Note: Mike Wong has called this page "the most wonderful example of sore-loser bad sportsmanship that I've ever seen", and suggests that I employ double-standards.
Have you ever seen his Hate Mail pages? That is the work of a sore loser, especially regarding his debate with me and his exhaustive spin-doctoring effort prefacing it. As for double-standards, how can a guy who gets so upset about some freak calling his house (Wong's so-called "ASU coward") promptly post a link purporting to give my personal information (phone number included) and not consider himself hypocritical?
Stop being stupid, Mike.
Y'know, I used to think that underneath the "ALL MUST BOW TO ME, I AM THE GREATEST" persona, Mike Wong was probably an okay, logical guy. I confess . . . there wasn't much logic to that viewpoint, but I held it nevertheless. Sure, he tried to whittle it away at every opportunity, with every intellectually dishonest statement, fraudulent claim, and outright lie that he typed.
But, I didn't really start thinking of him as person of questionable integrity until I saw this: www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Debate-1-epilogue.html
"Editor's note: a few months ago, I happened to walk by a woman who was parking in a handicapped parking spot. I stopped, turned around, looked her in the eye, and said "nice place to park, bitch". She got angry at me, and complained that I was swearing in front of her kid. I called her a bitch again, and told her that she was setting a fine example for him by parking there."
The story is amusing at first . . . Wong boasts of doing what many of us would do (or would want to do) in the case of seeing a non-handicapped person park in a handicapped spot, and we learn at the end of the tale that she moves her car. But then we get to the part where he swears in front of her child again, intentionally, and with the feigned justification that she's setting a bad example.
Which lesson is it better for the child to learn? That a person without handicaps ought not park in a handicapped spot, or that you can make people do what you want them to do via fear? Chewing her out for her parking was laudable, but continuing past that . . . harassing a mother in front of her child . . . was way over the line. That's a fine lesson for the child . . . "yell at people, and you'll get your way". And then to boast about it publicly!
It was at that point that reality set in . . . Wong was probably just an angry little man with far too many unresolved issues . . . pizza, for instance.
And yet, I still thought that maybe, just maybe, if push came to shove, he'd be more likely to do the right thing than the wrong thing.
Well, Wong's gone off and disappointed me again.
You see, some idiotic loser who arrived at my site via Wong's StarDestroyer.Net evidently decided that I had not received enough death threats du jour from Warsies. He decided that it was high time to throw yet another into the mix. That alone qualified him for "idiotic loser" status, but the fool apparently forgot that he had put his e-mail address on the form! One check of the Yahoo! Canada member profiles later, and I had his name and location . . . and with those two things, I had his world. In my reply, I informed him of such, and let him know that what I had found had been shared with the appropriate authorities.
Even some idiots are smart enough to know when they've screwed up big-time. He ran to the SD.Net forums, and decided to ask the people there for advice . . . you can see his message and my reply there, too. To my surprise, a few of them stepped up to the plate and called him to the carpet for what he'd done . . . and to those gentlemen, my compliments. Others merely whined that he was making SD.Net look bad. And some didn't care one way or the other.
And yet you'll note that, in that thread, there is one particular voice that doesn't speak . . . one particular voice that is silent. One particular voice that failed to step up to the plate.
Soon, a new thread was started . . . 'should the fool be banned'? With a few exceptions, most were of the opinion that he should. Some thought it was because he'd behaved improperly toward another human being (and again, to you my compliments) . . . some because he'd been an annoying pest for some time. Some were just out to see someone banned. But, a few even dared to suggest that an apology was owed me . . . and again, to you my compliments.
And yet you'll note that, in that thread, there is one particular voice that doesn't speak of apologies, explanations, or anything of the sort, except to say that he doesn't think it should happen. (Indeed, he doesn't speak at all until the fifth page.) And there's one particular voice that doesn't call for a banning . . . he merely sways to the opinions of the day.
That voice is, of course, Mike Wong's.
In August, a man was banned from SD.Net's forums for going toe to toe with Wong. As Wong flung insults, deleted posts, engaged in PR BS, and continually tried to escape a good, honest debate, there was one man who gave as good as he got, pointed out each and every escape attempt, and tried to use Wong's overinflated ego against him to goad him into honest debate. When that man referred to Wong with a wonderfully accurate appraisal in big red letters, he was permanently banned . . . along with everyone else on that cable modem circuit who might ever wish to venture there, as opposed to the death threat guy's far weaker, non-permanent banning.
Now, Wong's had the opportunity to demonstrate that he's not really a bad person or a man of moral cowardice. . . that what happened in August was merely the heat of the moment. Instead, what has he done? He's defended the fool's behavior ("it wasn't really a death threat"), argued against notions of apology or even explanation ("I don't see the need for one"), waffled on banning ("The vote seems fairly conclusive" ... "It is, however, still just a straw"), and even expressed concern over the notion of performing the same sort of IP ban he performed against me.
Intellectual dishonesty . . . false claims . . . harassment of mothers in front of children for paltry "crimes" . . . and now, this latest lovely display of the morality of Wong.
really are huge and gaping, aren't you, Mike?
Back to STvSW