posted
Bernd, you clearly aren't the only person who does not find Wong's site entertaining. I do not. I also do not find, say, the UN's web collection of international treaties interesting (Because they make you pay! I love treaties otherwise. Love.) I do not, however, feel the need to "debate" it.
I am on your side, honest. But Star Trek vs. Star Wars is, like, at the very bottom of the geek hierarchy. People who dress up like anthropomorphic rats but do not have sex because they are saving themselves for their transition to the plane above human are higher up.
Bernd, Boris, I am sure that both of you are decent people. Consider, with the energy poured into this, how many interesting pictures of space ships could have been created? How many scene by scene breakdowns of, uh, scenes? While we have been reading this, how many books have gone unread? How much love unspent?
I am melodramatic.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"I am on your side, honest. But Star Trek vs. Star Wars is, like, at the very bottom of the geek hierarchy. People who dress up like anthropomorphic rats but do not have sex because they are saving themselves for their transition to the plane above human are higher up."
Wow. You guys just got rated inferior to Furries. And, honestly, I'm not totally surprised.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:And to be fare to Bernd here, this isn't about SW vs ST. That argument is, quite rightly, boring. It's about, in a large sense, how having a web-site and using complicated maths is a great way of getting anyone to believe whatever you want.
Thanks. This is what I wanted to annotate too. The two sci-fi universes are just not supposed to be compatible. Even more, they are designed *not to be* compatible, so the distinction would be better. Comparing the apples and oranges may be fun for certain fan circles, but even if Wong would respect his own rules, the result would be absolutely pointless.
So why do I care about this obvious nonsense? Because Wong uses his calculations and close observations to impress his clientele. "Look, he has figures and screencaps, that can't be wrong." Because Wong stirs up real-world and fictional elements. Just read about the transporter. He hates the concept as unrealistic and because it would be immoral to kill and resurrect someone. Okay, he is entitled to his own opinion, although this is by no means how the transporter as a story concept works in ST (he obviously confuses this with his personal idea of the transporter in the real world). But he has to find an excuse why the Empire is not using the transporter, although its technology is (as he always "proves") vastly superior to that of the Federation. His explanation is that the Empire does not use the transporter because it is immoral! The Empire that has no bad conscience destroying whole planets! And this, of course, fits with his other observations that the Federation is ruthless and racist and communist and whatever evil he likes to find in it. If this isn't perverted, I don't know what is.
On a related note, we all know how fond Wong is of physics as the only true science. Actually, on his site, he calls social science a "pseudo-science". But he has the nerve to assess the type of society of the Federation as being communist! So either Mike Wong has a very short memory concerning his own ideology, or he thinks he is better than all the morons who have studied social science.
And for those who still don't believe, read his page about racism, all of it. It's the page where one can find most of his violations of his own principles in a compact form. One-sidedness would be a too mild term to describe how he excuses possible racism in SW, while taking offense about all sorts of occurences in ST.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sol System: Yes, this is probably a waste of time, as only those who know Wong anyway understand what I'm talking of. But I'm an idealist, and I simply can't remain quiet about propaganda, pretense, lies and hatred as they occur in such a massive amount as on Wong's site and, moreover, are directed at people like us.
The entertaining value of Wong's site may lie in the eye of the beholder. There are probably enough people (and not only rabid Warsies) who cheer every time the stupied "trekkies" get their butts kicked. For people who allow themselves to be blinded by Wong's eloquence and arogance. For people who prefer propaganda over truth and rant over decency. I don't think that even the Master himself would contradict here. He knows on which side he can find himself.
This is a fight against windmills, of course. There is no way that I could sue Wong for his deeds. And I definitely wouldn't go to his forum and try to convince all the idiots there that they are following the wrong leader and ideology. We all know the person who frequently does, who has well-considered arguments, but who is facing all kind of resistance, from insults to death threats. Darth Wong leaves all the dirty work to his minions, and he could say that it wasn't him.
About Darkstar, I have read a bit of his site and I am alarmed that it is supposed to become a counterpart to SD.net. If you read this, Darkstar, please take the advice to take into account all evidence, to keep an open mind, to admit errors, not to lose sight of the whole when you are looking at details, to treat your opponents like human beings. Mike Wong has thrown all these virtues overboard.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The thing is, though, Bernd, the only people who really, deeply care about the things you are trying to disprove are far beyond help, not to mention notice. No one is being "pulled in" by this.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sure, there is no way to convert any of these fanatics, or to keep innocent and unaware people who accidentally drop in from believing what Wong is saying. The purpose of the thread was rather to provoke statements from Flare residents what they think of it. What you think is what matters to me, not if the psychos over there strive to kill the Borg or the Teletubbies or each other.
As I understand, hardly anyone cares about Wong and would be willing to answer my question, and maybe it is good this way. Those who do bother to read some of Wong's essays seem to agree with me. With two exceptions. I know that I should rather try to attack the originator than Boris or Ryan, but I don't give a damn what Wong would tell me, eloquently eluding all my reproaches, while it is important to me what Boris and Ryan have to say. Thus the fierce dispute.
It is remarkable that Boris and Ryan frequently mention that it's only a matter of style, that I take offense by that, and that the rest is objective. But I can't stress enough that the style is only one point among many other forms of misconduct. Interestingly, this and some other arguments are almost identical to what Wong himself once told me. No, I don't think that Boris or Ryan would just repeat what Wong is saying instead of making up their minds. It is rather because especially Boris has taken a different approach to science fiction which happens, in some respects, to be compatible with what is left of sense amidst Wong's monstrous network of lies and propaganda.
I hope I am sensible enough to leave out the topic of Wong in the future. We may have different opinions at this message board, but as I see it, they are complementary rather than contrary. Let's build upon that, rather than struggling about something that need not concern us (at least not in the Star Trek forums). Of course, I can't guarantee to spare anyone from my wrath, should the name Wong be mentioned as a reference.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that last line is the key here. If there were, for our purposes, a need to know some detailed bit of information we normally ignore, one of us might do the calculations. Many of us here have taken college-level physics and calculus, and could do most of the same calculations Wong does. Because on his actual technical analysis pages* he uses pretty objective methods, the same methods that some of us used back on RAST six or seven years ago, we would come to the same conclusions. You would accept those conclusions, in this hypothetical situation. But if someone had just said, "Mike Wong calculated blah, blah," you'd go nuts. The problem is that if, for whatever reason, one wants a nitty-gritty little calculated factoid, Mike Wong is 90% reliable, in my experience. If the situation comes up, I'll be sure to just pretend I did the math myself, lest I incur your wrath!
* I, in fact, spent several weeks debating Wong about his communism pages, so I'm with you there. Note it's not on his hate mail page simply because a.) I wasn't a blathering idiot, and b.) it wasn't a formal debate. Only people in one of those two categories get up there. I enjoy his hate mail because it's one of few places where the only type of Trekkie I don't like (DeFiAnT rUlEz! WaRz SuX!) get's bitch-slapped. They make themselves look far more stupid than Wong does.
1. You are right when you say that I would deny calculations or obervations only because they were made by Wong. This kind of intolerance is the least I can do against Wong's attacks. Since his findings are irrelevant to me anyway, that's not a great loss, even where he is right, in a very narrow sense.
quote: enjoy his hate mail because it's one of few places where the only type of Trekkie I don't like (DeFiAnT rUlEz! WaRz SuX!) get's bitch-slapped. They make themselves look far more stupid than Wong does.
They look stupid of course, because these "high-school kids" don't stand a chance against Wong's eloquence and his wealth of rebuttal templates that he has at hand, but that doesn't mean that Wong is right. Actually, he is performing not that well as he certainly could in several discussions even with some school kids, and only his additionally inserted remarks allow him to win the battle. Wong obviously takes great pride in getting the kids to get into silly arguments and finally insult him, which he sees as a moral victory. I see it as cowardice, as he evades any situation in which he would have to defend his position (or he simply doesn't post this kind of e-mails).
And since you are specifically mentioning the Trek faction of silly fanboys, I highly recommend to go to Wong's BBS to see the Star Wars side of the very same phenomenon. Wong, of course, has the nerve to claim that only Trek fans are like this, while housing and supporting a horde of rabid Warsies at his own message board.
BTW, I noticed only today that "Village Idiot" is not an automatic title for newbies, but a custom title for anyone the Master doesn't like (such as Darkstar). I have never seen such inhumanity in any other place of the web (well, maybe for S/M sites).
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:They look stupid of course, because these "high-school kids" don't stand a chance against Wong's eloquence and his wealth of rebuttal templates that he has at hand, but that doesn't mean that Wong is right. Actually, he is performing not that well as he certainly could in several discussions even with some school kids, and only his additionally inserted remarks allow him to win the battle. Wong obviously takes great pride in getting the kids to get into silly arguments and finally insult him, which he sees as a moral victory. I see it as cowardice, as he evades any situation in which he would have to defend his position (or he simply doesn't post this kind of e-mails).
Maybe I'm masochistic, but I've been tempted to open an e-mail dialogue with Wong and honestly ask him his motivations behind such a close analysis of Trek vs. Wars. I'd express my opinion that each series should be enjoyed on its own merits, etc. And see what happens from there -- whether it degrades into a flame match or stays a decent discussion.
Bernd, I hope you don't feel insulted by the following comparison... But did it occur to you that in some ways, you're as big an "authority" on Trek as Wong is (in some circles) for Wars? There's a great many sites out there that refer to EAS for starship lengths and other Treknology-related topics. And there are many fanboys out there who mindlessly parrot the same arguments without knowing the background -- on both sides.
(Of course, your methods and attitudes are completely different. )
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
All parties involved demonstrate a deep-seeted neurosis which almost certainly derives from an extreme deficiency in feminine coital compansionship.
Or it may be that the extreme deficiency in feminine coital compansionship derives from a deep-seeted neurosis regarding their respective pastimes.
In either case, somebody needs to go out and get laid.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I watch Star Trek and Star Wars. I recognize both as sci-fantasy. There isn't enough science in either to qualify as science-fiction.
For me, reading the technical discussions on Oberth-Class starship is as as comparing the differences between one universe to the other or attempting to gain an understanding of star destroyer specifications. The people who do both shows for the most part have college degrees which are not based in science or mathematics. There are rare exceptions, like Mr.Okuda of Star Trek. I just don't see the purpose in attempting to apply science or mathematics to such a show.
Bernd, the web is similiar to tv. If you don't like the program, there is the off switch.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
no the problem is worse.. Mike wong has an ugly wife!
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:no the problem is worse.. Mike wong has an ugly wife!
I don't think that's an appropriate argument here, even if only as kidding. See Mike Wong's personal site, he has a more "normal" life than probably most of us. And I don't think his wife is ugly. In my view he has developed some sort of specific "web paranoia" Darth Wong may not be considered the same person as Mike Wong in real life.
And yes, Minutiaeman, I am aware and afraid of being a counterpart to Wong. I think there is a probability that I may become just as conceited and arrogant, but I know I will never be that unfair.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I, and Boris for sure, can confirm that Mike Wong is, to use the stock phrase, "actually a really nice guy" when not on the topic of rabid Trekkies. I've emailed him about Trek-fact nitpicks here and there, debated communism with him, and had several conversations along those lines. Never have I seen him behave like he does on the site. In other words, Bernd, you're right on. He has a "web persona" for his site, one that he just takes to what many might consider a ridiculous extreme.
posted
Hey, I noticed that I was just defending Mike Wong! But I agree from my own mail exchange with him (although it's long ago) that he was *nothing* like the mischievous guy he turns out on his website. But he sure has a problem, even if he doesn't know.
BTW, as his arguments were the same as on his site, I could well assess their validity without the "Imperial Officer" speaking to me. And they remained wrong.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
as comparing the differences between one universe to the other or attempting to gain an understanding of star destroyer specifications. The people who do both shows for the most part have college degrees which are not based in science or mathematics. There are rare exceptions, like Mr.Okuda of Star Trek. I just don't see the purpose in attempting to apply science or mathematics to such a show.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
