Alyeska wrote:Nice little Blog you got going.
Thanks.
Pitty you got some facts wrong.
Really? Must've been spending too much time around the opposition, then . . . one can pick up such bad habits. You know what that's like. After all, you've been promoting their negative myths about me and making up your own just like they do, so obviously you're a better example than I am.
(e.g. your false claim "DarkStar has the unique honor of being banned from both the official Star Trek and Star Wars forums" . . . neither is true.)
One SDN/SB border-hopper was SpaceBattles mod "H.B.M.C."
That statement is grossly inaccurate. HBMC has posted a total of 52 posts on SD.net. His last post was in 2004.
Why do I care how long ago it was? He was posting at both locations, and was a 'card-carrying Disciple of Wong'-type. Hell, his first post was:
"Hello all. I'm H.B.M.C., long time supporter of Mr. Wong and his page as well as Spacebattles First One (since the begining, all those long years ago). "
Whatever his activity level, you can't pretend he was not a member and ally.
Alyeska's choice to abandon reason in favor of community was, as undoubtedly expected, lauded and rewarded by the opposition, who soon made him a mod at SDN until a later falling out.
That statement is completely false. I was made the moderator of the ST:Nemesis forum in late 2002, early 2003.
So you were. I should've checked my memory of that, but . . . forgive me . . . you were a minor point.
Also, I'd like to note that a minor flub in the timeline does not make the statement "completely false". I had the basic narrative right but misplaced a minor detail, misplacing it
in your favor.
But I digress . . .
I am revising that section thusly:
OLD:
"And the other side felt they had the upper hand at the time, as previously pro-Trek poster Alyeska, in an obvious social play, chose to publicly concede to the aforementioned children's books. This was spun as an objective repudiation of any who failed to toe the opposition's party line.
As I had never been one to try to socialize with my ever so ill-mannered opponents, I'd never had need to try to get in their good graces. (Alyeska's choice to abandon reason in favor of community was, as undoubtedly expected, lauded and rewarded by the opposition, who soon made him a mod at SDN until a later falling out.)"
NEW:
"And the other side felt they had the upper hand at the time, as previously pro-Trek poster Alyeska, in an obvious social play, chose to publicly concede to the aforementioned children's books. This was spun as an objective repudiation of any who failed to toe the opposition's party line.
As I had never been one to try to socialize with my ever so ill-mannered opponents, I'd never had need to try to get in their good graces.
Alyeska had already done so, cozying up to the opposition to the point that, as a classic "useful idiot", he was even granted a small moderation position at SDN. His final choice to abandon reason in favor of community was, as he undoubtedly expected, lauded and further rewarded by the opposition, though after his usefulness ended there was a bitter falling out."
Please let me know if there are any factual errors in the above.
Care to retract your statement Darkstar?
It is standard operating procedure for dishonest people to hold honest people to the honest's own standards of honesty, while never correcting or taking responsibility for their own dishonesty. This usually works, since the honest people actually feel guilt over their mistakes, whereas the dishonest do not feel guilt over their bald-faced lies.
I have little guilt over the silly error you're trying to use as a global attack on my post about the SB history, and as evidenced by your failure to have ever replied to
my calling you out for your earlier falsehood you presumably have no guilt whatsoever about your bald-faced lies.
You may issue a public retraction of and apology for BS like your ban claim, at which point I will apologize for the minor error in the timeline which I have corrected.