This is going nowhere. There are a total of 5 "babies". Me, E1701, BigBryan, Chris O'Farrell, and Gothmog. I can only recall ONE of them calling Mike Wong coward like for responding via hate mail page. His use of "babies" is plural, which isn't quite accurate. It takes at least 6.34E+06 to be plural The other "babies" disagreed with him on some of the points he debated, but thats to be expected and hardly worth note; their points, I mean. The only other possible point is that several of the "babies" were displeased with the personal comments Mike Wong put in his rebutals (incidently, he was the first to instigate the name calling, that doesn't make others doing name calling wrong either, its just a mater of fact that he got some really good zingers in there). Sadly Mike Wong perpetuates the problem by both using plural wording where it doesn't belong and by countering insults sent back at him with more insults. And my god! he has a dangling paritciple somewhere in there

Good god, Mike Wong is human, he is not god. In fact, it says so right on his Creationism page. He is a source of collected information, not an offical or canon source. Yes, someone CAN out-debate him. The question that really is important is whether or not we have anyone on SB that can do that.

Actually, there is an even bigger question. Is it even realistically possible for two seperate people who are solid objects as opposed to gaseous when it comes to the side they support to even realistically debate each other? Both sides will declare victory just like Iraq ten years ago. The problem being with MW being the visible source that he is, direct debates against him are a rather bad idea seeing as he will claim victory regardless of the reality of the situation, and then post said information. It just isn't fair when someone says they win and can prove it.

And then here is a final important question. Mike Wong has issued a challenge. I want to know is he intends on putting this in the hate mail section regardless of outcome of the debate. If he does than Spancebattles get the first Hat-Trick (natural) in the history of Stardestroyer.net

When two people debate eachother and both claim undefeated record, that is a meaningless thing. MW is not undefeated, he simply is more persuasive for the side of the debate he partakes in. And just because Arizona scored more runs than New York in Game 7 of the World Series doesn't nessasarily mean Arizona won...those bastards how dare they!

Lets look at it this way. You have the Pro ST side and the Pro SW side to the debate. Each side makes up roughly 1/3 the population of the vs debate. They will never change their stance no matter what is happening (although some websites will be populated almost exclusively by these people). That leaves another 1/3 out there, free for the grabs. They have a drifting opinion and by god I want a full recount of all the counties in Florida there are Trekkies out there somewhere who have been robbed of their opinion. When people like MW debate, they are attempting to convince this group. And you don't have to be right (or wrong) to convince this group. You merely need to be CONVINCING. I just have to figure out what convince means. I have no doubt that Mike Wong is being honorable in what he does (for the most part...there is the matter of some overdue videos from Blockbuster). But this is looking at things in the simplest terms. So don't go arround claiming he is perfect or has a hot record, thats not really relevent nor is it accurate to three decimal places. Lets just put it this way. No matter who debates Mike Wong, there will be two winners, regardless of what either Wong or the person he debated says and that winner will be Wong and Star Wars.

Isil'Zha

Didn't stop me from taking on ASVS alone... pitiful excuse.. and disproves his generalization. ( I take a break for a while and everyone gets delusions of granduer.) As I said, as soon as I re-orgianize/write up my TESB scalings, including screens of my measurements ect., I will be

e-mailing it to Mike Wong. (Ah the old "I have the proof around here somewhere I just seem to have misplaced it")

Actually, I did try confronting him about the scaling before when I first wrote it, but he chose to ignore me before I even got the point, I mearly asked him a simple question... and he said he was just going to ignore me... IE: He conceded to me before we even begun. Undefeatable my ass. (Let's not get ahead of yourself....and for Pete's sake get your head out of there)

My e-mail: I searched your site and could not find how you arrived at the conclusion that it was a "40 meter" asteroid. The only thing that you could've scaled it to is the ISD in the background. I find a problem with this... how can you possibly know the depth on a screen that is only 2-dimentional? Just  answer these questions and I'll continue with my point"

His response: "The Falcon flew right by some of these asteroids. They were about the same size as the ship. As for the rest of your point, don't bother. Your tone is argumentative even
though the argument hasn't even begun. I see no probability of a reasonable dialogue when it begins under such circumstances, and whatever your mystery point is, I'm sure I've heard it a hundred times before."

His method of scaling first off was extremely flawed... how the hell do we know those were the same asteroids vaped by the TLs? Espeically with so many asteroids around. Then he ran away... in a one-on-one e-mail.. who's the coward here? (Who's the idiot? Isil'Zha has no idea how Mike scaled the size of the asteroid, which asteroid it is, yet he then concludes that whatever method Mike used is wrong)

I e-mailed him back again telling him this error, but he kept his word and made no rebuttle... IE: He conceded, which means I won by default... if he sees this, good, cause I'm coming back for you soon. (For more incomplete  info on Isil'Zha's mystery evidence, please see Asteroids )

E1701 Hero of the Stupid

I honestly think this is a sad attempt to get his own balls out of the vice... He spent several solid pages ranting against guys who did nothing but post minor arguments HERE, flaming, being hypocritical, and then topping it off with a disclaimer saying he didn't have the time to come here and debate in a fairly moderated forum (hell, the two mods here, if anything, tend to

either favor his own views, or to simply not care).

Now, realizing how stupid he made himself look (c'mon three pages flaming the hell out of someone who was unfailingly polite?), he is seeking to salvage his own image by issuing a challenge where no conclusion can ever be reached, and the winner is the one who claims victory the loudest. (or cries the least)

1. If he doesn't like being called a coward then I suggest he does not call others such things. (reprimanding) 2. What weighted debate? I for one have no qualms with his debating, just the means

to his ends. Insulting people while debating, it's childish, unecessary, hypocritical (he seems to want respect but gives none in return) and all this over a FICTIONAL universe. It makes no sense to take it so personally when the debate is no where near personal, and if he wants to cry foul because he was called a coward then he may want to look in a mirror. Because that is where it originated. (insulting)

3. More insults, generalizations, hypocrtical comments and childish behaviour. Insulting an opponent that hasn't even been appointed nor likely to, generalizaling SB as babies yet again, crying about being insulted yet was the first to fling insults at those who did not and calling out for a fight. Surprised his blood can flow with such clogging of testosterone. (insulting)

4. If I recall correctly it was I who thought of him as a coward and I am no where near being a trekkie, nor am I a warsie (although I like wars a few magnitudes more than star trek). They have no relevance to the means to his ends and the behaviour is childish at best in relation to a fiction show vs a fictional movie. (admission of guilt of insult/insulting)

5. Dosn't have time to debate with the people he manages to find time to insult and create a rather large page countering their points.... uhuh. (contradictory statement)

6. He clearly knows he is superior to any who would oppose him due to literacy quality, scientific background, debating experience as well as a large following of people who are more inclined to take his side in all things. (inferiority complex)

7. By the by, I actually agree with many of his debates, including military tactics, creationism debate etc. As I stated, that was never my problem with him. (sucking up)

He has all ready generalized SB as babies so it would have no ill effect for me in the least. Although I can only imagine the clear biased argument he would use in such a page. My alias would probably be the first thing to get mocked. Marc Cosgrove again btw if he is reading this. (Hi Mark!)

I am not anti-wong, but anti-wong means nor am I an SB-trekkie. (Yoda meets Gump)

Of course, but a vice he knew he would win... why? Because put simply there is never going to be any kind of consensus with regards to a debator to take on Wong, because even if you did with someone like Gothmog/Chris they don't even care enough about the topic to put themself in such a vulnerable position. It is a totally biased challange where everything is in his corner, hardly a way to defend against the accusation, which isn't on target anyway. Couldn't even come here and post the challenge himself in a fairly moderated forum. Neither LC nor IXJac are trekkies so it would be in his favour here also with regards to moderating. (It's a dog-eat-dog world and he's wearing his Milk-Bone boxer shorts)

Hehe... I can't help but think about how he is going to generalize this response on his page or to others -

"As you can see it is they who are in fact the cowards since none of them could gain the courage to take me head on. They then proceeded to complain and whine about it being unfair because I am better than them, with the odds stacked in my favour *yawn*. When in reality I am offering an equal chance for those with the stones to prove me wrong as they so firmly believe I am. And yet they complain about a fair fight. *sigh*"  (Actually...yes that's quite close to what he wrote)

Of course ignoring the fact that we're not essentially against his debate but his methods of such debates, as well as the fact that SB is not a single entity with a hive mind that can produce a debator to take him on equal grounds. (defeatist) Not to mention various generalizations yet again, as well as points raised earlier. Of course now that I raised this response, he'll probably tip-toe around it. (Maybe, but here at ASVS-HN, we'll trod over it like a herd of Hippos if we can ever make sense of what the fuck you're talking about)

I stated earlier why he would have a clear advantage due to his background, I believe it was my first post. Which is getting past the assumption the board can elect anyone to 'fight' for them. As well as the fact that people weren't upset about his debating points but the way in which he presents them, accompanied by flames in other words... where none were needed in response. So how if we weren't upset with his debating debate him on a topic when his debating isn't the problem, it is his attitude towards anyone who decides to address his points in a civilised manner (Or more likely anyone's attitude towards someone who is unable to write in a coherent fashion)

Erm, no... it's his vicious streak which IS the problem not his debating abilities. As I keep saying yet is wonderfully danced around. ( Just how many times has he called Wong a big meanie?)

So he admits the generalization, acknowledges the fact that the people he presents is in fact a VAST minority yet still continues none the less in his generlization. The fact he needs to use derogatory comments about the entirety of SB simply because a few people he dislikes post here (and actually are not limited to posting here) only proves the irony of his words. There is no need to generalize SB, so should just use 'Babies', nor use such chilidish derogatory terms so should address them seperately. Or at the very least generalize on a more specific level such as "trekkies". (Complete and utter lack of comprehension)

*see the newly restored piece on the SB1FM vs B5Center

Big Steve

You meant he spent a few pages slaughtering Gothmog's points (Along with observerations on his personality, some potentially incorrect, based on what he had read in that certain thread) but because he didn't dare post at SB and get waylaid by dozens of

angry Trekkies and anti-Wongites (as he would've been, just like how Brian Young supporters and/or anyone who argues against inflated B5 tech values get waylaid by masses of Fivers) he's called a coward by the same, so he counters by challenging these same people to send their best man to debate him personally in a neutral e-mail environment that both can freely post on their discussion board/site.

The people here threw the gauntlet down. He just picked it up and smacked you with it. So, who has the balls and the intelligent to take him? Anyone? Show of hands?