Magestorm Allgoode
Magestorm Allgoode is a member of the message board Hotel 23, who came to the attention of the members of Stardestroyer.net when he sent an email to Michael Wong questioning the validity of his web site.
Beginnings
On December 07 2004 a thread titled "Geek Debate: Star Wars vs. Star Trek" was started in Hotel 23's Inane Babble forum, and Magestorm began arguing in favor of Star Trek. A link to Stardestroyer.net was posted on the first page, and a few pages later it was suggested that Magestorm, after commenting on the content of Stardestroyer.net's primary versus section, email Michael Wong with his criticisms.
Email Exchange
Opening Message
From: Magestorm Allgoode
I tried registering for your discussion board. However, due to the fact that "free" e-mail accounts have to pony up a $10 registration fee, I decided to send this via e-mail instead.
I am a horror writer, and part of the Raptorman board at http://raptorman.us Recently, we had a thread about Star Trek VS Star Wars, and your website was listed as a source.
I visited it, and found your measurements and estimations to be wildly overstated. In specific:
AOTC section-
Slave 1 Seismic Charges Using my own analysis of the footage, and simple physics, your estimate of 60-200 megatons is wildly off the mark. Because this disruption is in a planar direction, and not omnidirectional, MUCH less force would be needed to rip through asteroids in this fashion. To reach the 2km range, you'd barely even need a kiloton of force to do this kind of damage. Asteroids can be extremely friable, and a planar disruption would cause this friable rock to burst apart.
Slave 1 midship guns
Again, 2 kilotons is a wild estimate. Against natural friable asteroids, you'd just need conventional sized explosions to take out an asteroid 2-3 times larger than the fighter getting shot at.
Slave 1 missiles
Estimated at 190 megatons. Doubtful in the least. Looking over the explosion and the damage from this, I would put the explosion no larger than 1 KT, and that is overestmation. Remember, as these rocks are usually fragile and friable, it doesn't take a horrendous ammount of force to shatter one if put in the right place.
Also of note is Joules and Watts getting mixed around, and directed energy weapons getting classified as megaton and gigaton class weapons, when all energy weapons are measured in watts, not megatons.
Consider the Real life physics, and apply them to the matters at hand here.
Little Boy specs: Yield-13KT (Yes, Kilotons)
Blast overpressure: 12PSI (greater than 5PSI overpressure from an explosion is sufficient to topple buildings)
And we all know what kind of damage that caused.
Modern nuke missiles have a range from 100 KT to 1.5 MT. The largest weaopon ever tested was a 50 megaton weapon. The 50 MT bomb was powerful enough to give 3rd degree burns at 100KM (60 miles aprox) and was felt and seen from 1000KM (600 miles aprox)
A GIGATON nuke would not only be horrendously huge, it would devistate an entire planet with one shot.
Now, we know that a megaton is the equivalant of 4.18x10[15th power] Joules (J)
1 KG of deturium in a fusion reaction causes aproximately 2.6×10[15power] J.
Therefore, a fusion warhead from a 1 gigaton nuke would be horrednously huge, as it takes 6.25 KG to cause 1 Megaton of explosion. at 1,000 megatons, that is aproximately a warhead holding 6,250 KG of deteurium. Not only would the warhead itself be massive, but the engine for this would have to be equally massive.
If you are going off of the Incredible Cross section books, I would seriously review their ratings against actual science, and see that they are merely throwing wild estimates, not actual reproduceable figures.
Second Message: Wong's first reply
On Friday 17 December 2004 10:05 pm, you wrote:
I tried registering for your discussion board. However, due to the fact that "free" e-mail accounts have to pony up a $10 registration fee, I decided to send this via e-mail instead. I am a horror writer, and part of the Raptorman board at http://raptorman.us Recently, we had a thread about Star Trek VS Star Wars, and your website was listed as a source. I visited it, and found your measurements and estimations to be wildly overstated. In specific: AOTC section- Slave 1 Seismic Charges Using my own analysis of the footage, and simple physics, your estimate of 60-200 megatons is wildly off the mark. Because this disruption is in a planar direction, and not omnidirectional, MUCH less force would be needed to rip through asteroids in this fashion. To reach the 2km range, you'd barely even need a kiloton of force to do this kind of damage. Asteroids can be extremely friable, and a planar disruption would cause this friable rock to burst apart.
And what do you base this claim upon, other than your own authority? These rocks are clearly well-consolidated; did that occur to you? And did it occur to you that the planar nature of the charge does not mitigate the fragmentation energy since the asteroids did not merely split in two, but were shattered?
Slave 1 midship guns Again, 2 kilotons is a wild estimate. Against natural friable asteroids, you'd just need conventional sized explosions to take out an asteroid 2-3 times larger than the fighter getting shot at.
What are these "natural friable asteroids" made of? According to NASA, there are many classes of asteroids, and light-coloured hard-consolidated ones such as those we saw are not of the easily crumbled variety. Why should I believe you over NASA?
Slave 1 missiles Estimated at 190 megatons. Doubtful in the least. Looking over the explosion and the damage from this, I would put the explosion no larger than 1 KT, and that is overestmation. Remember, as these rocks are usually fragile and friable, it doesn't take a horrendous ammount of force to shatter one if put in the right place.
See above. This "all asteroids crumble like Oreo cookies" mantra of yours is getting rather repetitive, and it is not supported by any real source other than your own say-so.
Also of note is Joules and Watts getting mixed around, and directed energy weapons getting classified as megaton and gigaton class weapons, when all energy weapons are measured in watts, not megatons.
Megatons and gigatons are units of energy, dumb-ass.
Consider the Real life physics, and apply them to the matters at hand here.
I have, unlike you.
Little Boy specs: Yield-13KT (Yes, Kilotons) Blast overpressure: 12PSI (greater than 5PSI overpressure from an explosion is sufficient to topple buildings) And we all know what kind of damage that caused.
You DO realize that blast overpressure is a phenomenon which is entirely caused by atmospheric interaction with the radiation produced by the nuke, don't you? And that this would not apply to an energy weapon in space? For someone who says "consider the real life physics", you don't appear to know any.
Modern nuke missiles have a range from 100 KT to 1.5 MT. The largest weaopon ever tested was a 50 megaton weapon. The 50 MT bomb was powerful enough to give 3rd degree burns at 100KM (60 miles aprox) and was felt and seen from 1000KM (600 miles aprox)
See above.
A GIGATON nuke would not only be horrendously huge, it would devistate an entire planet with one shot.
Bullshit. Numerous volcano eruptions in the past have exceeded the gigaton level, and the so-called "dino killer" asteroid was estimated at roughly 100 million megatons, ie- 1E5 gigatons.
Now, we know that a megaton is the equivalant of 4.18x10[15th power] Joules (J) 1 KG of deturium in a fusion reaction causes aproximately 2.6×10[15power] J. Therefore, a fusion warhead from a 1 gigaton nuke would be horrednously huge, as it takes 6.25 KG to cause 1 Megaton of explosion. at 1,000 megatons, that is aproximately a warhead holding 6,250 KG of deteurium. Not only would the warhead itself be massive, but the engine for this would have to be equally massive.
The fact that these are NOT fusion bombs does not occur to you?
If you are going off of the Incredible Cross section books, I would seriously review their ratings against actual science, and see that they are merely throwing wild estimates, not actual reproduceable figures.
And you base this statement on ... what? Your personal say-so? The personal authority of someone ignorant enough to think that it's somehow unscientific to rate energy weapons using a unit of energy, who thinks that blast overpressure should apply in space, and who thinks that a 1 gigaton explosion [will devastate] an entire planet? Why should I take any of your claims seriously, when they are backed up with nothing but the aforementioned flimsy personal authority?
Third Message: Magestorm's first reply
Actually, I am basing this off of physics. Sources include NASA, JPL, Wikipedia, and the CERN websites.
To produce a gigaton of force in a small area like you are claiming would cause a secondary thermonuclear reaction in the target vehicle. As far as asteroids being friable, that is shown with the pattern of the asteroids shattering in AOTC.
Megatons are a measurement in explosive force, in the equivalent of how many tons of TNT would be needed to create the same size of destruction. So, One million tons of TNT would be one megaton. So, comparing a directed energy weapon, which is measured in wattage, would NEVER be rated in megatons of damage.
Your reasoning that the blast force would be different in space is unreasonable in the extreme. If you have an explosion, even in space, there would be a localized area of overpressure from the explosion, from the blast.
A blast from a 50 megaton nuke would create a blast zone of aproximately 25 km, and have thermal effects as far as 100km.
A gigaton weapon would be 20 times that, creating a blast aproximately 500km, and cause thermal effects as far as 2000km. This would be a worldkiller event, causing worldwide effects.
The fact that you use personal attacks along with your argument tells me you are not even interested in facts, but are taking incorrect figures and respouting them, without any real analysis.
So, if that is how you truely are going to behave, then that is fine. I never once made any comment about you or your intelligence, merely that the figures simply did not hold up to proven scientific theorim. Personally, I feel that the estimates you have on your site are extremely over what they are observable. I am basing my facts and figures from my personal observations of the movie, as well as actual science.
Last Message: Wong's second reply
Actually, I am basing this off of physics. Sources include NASA, JPL, Wikipedia, and the CERN websites.
I notice a distinct lack of "my own professional qualifications in physics" in that list. I guess I'm dealing with another "self-taught through Google" science expert. You clowns are a dime a dozen, do you know that?
To produce a gigaton of force in a small area like you are claiming would cause a secondary thermonuclear reaction in the target vehicle.
LOL! You think that a piece of iron will undergo a "secondary thermonuclear reaction"? Where did you learn science? Sesame street? A thermonuclear reaction is caused by a fission explosion interacting with fusion fuels, dumb-ass. You can't make any arbitrary object undergo a thermonuclear reaction by setting off a large blast in it.
As far as asteroids being friable, that is shown with the pattern of the asteroids shattering in AOTC.
"Circular logic" fallacy. Try again.
Megatons are a measurement in explosive force, in the equivalent of how many tons of TNT would be needed to create the same size of destruction. So, One million tons of TNT would be one megaton. So, comparing a directed energy weapon, which is measured in wattage, would NEVER be rated in megatons of damage.
Wrong. Megatons are a measurement in energy, moron. And any directed energy weapon with a defined pulse length CAN be measured in terms of energy; you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do you realize that energy is just power multiplied by time? Or did your grade 8 teacher not explain that to you yet? Maybe you should ask him on Monday when you show up for class.
Your reasoning that the blast force would be different in space is unreasonable in the extreme. If you have an explosion, even in space, there would be a localized area of overpressure from the explosion, from the blast.
Wrong. Blast overpressure is an ATMOSPHERIC phemonenon, moron. What do you think the blast wave is composed of? Oh yeah, it's AIR.
A blast from a 50 megaton nuke would create a blast zone of aproximately 25 km, and have thermal effects as far as 100km.
Not in vacuum.
A gigaton weapon would be 20 times that, creating a blast aproximately 500km, and cause thermal effects as far as 2000km. This would be a worldkiller event, causing worldwide effects.
LOL! You don't even know how scaling laws work, do you? You honestly think that a nuclear weapon which is twice as powerful will create a blast radius twice as large? Do you understand that blast effects follow non-linear scaling laws? Or that the volume and area of a sphere grow at the cube and square of its radius, respectively? I see that we can add simple geometry to the list of things you don't understand, never mind the fact that blast effects will not exist in vacuum and a 5psi overpressure is utterly inadequate to shatter a well-consolidated piece of rock.
The fact that you use personal attacks along with your argument tells me you are not even interested in facts, but are taking incorrect figures and respouting them, without any real analysis.
"Style over substance" fallacy. I have explained in some detail what is wrong with every one of your claims, and you respond by simply repeating yourself and pretending that my comments on your obvious ignorance of the subject matter somehow give you an excuse to ignore my rebuttal.
So, if that is how you truely are going to behave, then that is fine. I never once made any comment about you or your intelligence, merely that the figures simply did not hold up to proven scientific theorim.
A statement which was wrong, and whose flaws were pointed out, to which you had no response other than to repeat yourself. Your lack of intelligence is not just an insult; it is clearly a fact. No intelligent person responds to a rebuttal of his claim by simply repeating it.
Personally, I feel that the estimates you have on your site are extremely over what they are observable. I am basing my facts and figures from my personal observations of the movie, as well as actual science.
No, you are not. You repeatedly invoke the word "science" as if it is a magic talisman, when you have clearly demonstrated that you have no knowledge whatsoever of it. I would be surprised if you have even graduated high school, given that you performed an incredibly simple-minded linear scaling of nuclear blast effects. You are a classic example of what is wrong with so many sci-fi fans; you actually seem to think you are qualified to discuss matters of real science because you've watched a lot of movies and surfed the Internet, when it is clear that you actually haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Thread at Hotel 23
During the course of the thread, several members of Stardestroyer.net went there to participate in the debate. Three were banned, with all their posts being deleted.
Darth Servo
Rottedfreak wrote: Their all crazy Star wars has no real science behind it's weapons
Neither does Trek. They are BOTH pure fantasy.
lasers, proton torpedo's and Deflector shields just don't sound as powerful as Star Treks photon torpedoes, quantum torpedoes, Borg/Delta flyers photonic missiles, phasers and multiphasic shields.
According to that "logic", a personal Bose speaker with "acoustamass technology" is louder than a large amp at a rock concert.
The name of a given piece of technology has nothing to do with how powerful it is.
In TNG, DS9 and Voyager apperantly all ships have deflector shields constantly running to avoid debris collisions and in the TNG episode 'The Outragous Okona' when the Enterprise threatened with by a vastly inferior race Riker comments "Their lasers won't even cut through normal deflector shields.".
And all lasers are as powerful as the lasers of that primitive society in that ONE episode?
Guess what? In "Loud as a Whisper" Picard explicitly avoided entering a war zone contested with "laseer weaponry" so as not to endanger the E-D. In "Suddenly Human", the Picard was terrified of going to war with a society armed with lasers.
We know that Federation ships can only survive for a limited time near stars so they obviously ARE damaged by ordinary light if its intense enough.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Try signing up for the forum using a hotmail, yahoo, or google acount. it will throw up an error, stating that because of problems they have had from users of free e-mail, they could only accept either an e-mail address from an ISP, or they need a $10 "donation" to complete your registration to their site.
Its totally free to sign up with a corporate or school email. If you're out of school, and have half the knowledge you claim, you should already have a non-anomymous email so you should be able to sign up for free.
And ONE e-mail? Nononono!!!!! This was 5 go rounds. He simply got nastier and nastier about it,
He says straight out on his 'send email page' that stupidity WILL be flamed. You obviously chose to ignore that warning, just like you ignored his rebuttals and focused instead on the insults. Your tactic was a textbook ad homenim fallacy--focusing on the man instead of the arguments.
instead of rationally going over why he felt I was wrong.
Except he DID address each point you brought up and why it was wrong. Yuu ignored those rebuttals and instead simply repeated your original claims without alteration. Thats enough to get any intelligent person mad. And don't try to deny it. He has posted the first two emails from you on his board already.
Therefore, I totally discount him, his website, and the source material his site uses (Incredible Cross Sections).
1) As far as logic is concerned, it doesn't matter how rude, mean or even evil someone is.
Consider the following analogy:
Person A politely declares that 2+2=5 Person B calls person A an idiot and tells him it really equals 4 Person A says person B can't be right because he was insulting.
2) The rudeness of a supporter of a given document has even less to do with the validity of that document, since said supporter didn't write it.
3) The Incredible cross sections book has been officially approved by Lucasfilm and received canon status. If I tried to get a particular Trek episode thrown out because one of its fans was a jerk, you would laugh in my face. Why should I not do the same to you?
While I don't have a degree, I DID happen to pay attention in school
Obviously not very well since you think a 20x bigger explosion means a 20x larger blast radius which is completely false. In reality a 20x bigger blast means a 20x bigger VOLUME of the explosion which ould only be about a 2.7 increase in radius. This is basic geometry.
and even now continue learning on my own.
Google is no match or a real college education. There is a reason college takes years to get through.
Had I gone on, I'd most likely would have becoma an actual doctor,
News flash. The author of the Incredible Cross Sections book IS an actual doctor. Curtis Saxton holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics which makes him far more qualified to discuss what amount of energy is required for a given event than you.
instead of someone living off the dole here. But, because my knowledge was not taught at a college, I can't simply test out on what I do know, and go on to the things I don't.
And there is a very good reason why you can't. Universities must get accredited and hold up to certain standards. Google has no such regulations.
Makes it to where you have an educated group unable to use this knowledge. Sad we have gone to that.
Given the (lack of) knowledge you demonstrated in your emails to Mike Wong, I'd say thats a very good thing. You obviously have no idea what a real education is like.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Personally, I could give a rat's ass. If anyone wanted to read the entire thing, I would have happily posted it. However, because of his insults, and not even bothering to explain WHY I was wrong, jusr assuming I was some know-nothing asshat, I find his arguments to be hollow and void of any and all redeming qualities.
1) Another ad-homenim fallacy. Attacking the man rather than the argument.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
2) You are not even telling the truth. He DID explain why you were wrong and you either ignored it or couldn't understand it.
In other words, he's full of shit, and I refuse to take one word of his seriously, untill he can sit down and calmly, without resorting to personal attacks, where I am wrong, and the physics behind it.
His usualy response to crap like this is. "I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter."
Mike invites you to view the thread in question and according to him, you only sent him 2 emails, not 5.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=59109&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
American wrote: Stormtroopers vs Starfleet personell: Stormtroops would lose. Their armor may be thick, but on Star Trek, there are times they use phasers as cutting tools.
And it usually takes several minutes to cut through anything ans seen in "Naked Time"
Furthermore, Federation hand phasers can be rendered useless by just about anything from mild radiation to certain minerals to a really big solar flare. Imperial weapons have never had such problems.
Versatility is no match for raw power. Leave the swiss army knives for the boy scouts. I'd rather have the more power weapon with longer range (Clone troopers were engaging the droid armies at ranges of several km in AOTC).
Jedi vs Borg: Tossup
How can you say that?
Jedi can run faster than olympic sprinters (seen in the Trade Fed ship in TPM) while borg drones are slower than zombies.
Jedi have super fast reflexes due to seeing something before it happens while drones have none at all.
The borg have never demonstrated the ability to adapt to physical impacts. Only frequency dependent weapons like phasers.
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman
I'll add KAN's posts later.
Winston Blake (Under the names 42 and 42 Reborn!)
Magestorm Allgoode wrote:
WHY LASERS OR ENERGY WEAPONS CANNOT BE MEASURED IN MEGATONS
Lasers or other energy type weapons are rated not on destructive force. They are
measured in power consumed. Hence, you can have a 100 MEGAWATT laser, but no way can
you have a 100 MEGATON laser.
This would be like someone asking, "How many Newtons does it take to move an
object?" and getting back "1000 BTU" YES, both measure energy. However, this does not
mean you can simply interchange them back and forth.
Newtons are a unit for force, not energy. Although i don't expect you know what the difference is.
Explosives are rated on how much TNT it would take to create a similar blast. So, an
800 pound blast would mean it requires 800 pounds of TNT to create a similar explosion.
Hence, one megaton means it would take one million tons of TNT to create a similar
explosion.
Think I am being silly? Nope. Both measure energy, right? Therefore, someone
using your logic can sit there and use ANY unit of energy to answer whatever question
they wish.
Let me explain: energy is the capacity to do work, work is force x distance. That is, applying a certain force to an object causing it to move a certain distance requires a certain amount of energy. There are many different forms of energy, e.g. a bullet has kinetic energy, gasoline has chemical potential energy, an axe in mid swing has gravitational potential energy. The SI unit for energy is the joule. All those things can be measured in joules. However, when it comes to big explosions, it's conventional to use the non-SI unit of tons. An explosion is just a rapid release of energy, usually in the form of heat. Tons are just another unit which is used to measure of energy. A megaton is defined to be 4.18 petajoules. It's derivation from the specific combustion energy of TNT (4.184 MJ/kg) does not mean it's not just a unit of energy like joules. Yes, anyone can sit there and use any unit of energy to answer a question resulting in energy, you can 'interchange them back and forth'.
And as far as the Watt/Joule argument, they are more like converting Imperial Measurements (US scale) to Metric. We ALL know that a Kilogram is NOT the same as a Pound. A Kilometer is NOT the same as a Mile. A Liter is NOT the same as a Gallon.
No, because watts and joules aren't just different units of the same quantity. You can measure distance using either kilometers or miles, but you can't use kilograms. Miles measure distance, kilograms measure mass. Watts measure power, joules measure energy. Power = Energy / Time.
Picture water flowing from a tap into a bucket. There might be 10 milliliters flowing into the bucket for every 1 second that passes. Run the tap for 100 seconds, and you have a liter of water in the bucket. I will now christen the unit of 'Flow' to be the Allgoode. I define the Allgoode to be 5 milliliters per second. That tap has a flow of 0.2 Allgoodes. For a duration of 100 seconds, that tap gives a volume of 1 liter. The Watt was defined to be 1 joule per second. For a pulse duration of 100 seconds, a laser with a power of 1 watt gives an energy of 100 joules. Get it now?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote:
Ok. Seems you still are not getting it there.
Newtons DO measure energy. They measure KINETIC energy.
No, they do not. You're obviously just pretending to know what you're talking about. I can't believe you wrote that with a straight face. Kinetic energy is measured in joules, just like every other kind of energy. E.g. a 1kg rock moving at 10 metres per second has a kinetic energy of 50 joules. It's extremely basic: KE = 1/2mv^2.
Anyone who has ever taken any kind of physics knows this stuff.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=newton&r=67 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton
YES, there are formulas that can convert the energy released in an explosion from Joules to megatons. However, that is not the entire use of the Megaton. A Megaton measures the entire blast force in ammount of dynamite. Please reread the science books and websites, or look at sites dealing with nukes.
No, megatons don't measure 'the entire blast force in ammount of dynamite', they measure the energy released by the explosion based on the energy density of TNT. You can't even get the chemical right: dynamite is stabilised nitro, TNT is completely different.
Don't assume I do not understand P=I*E at all. I KNOW what these things are. However, Michael Wong's website used the Watt and Joule interchangeably. Maybe the science lesson is better suited to him then.
No, for electrical currents, P=VI. Potential difference is not the same thing as energy. The most common expression for power is P = E/t, and it's measured in units of joules per second, also known as watts. This is simple stuff, you have to admit that you really don't know what you're talking about.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote:
Reread the AOTC section closely, and you will see what I am talking about.
The Watt / Joules thing is a simple matter that while you CAN convert between the
2, you can't simply use them interchangeably. A kilometer and a mile both measure
distance, but you can't state that 300KM is the same as 300Miles, or vice-versa.
Simply a nono.
No, you couldn't be more wrong. Yes, miles and kilometers both measure distance, and one is from the metric system and the other is imperial. Watts and joules are NOT from two different metrological systems, measuring the same quantity. They are both SI units, and watts measure power while joules measure energy. Just look at the equation: P=E/t.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=watt&r=67 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=joule
What you're saying is analogous to claiming that velocity and distance are the same thing, and then trying to prove this by saying that pounds and kilograms both measure mass.
Velocity = Distance / Time. Power = Energy / Time. You = Are / Wrong.
Note: The following post is not taken directly from the thread at Hotel 23 as the others are as it was deleted before being saved; it was reconstructed from memory by Winston Blake in this post
Miklos wrote: example: [snip] Innapropriate argument. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newtons are a unit for force, not energy. Although i don't expect you know what the difference is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tsk tsk. In the honored tradition of debate the occasionaly light hearted shot for humor is welcome and will get you points. But on the inter net the only way to indicate that it is lighthearted is with a =P which detracts from the argument.... so lets just refrain from taking jabs at eachother mmmkay?
My statement is true. Magestorm does not know the difference between force and energy, as he's repeatedly shown:
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Newtons DO measure energy. They measure KINETIC energy.
There's nothing personal or vindictive about proving someone wrong, and concluding that they didn't understand what they were talking about.
Is it the policy of this board to censor the truth just because it annoys authority figures?
Note: The following post was made under the name 42 Reborn! after the username 42 was banned.
I had never heard of this board until it was brought up in a Stardestroyer.net thread, and I have a variable IP. Therefore, Magestorm Allgoode lied.
Over there i'm known as Winston Blake. You can see my posts that were deleted in this thread:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=1394400#1394400
You can see that there's no objectionable material either, i simply proved him wrong.
Magestorm, you've shown yourself to be a coward and sore loser. Feel free to ban this account; i won't be coming back again to this sorry corner of internet... you've given your board a bad name.
My disgust with your administrative conduct is currently flowing at 42 megaAllgoodes (read that thread to see what this means).
Aftermath
On January 04 2005 the owner of Hotel 23, raptorman, returned from an absence and spoke on the situation:
"Darth servo, 42 and all the other shunned ones.
I have recently been made savvy to the situation, and would like to say that I have no ill will toward any of you or magestorm.
Mage and I have PM'd back and forth about what happened and I would like to say that we have agreed that things could be changed a little about when to ban people.
I can't believe this community is as thriving as it is in the first place. I considered shutting it down when all the political arguments were going on, but I changed my mind. "
According to SDN member Vohu Manah, after this incident Magestorm Allgoode "lost his authority to ban without consultation."
Some time in early 2005, Hotel 23 suffered a failure of some sort and all previous threads, including this one, were lost.