Hatemail
dwmartin/Triumviron
Taken from the webpage, not the email.
>>I was somewhat surprised by this response, for
two reasons. First, I was
>>surprised he replied at all. Second,
after making all those claims and telling >>
everyone what he feels is wrong with Babtech,
he asked me what we were to debate.
>>My response was as follows:
You were suprised I responded why? Furthermore,
if you would bother to read my
posts you would realize that I had a whole host
of problems with Babtech. I
assumed that you would not wish to engage in
a debate over close to every point
on your entire site and that is why I asked.
>He wrote back, refusing to comply with that request,
and accused me of attempting
>to back down from the debate! That sounds
familiar. One has to wonder just what
>connection this guy has to Adarx, as his modus
operandi is identical.
Where do you get off saying you don't trust me
when you post blatant lies like
this one on your site? Show me where I
either refused to comply or accused you
of trying to back down. You can't.
Here is the full text of the message I sent:
>>>>Of course I knew you were watching.
You say as much in your introduction to
>>>>Adarx.
>>>>As for who bore the burden of proof, you both
did. Each of you made a
>>>>Positive claim and neither of you supported
it. No matter how many times
>>>>you try to explain it to me, I will disagree
and no matter how many times I
>>>>try to explain it to you, the result is the
same. Beating each other over
>>>>the head with that yet again won't change
anything. Everybody has seen both
>>>>of our arguements and I fail to see how rehashing
the same crap we did at
>>>>length over at SB will change anything.
>>>>As for the Vorlon Planet Killer page, your
claims that it does not destroy
>>>>planets and how long it takes are what I
have problems with. I don't care
>>>>about the rest. Why are you so eager
to change the subject away from that?
>>>>Does this mean you know the page is full
of crap? I can come up with a
>>>>problem in almost every point you make on
that page so why not face me on
>>>>it?
>>>>Also, why should I direct them towards the
staff? I am not accepting a
>>>>challenge from the staff, I accepted it from
you.
>>>>As another note, we have yet to settle the terms for the debate.
>>>>Another thing, what the hell was that part
about surely you have something
>>>>to say outside spacebattles? I not
only agreed to the debate but proposed a
>>>>topic, which you quickly tried to drive the
debate away from, on which to
>>>>debate.
Now show me where in there I did either of those.
Once I asked why I was to
send it to the staff and not you, which is not
even close to refusing to comply,
and the other I said you tried to steer the conversation
topic away from the
Vorlon Planet Killer which you did with this
message:
>>What specific point?
>>Or, what about your point of contention at
Spacebattles? "Who bore the Burden
>>of Proof in my debate with Adarx?" You are
the one making wild claims about
>>how I write a bunch of crap. Now prove it.
Surely you have something to say
>>to me directly, outside the safety of Spacabattles,
where you didn't know I
>>was watching. Choose what you want to
prove to your colleagues, and let me
>>know.
>>And, direct your e-mails to staff@babtech-onthe.net
This message was in response to mine suggesting we debate the Vorlon Planet Killer:
>>>>Oh, I don't know. My biggest beef is
with the Vorlon Planet Killer
>>>>page. WE could debate that.
Nice strawman.
>>You are a bumbling idiot.
>>If I "Know the page is full of crap," I would
not have published it.
I'm sorry but from what I've seen I can't believe that.
>>Because:
>>*It is proper netiquette.
When did it become proper to mail replies directed
at an individual to the group
to which he belongs?
>>*Babtech is now a group effort. Even though
I am the creator and webmaster, I
prefer
>>not to publish things that the guys don't know
about. I wouldn't be much of a
group
>>leader otherwise.
And forwarding this to them if you want them to see it first is beyond you?
>>*I want witnesses to what is or is not said.
One person posted that he sent me a
>>message that I had no answer to. The
staff were witnesses that the message
was either
>>not sent or not sent properly. One person
claimed that I ended the debate
prematurely,
>>but the staff were witnesses as to when the
message in question was sent. I
don't trust
>>you to be honest. The staff
>>will serve as a silent third-party witness.
I don't trust you either. Not after the
ad hominem attacks and the blatant
strawman you used earlier. Furthermore,
they have already shown that they are
not objective about this kind of thing.
If you check the thread at spacebattles
it is apparent that they are more interested
in covering for you than telling
the truth. I suspect that this is so you
can collaborate more easily with them
instead of facing me by yourself.
>>*The website address has filtering for spam
and viruses. My private address
does not.
>>If sent to the private address only, your post
may get lost in spam or the
current virus
>>crisis.
Finally we have a reason that almost makes sense.
Other than of course you can
scan email before opening them and set your inbox
to move my messages towards
the top.
>>*I asked you to. Noncompliance indicates
that you are simply trolling, and
don't care
>>about participating in a proper discussion
or debate. Debate is not about who
can
>>flame the best or be the most stubborn.
It is about who has the best evidence
and
>>presents a logical conclusion, based on the
scientific method.
So anybody who doesn't follow your wishes is trolling?
A proper debate is not
one versus a group, it is one versus one.
The rest is simply a red herring.
>>*I will respond to this message now, but I will
not respond to or publish
anything else
>>you send that is not directed to staff@babtech-onthe.net
by either primary
address or
>>CC. You can reply to my private address,
as long as you CC the staff address.
If you
>>wish to have a third party as a witness for
yourself as well, simply request
that, and I'll
>>CC that address with each post.
Whatever.
>>*Limit four posts per side.
Fine. And can I assume you expect me to go first?
>> *Limit 20k of TEXT per post.
Do you honestly expect to be able to cover everything
relevant to the Vorlon
Planet Killer's firepower in this little text?
Doubtful. Once I type up my
first post addressing each point I feel necessary,
then we can determine text
limits.
>> *Limit of 48 hours response time to a post
(from the time the message is SENT).
>>After 48 hours, if there is no response, the
debate ends with the last post.
Technical
>>difficulties will be taken into consideration
however.
This could be a problem. This coming weekend,
Friday through Monday, I am not
going to be able to do anything with this as
I will be spending time with family
and away from any computers.
>>*No profanity. Babtech is strictly rated PG.
You're no fun.
>>*Provide your own evidence. Vague references
to episodes or events does not
>>constitue evidence. Provide your own
EXACT quotes, images, video clips, or audio
>>clips. If you don't provide your own
evidence, I will call you on it. If your
quotes
>>aren't exact, I will call you on it.
If the files you present aren't relevant
to the topic in
>>question, I will call you on it. In the
interest of fairness, you may use
existing related
>>files in the Babtech section in question, *for
this debate only*. In this
case, simply
>>provide the appropriate link.
Unless you know somewhere online I can get quotes
and such, this again could be
a problem.
>>*Because Babtech is based on canon evidence,
only evidence from filmed episodes,
>>telemovies, and novels OF the telemovies are
appropriate. This debate will not
>>devolve into a discussion about what is or
is not canon, or what sources
should or
>>should not be used.
Screw that. Babylon 5 Wars, which I am sure
you are trying to refer to without
naming it, was declared canon by Straczynski
himself as has been shown hundreds
of times on dozens of boards. If he is
not qualified to decide what Babylon 5
is and isn't, who is? Now I can see why
you would want to leave it out as it
does have some very damning evidence towards
your position, specifically the
rules that constitute what can scatter planets,
but
once you start excluding
evidence, which you are doing, your hypothesis
is invalidated.
>>*If you want this debate posted at Spacebattles,
it is your responsibility. I
>>do not frequent Spacabattles. Do not
alter the debate if you do so.
Don't really care.
>>*I will publish your posts at Babtech, provided
you send those posts to
>>staff@babtech-onthe.net by either primary address
or CC. I will color-code
>>the debate and convert to HTML format, but
will not alter the content.
Go for it.
>>*You make the first post.
That's what I figured.
>>*No baseless claims of victory. None of
the senseless "concession accepted"
>>statements, unless a concession is actually
made by the other side.
When have I ever done that?
>>*Stay on topic. If you stray from the topic, I will call you on it.
Likewise.
>>*Calculations will be explained in sufficient detail to be reproduced.
Calculations aren't relevant to this debate.
>>Now, you have chosen to debate issues regarding
the Vorlon Planet Killer.
>>You suggested two areas of concern: my statements
that the VPK does not
scatter the
>>mass of planets, and the time taken to complete
a bombardment.
>>This is rather vague. I recommend a more
specific topic. For example,
>>*You will argue that the VPK does in fact scatter
the entire mass of habitable
planets,
>>overcoming the gravitational binding energy.
>>*I will argue that it does not.
More or less, though overcoming gravity it non
necessary to shatter a planet.
Failing to do so only means the planet reforms
from scatter debris after a
certain time period has passed.
>>I look forward to your reply.
And I yours.