). I mention the escapade with his Yahoo profile because the first paragraph of the next post won't make any sense without it].

Uh, I talk to Darkstar because he's a cool guy, unlike yourself.  Furthermore, I haven't lost anything, considering we haven't debated anything, yet.  I've also heard the funny news about how you run around crowing about how you 'know me', by quoting out-dated stats from my Yahoo! profile.  Now that's just really pathetic.

ROTFLMAO!! "Outdated stats?" That's the funniest excuse I've ever heard. So, at the age of 32 you had an electrical technician's diploma, but you now claim to be a full-fledged electrical engineer, which requires (at a minimum) 4 years of university education as well as 2 to 4 years of practical experience in the field. That means you must be what, 38 to 40 years old now? When did you meet your wife, since you were still "single and looking" at 32 years of age? While you were in university taking an undergraduate degree in your mid 30s? Hot damn, your pathetic lies are just about the funniest thing I've ever read.

Anyhow, when time permits today or tomorrow, I'll wade through your garbage and answer your previous e-mail.  Again, though, last warning:  the next time I see something full of your bullcrap, as opposed to a straight answer to a question, you can just kiss my ass.

So it's "bullcrap" to point you to an online list of my arguments when you ask for ... my arguments? Damn, you just keep getting funnier and funnier.

And as for threatening you, yes, if I do see you, you probably will get your cowardly ass kicked, because you're the type of child that yells something stupid around a corner, then runs and hides before the inevitable ass kicking comes.  Grown men don't talk crap at 200 miles.

LOL! So says the pussy who is presently busy talking crap and making threats of violence at 200 miles. Ironic, isn't it?

They do it face-to-face and take the consequences of their actions.

Yes they do, dipshit. And if you ever tried to bother me or my family at my home, the consequences of your actions would be that I would have you arrested and thrown in prison for trespassing and harassment because that's how adults handle idiots like you. So go ahead, put your money where your swollen flapping lips are and make good on your latest empty blustering threat from 200 miles away. I hope you like picking up the soap in the prison shower.

PS. What makes you think I would be unwilling to debate you face-to-face? Do you think your arguments would be any less flimsy in person? Or would you try to threaten violence as soon as you inevitaly start losing? I haven't met morons like you since high school; it's amazing that someone could actually be 32 years old and still running around acting like the dumbest kid in grade 12.

More attempts to run away

November 23, 2003

And you're just the same, as had been previously stated in letters.  Arrgoantly stupid, thinking you're better than everyone else.

In other words, you refuse to address the points I made about TDiC and TESB, you refuse to address my entire website's litany of arguments despite claiming repeatedly that you've ALREADY done so in the past, you cannot even address your obvious lies about your own background, so you have nothing left to resort to but empty insults. And you wonder why you can't hang onto a girlfriend. Here's a hint, Junior: women generally prefer guys who don't have to invent lies about themselves in order to impress people.

In case you're wondering why my response to your garbage is so short, it's because you're saying less and less worth responding to.  Now post that on your website for your cronies to read.

Since you repeatedly demanded that I send you examples of my on-topic arguments and then promptly ran away when I did so, I will take this statement for what it is worth: precisely zero.

Oh, and just to make you happy, I'll send a copy to Darkstar, too.

It doesn't surprise me that he and you would get along, Junior: both of you are perpetually single. Perhaps the two of you should move to Massachusetts and get married, since neither of you are ever going to get into a woman's pants anyway. I hear the Supreme Court there said it was OK.

From now on, I'd suggest confining your e-mails to the subject, if you're capable of doing so.  If not, stop wasting my time, right now.

I already tried sending the on-topic points you asked for, and your response was to completely ignore them. Any time you want to address the points I already sent you, you're welcome to grow a brain and do so, Junior. Until then, good luck with Darkstar. We'll all be pulling for you :)

New "running away" tactic: he claims my last E-mail was spam!

November 24, 2003

I do believe I recall telling you that I'm on a limited time budget.  I am working on a reply to your point, and I'll have it today or tomorrow, but, like I said:  TIME.  I have a life outside this company PC and my house, Wong.


My reply will address your comment on firepower that we've started, but, in the meantime, stop spamming me with useless crap that do nothing more than reduce space in my e-mail box.

ROFL, look who's talking, Junior! You send me E-mail that amounts to nothing more than vapid personal attacks, pointless evasions of my arguments, and endless run-around, and you have the nerve to accuse ME of wasting time? Let's get this straight, Junior: the only person here who has made any arguments relating to the subject of Star Trek, Star Wars, or Creationism in this entire E-mail exchange has been me. And everyone knows it too!

YOU, on the other hand, HAVE NOT MADE A SINGLE SOLITARY ARGUMENT WHICH RELATES REMOTELY TO THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION in all of this entire exchange. NOT ONE WORD relating to the subject. Every single one of your messages has been either an attack on me or a pathetic excuse for your inability to respond.

As for attacks on my personal life (something that has nothing to do with the debate), as for my being single, well, while I haven't married, I've been kept pretty happy, and I'll not elaborate on that.  This was a very fulfilling weekend that you probably couldn't appreciate the fun of, because you're very much not Goth/Industrial.

Of course not. I've grown up.

I don't know about Darkstar's personal situation or life, because I haven't asked, but if he's single, maybe it's for a reason.

I'd call that an understatement :)

As for my being single, well, I guess that depends on how you define single.

How does any of this change the fact that you obviously lied about having education and obligations? I am a father of two, Junior. I have far more obligations than you do. Going out and partying with your little Goth/Industrial friends is not a serious obligation.

You have repeatedly insulted me and attacked my website from afar, you have even claimed in other forums that you are "90% finished" with a website that will crush mine, and now that you finally have my attention, you're scurrying away like a cockroach when the light is turned on. What happened to this "90% finished" website, Junior? Either concede that you're full of shit or start quoting from all of these arguments that you have supposedly ALREADY WRITTEN. Don't waste my time with more of your endless whining about the difficulties of your life. For someone who claims to be an adult, you act suspiciously like a whiny teenager.

Now he says I'm disrupting his office work!

I will not warn you, again. This is a business PC I'm on, and I don't have time to perpetually stop work to clear space out of my e-mail box and clear your spam.

Stop bullshitting, Junior. Do you think anyone is going to believe that is a business E-mail account, rather than a personal account? If you are checking your personal Hotmail account during business hours from your business PC, then that is a matter to be taken up between you and your supervisor, not you and me. Smells like yet another flimsy excuse for running away with your tail between your legs, Junior.

I have to answer legitimate questions through my own account in work related incidents, and, if necessary, I will block you from sending further dispatches.

Nice excuse for your dazzling display of cowardice, Junior. Too bad no one in his right mind is going to buy it. Why don't you grow a spine and admit that you were bullshitting all along, about everything? Your claims to have already refuted my website, your claims of being a fully qualified engineer, your claims of having too many obligations to quote from the website that you've supposedly got 90% done already, etc. All of it.

You can try to take this to your cronies and say you've won something, but, anyone with common sense will see you're bothering me at work, and I've warned you that such behaviour cannot be tolerated.

No one is forcing you to check your personal Hotmail account from work, Junior. You can't even make a convincing excuse, can you? Pathetic.

You were told that when time permitted, you'd get your response. Obey the restrictions, and do not e-mail me any further, while I'm working.

What's the matter? Couldn't find 30 seconds in the last WEEK to copy and paste some of your arguments from the "refute SD.Net" website that you've supposedly got 90% done already? Need to look for excuses to weasel out of having to answer at all? I like this little "ultimatum" trick and your transparent conceit of pretending you're somehow forced to check your personal Hotmail account from work; very amusing, Junior.

Virus-X (ver 7.0)


Yup, that really looks like a believable sig for a corporate E-mail account :)

Still trying to squirm out of the debate

November 25, 2003

This company is a start-up, and I didn't look to get a domain with them.

Ah yes, they obviously haven't had the time to spend 1 [day] to secure a domain name, so they have everyone using individual E-mail accounts. Sure.

My e-mail address is made available for every client I work with, so they can get in touch with me at any time of the day, as well as reach me by my personal cell phone.  So, yes, I do have to check my e-mail, constantly, at work, and all I'm doing is seeing you spamming me.

Oh right, very believable story. That's why you sign all of your messages with the oh-so-businesslike "Virus-X" name, right? Who do you think you're kidding? I'm sure most people prefer to see business correspondents signing their messages as their infantile online self-aggrandizing personas rather than their actual names. It must give them a real sense of confidence.

Since you do not have the decency to stop spamming me with stupid questions and personal attacks, you will be blocked.  You can, then, e-mail me to your heart's content, but I will not see it.  When I am finished with my reply, I will contact you, and remove the block.  However, if you attempt to spam me, again, I will merely block you again, permanently, and conclude that you did not truly want to debate me, as much as insult me, hence your inability to act in a decent manner, and not pester me with garbage.

In case you hadn't heard, spam has a concrete definition, and someone RESPONDING TO YOUR MESSAGES is not spam. If you were telling the truth about not wanting to answer my E-mails at work, here's a hint: don't answer my E-mails at work! Really tough, eh? Why don't you just admit that you're desperately searching for an excuse to pretend that I've broken some kind of rule by (horror of horrors!) answering you whenever you send me an E-mail message?

If you're not posing a debate question, do not e-mail me, again, for any other reason.

Fine, here's a debate question: please forward the contents of your "90% complete" webpage to me so that I can peruse your supposedly near-complete deconstruction of my website. If it exists, of course. Mind you, that would presume that you were not full of shit: a hypothesis which seems increasingly unlikely.

He finally stops running and debates ... with copy/paste arguments

November 27, 2003

Ok, now that I've been left alone for 2 days, and things have slowed down sufficiently (due to the impending holiday), I've had time to compose my reply, and lifted the ban.  NO MORE repeated e-mails, though.  Like I've said, I use my personal e-mail for work, too, and Hotmail doesn't have the biggest storage capacity.  Sometimes, clients have to send me text, sometimes .jpegs and .gifs, or all of the above to describe problems, and, in the interests of furthering my company's aims, I accept contact from them at any time in the day or night, and make myself readily available for emergency calls, throughout the tri-state area adjacent Michigan.

Next question.

Virus-X (ver 7.0)


[Editor's note: he attached a Word document to this E-mail, which I had to manually convert into HTML form for web use. The interesting thing is that it's nothing more than a copy and paste of some of his existing arguments from the newsgroups on the subject, along with some material copied from Darkstar's website. So why the long delay and all of the obfuscation? I think we all know the answer; he had to be coaxed, goaded, and cajoled into entering this debate because he was afraid of the SmackDown :)]

Click here to see his opening post

Up one level