---

Hate Mail

---

Adarx Page 4
My Second Reply

---

Embarrassed?  HA!  I simply was unwilling to disclose my true email address.
Deathbringer made a suggestion where we could carry out the debate on e-mail without me having to do so.  Don't flatter yourseld.
 

I wasn't flattering myself, I was insulting you.
 

Did someone post it?  I didn't see that.  I don't live my life for these forums, after all.  I saw where someone said you had set up a Yahoo account or something, but I never saw an address.
But it is immaterial anyway, because you are the one without balls enough to face me like a man.  Until now, anyway.
I considered my points made.
 

Somebody posted that I posted it.
Riiight.  You were the one who wouldn't debate on spacebattles after I challenged you.  So if that makes me a coward, you are too.  Anyway, enough of the name calling.
 
 

If a gunslinger calls someone out, that person stays in the saloon refusing to come out, demanding that the gunslinger come in and face the entire saloon; who is the coward?  In my opinion, it is the one that is afraid to face someone one on one.
My reasons for moving the debate to e-mail are clear.
*I could barely get words in edgewise in our previous debate (remember when I took on both you and Mughi?  Calling me a coward for not taking on just you???) because other people won't keep their noses out.
*Because of so many posts by other people, the debate was never one on one.  I missed a lot of your posts while searching for them.  By the time I got home from work, messages I wanted to respond to were two pages old.
*I want to preserve your inconsistencies, fallacies, etc. forever.
 
 

Well, it is quotes of your statements, after all.  What did you expect, intelligence?

Clever.  My issue is not that you misquoted me, and I'm not going to lie and say you did, it's that you just happened to remove the context by omitting the majority of my posts and all of yours.
 

I didn't remove the majority of your posts when I was discussing with you.  I can't post every comment you've ever made.  If I post your comments that took place after I stopped participating in the debate, you will have the last word for several pages.  Clever, Adarx.  I posted your comments by direct quote in chronological order.  This is not misrepresentation, it is what you said, how you said it, and in the correct order.
I omitted my posts, because my points are clear.  The Adarx page is about what you said.
 
 

Spacebattles forums are not a static things, nor do they last forever.  I might post a link to that forum, and in a couple of months, it is a broken link.  My hate mail page will last as long as I want it to.
Two reasons I wanted to debate this way are that others can't jump in and mess up the one-on-one debate, and that your ignorance will be preserved for a very long time, for all to see.
 

No, they aren't.  They can however be archived and as you said, the link would be good for a month ot two, which would give people some perspective as to What lead to all this.
 

If it is that important to you, just send the URLs with your next (and hopefully last) prelimiary post.  Because I'm quoting you directly and fully, the URLs will appear in your post.
The internet is a wonderful thing.  If people want to see the debate, they can go over there and see it.  I am ashamed of nothing I said.  It is right there for anyone to see.  For a couple months, as you said.
 
 

It would also be amusing for the audience to see you go off on me for a screen and a half on posts I didn't make.
 

In the first debate?  I did that.  I thought you were someone else at the time.
 
 

As far as I'm concerned, you can leave it up forever, especialy after this debate is over.  Anyway, talk is cheap.  Now it is time for us to prove yourself.
 

Um, no.  This debate is about a problem *you* have with *my* existing website.  Thus, the burden of proof is on you.
You are trying to prove me wrong on a point, or at least present enough evidence to convince people that I'm wrong.  If you have nothing to prove, then you are just a troll making trouble.
I've made my statements, and presented my evidence on the subject.  Now it is time for you to show that my statements and evidence are faulty.  The burden of proof is on you.
 
 
 

I stopped reading that thread with my last post.
Fine.  You still saw a post on SD.net (by your own admittion) which indicated I was complying.
 
 

No.  You didn't comply until you e-mailed me.  Getting a new address is not the same as contacting me.
And someone else posting your e-mail address is not compliance either.
 
 

Do you deny that
*these are direct quotes from statements you made in chronological order
Nope.  They are.  They are completely out of context but they are indeed thing I posted.
 
 

Out of context?  They are direct quotes in chronological order.  How much in context can it be?
Are you suggesting that the page is a Strawman Fallacy?  I don't see how.  Each paragraph contains its own idea.  I quotes every paragraph in its entirety.  I didn't take a sentence here, and sentence there.  I quoted the whole thing.
Thus, it is perfectly in context.
Back on topic please.
 
 

*I challenged you directly to a debate via e-mail (what I was doing)
Yes you did.  Thats why I'm here.
*you felt my holding you to a statement that you made meant that I was "setting a trap" for you
Absolutely.  By attempting to hold me to a statement which a.) was never meant to be taken as literal or accurate information and was infact exaggeration
 

If it wasn't literal, you shouldn't say it in a debate with me.  I'll hold you to it.
 
 

b.) was admitted by me as such a few weeks before you ever challenged me
 

Do you have an actual time on that?
 
 

c.) was clarified when you asked me what I meant by 95%speculation to mean a noteworthy amount of your site is speculation,  which is what we are here to discuss.
 

Changing the subject?
You are here to discuss the Vorlon fighter incident.  You said so yourself.
 
 

Yes, when you try to hold me to the exact meaning of words which were not meant to be taken literally and want to debate me on that one line after I admitted it was deliberately inaccurate was indeed a trap.
*you refused to debate me in the realm I challenged you to?
Simply because I don't like giving out my real e-mail address.
 

I won't post it.  I will comply with your wishes there.  And I won't e-mail you after the debate is over unless you e-mail me first.
 
 

I don't see what the problem is, unless you are afraid for what you said to be preserved indefinitely.
I'm sure you don't.  As I already stated, the words are accurate but they are taken completely out of context.  That is my problem.
 
 

Interesting, that is what your paraphrasing of my website is - a Strawman Fallacy.
But these are direct, full paragraph quotes in chronological order.  They are not out of context.  But, let's get back on topic.
 

Then why couldn't you use it to contact me directly?
Still a coward.  Until now, that is.  Peer pressure can be very powerful.
Again, don't pat yourself on the back too much.
 

I wasn't patting myself on the back.  I was insulting you for being a coward.
 

So, we agree on the topic?  The topic is whether or not you have evidence that the Vorlon fighter in question took previous damage before it was destroyed by an Earthforce fighter?  That is what we were discussing, IIRC.
Not quite.  My complaint with the site was the wording of your statement regarding Vorlon Fighter durability.  It was:
 

Right here, and other places, it is difficult to distinguish my text from yours.
I suggest you place a few blank lines between my text and your text, and don't use the > symbol in front of your words.  This will help us identify each others' text.
*Note for readers of the webpage, the > symbol will not appear in this document to indicate the other person's text.
 

They are much less resilient to enemy fire than their larger counterparts, as at least one was destroyed by a single volley from an Earthforce Thunderbolt starfighter in Into the Fire.

Do you admit to this being on your site under Vorlon Warships as the third sentence of the Vorlon Fighter section?

Of course.
 

Last time I posted this you said I misquoted you.
 

You did.  Go back and read your post, then compare to the actual quote.  One notable point is where you claimed that my site said the fighter was destroyed in "one hit."  It says "one volley."
Then, you provided the actual quotes and claimed that I said those weren't quotes.  In fact, I kept saying the originals weren't.
Back on topic please.
 
 

Anyway, my objective is not to prove it did take damage, but instead to prove that the one volley estimate you gave was unsupported speculation and in fact less likely than the alternative.
 

Are you ready to give actual evidence that *this* fighter took damage? That is the only way to show that your theory is more valid than mine.
There are only two ways you can argue my quote ("They are much less resilient to enemy fire than their larger counterparts, as at least one was destroyed by a single volley from an Earthforce Thunderbolt starfighter in Into the Fire.").
*You can show that the quote has no evidence to support it.
*You can show evidence that Vorlon fighters are more resilient than larger Vorlon ships.
 
 

If I use images (which in itself is unlikely) I will put them in JPEG format and if you prefer I can can zip them.
 

Not necessary.  Just make them jpeg or gif and send them on.
 
 

*Debaters use real names.
This I object to.  I have gone to great lengths to avoid using my real name online.  I just prefer to remain anonymous.  Similar reasons why I don't like using my e-mail address
 

Accountability is a prerequisite to credibility.
Are you sure that you are unwilling to give out your name?  Are you afraid you will embarrass yourself, and then you can change your handle?
 
 
 

*Quotes will be direct quotes.  No paraphrasing.
Fine, though this may be a problem if our posts start getting long (towards the 20K level) though I don't think that will be a problem.
 
 

I feel that 20k is sufficiant to make a point, or even several.  I don't see this as a problem.  We don't have to quote everything in our replies, only the things we respnd to.  Of course, originals are quoted fully.
For example, I quote your posts word for word.  But I don't need to have your entire post in my reply, nor do i always need to have quotes from 2-3 posts ago.  Just the relevant things in the current post.

How about this, paraphrasing is okay, as long as it is accompanied by the direct quote.
For example, I can quote you and say, "So basically what you are saying is..."
 
 

*Because this is regarding your problems with my website, the burden of proof is on you.
I have to prove it was unsupported speculation.  Got it.
 

Let's be more specific.
I propose these guidelines:
Debate Issue: You feel that my satement that "They are much less resilient to enemy fire than their larger counterparts, as at least one was destroyed by a single volley from an Earthforce Thunderbolt starfighter in Into the Fire" is incorrect.  You feel that you have evidence that supports your position.  You have a theory that the fighter sustained damage from some other source prior to this event.  You feel that this evidence invalidates the statement as quoted above.
Arguments: You will argue that your theory is a valid one, utilizing the Scientific Method and actual evidence.  You will also argue that the statement as quoted above is "unsupported speculation."
I will argue that my theory/statement as quoted above is a more valid one than yours.
Consequences: If you can convince me that your theory is more valid than mine, I'll change the statement in the Vorlon section to reflect your theory.
If you cannot convince me, the statement will stand as is.

In the interest of fairness, I'll make the video clip in question available to you to examine and extract images from *for this debate.*
http://www.babtech-onthe.net/quicktime/eashootvfighter.mov
If you need, I'll give you instructions on how to extract those images.
Also, if you need, I'll provide you with any short clip from "Into the Fire" that you need to draw evidence from *for this debate.*  Just let me know if you prefer Quicktime, Divx, etc., and the specific clip you need (from where X happens to where Y happens).  But it cannot be a significant fraction of the episode.  For example, you can't ask for "from when the battle begins to where the First Ones leave."
 

Any other ideas?
How about no personal attacks, even if they lack profanity.  Let's keep this a clean debate.

Okay.

Let's wrap up these preliminaries and get on to the debate soon.  I am eager to see your evidence.

By the way, I am changing the address to the debate.  Since there will be several pages, I don't want to clutter up my root directory.