adarx5

Hate Mail

Adarx Page 5
His third reply

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

If you say so.

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.

Except your analogy is flawed. You would not be facing the entire saloon, you would have well less than half and the odds would be stacked against me.
In case you hadn't noticed, I am not exactly popular there.

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.

IIRC, a moderator agreed to keep it between us. It would be easy enough for them to delete other posts. Even if this were the case, you could simply have added anyone who posts in the thread to your ignore list while the debate was in progress. Anyway, my avatar is easy enough to see, it shouldn't be that hard to follow my posts.

*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.

It could have been arranged otherwise if we asked the mods. Anyway, all you had to do was browse through the pages and look for my Archon Avatar.

*I want to preserve your inconsistencies, fallacies, etc. forever.

That is pretty lame. Are you saying you cannot copy and paste what I type at spacebattles onto your site? For example the first Adarx page contains posts I made there. You can do this without insisting we take it to e-mail.

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.

Very well. I will post the address of the threads in question.
http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42387
http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41914

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.

Done.

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

Then you should have done better research. None of that really matters now anyway.

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.

You completely misunderstood that (though I imagine my typo didn't help).
Not prove your point, prove your debating skills.

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.

I figured you would contact me as you did the first time. Also note I didn't create the address until I was asked to for this debate.

Out of context? They are direct quotes in chronological order. How much in context can it be?

Because, without your responces to what I was posting, they wouldn't understand why the posts were made. Your posts create the context for mine.

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.

No it isn't but we aren't going to agree on this and I have made my point known. Back on topic it is then.

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

Do you want to use the exact literal meaning for all words now? How about the definition of the word troll which you keep calling me? Do you believe me to be a creature out of Scandinavian Folklore? Am I a walk? Am I a sing? Am I a form of fishing by dragging bait along in the water? Unless you are claiming that I am one of the above, you are not using the literal
and precise definition. (Note: these definitions came from the Oxford Dictionary and Thesarus). Of course thats not what you meant, neither was the exact meaning of what I said. Anyway, this is all irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Do you have an actual time on that?

Yes. It was Dec 25th 2002 at 10:27 PM central time.
http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41914&perpage=25&pagenumber=2
You claim on your site that you sent the challenge to the wrong address a couple days before December 30th. I didn't recieve it until a day later. So yes, about a week had past (I had thought it more, sorry) before I recieved the challenge. You knew this as you quoted me on it later in the thread.

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.

No. Look at what I said more closely, the Vorlon fighter incident was made as a reference to speculation, the speculation about the Vorlon Fighter incident is what we are here to discuss. Thus what I said is correct.

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 just prefer to have my address known by as few people as possible.

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

If you say so. It sounds to me like you were congradulating yourself for creating peer pressure which forced me to do this. Peer pressure had no part of it. AS for calling me a coward, I was always willing to have the debate, I just didn't want to do it here. Recall I challenged you to the same debate there.

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.

I didn't think I was using it in front of my words but I will try to be more careful. Anyway, Is this better?

Of course.

Just though I'd ask.

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.

I would have to go back and reread this. Anyway, back on topic.

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.

No. I can also fight the supporting evidence you give for the less resilient line. The destroyed in one volley was what I have the problem with. If I can prove it likely that it took damage, the "destroyed in one volley" part would be speculation as I stated. I don't have to fight in either way you described, I am going to show evidence that the Vorlon Fighter had recieved prior damage to the "single volley" which you claimed destroyed it. I do not dispute the whole line, only the final 18 words of it.

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

Fine.

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?

This doesn't make sense. Yes I am sure I do not wish to reveal my real name. If I were use my real name and to change my handle and continue to not use my real name as normal, how would you know it was me? You wouldn't. Also, what would be to stop me from just making up a name for the debate just like I made an e-mail account? Nothing. Thus your scenario is invalid because even if I were to post my name and then change my handle, you wouldn't know it was me because I still would not use my real name.

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..."

I agree. As I said, I don't anticipate this being a problem.

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.

Yes. I believe the Vorlon Fighter was damaged before hand and thus the one volley line is invalid.

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.

That is pretty much what I figured.

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

All I get is a white screen while it is playing. Don't worry though, I have it on video.

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."

Fine.

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.

I figure I will be ready to go this weekend. I think we have the preliminaries pretty much wrapped up except for the name issue.

Page 6