Blah blah running away blah blah various posturing blah blah "evading" blah blah "dancing" blah blah "conditions" blah blah "Gothmog".Darth Wong wrote:Don't give me any of these bullshit conditions, you evasive little chickenshit. Yes or no. Answer the fucking challenge.DarkStar wrote:I said: "If you had ever, even once , led me to believe for a moment that you could refrain from such childish behavior in a debate against me, I'd tell you to bring it on. However, you wouldn't be able to hold your inner bastard in check for long. You have an image to maintain . . . disciples to impress . . . propaganda to peddle."Answer the challenge and find out, asshole. Stop evading. Yes or no.I'm really quite sorry, Wong, but I do believe I specifically mentioned that I'd tell you to bring it on, on the condition that you refrained from your childish behavior.
Do you think you can do that? Do you think you can focus exclusively on the arguments and the evidence, and not the man?Stop dancing around the fucking challenge, Darkstar. Yes or no. And it will be a very public debate.I'm not sure you can do that. Your disciples might be disappointed . . . you might even have to back off from an argument you can't win when you can't fling feces at the opposition as a smokescreen. If you want to have a proper debate, and if you are worried that you won't be able to keep the charlatanism to a minimum in a public debate, I'll even accept a private one.Fuck off. You are setting up a condition where you can unilaterally declare victory at any time if you decide I'm not being nice to you. No conditions. No weaselling. No skirting around the issue, dancing around the bush, or style over substance fallacies. Our conduct during the debate will be judged by our peers afterwards, not used by you as an excuse to duck out whenever you're feeling overwhelmed, the way Gothmog did.But, if you really think you can keep a promise to maintain civility in a public forum, then let's get it on. But bear in mind that if you break that promise, it will be considered a concession.
Yes or no. Answer me now.
As per the aforementioned Gothmog's commentary on the matter, "as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set the terms and topic...", which you agreed with him about, in reference to a direct challenge case like this one.
So, you have refused to debate in a more proper fashion as per the guidelines set out by the challenged party, and have effectively re-issued a challenge wherein you demand that you be allowed to debate the Wong way.
(No pun intended . . . at least, not when I first typed it.)
(* see below)
Ah, yes, the Wong Way . . . you'd try every off-topic dirty trick you can get your hands on in an effort to emerge victorious, as you have done in prior efforts which you have posted on your pages (i.e. personal attacks du jour, contacting various institutions I've been associated with, et cetera) . . . also, with a "very public debate", you would therefore be using every on-topic sophistry and clever deceit imaginable (i.e. even more than usual) so that, whether I kick your butt or not, your arguments will look as good as possible for your adoring Warsie public, especially after you spin-doctor them on your "hate-mail" page.
You know, I was seriously tempted to accept your new offer with its revised demands, even though you had run away like a little girl previously, with all the proper fluff and posturing to cover this fact, of course. This message was almost much, much longer than it presently is, because I had not only typed out the various pros and cons of going ahead and doing it the Wong way, but I had also begun drawing up a revised list of terms which, I supposed, you might find more acceptable, and even a schedule and topic (the Superlaser Effect).
The cons far outnumbered the pros, and they included comments on the various habits of yours mentioned above. I also mentioned that you'd already had every opportunity to reply to any post or argument you wished while it was in progress, since I had not hidden my arguments, but instead had posted all of them right under your nose. And yet, in those rare instances when you deigned to reply, you didn't last long, and when you challenged me and I accepted, you ran away faster than Sir Robin.
Really, the only reasons I had for accepting your second challenge involved the fact that I've adapted reasonably well to the standard Wong BS and could therefore see right through your standard fare, and the fact that I didn't want any stupid spin-doctoring of a refusal to occur (This has already begun, as evidenced by Ossus's stupid post:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... &start=153 ).
So, there I was, all set to deny you and your fellow Warsies the opportunity to claim, incorrectly, that I had refused to debate . . . however, as my mouse pointer dwelled on the "Submit" button, I decided to look over some of your other debates, and make sure I hadn't missed anything of import in reference to the creation of terms.
And there you were on the screen again, agreeing with Gothmog that a directly challenged party gets to set the terms. And as I switched windows, there you were, quoted at the top of my reply box, running away screaming like a little girl while trying to maintain your silly posturing.
You had your chance in the public threads, and you have consistently blown it. You challenged me to a public debate, and then ran screaming when I demanded it be a rational discussion.
I told you recently to get off your high horse. Seems like it just threw you.
(*) In anticipation of Warsie claims that I have lied about the massive edit of the message, I have posted the message-that-almost-was on a temporary page. The edit started at the point marked (*) above in the text.
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWd.html
"The second challenge reply")
Should you wish to accept the terms, you are at liberty to come crawling back. If not, you are at liberty to continue to lie and posture about it, as I'm sure you intended to do anyway.
Of course not. Oh, I'd win the points based on reason and evidence, but you'd throw up smokescreens, fling insults like a monkey throwing feces, and do all sorts of other low-brow bullshit. That's your definition of one-on-one debate, and those are the grounds upon which you would declare victory.
I didn't add bullshit conditions, Mike. I stated terms which would limit your ability to engage in bullshit. That's why you ran. I'm sure you must've noticed my reply to DG_Cal_Wright when he asked if the ground rules were designed to lend weight to my position:
