The Battle of Britain

Re:  "Preface"


The preface page contains the opening commentary of this tale of two Mikes.  For the purpose of clarity, Mike Wong gets first dibs on the name Mike . . . I shall refer to Mike Blackburn as Ossus.  Wong's comments shall be colored in green, while the comments of Ossus and company shall be colored in orange . . . quotes of me will be in gold.   Hopefully, the color scheme will help clarify the responses to their schizoid attack.

This document is intended to be a definitive (but not comprehensive) rebuttal of one Mr. Robert Scott Anderson's website1.

Better luck next time.

Suffice it to say, it is the personal preference of Mr. Anderson to rely exclusively upon canonical information for the purposes of debating, and in the creation of the said website, despite the clear violation of the Star Wars (SW) canon statements, including the ones from Lucas that he incessantly invoked to support his claims. 

In reality, it is the personal preference of Wong, Ossus, and their fellow flunkies to include the Expanded Universe (EU) materials (even at the expense of canon data), despite the clear violations of Lucas/LFL canon policy.   To arrive at that notion as if it were a conclusion requires ignoring or "creatively reinterpreting" statements by Lucas and LFL fan relations personnel, accepting LucasBooks and Lucas Licensing statements as having higher authority in the matter, and so on.  More on this is available here.  To see the debate between Wong and myself on the matter (he lost), click here.

This document will make use of EU material to refute any pages of Mr. Anderson's site that do require the use of the EU themselves. In this manner, it is intended for both sides of the ensuing debate to be placed on completely even ground, on the basis of what is and is not considered to be applicable. Moreover, as this document is intended as a refutation, it would be improper to make use of additional information, of which the refuted work limits itself to excluding.

I include this both to make the remainder of the pages clearer, and because I approve of his choice.  Granted, his decision was based on the following (as posted here):  "Should I be able to defeat him soundly, using only canon material, it would lend still more credence to the pro-Wars position on the internet, by defeating the most rabid and ardent Trekkie without the use of any EU material."  Compare this expression of a tactical decision to the phrasing above, which could almost fool a person into thinking that (gasp!) he's trying to play fair.

Readers expecting large volumes of flames, insults, and such will be disappointed. I have deliberately refrained from using such things whenever possible, to increase the difficulty that Mr. Anderson will have in responding to these points in a coherent manner, and to prevent him from using his famous "you're flaming, I win" lines as much as possible. 

Again I approve of the choice expressed, though he states it most absurdly.  Responding in a coherent manner is far easier when one is not required to scour one's way through the Wong-esque minefields of personal attacks and petty insults to figure out what the point is, and express why it is wrong.  Further, the 'famous line' does not exist as quoted . . . the concept comes from the debate with Wong, in which I declared that there were to be no flames, personal attacks, and so on (a concept he violated from the get-go, though he did show a tiny bit of self-restraint up until the last round or so).  That was a tactical decision on my part . . . arguing just the facts is my preference.  Though theoretically it would be a straight-jacket for both sides, I knew he would have a far harder time with it, given his common tactics (especially after the goading and ego-poking I'd used to get him to surrender to that clause).  But, I digress . . . 

I will, however, make every effort short of insults to remove Anderson's credibility...

In other words, the goal is an attack on the man . . . the method will be an attempt at producing rational arguments.  Well, at least he's somewhat honest about it in the preface.  

Please note: Due to Mr. Anderson's refusal to post dates on his website, I will use the date of the last update before I read the site when accrediting a work to him.

Refusal?  ...The hell?

Note also that Ossus's footnotes identify my website under its old .edu address (ST-v-SW.Net appeared 12-10-02), but gives the last date of the site as he's dealing with it as 12-28-02.  Well, which is it? 

An interesting inconsistency . . . we'll see if it bears any fruit in his works.     

Wong also made some prefatory remarks.  His, unsurprisingly, don't have the same subtle efforts to mislead . . . he just comes right out and does it.

[Editor's note: it should be noted that one of RSA's main platforms is his claim that the EU is "non-canon" and should be ignored. He likes this because the removal of evidence increases ambiguity, and quite frankly, increased ambiguity is a benefit to bullshitters.

Wrong again, Mike.  The mass inclusion of the widely-variable figures of the EU has been a boon to Rabid Warsies, who use the confusion to utterly ignore the smaller figures from the EU (and those from the canon as well, even when specifically stated to be the maximum) in favor of the highest speculation du jour.  The picking and choosing made possible by this avalanche of non-canon nonsense is the benefit to bullshitters.  Witness StarDestroyer.Net.

He also uses his dismissal of the EU as an excuse to label anything using the EU for evidence as a "fallacy" or "falsehood". This is a frankly despicable tactic. It is one thing to simply say that you prefer a pure-canon approach; many people do that. But it is quite another to accuse everyone who uses the officially published policy of being a liar. 

This I love.  Here and on the main index, he rants about the use of the term "fallacy" to describe false claims, and elsewhere claims that the term 'fallacy' is only applicable when describing fallacies of logic.  This is funny in three ways:

1.  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fallacy

2.  He has employed that very same usage

3.  I picked up the usage for these purposes from a person near and dear to Wong's heart . . . a person who, at the mere mention of anything bearing the slightest appearance of an attack on anything he says, Mike will leap into the fray with teeth bared to defend (as do most Rabid Warsies . . . just try saying you disagree with a firepower figure from the Episode II Incredible Cross Sections, and see how they respond to your 'vicious personal attack' on the good Dr.). 

Who is this person?  None other than Curtis Saxton, author of a page on what he describes as the "Five Mile Fallacy". 

The Star Wars Encyclopedia describes the EU as "quasi-canon"; this is quite unambiguous. 

 . . . as is Lucas's assignment of the EU to a "parallel universe", an "other world" that exists "outside my little universe", which can have, by his own belief, a far different history from his own movie universe.  Also unambiguous is the fact that Sansweet, now heading up LucasFilm Fan Relations, has repeatedly contradicted his own SWE claim, written back when he was random guy in Lucas Licensing.   (You lost this argument already, Mike.  Quit whining.)

Does he realize that if we wanted to be like him, we could simply take Gene Roddenberry's "it isn't Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek" quote and use it to dismiss anything he didn't produce? 

As is common, Wong misrepresents my reasoning, contradicts his own reasoning, and outright ignores the facts.

1.  (From Mike's "Canon" page):  But since both Star Wars and Star Trek are copyrighted entities, they are the intellectual property of Lucasfilms and Paramount. In a very real sense, those two organizations get to decide what is and isn't "real" in their respective sci-fi worlds, and most fans are willing to accept their positions.  

And I do.  Why can't he?

2.  Gene Roddenberry's filmed interview, seen in the Roddenberry-produced "The Star Trek Saga:  From One Generation to the Next" (1988) and on the special 25th Anniversary videotape, includes his comments that Star Trek would "keep going on without any of us, and it'll just get better and better and better," along with the comment that, in reference to future Treks, people would say "'Oh, that Roddenberry, he was never this good'."

One's opinion about the accuracy of his statements, or the performance by his hand-picked successor Berman, is irrelevant.  The fact remains that Roddenberry saw Star Trek as an entity which would continue after he himself was long gone.  Paramount has made sure that part has come true.

Anyway, keep this in mind when you look at RSA's site; his unabashed use of double-standards is quite remarkable]

Wong finds it easy to claim double-standards when he misrepresents the opposition's standards in the first place (conveniently forgetting his own in the process).  Further, for Wong, of all people, to accuse someone of hypocrisy is undoubtedly the most hysterical part of his preface.


Back to The Battle of Britain
Back to STvSW