Wong's Revision
Wong's Revision(from the entry "The Rule of Law" from the third in Arthur Bloch's "Murphy's Law" series)
"If the facts are against you, argue the law.
If the law is against you, argue the facts.
If the facts and the law are against you, yell like hell."
Wong's Revision to the Rule of Law:
When the facts are against you, yell like hell.
If that doesn't work, argue the law.
If the law is against you, try yelling like hell again.
"What is he referring to?", you're wondering. "What affront could prompt another response page, given what they've said and done already?"
Ah, there's the tale. Wong, having discovered that I am impervious to his charlatanism, long ago resorted to flames. Having discovered that I was impervious to his flames, he resorted to banning me from his board. Discovering that I was not silenced by banning (thanks in no small part to the obsession of he and his board denizens who kept bringing me back up), he resorted to slander attacks known to have incited my receipt of death threats from at least one of his board denizens. Discovering that I was impervious to slander attacks and death threats from morons he defended, he resorted to childish site attacks with more slander, board wars, and so on.
I finally started responding publicly to such silliness on my site when he changed his site in order to make any link from my own to his end up going to a pornography site, on the grounds that linking to his site was somehow bandwidth theft. That was just one more lie he chose to fling against me.
When I did decide to respond publicly to the years of Rabid Warsie personal attacks and his own actions over the past several months, he suddenly got upset with the concept of personal attacks.
And thus, he has resorted to legal threats via site feedback:
Date: Friday, January 24, 2003
Time: 1:09 AM EST
Subject: ST-v-SW Feedback
name: Michael Wong
e-mail:Comment: Robert, your incessant claims that you won the debate are your personal delusion, and I feel no need to answer them except to say that anyone is free to look at the debate and judge for themselves, rather than listening to whoever screams "I won!" the loudest.
However, you have finally gone too far and entered the realm of outright slander with your latest personal attacks. You posted this line on your website: "Awww, poor baby. Does it upset you when it isn't you doing the message nuking, as you did to my messages on SD.Net's BBS?" However, it is a fact that not one of your messages was ever deleted. Most of them were moved to a different forum, but every single one of them is still in place, still intact. Your false accusation is public slander, and I demand that you retract it.
Moreover, you claim that "he harassed GK's educators just to try to win some sort of points on his anti-GK page"; again, you have made an accusation which goes beyond your usual rantings about me being too rude, or losing our debate, and actually accused me of "harassing" Graham Kennedy's educators, which I never did. Once again, I will strenuously point out that you have finally crossed the line from your usual personal attacks to outright slander, and I demand a retraction.
Your pathetic personal obsession over me, never-ending site updates about my personal life or conduct, etc. are annoying enough on their own, but you have finally crossed the line. Outright public slander is illegal and unacceptable.
I have not paid much attention to your post-debate behaviour until now, but I have discovered that you have been saying in every venue possible and as many times as possible that I am a liar. It is one thing to pretend that by not reading one of your incredibly long-winded posts in its entirety, I was lying (even though I had never [i]claimed[/i] to read it in its entirety). It is quite another to go to every venue you can find and post that I am a habitual public liar.
You should be aware that a professional engineer is held to the highest ethical standards by law and that your public accusations of habitual dishonesty are quite serious, with potential professional and legal repercussions to me for which YOU could be held responsible. Slander and public defamation are not trivial offenses, Robert, and you have crossed the line. I am not exaggerating or bluffing, and you may consult legal texts if you wish to confirm the truth of this fact.PS. You have taken a debate over something as trivial as Star Wars vs Star Trek and elevated it to the point where it may actually have real-world repercussions. Enough is enough, Robert.
My reply to his silly accusations was appropriately brutal. However, I did decide to offer an olive branch at the end:
name: Michael Wong
Why hello, Mike. How kind of you to chase me with your online presence, as always.e-mail:
No e-mail address? What, did you not expect a reply?
Comment: Robert, your incessant claims that you won the debate are your personal delusion, and I feel no need to answer them except to say that anyone is free to look at the debate and judge for themselves, rather than listening to whoever screams "I won!" the loudest.
Well, I suppose I could've prefaced the debate with a long spin-doctoring diatribe, or added Black Knight pictures with racist implications to the end of the posts on the debate pages, but I figured I'd leave them comment-free so anyone can see for themselves that you were slaughtered in the Canon section, and had to resort to your old favorite of mudslinging in the Superlaser section, in order to try to eke out some points . . . not that it helped your flawed position any.
However, you have finally gone too far and entered the realm of outright slander with your latest personal attacks.
I openly laugh at you. You, of all people, accusing me of slander? I wasn't aware that Canadian English was so unlike our own that the term "slander" has been given a totally new meaning. Oh, but wait, it hasn't. So I must ask you . . . by what twisted code of morality do you operate?
Oh, but let's look at your "evidence", shall we?
You posted this line on your website: "Awww, poor baby. Does it upset you when it isn't you doing the message
nuking, as you did to my messages on SD.Net's BBS?" However, it is a fact that not one of your messages was ever deleted.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=135
And don't go trying to change it, you dishonest punk. I have old copies saved on the old server.
Your false accusation is public slander, and I demand that you retract it.
Don't get me wrong . . . I admire a bit of gall, but only when not employed stupidly, and for horrible purposes.
Thus, my response to your demand is: "Suck it, Mike".
Moreover, you claim that "he harassed GK's educators just to try to win some sort of points on his anti-GK page"; again, you have made an accusation which goes beyond your usual rantings about me being too rude, or losing our debate, and actually accused me of "harassing" Graham Kennedy's educators, which I never did.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=harass
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/KennedyHND.html
Once again, I will strenuously point out that you have finally crossed the line from your usual personal attacks to
outright slander, and I demand a retraction.
And once again, finding your claims absurdly stupid and dishonest, I offer up another response to yet another
demand: "Nuts".
And, on a similar note, I find your recent change of tone regarding me most humorous . . . this is twice you've commented on my "usual personal attacks". It's almost as if you think that because I am responding to your personal attacks by playing up yours (and throwing a few of my own into the ring) that somehow I am now the badguy. Praytell, Mike, what twisted thought process brought you to that conclusion? And who in the world do you think is going to believe that you're the angelic little innocent who wouldn't dream of saying a harsh word?
Your pathetic personal obsession over me,
To quote Wayne Poe: "BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Have you ever bothered to look and see just how often you mentioned me on your board, even after the early-September ban? How often you participate in discussions about me on your board? Did it not occur to you how stupid you would look on your January 7 update when you implied I was obsessed because I was tracking your updates page (which, by necessity, would require that you had seen mine)?
Just how stupid do you think your people are, Mike? I mean, if they buy into your bull, they must be pretty blinded, but you seriously bank on that expected level of stupidity from them. Don't whine because I'm making those checks bounce one by one.
never-ending site updates about my personal life or conduct, etc.
Funny, my first venomous site update regarding you, personally, was made on the sixth of January. The second involving you (in which you are but a footnote) appeared today. You've been spewing venom about me on your site since September. Again, I must ask you . . . what twisted thought process do you engage in to come to your utterly moronic conclusions?Outright public slander is illegal and unacceptable.
I have suggested you put an end to it before, Mike, but you chose to continue. Don't get cold feet about it now that it's being publicized by the target.
I have not paid much attention to your post-debate behaviour until now, but I have discovered that you have
been saying in every venue possible and as many times as possible that I am a liar. It is one thing to pretend that by not reading one of your incredibly long-winded posts in its entirety, I was lying (even though I had never [i]claimed[/i] to read it in its entirety). It is quite another to go to every venue you can find and
post that I am a habitual public liar.
1. You *are* a habitual public liar . . . but don't forget that you're a hypocrite, a charlatan, and a general troublemaker and nuisance. I think that pretty much covers my opinion on the matter, except to say that I am beyond you. That is why I point and laugh at you every time you do something stupid against me, and think little more of it.
2. Why would I need to go anywhere to talk about you . . .you always come chasing after me.
3. The number of times/threads in which I have mentioned you elsewhere (which usually occurs when someone else mentions you first) is *far less* than the number of times you have mentioned me.
4. You claim I call you a liar because you failed to read the posts. No, I call you a liar because you lied in your posts. Or are you conveniently forgetting, as but one example, your abuse of the dictionary (which you continue in your notes that are a part of Ossus's attack)?
You should be aware that a professional engineer is held to the highest ethical standards by law
Ooooh, that must suck for you. But, fortunately for you, I doubt Canadian law dictates that your dealings outside of the workplace be examined for ethics violations . . . otherwise, you wouldn't have the balls to try the crap you pull.
and that your public accusations of habitual dishonesty are quite serious, with potential professional and legal
repercussions to me for which YOU could be held responsible.
As a matter of principle, I think that what one does outside the workplace (short of criminal behavior) should have little to no bearing on one's position within the workplace. But, that having been said, if your superiors found your site and you were to end up reprimanded or fired for being a lying hypocrite, or for pulling more "parking lot" episodes, I would laugh until my sides split. In two, even.
Slander and public defamation are not trivial offenses, Robert, and you have crossed the line.
You crossed that line a long, long time ago, Mike. Indeed, you basically lit yourself on fire and ran screaming across it. All I've done lately is show people how far you go. If you can't handle people laughing at you, then perhaps you shouldn't be such a jester.
I am not exaggerating or bluffing, and you may consult legal texts if you wish to confirm the truth of this fact.
I don't need to consult legal texts to know that you'd be laughed right out of court. They would probably applaud me for the patience I demonstrated with you and your comrades-in-ignorance.
It is no crime to be a jackass, Mike, as you well know. Me, I'm an old-fashioned gentleman . . . that means I can be a cast-iron SOB if I feel it is appropriate. Unless you'd like to be schooled on the laws regarding spurious lawsuits, or face a countersuit, I'd suggest you back down.
PS. You have taken a debate over something as trivial as Star Wars vs Star Trek and elevated it to the point where it may actually have real-world repercussions. Enough is enough, Robert.
Your friends began it . . . you perpetuate it, with such lovely examples as that link to the site with all my personal info. How can you whine about the ASU Coward while simultaneously posting that link, hmm? Hypocrite. I suppose I could've been just as bad and played tit for tat, but I consider that sort of thing well over the line.
But, let's stop for a minute and behave like grown men and mature human beings.
By now, I've probably got you hopping mad, but take a moment to breathe, as I just did. You're not exactly one of the calmest people I am acquainted with, so if breathing doesn't help, get up and walk around the room for a minute, or break something, or print out my site's frontdoor image, set it on fire, and then pee on it . . . whatever floats your boat, here. We can fling e-mails back and forth all day long reminding ourselves how much we detest one another, but there are other issues to consider:
First, let's be practical:
You're a married man . . . you have children who will be expecting a college education, a house, a couple of cars, probably savings, et cetera. I have a small apartment and a make-do rusty car built in 1981 (the legendary Smurf Turd (http://www.daltonator.net/fanfics/humor/car.txt) finally died).
If push came to shove, you'd have everything to lose and nothing to gain. I would have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Worse yet, I'm a young man building a life . . . if your case were, by some stretch of the law, a success, I would start from scratch, and I'm not far from there anyway. If the situation were reversed, you'd be in severe trouble.
And no, that is not a threat or anything silly like that. It is simply a statement of fact.
Second, let's get real:
You and I can both be such jackasses that we could very well miss the principle issue here, which (whether it was just a smokescreen or not, if you'll forgive the jackassness) would be your concern regarding your job and your family's financial safety. In short, your family.
I appreciate concern for one's family. Some of your comrades utterly failed to do that in the past . . . when I mentioned my family, they only pushed harder. However, there is a line, and I know where it is even if they don't. If you really feel that my publicly posted opinions regarding you and your behavior constitute a danger to your security, then you have my deepest sympathies.
Therefore, I would propose a compromise that would ensure your security. The two of us . . . yes, you and I (and I know it's somewhat unthinkable, but bear with me) . . . could come to a logical, reasonable, responsible, *mutual understanding*.
How? Simple. We could agree to remove all materials from our sites which could be regarded as slanderous by the other party (and no reposting them elsewhere . . . this is supposed to be a move of good faith on both parts). If we wanted to be really big boys, we could remove all disagreeable off-topic (i.e. not ST vs. SW) content regarding the other party altogether. And . . . and this is the tricky part . . . we could both agree to try to refrain from discussing the other party in public in the future.
Now, I can imagine what you're thinking . . . you probably think it's some sort of trick, or that it's unfair, or that 'by damn I don't have to remove something from my site or edit what I say', or some combination of such things. Hey, I don't trust you, either. And no, I'm not suggesting that you remove everything from the BBS . . . I have no power to remove any comments I've made on SB, Flare, or SCN, so it would hardly be fair to demand that you do the same on yours. Besides which, there is WAY more stuff on your boards about me (last time I counted back in December, I'd been mentioned over 1100 times on your boards since the banning), and I wouldn't consider it fair for me to have to do a few keystrokes and mouse clicks while you were stuck digging through mountains of material.
And another thing . . . I know how important, if even on a subconscious level, it is for you to "save face". And I also know that you've already posted your e-mail on the boards. I would suggest that, if you agree to the proposal, we not mention it any further right now. Feel free to take a look tomorrow at my site . . . you'll find no mention of this.
However . . . and I don't want to undo any peacemaking I've done by saying this somewhat jackass-ish thing, but . . . if you pull a "you" and post this with plenty of venomous counter-remarks, I will then be prompted to post a report of all of this on my site, in defense as usual. And if appearances really are so important to you, you should realize that a man with nothing to lose offering a hand (if even just one of compromise) to a man with everything to lose probably makes for really good press for the first guy.
If you do agree, then we can work out the details in future correspondence.
So, how about it? Two mature men acting in good faith toward a noble goal, or two jackasses flinging rhetoric and setting a course for hell?
The choice is yours.
G2k
I hoped Mike would surprise me by responding like a reasonable human being might. Alas, Babylon:
>Why hello, Mike. How kind of you to chase me with your
>online presence, as always.
>
Interesting. You demand that I post on your feedback page, then you
complain that I "chase" you when I do it. Why do you hate me so much,
Robert? I think your Star Wars vs Star Trek arguments are ridiculous,
but go to http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA and try to
honestly tell me that this page attacks you the way your page attacks me.
>Well, I suppose I could've prefaced the debate with a long
>spin-doctoring diatribe, or added Black Knight pictures with
>racist implications to the end of the posts on the debate
>pages, but I figured I'd leave them comment-free so anyone
>can see for themselves that you were slaughtered in the
>Canon section, and had to resort to your old favorite of
>mudslinging in the Superlaser section, in order to try to
>eke out some points . . . not that it helped your flawed
>position any.
>
Yadda yadda yadda
>I openly laugh at you. You, of all people, accusing me of
>slander? I wasn't aware that Canadian English was so unlike
>our own that the term "slander" has been given a totally new
>meaning. Oh, but wait, it hasn't. So I must ask you . . .
>by what twisted code of morality do you operate?
>
If you had any credibility, you would be in an actionable situation.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), you
don't. But by all means, continue to scream about your moral
superiority. I'm sure it makes you feel better about yourself.
>Oh, but let's look at your "evidence", shall we?
>
>
>>You posted this line on your website: "Awww, poor baby.
>>
>>
>Does it upset you when it isn't you doing the message
>nuking,as you did to my messages on SD.Net's BBS?" However, it is
>
>
>a fact that not one of your messages was ever deleted.
>
>http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=135
>
>And don't go trying to change it, you dishonest punk. I
>have old copies saved on the old server.
>
Omigod, you must have creamed your pants at this enormous victory. 720
posts you made, all about Star Wars or Star Trek, and you found one
deleted from the "should we can Darkstar thread", where you were warned
NOT to waste time screaming about the injustice of it all. Now I see
where your hasty generalization about how I routinely "nuke" messages
comes from. The fact that you have saved these messages is most
disturbing; how much of your life is consumed with this hunt, Captain Ahab?
>Thus, my response to your demand is: "Suck it, Mike".
>
Typical for you. I was curious how you would respond to a strongly but
politely worded message; I see you did not disappoint.
>>Moreover, you claim that "he harassed GK's educators just
>>
>>
>to try to win some sort of points on his anti-GK page";
>again,
>
>
>>you have made an accusation which goes beyond your usual
>>
>>
>rantings about me being too rude, or losing our debate, and
>
>
>>actually accused me of "harassing" Graham Kennedy's
>>
>>
>educators, which I never did.
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=harass
>http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/KennedyHND.html
>
Ah, I see. You think it is legitimate harassment to E-mail Sheffield
university and ask what the teaching requirements are in Britain?
<snip typically voluminous rhetoric>
>And, on a similar note, I find your recent change of tone
>regarding me most humorous . . . this is twice you've
>commented on my "usual personal attacks". It's almost as
>if you think that because I am responding to your personal
>attacks by playing up yours (and throwing a few of my own
>into the ring) that somehow I am now the badguy. Praytell,
>Mike, what twisted thought process brought you to that
>conclusion? And who in the world do you think is going to
>believe that you're the angelic little innocent who wouldn't
>dream of saying a harsh word?
>
No, I'm saying that you can flame me all you like about Star Wars and
Star Trek, and I'll flame you right back. But you couldn't stop there,
could you? You had to take the next step and start flaming my REAL-WORLD
BEHAVIOUR, falsely accusing me of harassment, ranting at length about my
behaviour in a grocery store parking lot, etc. On my website, I deride
your contemptible debating tactics, but I say nothing about your
personal life other than the fact that you work at a tech desk. On YOUR
website, on the other hand, you have whole pages dedicated exclusively
to personal slander, obsessing over the way I live my life, etc. Your
obsession with me is quite frankly disturbing, Captain Ahab. It should
disturb you too; do you honestly think this is healthy behaviour?
>I don't need to consult legal texts to know that you'd be
>laughed right out of court.
>
Of course, since your slander would not be taken seriously by the
general public due to your low credibility. That is the only reason why
you are not in an actionable situation.
>It is no crime to be a jackass, Mike, as you well know.
>Me, I'm an old-fashioned gentleman . . . that means I can be
>a cast-iron SOB if I feel it is appropriate. Unless you'd
>like to be schooled on the laws regarding spurious lawsuits,
>or face a countersuit, I'd suggest you back down.
>
I did not threaten a lawsuit; I informed you that you have gone so far
that you are breaking the law, and it would be actionable if only you
had real-world credibility.
>Therefore, I would propose a compromise that would ensure
>your security. The two of us . . . yes, you and I (and I
>know it's somewhat unthinkable, but bear with me) . . .
>could come to a logical, reasonable, responsible, *mutual
>understanding*.
>
I don't think you understand "reasonable", Robert. It is reasonable to
flame as much as you want over a ridiculously trivial issue like Star
Wars vs Star Trek. It is NOT reasonable to trespass beyond that
invisible line and into slanderous accusations regarding real-world
activities. We play a game; a rude game, but a game with unwritten rules
nonetheless. One of those rules is that we flame each other ON TOPIC.
>How? Simple. We could agree to remove all materials from
>our sites which could be regarded as slanderous by the other
>party (and no reposting them elsewhere . . . this is
>supposed to be a move of good faith on both parts). If we
>wanted to be really big boys, we could remove all
>disagreeable off-topic (i.e. not ST vs. SW) content
>regarding the other party altogether. And . . . and this
>is the tricky part . . . we could both agree to try to
>refrain from discussing the other party in public in the
>future.
>
What material on my site is off-topic? Unlike you, I do not have whole
pages called "The Morality of Darkstar". I have absolutely no problem
with you flaming me over the Death Star, or over some other SW or ST
issue. That is how the game is played, Robert. But you have stepped
outside those boundaries, and you know it.
Did I ever say anything when your site contained all manner of personal
insults before now? No. But now you have created whole pages which make
no technical arguments whatsoever, and exist for the sole purpose of
personal attacks. What technical revelation about Star Wars or Star Trek
or any arguments relating to either of them can be gained from your
various dedicated anti-Wong personal-attack pages, Robert? None, and you
know it. You are no longer playing the game; you have become obsessed
with me.
>Now, I can imagine what you're thinking . . . you probably
>think it's some sort of trick, or that it's unfair, or that
>'by damn I don't have to remove something from my site or
>edit what I say', or some combination of such things. Hey,
>I don't trust you, either. And no, I'm not suggesting that
>you remove everything from the BBS . . . I have no power to
>remove any comments I've made on SB, Flare, or SCN, so it
>would hardly be fair to demand that you do the same on
>yours. Besides which, there is WAY more stuff on your
>boards about me (last time I counted back in December, I'd
>been mentioned over 1100 times on your boards since the
>banning), and I wouldn't consider it fair for me to have to
>do a few keystrokes and mouse clicks while you were stuck
>digging through mountains of material.
>
>And another thing . . . I know how important, if even on a
>subconscious level, it is for you to "save face". And I
>also know that you've already posted your e-mail on the
>boards. I would suggest that, if you agree to the proposal,
>we not mention it any further right now. Feel free to take
>a look tomorrow at my site . . . you'll find no mention of
>this.
>
Darkstar, I know you intend to continue flaming me. This is the game we
play. But talking about our respective personal lives is a whole
different matter and you know it. Admit it; what do I say on my webpage
about your personal life? Nothing. Every flame on my site towards you
has something to do with a debate, an issue of Star Wars or Star Trek,
etc. And I expect the same from your side; this is the game we play. But
I also ask that you stay within the boundaries of that game, which are
that the subject does not trespass into real-life issues. You know as
well as I do that those ARE the boundaries.
>However . . . and I don't want to undo any peacemaking I've
>done by saying this somewhat jackass-ish thing, but . . . if
>you pull a "you" and post this with plenty of venomous
>counter-remarks, I will then be prompted to post a report of
>all of this on my site, in defense as usual. And if
>appearances really are so important to you, you should
>realize that a man with nothing to lose offering a hand (if
>even just one of compromise) to a man with everything to
>lose probably makes for really good press for the first guy.
>
>If you do agree, then we can work out the details in future
>correspondence.
>
I think it's perfectly reasonable for us to flame each other ON TOPIC. I
do not begrudge your right to do so. We flame each other, annoy each
other, etc., BUT ONLY ON TOPIC.
I think, however, that you can agree it is NOT reasonable for this
flaming to extend into other areas of our lives. You responded to MoO's
completely on-topic attack on your website with an attack on my personal
life, which you called "dropping the bomb". Maybe you felt this was an
effective tactic, but you must also surely know that it went beyond the
boundaries of the game. You SHOULD have responded on topic, and you know
it.
>So, how about it? Two mature men acting in good faith
>toward a noble goal, or two jackasses flinging rhetoric and
>setting a course for hell?
>
>
If you wish to fling rhetoric, I cannot stop you. I am trying to
determine whether you are willing to read my RSA page and notice how
little I speak of your personal life, and then ask yourself honestly
whether you can say the same.
Do you wish to continue the game, Captain Ahab? Or has this become so
personal for you that the rules of the game no longer matter?
(Sigh) . . .
At about the same time, he started a new thread on his BBS discussing what an evil person I am. He did indeed choose not to mention my e-mail to him . . . thereby choosing one part of the two-part suggestion of 'accept the compromise, and let's shut up about this'. Leave it to Wong to pick what works best for the sake of appearances.
On a lighter note, am I the only one who doesn't remember the whale offering Ahab's leg back in the book? After all, I offerred Wong an olive branch, and there he is ordering Queequeg to throw.
In any case, I responded with the following:
A-ha . . . I think we've finally come to the crux of the
matter, and the source of some of your twisted views.
You believe that debating online to be an activity in some
unreal world, a "game" where no level of personal attacks
and slanders are off-topic and no level of dishonesty is
wrong, because mature behavior is not required. You believe
that these are unwritten rules that everyone follows. You
believe there is a magic line of separation between calling
someone an idiot or a liar on a page/forum which also has
the words "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" on it, and calling
someone an idiot or a liar on a page which does not. You
consider the first okay, the second "actionable", and
"breaking the law" (and apparently it's worse when it is a
long-overdue response to your mountains of personal attacks
and slanders).
I disagree.
1. The internet is not some fantasy-land where reality
ceases to exist.
2. Honesty matters online as much as it does elsewhere.
Your assertion that you think the debate is a game is
irrelevant. After all, how one plays a game is important,
too.
3. Once you cross the line from polite debate into personal
attacks, you have opened up the entire sphere of personal
attacks. Saying a person's argument is retarded is one
thing . . . saying the person is retarded is another.
That's where the line is, and you crossed it long ago, in
ever-increasing levels and amounts. Your fantasies
regarding the location of the line are irrelevant.
4. You certainly haven't restricted yourself to the Star
Trek vs. Star Wars topic . . . or have you conveniently
forgotten your hypocritical posting of a link to my personal
information with the suggestion that it be used to reach me,
among other numerous examples?
5. You certainly don't act as if you believe there's a
magic line of separation. Why else would you be afraid that
something bad might happen if your online behavior were
known to your employers? If this is just a game with a
magic line of separation with unwritten rules, wouldn't they
know of them, too?
> but go to http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA
and try to
> honestly tell me that this page attacks you the way your
page attacks me.
What, with the 12 lies in your first paragraph? By claiming
that I ignore other people's arguments when they have
ignored mine and I have to try to repeat it slowly so they
might grasp it? By accusing me of dishonesty with vague
references, and then accusing me of outright lies? And
let's not even get started on the crap in that "Challenge"
page, which I've responded to previously.
At least when I point out the things you do, Mike, it's
things you have actually done.
> >Why hello, Mike. How kind of you to chase me with your
> >online presence, as always.
> >
> Interesting. You demand that I post on your feedback page,
then you
> complain that I "chase" you when I do it.
Why do Rabid Warsies have no sense of time or fact? I
ordered you to respond, via my site feedback alone, during
my attempt to deflect you from your silly attacks against
Bernd and SCN. You did not comply. You responded on SCN,
and now days later have left feedback on my site in regards
to my site-based reply to the silliness you responded with.
Here's another example:
> You responded to MoO's completely on-topic attack on your
website with
> an attack on my personal life, which you called "dropping
the bomb".
Had you bothered to check, you'd have noticed that the bomb
drop occurred the day before Ossus's attack appeared. You
dated the Ossus update as the 7th . . . the bomb drop is on
the 6th, after discovering your childish redirect maneuver.
Hence the update on my site the next day (i.e. the 7th) in
which I began to respond to Ossus's attack, and noted that
it seemed "yesterday's affront was just cover for the main
attack".
Do you also believe other anti-chronological things, such as
a notion of the Allies starting WW2 by dropping the atom
bomb on Japan? Or maybe that Bin Laden attacked the Trade
Center because America overthrew the Taliban? You
seriously lead me to wonder
> Why do you hate me so much, Robert?
Given your obsession with me, that should be my line. I
would be more than content to leave you in the misery of
ignorance that is the SD.Net BBS, but you keep trying to
bother me . . . childish updates to your site with redirects
and false claims attached, emerging from under your bridge
to troll a board I frequent and incite a board war against
it, leaving feedback on my site, and so on. Get real, Mike.
It isn't like I've come whining to you with silly threats or
demands every time you've slandered me behind my back on
your board. In those few instances when I've engaged in
discussion about you elsewhere, its only when someone else
brings you up.
I ignore you until you try to jump up in my face. Get out
of my face, get back under your bridge, and shut up.
You'll then see not a peep from me.
> >I openly laugh at you. You, of all people, accusing me
of
> >slander? I wasn't aware that Canadian English was so
unlike
> >our own that the term "slander" has been given a totally
new
> >meaning. Oh, but wait, it hasn't. So I must ask you . .
.
> >by what twisted code of morality do you operate?
> >
> If you had any credibility, you would be in an actionable
situation.
Oooh, nice cop-out. The problem, Mike, is that your own
actions are what I'm pointing out. You can pretend all day
to be the wounded party, but the fact remains (Warsie
time-ignorance aside) that your personal attacks against me
(and my credibility, for that matter) started ages ago.
Now that, after having put up with your slanders for so
long, I've finally decided to respond in a "very public" way
(to borrow your phrase), you're whining about it, making
threats, et cetera. And what's more entertaining is that
you're whining because I'm baring what you do and have
already done for all to see.
If having what you do bared for public viewing concerns you
so badly, perhaps you should apologize for what you've done.
I already offerred a good-faith compromise, which you've
rejected, so I'll accept a simple apology in its stead.
That would also achieve what you consider a beneficial
result, insofar as I would then happily remove some or all
of the reports on your bad behavior.
Apologies are still accepted here, after all, even if you
and yours at SD.Net don't seem to comprehend them unless
they involve utter supplication by the other party.
> But by all means, continue to scream about your moral
> superiority. I'm sure it makes you feel better about
yourself.
I don't have to tell you about my moral superiority over you
in order to enjoy it.
> >a fact that not one of your messages was ever deleted.
> >
>
>http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1945&start=135
> >
> >And don't go trying to change it, you dishonest punk. I
> >have old copies saved on the old server.
> >
> Omigod, you must have creamed your pants at this enormous
victory.
If I did that with every victory over you, I'd have
dehydrated into a fine powder long ago.
> you found one deleted from the "should we can Darkstar
thread", where
> you were warned NOT to waste time screaming about the
injustice of it all.
Oh shut up, Mike. That was an on-topic post which you
deleted. Don't whine because I am truthful when I point out
that you delete topical posts.
> The fact that you have saved these messages is most
> disturbing; how much of your life is consumed with this
hunt, Captain Ahab?
You don't think that thread was a good one to save, given
the debate? I certainly didn't save every thread, after
all. But I am amused at how you assume that someone who
does honest research is suddenly Ahab.
> >Thus, my response to your demand is: "Suck it, Mike".
> >
> Typical for you. I was curious how you would respond to a
strongly but
> politely worded message; I see you did not disappoint.
Politely-worded false public accusations of slander, Mike?
First, I thought you were the one who hated bothering with
politeness, and found it dishonest. Second, what would you
have preferred I respond to your false accusations with?
Rainbows and happy trees?
> >educators, which I never did.
> >
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=harass
>
>http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/KennedyHND.htm
l
> >
> Ah, I see. You think it is legitimate harassment to E-mail
Sheffield
> university and ask what the teaching requirements are in
Britain?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=harass
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/KennedyHND.html
If you can't figure it out, don't come crying to me about
it.
> Do you wish to continue the game, Captain Ahab? Or has
this become so
> personal for you that the rules of the game no longer
matter?
I offerred you a hand of compromise in the interests of your
family's security, an olive branch in the interests of
security which you at least feigned concern for. In
response, you set fire to the olive branch and declare all
of this a big game.
And you wonder why I have such a low opinion of you?
G2k
Do I expect an apology from him, or a reversal and acceptance of the good-faith gentlemen's agreement? Of course not. This is Wong, after all. A gentleman (and a scholar) he is not. He will now attempt to save face, probably by continuing to argue that I am the evil one (or, in proper anti-chronological fashion, that I'm the one who started the personal attacks), and making silly claims that I've argued that his behavior affects the truth value of his on-topic claims (i.e. those regarding turbolasers and photon torpedoes and so on).
C'est la vie.
Update - Wong loses it:
I asked you to consider being reasonable, and ceasing your string of
personal attacks which only make YOU look like an asshole. You responded
with your usual string of sophistries, delusional rantings that you are
100% correct in every conceivable way about every conceivable issue and
side-issue. In fact, it would appear that in your mind, you have never
made one misstep, done a single thing wrong, ever. Your moral perfection
assured, you continue to use every message, every E-mail exchange as
another opportunity to nitpick, sling mud, etc.
OK, forget it. Continue to be as unreasonable as you want. I see now
that you aren't putting on an act as I had optimistically hoped.
Instead, it would appear that you are completely serious, and that you
will continue bothering me, harassing me, and obsessing over me until
you finally grow up and get a life, whenever that may be.
The above was fantastic. He asked me to be reasonable? Funny, since in the e-mails it seems I asked him.
I replied:
> I asked you to consider being reasonable, and ceasing your
string of
> personal attacks which only make YOU look like an asshole.
If it is reasonable to stop personal attacks, and if
personal attacks make one look like an asshole, does it not
follow that you've been an unreasonable asshole for years?
Thanks for the confirmation on that one.
Frankly, Mike, I consider the offer of compromise from a
position of strength to have been eminently rational, and
downright soft-hearted of me. It is your rejection of that
proposal, among so many other things, which demonstrates
your irrationality.
> In fact, it would appear that in your mind, you have never
> made one misstep, done a single thing wrong, ever.
Only by comparison to yourself. Of course, you set the bar
so very low . . .
> I see now that you aren't putting on an act as I had
optimistically hoped.
I already used that line, after you disappointed me yet
again with death-threat-boy's slap on the wrist.
> Instead, it would appear that you are completely serious,
and that you
> will continue bothering me, harassing me, and obsessing
over me until
> you finally grow up and get a life, whenever that may be.
Ah, yes, of course . . . I'm the one bothering, harassing,
and obsessing. That's why you obsess about me on your board
after banning me from there, started chasing me all across
the internet, and finally wound up in my in-box, hmm?
More Warsie anti-chronological thinking.
Stuff it, Mike. I am beyond you, and have been for some
time. It is your own incessant pestering and obsession
which have landed your stupid behavior in the public eye.
Stop whining.
Your address is now blocked. Any further annoyance from you
will thus end up soundly deleted.
"Before we can go forward, the cycle must end."
-Picard, "Time Squared"
G2k
Oh, well.
Sadly, my blocking of his address had not yet occurred while I was writing my response, and he had decided he wasn't done blabbing yet. It was just more of the same silly junk. Hopefully now that his incessant poodle-yippings can't get through, he'll go back under his rock and shut up.
Qui-Gon: "Mmm . . . not likely."
G2k
Back to "When Rabid Warsies Attack"
