Inaugural Trollish Post

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-03 06:43pm

Well, I just thought I'd christen this board with its first blatantly trollish post, so here goes. Bear in mind that I'm not quite the expert at slandering Mike Wong that the SB.com Versus inhabitants are, but I'll do my damnedest.

--==--

OMFG!!11 wong thnx he cna setal evry1 from sbc.om adn get thm 2cum2 his web bored thsi is so fooooooking rediclous mike wogn is a ginat poohead his site is so biasd its not even funy hes such a lira he dosnt haev a dgree in eng...whatver i cant spell that neway yah mike wong liks goat testicals nad evlushun is suhc a plie of crap u cant add gntic stuff into smethig cuz it vliotaes the law of entropy or sumthng mike wong SuXoRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--==--

I trust this was adequate.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-07-03 06:46pm

Very well, that was extremely well done. Now never, ever, do that again, even as a joke. Its in rather bad taste, as well as being extremely annoying.

Also bear in mind that we have no prior experience with you, and so such a post was a rather bad idea for your first...

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-07-03 06:50pm

Oh we have previous experience with him, he's an ASVS'er.

Doomriser · Post by **Doomriser** » 2002-07-03 06:56pm

NOOOOOOOOOOO DUrandl is RIGHT RAWDAR! MARk WONG is STOOPID! THERe isARE spellinG ERRORS in his INDEX!!! ObVIOUSLY HIs yhole site is wrong! Go AWAY ASSVEERS U ARE NOT WONTED HERE!@!! This SI FOR INTEELIGICNET BPEOPLLE ONLEE! ICS IS NOT CANON!!!

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2002-07-03 07:01pm

<class=troll>j00 a11 su><0RS!</class>

I have the feeling that this thread will be the very first to get closed on this board.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-03 07:11pm

I'm starting to get that impression, as well.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-07-03 07:18pm

IDMR · Post by **IDMR** » 2002-07-03 08:10pm

Cool... Where dya get that pic?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-07-03 08:16pm

IDMR wrote:Cool... Where dya get that pic?

Stole it

From here:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... llers.html

I altered it a bit though, contrast and such.

IDMR · Post by **IDMR** » 2002-07-03 08:39pm

::makes cooing noises::

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2002-07-03 11:52pm

Bah.

DO NOT DIRECT LINK.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-07-03 11:52pm

GRR...board being dumb, the above post is mine.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2002-07-03 11:55pm

Durandal wrote:Well, I just thought I'd christen this board with its first blatantly trollish post, so here goes. Bear in mind that I'm not quite the expert at slandering Mike Wong that the SB.com Versus inhabitants are, but I'll do my damnedest.

--==--

OMFG!!11 wong thnx he cna setal evry1 from sbc.om adn get thm 2cum2 his web bored thsi is so fooooooking rediclous mike wogn is a ginat poohead his site is so biasd its not even funy hes such a lira he dosnt haev a dgree in eng...whatver i cant spell that neway yah mike wong liks goat testicals nad evlushun is suhc a plie of crap u cant add gntic stuff into smethig cuz it vliotaes the law of entropy or sumthng mike wong SuXoRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--==--

I trust this was adequate.

Funny but inaccurate.

John Clark · Post by **John Clark** » 2002-07-03 11:57pm

Well, now. If we're going to do this, let's do it right. First of all, Wong only disputes the arguments for which he has tidy little canned answers. Those he does not have answers for, he throws steaming buckets of red herrings at. Those arguments he cannot distort sufficiently to discredit, he simply ignores.

Next we'll address his use of ad hominem attacks. Though subtle, even insidious, this (mindless Trekkie) pattern is apparent in each of his (laughable) responses, and is so deeply embedded in his (ignorant) debating style as to be almost subliminal. Unfortunately for Mr. Wong, his (rabid masturbatory fan-boy) tactic is utterly transparent to anyone who is NOT one of his slavering fans.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2002-07-03 11:59pm

John Clark wrote:Well, now. If we're going to do this, let's do it right. First of all, Wong only disputes the arguments for which he has tidy little canned answers. Those he does not have answers for, he throws steaming buckets of red herrings at. Those arguments he cannot distort sufficiently to discredit, he simply ignores.

Next we'll address his use of ad hominem attacks. Though subtle, even insidious, this (mindless Trekkie) pattern is apparent in each of his (laughable) responses, and is so deeply embedded in his (ignorant) debating style as to be almost subliminal. Unfortunately for Mr. Wong, his (rabid masturbatory fan-boy) tactic is utterly transparent to anyone who is NOT one of his slavering fans.

Thats clever coming from the guy with the red herrings - if Mike is wrong, make your point, don't slaver on about how mean he is.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2002-07-04 12:05am

I never said he's wrong. I'm saying that he simply refuses to address the arguments against which he may be proven wrong. It's like Tiger Woods saying that he is undefeated in heavyweight boxing. Of course, that statement would be true...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-04 12:09am

Then, please, Mr. Guest, grace us with these unaddressed arguments. I can see no better place for them than here.

Doomriser · Post by **Doomriser** » 2002-07-04 12:11am

Mr. Guest doesn't even have the courage to give us a pseudonym

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2002-07-04 12:13am

Good example of his red herring attacks can be found on the Hate Mail page where he's debating with that Rodgers guy (not Ted, the other one).

I think the guy says something about Fed shuttles doing headons into TIEs . Sounds dumb at first but think about it -- Fed shuttles have regular deflectors, and head on they have their nav deflectors added to it. Bad juju for TIES. Wong totally ignored that and acted like the additional deflector power wasn't even involved.

The Rodgers guy also mentions something about snipers in Fed escape pods launched toward ISDs. Now we know that a slow moving object can pass through Imperial shields, so why not escape pods? Sure, the Imps MIGHT destroy the pods, but why would they do that? Why waste firepower on something that isn't remotely a threat?

Wong, though, totally distorts the argument, first by saying that the snipers would be shooting at Imperial escape pods, then that the snipers are shooting FROM Imperial escape pods, and then that it's just dumb anyway. He TOTALLY IGNORES what his opponent is actually suggesting.

There's your proof.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2002-07-04 12:42am

Anonymous wrote: I think the guy says something about Fed shuttles doing headons into TIEs . Sounds dumb at first but think about it -- Fed shuttles have regular deflectors, and head on they have their nav deflectors added to it. Bad juju for TIES. Wong totally ignored that and acted like the additional deflector power wasn't even involved.

There's your proof.

Shuttles and dogfighting?
Sublight shuttles with nav deflectors?
Fed targeting locking on to something like a jinking TIE?
Shuttle phasers affecting high-density TIE armour?

Please sustain this wonderful argument.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2002-07-04 12:43am

Anonymous wrote:Good example of his red herring attacks can be found on the Hate Mail page where he's debating with that Rodgers guy (not Ted, the other one).

I think the guy says something about Fed shuttles doing headons into TIEs . Sounds dumb at first but think about it -- Fed shuttles have regular deflectors, and head on they have their nav deflectors added to it. Bad juju for TIES. Wong totally ignored that and acted like the additional deflector power wasn't even involved.

The Rodgers guy also mentions something about snipers in Fed escape pods launched toward ISDs. Now we know that a slow moving object can pass through Imperial shields, so why not escape pods? Sure, the Imps MIGHT destroy the pods, but why would they do that? Why waste firepower on something that isn't remotely a threat?

Wong, though, totally distorts the argument, first by saying that the snipers would be shooting at Imperial escape pods, then that the snipers are shooting FROM Imperial escape pods, and then that it's just dumb anyway. He TOTALLY IGNORES what his opponent is actually suggesting.

There's your proof.

Shooting at Who? Your proof that the Weapon would work through the Hull of an ISD, that the person with it would know who to shoot or where to start looking for them, and your proof that the instant the active signal from the Sight was detected that the ISd wouldn't blow the Escape pod to bits. Oh and while you're at it how does the Escape Pod get near the ISD, it's supposed to be unoccupied and drifting in space, unless the ISD purposely moves towards it they would get nowhere near enough to get past it's shields.

No do you see why it was a complete Red Herring? Or do you need diagrammes?

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2002-07-04 12:50am

Stark wrote:
Anonymous wrote: I think the guy says something about Fed shuttles doing headons into TIEs . Sounds dumb at first but think about it -- Fed shuttles have regular deflectors, and head on they have their nav deflectors added to it. Bad juju for TIES. Wong totally ignored that and acted like the additional deflector power wasn't even involved.

There's your proof.
Shuttles and dogfighting?
Sublight shuttles with nav deflectors?
Fed targeting locking on to something like a jinking TIE?
Shuttle phasers affecting high-density TIE armour?

Please sustain this wonderful argument.

Please sustain yours.

High-density TIE armour? How dense, does it have neutronium in it?

IDMR · Post by **IDMR** » 2002-07-04 12:53am

phongn wrote:GRR...board being dumb, the above post is mine.

We know the moment we saw the 'DO NOT DIRECT LINK' bit.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2002-07-04 12:53am

Kamakazie Sith wrote: Please sustain yours.

High-density TIE armour? How dense, does it have neutronium in it?

Sure. TIEs can survive reentry unshielded, and getting hit by asteroids makes them break cleanly (like a plastic model

)

I certainly didn't mean to suggest it has neutronium in it - simply that they're not as flimsy as most would suggest.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2002-07-04 12:56am

Stark wrote: Sure. TIEs can survive reentry unshielded, and getting hit by asteroids makes them break cleanly (like a plastic model )

I certainly didn't mean to suggest it has neutronium in it - simply that they're not as flimsy as most would suggest.

Well, most likely phasers will be very deadly to TIEs.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Inaugural Trollish Post

Inaugural Trollish Post

Re: Inaugural Trollish Post

Let's Do This Right

Re: Let's Do This Right