hehe
DarkStar
of you, and all the sudden I'm the worst troll in history. The best part
is that the ones who are foaming at the mouth the most are the ones who I
was acting like.
What, does trollishness not count when trolls who agree with the majority
opinion are doing it? Oooh, I know, maybe aggregate trollishness cancels
out.
The funny thing is that so far, the reasons given for my so-called trollness
are stupid.
"You're a troll because you ignore reason"
No, I just don't think you should automatically assume the highest possible
numbers for Star Wars and the lowest possible numbers for Star Trek. Silly
DarkStar and his demand of fairness. There's a difference between proper
reason and what many of you think it is.
Not like it matters. Do you think I'm wasting my time trying to convince
the closed-minded idiots of anything? They're beyond hope. I'm interested
in the people who still have functioning brain cells.
"You're a troll because you just say stuff to make people angry"
I'm not here just to get a rise out of everyone and make them foam at the
mouth. I could do that much more easily just by leaving a shorn goat in
plain sight of you, and waiting for the inevitable molestation. Poor goat.
"You just want attention"
Do you have any idea how dumb that idea is? Several of you have reacted
quite violently and negatively to being treated unfairly. Why would
someone want that?
"You don't follow the rules"
No, but I acknowledge the rules, even if they are not justifiable and don't
make logical sense.
"You're mean"
Well, shit. ASVS better close up shop if that is a sign of trollness.
So, would anyone like to try for debating with reason and evidence, or is
everyone just going to keep foaming at the mouth?
Sally Cinnamon
> everyone just going to keep foaming at the mouth?
Hmmm. HMMM. Hmmm.
What *kind* of beer?
John Hansen
<CwXY8.229888$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>) on Tue, 16 Jul 2002
16:06:58 GMT...
>"You're a troll because you ignore reason"
>
>No, I just don't think you should automatically assume the highest possible
>numbers for Star Wars and the lowest possible numbers for Star Trek. Silly
>DarkStar and his demand of fairness. There's a difference between proper
>reason and what many of you think it is.
We don't. For example, the absolute minimum of energy needed to overcome an
Earth-like planet's gravitational binding force is 2.24E32 joules. That is the
lower limit for the Death Star. The upper limit, done by Wong and supported by
other independent calculations, is roughly 1.214E40 joules.
Do you have a problem with that?
Conversely, the only reason that we have only low-end estimates of Trek
firepower is because there have not been any on-screen examples of anything
more, ad hoc comments like Kim's "You planning to blow up a small moon?"
notwithstanding.
Pablo Sanchez
wrote:
>You know what's funny? I just spent a couple of days acting like several
>of you, and all the sudden I'm the worst troll in history. The best part
>is that the ones who are foaming at the mouth the most are the ones who I
>was acting like.
Here's a hint for you. Kynes and Poe can act like assholes and not be
called trolls because they have the evidence and ability to back their
shit up. All you have are some arguments that would make Anton
Polinger laugh.
Setesh
"I'm right, your wrong because I can't be"
You provide vague or no proof.
Or your statment contradicts observe phenominon.
For your in formation I am neither trekkie nor warsie, nor even a fiver.
Skywarp:"Starscream, What's Megatron's plan this time?
Starscream:"Who cares? You just Know it's going to be evil. And evil is always
fun."
Celes Knight
> of you, and all the sudden I'm the worst troll in history. The best part
> is that the ones who are foaming at the mouth the most are the ones who I
> was acting like.
Uh huh. You were *intentionally* trying to emulate people here...
> What, does trollishness not count when trolls who agree with the majority
> opinion are doing it? Oooh, I know, maybe aggregate trollishness cancels
> out.
Your might want to reread this part of the form-flame:
[X] You are under the misapprehension that this group is your preserve
[X] You are under the misapprehension that this group isn't (below)'s
preserve
[X] Strowbridge [X] Dalton
[X] Kynes [X] Cmdrwilkens
...
Yes, regulars are cut more slack than non-regulars. No it's not fair, but
it's the way it is. Once you've proved that you're not the
troll-of-the-week and (perhaps more importantly) start providing sources for
your arguments, you'll be cut more slack as well.
> The funny thing is that so far, the reasons given for my so-called
trollness
> are stupid.
>
> "You're a troll because you ignore reason"
>
> No, I just don't think you should automatically assume the highest
possible
> numbers for Star Wars and the lowest possible numbers for Star Trek.
Silly
> DarkStar and his demand of fairness. There's a difference between proper
> reason and what many of you think it is.
I feel your pain, because I remember being in the debate when most of the
people were Star Trek supporters, and I constantly had to refute
"hypserspace is 1.5c" "all ST ships are catgorically imune to lazers (which
and fo' knows SW weaposn are)" and the like. If you truly feel that you're
right and the other people's numbers are wrong write up one large post or
website with the reasons and sources. If you are right, *I* will support
you. However, keep in mind that "fair" doesn't mean "each side has a 50%
chance of winning" or "ST ships are about equal to SW ships". Fair means
that the circumstances are treated the same on both sides.
The important thing here is sources and valid scientific and logical proofs
to back them up. Anyone can claim something, but without evidence to back
it up, the claim is worthless.
> "You don't follow the rules"
>
> No, but I acknowledge the rules, even if they are not justifiable and
don't
> make logical sense.
Which part of the rules are bad? Point them out. Again, if you have valid
points, I will support you. I don't want this group to be unfairly biased
towards either side.
Stuart Mackey
>
> So, would anyone like to try for debating with reason and evidence, or is
> everyone just going to keep foaming at the mouth?
Well, Fetch the matches, the crack and round up a donkey. You have just
proved your trollishness in a post that fair screams "I am right, you are
wrong, and everything you say is irrelevant if it disagrees with my opinion"
I hearby rate you on the timness troll scale at 8 out of 10.
DarkStar
"John Hansen" <ab...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8fm8juc7cp0u84taq...@4ax.com...
> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> opened Pandora's Box (cleverly
disguised as
> <CwXY8.229888$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>) on Tue, 16 Jul
2002
> 16:06:58 GMT...
>
> >"You're a troll because you ignore reason"
> >
> >No, I just don't think you should automatically assume the highest
possible
> >numbers for Star Wars and the lowest possible numbers for Star Trek.
Silly
> >DarkStar and his demand of fairness. There's a difference between
proper
> >reason and what many of you think it is.
>
> We don't. For example, the absolute minimum of energy needed to overcome
an
> Earth-like planet's gravitational binding force is 2.24E32 joules. That is
the
> lower limit for the Death Star. The upper limit, done by Wong and
supported by
> other independent calculations, is roughly 1.214E40 joules.
>
> Do you have a problem with that?
Not at all. You'll note that I never questioned the energy requirement,
only where it came from.
> Conversely, the only reason that we have only low-end estimates of Trek
> firepower is because there have not been any on-screen examples of
anything
> more, ad hoc comments like Kim's "You planning to blow up a small moon?"
> notwithstanding.
I wouldn't call that entirely accurate. Most of the time, the first
torpedo firepower example anyone brings up will be Star Trek V. That's
hardly an honest approach.
DarkStar
"Celes Knight" <My_First_an...@rconnectSP.AMcom.SPAM> wrote in
message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> Yes, regulars are cut more slack than non-regulars. No it's not fair, but
> it's the way it is. Once you've proved that you're not the
> troll-of-the-week and (perhaps more importantly) start providing sources
for
> your arguments, you'll be cut more slack as well.
Start providing sources? Are you kidding?
> you. However, keep in mind that "fair" doesn't mean "each side has a 50%
> chance of winning" or "ST ships are about equal to SW ships". Fair means
> that the circumstances are treated the same on both sides.
Exactly.
> > "You don't follow the rules"
> >
> > No, but I acknowledge the rules, even if they are not justifiable and
> don't
> > make logical sense.
>
> Which part of the rules are bad? Point them out.
1. The SW canon policy. (ignores Lucas)
2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover)
3. "Also, when considering evidence, remember: SF writers sometimes borrow
from leading edge science. Due to the nature of the job they can make
mistakes. For instance Zero Point Energy was mentioned in Star Trek, but the
amount of energy it supposedly has is vastly higher than in real life. We
still must consider Zero Point Energy to have all the properties real life
Scientists tell us, but due to suspension of disbelief we must assume for ST
the writer is correct whenever they directly contradict. Not only that, but
due to RoE #14 these properties will also hold true in SW as well."
This rule is not followed.
Those are the main ones I've noticed so far.
The Baron
>no you are called a troll because alost all your arguments are
>"I'm right, your wrong because I can't be"
>
>You provide vague or no proof.
>
>Or your statment contradicts observe phenominon.
>
>For your in formation I am neither trekkie nor warsie, nor even a fiver.
'Moron'
John Hansen
07:16:48 GMT...
>> Conversely, the only reason that we have only low-end estimates of Trek
>> firepower is because there have not been any on-screen examples of
>anything
>> more, ad hoc comments like Kim's "You planning to blow up a small moon?"
>> notwithstanding.
>
>I wouldn't call that entirely accurate. Most of the time, the first
>torpedo firepower example anyone brings up will be Star Trek V. That's
>hardly an honest approach.
Well, yeah, ST:V gives us an absolute low-end limit for torpedo firepower. Fine.
The problem is that we don't have any concrete example of high-end firepower;
e.g. a torpedo actually blowing up something quantifiable.
Like the wormhole asteroid in ST:TMP - how large was it? There was no frame
showing the E-nil along with the asteroid, so pixel scaling is impossible. Was
it carbonaceous or iron? Nobody commented on it. All we know is that one torp
blew it up. Wonderful.
Or the bombardment in TDiC: we see what seem to be dust clouds, but several
modern high-yield nuclear weapons could do that. To make matters worse, the dust
clouds obscured any chance of actually seeing physical damage incurred by the
torpedo bombardment.
TNG: Pegasus has Data stating that it would take "our entire complement of
photon torpedoes" to destroy the asteroid containing the Pegasus. They didn't
try it, so we are relying on Data's statement. We also know that he hasn't been
entirely accurate in the past (the 12 gigawatts per... faux pas comes to mind).
There were many cases in STVOY of a single torpedo blowing up a ship, but most
of those situations can't be measured. For example, did an antimatter reactor
cooking off assist the resulting explosion? Too many unknowns to measure.
Cmdrwilkens
news:kg9Z8.126229$iB1.7...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> "Celes Knight" <My_First_an...@rconnectSP.AMcom.SPAM> wrote in
> message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> > Yes, regulars are cut more slack than non-regulars. No it's not fair,
but
> > it's the way it is. Once you've proved that you're not the
> > troll-of-the-week and (perhaps more importantly) start providing sources
> for
> > your arguments, you'll be cut more slack as well.
>
> Start providing sources? Are you kidding?
>
> > you. However, keep in mind that "fair" doesn't mean "each side has a
50%
> > chance of winning" or "ST ships are about equal to SW ships". Fair
means
> > that the circumstances are treated the same on both sides.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > "You don't follow the rules"
> > >
> > > No, but I acknowledge the rules, even if they are not justifiable and
> > don't
> > > make logical sense.
> >
> > Which part of the rules are bad? Point them out.
>
> 1. The SW canon policy. (ignores Lucas)
No it ignores your interpretation of Lucas which is the only voice of
dissent amongst the total populace I've seen. You have repeatedly failed to
consider that his statement can be interpreted in other ways AND that your
theory requires the ignoring of a vast weight of other evidence. In other
words your theory requires us to take one piece of information which is
contested in meaning and use it to invalidate the majority of other data
points out there. All of this would be done based on your interpretation
which, again, is contested.
> 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover)
Ordover is not the only source, the ST.com FAQ, Tim Gaskill (the
maintainer), Mike Okuda, Gene's own quote (to wit he stated that only what
he made was real ST). Moreover Ordover is the editor in chief at the
publisher for ST fiction if he doesn't know the canon policy then who would?
> 3. "Also, when considering evidence, remember: SF writers sometimes
borrow
> from leading edge science. Due to the nature of the job they can make
> mistakes. For instance Zero Point Energy was mentioned in Star Trek, but
the
> amount of energy it supposedly has is vastly higher than in real life. We
> still must consider Zero Point Energy to have all the properties real life
> Scientists tell us, but due to suspension of disbelief we must assume for
ST
> the writer is correct whenever they directly contradict. Not only that,
but
> due to RoE #14 these properties will also hold true in SW as well."
>
> This rule is not followed.
In what sense are they not followed?
> Those are the main ones I've noticed so far.
>
Well two of them are baseless problems on your part while the third I don't
know about.
--
Lcpl Burnett, G.R.
USMCR
BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG
"Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure"
- IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net)
Setesh
>From: swin...@7dof.org (The Baron)
>Date: 7/17/02 9:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3d356fe5...@news.freeserve.co.uk>
that can't be right can it. Oh wait I forgot he gets in on discussions where
he has no clue what we're talking about and only vague asperations of
understanding english. On the other hand he helped me prove that the
Federation goverment is made up of low life scum. I'll let him live.
The Baron
>>Subject: Re: hehe
>>From: swin...@7dof.org (The Baron)
>>Date: 7/17/02 9:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3d356fe5...@news.freeserve.co.uk>
>>
>>On 16 Jul 2002 20:24:55 GMT, set...@aol.com (Setesh) wrote:
>>
>>>no you are called a troll because alost all your arguments are
>>>"I'm right, your wrong because I can't be"
>>>
>>>You provide vague or no proof.
>>>
>>>Or your statment contradicts observe phenominon.
>>>
>>>For your in formation I am neither trekkie nor warsie, nor even a fiver.
>>
>>'Moron'
>>
>>
>Strange I here the Baron calling me a moron for pointing out the obvious,
It's obvious that you're not a Trekkie?
You only argue Pro-Trek, how is it thus obvious?
>but that can't be right can it
Exactly so, concession accepted.
>Oh wait I forgot he gets in on discussions where he has no clue what we're talking about
'we'? You mean I reply to your rants and you get all hissy and pissed
off and run off to get your fat mum to wank you off while you cry away
the pain?
> and only vague asperations of understanding english.
Rofl, I would suspect that my command of the English language is
somewhat superior to your own.
> On the other hand he helped me prove that the
>Federation goverment is made up of low life scum.
Well, no, I said they're communists. If you want to say that all
communists are inherently 'low life scum' then that's your
prerogative, but pretty FUCKING STUPID.
> I'll let him live.
How generous of you. I'll let you fuck right off.
DarkStar
"Cmdrwilkens" <burn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ah48mm$pujcf$1...@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de...
> > 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover)
>
> Ordover is not the only source, the ST.com FAQ, Tim Gaskill (the
> maintainer), Mike Okuda, Gene's own quote (to wit he stated that only what
> he made was real ST). Moreover Ordover is the editor in chief at the
> publisher for ST fiction if he doesn't know the canon policy then who
would?
>
Thank you for detailing the common silly argument.
> > 3. "Also, when considering evidence, remember: SF writers sometimes
> borrow
> > from leading edge science. Due to the nature of the job they can make
> > mistakes. For instance Zero Point Energy was mentioned in Star Trek, but
> the
> > amount of energy it supposedly has is vastly higher than in real life.
We
> > still must consider Zero Point Energy to have all the properties real
life
> > Scientists tell us, but due to suspension of disbelief we must assume
for
> ST
> > the writer is correct whenever they directly contradict. Not only that,
> but
> > due to RoE #14 these properties will also hold true in SW as well."
> >
> > This rule is not followed.
>
>
> In what sense are they not followed?
Hypermatter comes to mind.
Dalton
>
> You know what's funny? I just spent a couple of days acting like several
> of you, and all the sudden I'm the worst troll in history.
[snip bullshit]
It's because you broke the rules. You want us to respect you, you follow
the rules, and that includes the rules of canon which you so brazenly
declared invalid because of your interpretations of one quote.
Don't like it? Fuck off. I've barely debated you, and I already actively
dislike you.
--
Rob "Rob" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
Jason L. Miles
>DarkStar wrote:
>>
>> You know what's funny? I just spent a couple of days acting like several
>> of you, and all the sudden I'm the worst troll in history.
>
>[snip bullshit]
>
>It's because you broke the rules. You want us to respect you, you follow
>the rules, and that includes the rules of canon which you so brazenly
>declared invalid because of your interpretations of one quote.
I don't think this aplication of a strategic k100-by-four is going to
be successful, but I gues it had to be tried.
>Don't like it? Fuck off. I've barely debated you, and I already actively
>dislike you.
I havn't debated him and I dislike him, he's a moron with no desire to
learn.
Dalton
>
> "Celes Knight" <My_First_an...@rconnectSP.AMcom.SPAM> wrote in
> message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
[snip]
> > Which part of the rules are bad? Point them out.
>
> 1. The SW canon policy. (ignores Lucas)
Nothing Lucas says contradicts current policy.
> 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover)
And the information on StarTrek.com.
The laws for canon have been debated exhaustively for years and years,
and we've come up with a system that mostly everyone is nearly satisfied
with. The only point of contention at the moment is the validity of the
TMs. Meanwhile, we always get dicks like you who prance in here with
eloquent sophistry about how our current rules are wrong because "oh,
Lucas meant THIS, not THAT" and that sort of shit, which has the
resulting impression of the Trekkie (you) trying your damndest to shaft
the Warsies (us). And I've noticed that it's picked up ever since
SW2:ICS came out.
I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking
hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the
novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT
turbolasers.
> 3. "Also, when considering evidence, remember: SF writers sometimes borrow
> from leading edge science. Due to the nature of the job they can make
> mistakes. For instance Zero Point Energy was mentioned in Star Trek, but the
> amount of energy it supposedly has is vastly higher than in real life. We
> still must consider Zero Point Energy to have all the properties real life
> Scientists tell us, but due to suspension of disbelief we must assume for ST
> the writer is correct whenever they directly contradict. Not only that, but
> due to RoE #14 these properties will also hold true in SW as well."
>
> This rule is not followed.
Like hell it isn't.
> Those are the main ones I've noticed so far.
Only because of your selective interpretation.
Cmdrwilkens
>
> "Cmdrwilkens" <burn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ah48mm$pujcf$1...@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > > 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover)
> >
> > Ordover is not the only source, the ST.com FAQ, Tim Gaskill (the
> > maintainer), Mike Okuda, Gene's own quote (to wit he stated that only
what
> > he made was real ST). Moreover Ordover is the editor in chief at the
> > publisher for ST fiction if he doesn't know the canon policy then who
> would?
> >
>
> Thank you for detailing the common silly argument.
Thank you for ignoring the rest of it (the ST.com FAQ is the big one as is
Gene's comment). Even if Ordover didn't exist we would still have evidence
beyond reasonable doubt that the TM is not canon and ST has no "official"
category.
> > > 3. "Also, when considering evidence, remember: SF writers sometimes
> > borrow
> > > from leading edge science. Due to the nature of the job they can make
> > > mistakes. For instance Zero Point Energy was mentioned in Star Trek,
but
> > the
> > > amount of energy it supposedly has is vastly higher than in real life.
> We
> > > still must consider Zero Point Energy to have all the properties real
> life
> > > Scientists tell us, but due to suspension of disbelief we must assume
> for
> > ST
> > > the writer is correct whenever they directly contradict. Not only
that,
> > but
> > > due to RoE #14 these properties will also hold true in SW as well."
> > >
> > > This rule is not followed.
> >
> >
> > In what sense are they not followed?
>
> Hypermatter comes to mind.
>
I'm going to say something very simple here. The name is not the thing. The
name can be attached to the thing but remember always that the SW universe
does NOT use English as its language thus what we are seeing, under
suspension of disbelief, is a tranlsation of thoughts and words into
English. The name is not the thing but it is the closest to that thing which
can be, in the case of hypermatter we are given a description of it and if
this does not match what science says then they are two different things.
Setesh
huh, Ive been argueing with Darkstar for the last few days that the New
Republic would go to war with the UFP due to their massive scumminess, and I'm
pro-trek?
>>but that can't be right can it
>
>Exactly so, concession accepted.
>
Sarcasm, a fom of speaking where what you say is the opposite of what you mean.
>'we'? You mean I reply to your rants and you get all hissy and pissed
>off and run off to get your fat mum to wank you off while you cry away
>the pain?
hissy? pissed? you responded to me twice, pointed out something I said was from
a non-canon source, I apologized and moved on with differant evidence of the
same conclusion. I think you have the wrong sociopath.
>Rofl, I would suspect that my command of the English language is
>somewhat superior to your own.
>
Probably true as far as posting is concerened, no spell check.
>Well, no, I said they're communists. If you want to say that all
>communists are inherently 'low life scum' then that's your
>prerogative, but pretty FUCKING STUPID.
If you had read the argument from the begining I claimed they were communists,
when the twit I was talking to refused to believe me I moved on to their
treatment of their civilians, we were arguing the ethics and morallity of it
when it ended up a war over where the Maquis came from, this is where you
walked in. I'm not saying the entire UFP is made up of scumsucking ameboes,
just the guys in charge of the cardasian situation and that bitch of an
admiral.
>> I'll let him live.
>
>How generous of you. I'll let you fuck right off.
>
My girlfriend agreed with you, we 'christened' the computer stand after I
signed off.
DarkStar
"Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
news:3D3602FA...@daltonator.net...
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > "Celes Knight" <My_First_an...@rconnectSP.AMcom.SPAM> wrote in
> > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Which part of the rules are bad? Point them out.
> >
> > 1. The SW canon policy. (ignores Lucas)
>
> Nothing Lucas says contradicts current policy.
(sigh)
> > 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover)
>
> And the information on StarTrek.com.
Actually, I don't disagree with the ST policy itself, just the fact that
Ordover figures prominently. His opinion doesn't matter.
> Meanwhile, we always get dicks like you who prance in here with
> eloquent sophistry about how our current rules are wrong because "oh,
> Lucas meant THIS, not THAT" and that sort of shit, which has the
> resulting impression of the Trekkie (you) trying your damndest to shaft
> the Warsies (us). And I've noticed that it's picked up ever since
> SW2:ICS came out.
Well, there was already plenty of evidence to suggest that the EU wasn't
canon, which is where my argument came from. Then, Lucas' comments about
the EU being a parallel universe and not his world cinched it up.
> I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking
> hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the
> novelizations, Radio scripts, etc.
So?
>Stop crying because of 200GT
> turbolasers.
They don't bother me. That figure is just crap.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > You know what's funny? I just spent a couple of days acting like
several
> > of you, and all the sudden I'm the worst troll in history.
>
> [snip bullshit]
>
> It's because you broke the rules.
No, it started when I challenged the rules. If I had challenged the rules
in a way that let in more Star Wars... maybe allowing Mike Wong as an
"official" source, you guys would have all blown me. However, because I
pointed out the fact that the SW canon policy used here is incorrect, I
became public enemy number one.
> Don't like it? Fuck off. I've barely debated you, and I already actively
> dislike you.
Sorry if I interrupted your circle-jerk.
The Baron
>>You only argue Pro-Trek, how is it thus obvious?
>
>huh, Ive been argueing with Darkstar for the last few days that the New
>Republic would go to war with the UFP due to their massive scumminess, and I'm
>pro-trek?
Yes.
>>>but that can't be right can it
>>
>>Exactly so, concession accepted.
>>
>Sarcasm, a fom of speaking where what you say is the opposite of what you mean.
That would not, indeed, be the definition of sarcasm...
>>'we'? You mean I reply to your rants and you get all hissy and pissed
>>off and run off to get your fat mum to wank you off while you cry away
>>the pain?
>
>hissy? pissed? you responded to me twice, pointed out something I said was from
>a non-canon source, I apologized and moved on with differant evidence of the
>same conclusion. I think you have the wrong sociopath.
I've responded to you a lot more than twice... you obviously have the
wrong 'opponant' in mind.
>>Rofl, I would suspect that my command of the English language is
>>somewhat superior to your own.
>>
>Probably true as far as posting is concerened, no spell check.
I have no spell checker either, what's your point?
>>Well, no, I said they're communists. If you want to say that all
>>communists are inherently 'low life scum' then that's your
>>prerogative, but pretty FUCKING STUPID.
>
>If you had read the argument from the begining I claimed they were communists,
>when the twit I was talking to refused to believe me I moved on to their
>treatment of their civilians, we were arguing the ethics and morallity of it
>when it ended up a war over where the Maquis came from, this is where you
>walked in. I'm not saying the entire UFP is made up of scumsucking ameboes,
>just the guys in charge of the cardasian situation and that bitch of an
>admiral.
This paragraph makes little to no sense.
>>> I'll let him live.
>>
>>How generous of you. I'll let you fuck right off.
>>
>My girlfriend agreed with you, we 'christened' the computer stand after I
>signed off.
>
I put the chances of you having a girlfriend at roughly the same as a
Maquis fighter taking out the DS solo.
Setesh
>>
>>huh, Ive been argueing with Darkstar for the last few days that the New
>>Republic would go to war with the UFP due to their massive scumminess, and
>I'm
>>pro-trek?
>
>Yes.
Is english your first language?
>I've responded to you a lot more than twice... you obviously have the
>wrong 'opponant' in mind.
at the time I made that post it was the third post with your name on it I'd
seen directed at me.
>This paragraph makes little to no sense.
>
repeat above question. I explained the situation as it happened. Its not my
fault its simple meaning evades you.
>I put the chances of you having a girlfriend at roughly the same as a
>Maquis fighter taking out the DS solo.
The world heaves a sigh of relief that your not a bookie.
The Baron
>>>>You only argue Pro-Trek, how is it thus obvious?
>>>
>>>huh, Ive been argueing with Darkstar for the last few days that the New
>>>Republic would go to war with the UFP due to their massive scumminess, and
>>I'm
>>>pro-trek?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>Is english your first language?
Yes.
>>I've responded to you a lot more than twice... you obviously have the
>>wrong 'opponant' in mind.
>
>at the time I made that post it was the third post with your name on it I'd
>seen directed at me.
Supressed memories?
>
>>This paragraph makes little to no sense.
>>
>
>repeat above question. I explained the situation as it happened. Its not my
>fault its simple meaning evades you.
You're such a fuckwit.
>>I put the chances of you having a girlfriend at roughly the same as a
>>Maquis fighter taking out the DS solo.
>
>The world heaves a sigh of relief that your not a bookie.
>
Does it?
Jason L. Miles
wrote:
>
>"Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
>news:3D3600D8...@daltonator.net...
>> DarkStar wrote:
>> >
>> > You know what's funny? I just spent a couple of days acting like
>several
>> > of you, and all the sudden I'm the worst troll in history.
>>
>> [snip bullshit]
>>
>> It's because you broke the rules.
>
>No, it started when I challenged the rules. If I had challenged the rules
>in a way that let in more Star Wars... maybe allowing Mike Wong as an
>"official" source, you guys would have all blown me. However, because I
>pointed out the fact that the SW canon policy used here is incorrect, I
>became public enemy number one.
How is it incorrect?
>> Don't like it? Fuck off. I've barely debated you, and I already actively
>> dislike you.
>
>Sorry if I interrupted your circle-jerk.
>
Just get your head out of your ass and we'll be happy
Cmdrwilkens
>
> "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> news:3D3600D8...@daltonator.net...
> > DarkStar wrote:
> > >
> > > You know what's funny? I just spent a couple of days acting like
> several
> > > of you, and all the sudden I'm the worst troll in history.
> >
> > [snip bullshit]
> >
> > It's because you broke the rules.
>
> No, it started when I challenged the rules. If I had challenged the
rules
> in a way that let in more Star Wars... maybe allowing Mike Wong as an
> "official" source, you guys would have all blown me. However, because I
> pointed out the fact that the SW canon policy used here is incorrect, I
> became public enemy number one.
No you pointed out that you thought the policy was incorrect. None of the
evidence you have brought forth would cause a reasonable person to change
their mind when presented with the totality of evidence. Simply put you rely
on selective interpretation which, in turn, requires elimination of data in
order for your theory to be correct. things don't work that way, either
accept all the data or stop pretending that your interpretation is the only
correct one.
Dalton
>
> "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> news:3D3600D8...@daltonator.net...
> > DarkStar wrote:
> > >
> > > You know what's funny? I just spent a couple of days acting like
> several
> > > of you, and all the sudden I'm the worst troll in history.
> >
> > [snip bullshit]
> >
> > It's because you broke the rules.
>
> No, it started when I challenged the rules. If I had challenged the rules
> in a way that let in more Star Wars... maybe allowing Mike Wong as an
> "official" source, you guys would have all blown me.
Wrong. We would have laid the straight dope on you.
> However, because I
> pointed out the fact that the SW canon policy used here is incorrect, I
> became public enemy number one.
Mainly because your claim is supported solely by your interpretation of
events.
> > Don't like it? Fuck off. I've barely debated you, and I already actively
> > dislike you.
>
> Sorry if I interrupted your circle-jerk.
No skin off my back, chuckles. You're even pissing off the local
trekkies.
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"It's tasteless, disgusting, and offensive. I love it."
--Jeremy Piven, "PCU"
Dalton
>
> "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> news:3D3602FA...@daltonator.net...
> > DarkStar wrote:
> > >
> > > "Celes Knight" <My_First_an...@rconnectSP.AMcom.SPAM> wrote in
> > > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Which part of the rules are bad? Point them out.
> > >
> > > 1. The SW canon policy. (ignores Lucas)
> >
> > Nothing Lucas says contradicts current policy.
>
> (sigh)
Don't sigh me, bitchtits. I've read that quote and he does nothing to
contradict all the other canon quotes. It's merely your interpretation
that does.
> > > 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover)
> >
> > And the information on StarTrek.com.
>
> Actually, I don't disagree with the ST policy itself, just the fact that
> Ordover figures prominently. His opinion doesn't matter.
...a matter on which, of course, you have total say?
> > Meanwhile, we always get dicks like you who prance in here with
> > eloquent sophistry about how our current rules are wrong because "oh,
> > Lucas meant THIS, not THAT" and that sort of shit, which has the
> > resulting impression of the Trekkie (you) trying your damndest to shaft
> > the Warsies (us). And I've noticed that it's picked up ever since
> > SW2:ICS came out.
>
> Well, there was already plenty of evidence to suggest that the EU wasn't
> canon, which is where my argument came from.
The EU was NEVER considered canon. It was called official. Which is as
good as canon if it isn't contradicted. I can't believe I have to hold
your hand for you.
> Then, Lucas' comments about
> the EU being a parallel universe and not his world cinched it up.
Oh really? So a parallel universe wouldn't match up at all with the
"real" one? Or maybe he meant "parallel universe" in the sense that if
something he did contradicted official material, it could easily be
explained as a "parallel universe"? Here's some more for ya: Lucas has
incorporated EU into Canon, the most obvious inclusion being Coruscant.
Oh, and I'll remind you that your argument/Lucas's quote only affects
the novels, not the reference books and manuals based on Canon, such as
SW2:ICS.
> > I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking
> > hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the
> > novelizations, Radio scripts, etc.
>
> So?
Stop trying to neuter us just because you can't win.
> >Stop crying because of 200GT
> > turbolasers.
>
> They don't bother me. That figure is just crap.
Unfortunately, it isn't as easily dismissable as that. Sorry, but the
figure stands and there's absolutely nothing you or any of your
Trekkie-tard brethren can do about it.
RayCav
away recently due to a tramatic event. We all pulled through for her,
and yet we failed. Therefore, I would like to dedicate my *plonk*-age
of DarkStar, the worst troll since TOWNMNBS himself, to her.
This plonk's for you!
*PLONK!*
Cmdrwilkens
news:aa319b42.02071...@posting.google.com...
*Pops a cold one*
Damn that felt good. Thanks man....seriously, it might be an odd tribute but
that's the ASVS way.
Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz
Not to mention being plonked by many of us neutral moderates.
Setesh
>>>>
>>>>huh, Ive been argueing with Darkstar for the last few days that the New
>>>>Republic would go to war with the UFP due to their massive scumminess,
>and
>>>I'm
>>>>pro-trek?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>Is english your first language?
>
>Yes.
Then why does the fact I'm arguing the New Republic is just as likly to attack
the federation as the Empire make me pro-trek?
>>>I've responded to you a lot more than twice... you obviously have the
>>>wrong 'opponant' in mind.
>>
>>at the time I made that post it was the third post with your name on it I'd
>>seen directed at me.
>
>Supressed memories?
checked the dates, unless I've missed some, nope still the third at that time.
Ive been posting to the group less than a month, so unless I've met you else
where...
>>
>>>This paragraph makes little to no sense.
>>>
>>
>>repeat above question. I explained the situation as it happened. Its not my
>>fault its simple meaning evades you.
>
>You're such a fuckwit.
>
Because I explained or because your to busy goat fucking to understand it. You
accused, I defended.
>>>I put the chances of you having a girlfriend at roughly the same as a
>>>Maquis fighter taking out the DS solo.
>>
>>The world heaves a sigh of relief that your not a bookie.
>>
>Does it?
>
>
Yeah, with you giving odds like that to a certain event, they'd never get paid
before you went broke.
Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz
I just want to know who mirror plated the Mini-Deathstar, actually since it's
blowing up folks at the '70s dance and Karaoke I think I will just ignore it as
camouflage.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D3602FA...@daltonator.net...
> > > DarkStar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Celes Knight" <My_First_an...@rconnectSP.AMcom.SPAM> wrote
in
> > > > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > Which part of the rules are bad? Point them out.
> > > >
> > > > 1. The SW canon policy. (ignores Lucas)
> > >
> > > Nothing Lucas says contradicts current policy.
> >
> > (sigh)
>
> Don't sigh me, bitchtits. I've read that quote and he does nothing to
> contradict all the other canon quotes. It's merely your interpretation
> that does.
Yes, I know, "everything's interpretation and nothing means anything", blah
blah blah, the fact that he calls the EU a parallel universe and a separate
world notwithstanding.
(sigh)
>
> > > > 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover)
> > >
> > > And the information on StarTrek.com.
> >
> > Actually, I don't disagree with the ST policy itself, just the fact that
> > Ordover figures prominently. His opinion doesn't matter.
>
> ...a matter on which, of course, you have total say?
He's not Paramount, and Gaskill agreed.
>
> > > Meanwhile, we always get dicks like you who prance in here with
> > > eloquent sophistry about how our current rules are wrong because "oh,
> > > Lucas meant THIS, not THAT" and that sort of shit, which has the
> > > resulting impression of the Trekkie (you) trying your damndest to
shaft
> > > the Warsies (us). And I've noticed that it's picked up ever since
> > > SW2:ICS came out.
> >
> > Well, there was already plenty of evidence to suggest that the EU wasn't
> > canon, which is where my argument came from.
>
> The EU was NEVER considered canon. It was called official. Which is as
> good as canon if it isn't contradicted. I can't believe I have to hold
> your hand for you.
"wasn't canon" = "had no canonicity whatsoever"
You're ascribing a level of canonicity to something which never had it.
Also, I've never found the source for the idea that something from the
non-canon is "canon unless contradicted by canon", or the alternate version
which says that unless the canon _directly_ contradicts the official, that
the official is only wrong "on that point." Do you know anything about the
source of that? I haven't found it anywhere.
> > Then, Lucas' comments about
> > the EU being a parallel universe and not his world cinched it up.
>
> Oh really? So a parallel universe wouldn't match up at all with the
> "real" one?
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. In a parallel universe, you and I might
be co-rulers of Earth, but I hardly think we can apply that knowledge to
this world.
> Or maybe he meant "parallel universe" in the sense that if
> something he did contradicted official material, it could easily be
> explained as a "parallel universe"?
He never says anything of the sort. He refers to the entire world of
licensing as a parallel universe.
>Here's some more for ya: Lucas has
> incorporated EU into Canon, the most obvious inclusion being Coruscant.
So? Elements that fall under "Infinities" have been incorporated into the
EU, too. You're trying to claim that elements of the EU becoming canon by
being in the canon somehow gives a level of canonicity to the rest of EU.
But, you must also then argue that your argument does not give any of the
EU's continuity (or canonicity) to Infinities tales.
Pick a consistent argument.
> Oh, and I'll remind you that your argument/Lucas's quote only affects
> the novels, not the reference books and manuals based on Canon, such as
> SW2:ICS.
"There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that
has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world
of books, games and comic books."
Now, I think it is proper to exclude the _known canon books_ like the film
novelisations from this list, but I don't see how it is proper to exclude
reference books from the list.
> > > I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking
> > > hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the
> > > novelizations, Radio scripts, etc.
> >
> > So?
>
> Stop trying to neuter us just because you can't win.
I'm not neutering you. Lucas is. Besides, can't you win with canon?
DarkStar
I have taken all the data and weighted it properly, with Lucas at the top of
the food chain. You just mash it all together and grab the pieces you
want.
DarkStar
You cannot blame me for events I could not have been aware of, RayCav, and
surely you can find a better way to honor a person's memory.
Cmdrwilkens, my sympathies for your loss.
The Baron
>>Yes.
>
>Then why does the fact I'm arguing the New Republic is just as likly to attack
>the federation as the Empire make me pro-trek?
Obviously trying to limit the conflict to Fed vs NR which would be
fairer on the Feds.
>>Supressed memories?
>
>checked the dates, unless I've missed some, nope still the third at that time.
>Ive been posting to the group less than a month, so unless I've met you else
>where...
So you have time to go back through usenet posts to check the dates
one person posted various messages on. Wow, I'm surprised you managed
to fit that into your busy life of 'work and bedding the occasional
girl'.
>>>repeat above question. I explained the situation as it happened. Its not my
>>>fault its simple meaning evades you.
>>
>>You're such a fuckwit.
>>
>Because I explained or because your to busy goat fucking to understand it. You
>accused, I defended.
No, you're just a fuckwit. Also, you never defended anything, you
spewed off a load of gibberish which made little to no sense.
>>>>I put the chances of you having a girlfriend at roughly the same as a
>>>>Maquis fighter taking out the DS solo.
>>>
>>>The world heaves a sigh of relief that your not a bookie.
>>>
>>Does it?
>>
>Yeah, with you giving odds like that to a certain event, they'd never get paid
>before you went broke.
>
Who are 'they'?
Cmdrwilkens
No you haven't, you've IGNORED one of Lucas's quotes in favor of your
interpretation of the other one. let me make this as clear as cn be, tere
are two prominent Lucas quotes, you take your interpretation of one and use
it to completely invalidate the second. We take both quotes and use them in
our understanding which means that we have two pieces of data from the top
of the food chain agreeing with our position while you only have 1 in
agreement and 1 in direct contradiction. How long will you refuse to
acknolwedge that your interpretation of 1 quote forces us to overrule other
quotes by a person with the same amount of athority (hell the same person
for that matter).
--
Lcpl Burnett, G.R.
USMCR
BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG
"Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure"
- IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net)
"I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me."
-Anakin Vader
Cmdrwilkens
I do not think he blames you, rather this is in response to your other
actions just dedicated to her memory>In a sense it is much as a team might
dedicate a season to a fallen teammate despite the opposing teams not
neccessarily having anything to do with the person's death.
> Cmdrwilkens, my sympathies for your loss.
>
I will say this much, it appear that no matter the degree of animosity and
anger between myself and some whom I debate I find it generally refreshing
that humanity remains with us all. Despite our relatively severe differences
on most other matters thank you.
Dalton
>
> "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> news:3D3760EF...@daltonator.net...
> > DarkStar wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3D3602FA...@daltonator.net...
> > > > DarkStar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Celes Knight" <My_First_an...@rconnectSP.AMcom.SPAM> wrote
> in
> > > > > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > > Which part of the rules are bad? Point them out.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. The SW canon policy. (ignores Lucas)
> > > >
> > > > Nothing Lucas says contradicts current policy.
> > >
> > > (sigh)
> >
> > Don't sigh me, bitchtits. I've read that quote and he does nothing to
> > contradict all the other canon quotes. It's merely your interpretation
> > that does.
>
> Yes, I know, "everything's interpretation and nothing means anything", blah
> blah blah, the fact that he calls the EU a parallel universe and a separate
> world notwithstanding.
>
> (sigh)
Of course, you haven't yet explained why this renders EU null and void
in terms of evidence.
*sigh*
> > > > > 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover)
> > > >
> > > > And the information on StarTrek.com.
> > >
> > > Actually, I don't disagree with the ST policy itself, just the fact that
> > > Ordover figures prominently. His opinion doesn't matter.
> >
> > ...a matter on which, of course, you have total say?
>
> He's not Paramount, and Gaskill agreed.
...er, so? He's Star Trek. He edits the books. Sucks for you.
> > > > Meanwhile, we always get dicks like you who prance in here with
> > > > eloquent sophistry about how our current rules are wrong because "oh,
> > > > Lucas meant THIS, not THAT" and that sort of shit, which has the
> > > > resulting impression of the Trekkie (you) trying your damndest to
> shaft
> > > > the Warsies (us). And I've noticed that it's picked up ever since
> > > > SW2:ICS came out.
> > >
> > > Well, there was already plenty of evidence to suggest that the EU wasn't
> > > canon, which is where my argument came from.
> >
> > The EU was NEVER considered canon. It was called official. Which is as
> > good as canon if it isn't contradicted. I can't believe I have to hold
> > your hand for you.
>
> "wasn't canon" = "had no canonicity whatsoever"
>
> You're ascribing a level of canonicity to something which never had it.
Which has never been stated anywhere. Ever.
> Also, I've never found the source for the idea that something from the
> non-canon is "canon unless contradicted by canon", or the alternate version
> which says that unless the canon _directly_ contradicts the official, that
> the official is only wrong "on that point." Do you know anything about the
> source of that? I haven't found it anywhere.
That's a logical extrapolation by us.
> > > Then, Lucas' comments about
> > > the EU being a parallel universe and not his world cinched it up.
> >
> > Oh really? So a parallel universe wouldn't match up at all with the
> > "real" one?
>
> Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. In a parallel universe, you and I might
> be co-rulers of Earth, but I hardly think we can apply that knowledge to
> this world.
So the EU is so out of tune with the "real" universe that it's totally
useless. Gotcha.
> > Or maybe he meant "parallel universe" in the sense that if
> > something he did contradicted official material, it could easily be
> > explained as a "parallel universe"?
>
> He never says anything of the sort. He refers to the entire world of
> licensing as a parallel universe.
Where?
> >Here's some more for ya: Lucas has
> > incorporated EU into Canon, the most obvious inclusion being Coruscant.
>
> So? Elements that fall under "Infinities" have been incorporated into the
> EU, too. You're trying to claim that elements of the EU becoming canon by
> being in the canon somehow gives a level of canonicity to the rest of EU.
Strawman attack. I'm saying that Lucas can do as he chooses, which is
the point of that quote.
> But, you must also then argue that your argument does not give any of the
> EU's continuity (or canonicity) to Infinities tales.
>
> Pick a consistent argument.
I'd say the same for you, but you don't even have an argument, just
misdirection.
> > Oh, and I'll remind you that your argument/Lucas's quote only affects
> > the novels, not the reference books and manuals based on Canon, such as
> > SW2:ICS.
>
> "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that
> has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world
> of books, games and comic books."
>
> Now, I think it is proper to exclude the _known canon books_ like the film
> novelisations from this list, but I don't see how it is proper to exclude
> reference books from the list.
I take that back.
Do me a favor and provide a source for that quote.
> > > > I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking
> > > > hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the
> > > > novelizations, Radio scripts, etc.
> > >
> > > So?
> >
> > Stop trying to neuter us just because you can't win.
>
> I'm not neutering you. Lucas is.
The fuck he is. You're just trying to ream us with this because you
can't win any other way. We've had no problems with this before.
> Besides, can't you win with canon?
Why should I trust you to accept canon evidence?
> > > >Stop crying because of 200GT
> > > > turbolasers.
> > >
> > > They don't bother me. That figure is just crap.
Nice, you snip my reply and ignore it. Others have done that before. It
has not gone over well.
Setesh
>fairer on the Feds.
why would it be fairer, because when the NR accept their surrender they'll put
the leaders of the Federation on trial rather than just shooting them?
>>>Supressed memories?
>>
>>checked the dates, unless I've missed some, nope still the third at that
>time.
>>Ive been posting to the group less than a month, so unless I've met you else
>>where...
>
>So you have time to go back through usenet posts to check the dates
>one person posted various messages on. Wow, I'm surprised you managed
>to fit that into your busy life of 'work and bedding the occasional
>girl'.
strange how you equate an activity that took 5 minutes to watching several
hours of NG even fast forwarding it would take hours, I'm sorry that your
understanding of time is as poor as your command of logic.
>>>>repeat above question. I explained the situation as it happened. Its not
>my
>>>>fault its simple meaning evades you.
>>>
>>>You're such a fuckwit.
>>>
>>Because I explained or because your to busy goat fucking to understand it.
>You
>>accused, I defended.
>
>No, you're just a fuckwit. Also, you never defended anything, you
>spewed off a load of gibberish which made little to no sense.
>
I made it as simple as possible. So your admiting to being a moron?
>>>>>I put the chances of you having a girlfriend at roughly the same as a
>>>>>Maquis fighter taking out the DS solo.
>>>>
>>>>The world heaves a sigh of relief that your not a bookie.
>>>>
>>>Does it?
>>>
>>Yeah, with you giving odds like that to a certain event, they'd never get
>paid
>>before you went broke.
>>
>Who are 'they'?
>
>
'They' are the hypothetical people dumb enough to place a bet with you and
think you can pay them. Considering the odds of a maquis fighter taking out
the DS are greater than navigating the hoth asteroid field, Gates couldn't pay
out that much money.
Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz
Battles.
The Baron
>>Obviously trying to limit the conflict to Fed vs NR which would be
>>fairer on the Feds.
>
>why would it be fairer, because when the NR accept their surrender they'll put
>the leaders of the Federation on trial rather than just shooting them?
Becuase the NR is somewhat smaller scale than the Empire at its
height?
>>>>Supressed memories?
>>>
>>>checked the dates, unless I've missed some, nope still the third at that
>>time.
>>>Ive been posting to the group less than a month, so unless I've met you else
>>>where...
>>
>>So you have time to go back through usenet posts to check the dates
>>one person posted various messages on. Wow, I'm surprised you managed
>>to fit that into your busy life of 'work and bedding the occasional
>>girl'.
>
>strange how you equate an activity that took 5 minutes to watching several
>hours of NG even fast forwarding it would take hours, I'm sorry that your
>understanding of time is as poor as your command of logic.
>
Funny how you went to great lengths to point out your own sarcasm
earlier, yet ignore mine... PERHAPS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE FATTY.
> >>>>repeat above question. I explained the situation as it happened. Its not
>>my
>>>>>fault its simple meaning evades you.
>>>>
>>>>You're such a fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>Because I explained or because your to busy goat fucking to understand it.
>>You
>>>accused, I defended.
>>
>>No, you're just a fuckwit. Also, you never defended anything, you
>>spewed off a load of gibberish which made little to no sense.
>>
>
>I made it as simple as possible.
I suspect that as it was BARELY UNDERSTANDABLE EXCEPT BY BLECHLEY PARK
TYPES, you are mistaken.
>So your admiting to being a moron?
you're and admitting.
And no, strangely, I'm not.
>>>>>>I put the chances of you having a girlfriend at roughly the same as a
>>>>>>Maquis fighter taking out the DS solo.
>>>>>
>>>>>The world heaves a sigh of relief that your not a bookie.
>>>>>
>>>>Does it?
>>>>
>>>Yeah, with you giving odds like that to a certain event, they'd never get
>>paid
>>>before you went broke.
>>>
>>Who are 'they'?
>>
>'They' are the hypothetical people dumb enough to place a bet with you and
>think you can pay them. Considering the odds of a maquis fighter taking out
>the DS are greater than navigating the hoth asteroid field, Gates couldn't pay
>out that much money.
'They' are most likely your imaginary friends. Although the chances of
you having any are slim to none, can't see how they'd like you, even
imaginary ones...
Setesh
>height?
>
the Remnant or a splinter group. Though smaller than the Empire at its height,
the NR will still outnumber the feds. Even if they didn't they would still
win. How many UFP planets joined for practacal reasons like protection from
more agressive star nations and would be more than happy to swich sides with
the offer of better protection (planetary sheilds, military aid that shows up
in minutes or hours instead of days or weeks).
>Funny how you went to great lengths to point out your own sarcasm
>earlier, yet ignore mine...
Sarcasm is suppose to make the target look like a and feel like a moron, your
statment makes you look like an idiot not me. You insult yourself often or it
just for little old me.
>PERHAPS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH
>LANGUAGE FATTY.
>
Fatty? Are you project your problems on me? Or is there deeper meaning in your
choice of E-nom de plume? Shall I start calling you Vladamir? As for my
command of english you have asserted twice yours is greater than mine, I have
yet to see anything but a childish display of rage at the fact you don't bother
me as much as you thought you did.
>I suspect that as it was BARELY UNDERSTANDABLE EXCEPT BY BLECHLEY PARK
>TYPES, you are mistaken.
I dumbed it down as far as it would go. After talking to Darkstar for a week I
decided anything more complicated than See Jane Run would be misunderstood. I
assumed you were slightly smarter and wouldn't require bullet points to
understand it. For that I appologise, would you like me to rewrite it with
numbers on each event so you can understand them.
>you're and admitting.
>And no, strangely, I'm not.
Could have fooled me.
>'They' are most likely your imaginary friends. Although the chances of
>you having any are slim to none, can't see how they'd like you, even
>imaginary ones...
Because most of my friends are smarter than you. No the 'they' are
hypothetical people. Does the meaning of hypothetical escape you? Is it to
big a word?
I've only had to explain an insult to one other person, he got sent to the
storeroom to look for canned air and came back an hour later saying he couldn't
find it. Once again I beleive your projecting your problems. Have you sought
counciling?
The Baron
>>Becuase the NR is somewhat smaller scale than the Empire at its
>>height?
>>
>Most of the Fanfics in the archive happen post-endor.
<SNIP!>
Fanfics and debates are somewhat different.
>>Funny how you went to great lengths to point out your own sarcasm
>>earlier, yet ignore mine...
>
>Sarcasm is suppose to make the target look like a and feel like a moron
Supposed.
So you ignored mine because it made you look and feel like an idiot,
ok nice.
>
>>PERHAPS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH
>>LANGUAGE FATTY.
>>
>Fatty?
It means you're fat.
>
>>I suspect that as it was BARELY UNDERSTANDABLE EXCEPT BY BLECHLEY PARK
>>TYPES, you are mistaken.
>
>I dumbed it down as far as it would go.
When you dumb something down do you make it so that the grammar is
incomprehensible? Do you misspell a large majority of words?
Is this 'dumbing down'?
>>'They' are most likely your imaginary friends. Although the chances of
>>you having any are slim to none, can't see how they'd like you, even
>>imaginary ones...
>
>Because most of my friends are smarter than you. No the 'they' are
>hypothetical people. Does the meaning of hypothetical escape you? Is it to
>big a word?
>I've only had to explain an insult to one other person, he got sent to the
>storeroom to look for canned air and came back an hour later saying he couldn't
>find it. Once again I beleive your projecting your problems. Have you sought
>counciling?
>
4 grammar/spelling mistakes.
Fatty.
Setesh
>>>height?
>>>
>>Most of the Fanfics in the archive happen post-endor.
>
><SNIP!>
>Fanfics and debates are somewhat different.
I notice you snippedoff the important bit, The Emipire at the height, the
Imperial Remnant, or the New Republic, no matter which one it is the feds are
still out numbered, out gunned and out classed. The ships that make up the
task force sent to accomplish the destruction of starfleet and the absorbtion
of the federation will differ. So what? It's only more favorable for the NR
to preform the deed if your a federation civilian. The NR won't intentionally
inflict civilian casualties.
I reiterate why does arguing a pro-wars point make me a pro-trek debater.
>Supposed.
>So you ignored mine because it made you look and feel like an idiot,
>ok nice.
Since it would only qualify as sarcasm if it didn't make you look stupid, what
do you think?
>It means you're fat.
Kind of what the rest of that paragraph talked about. Its not a very good
insult against someone you,
A) cannot see
and
B)Is 5lbs under his optimum weight
>When you dumb something down do you make it so that the grammar is
>incomprehensible? Do you misspell a large majority of words?
>Is this 'dumbing down'?
Oooh trekkie argument, style over substance. The correct grammer would have
been to list each action seperatly. But I was in a hurry so I settled on
placing a comma. I'm already aware I suck at spelling hence first response 'no
spellcheck in newsreader'.
(snip)
> Have you sought
>>counciling?
>>
>4 grammar/spelling mistakes.
>
>Fatty.
>
Repeat above question and style over substance critisism
.
DarkStar
Well, if you're picking the alternate Star Wars universe to argue from, you
should probably leave the canon out, and vice versa.
>
> > > > > > 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover)
> > > > >
> > > > > And the information on StarTrek.com.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I don't disagree with the ST policy itself, just the fact
that
> > > > Ordover figures prominently. His opinion doesn't matter.
> > >
> > > ...a matter on which, of course, you have total say?
> >
> > He's not Paramount, and Gaskill agreed.
>
> ...er, so? He's Star Trek. He edits the books. Sucks for you.
He edits the novels. He's about as important as the guy who oversees the
text on the back of the toy boxes.
>
> > > > > Meanwhile, we always get dicks like you who prance in here with
> > > > > eloquent sophistry about how our current rules are wrong because
"oh,
> > > > > Lucas meant THIS, not THAT" and that sort of shit, which has the
> > > > > resulting impression of the Trekkie (you) trying your damndest to
> > shaft
> > > > > the Warsies (us). And I've noticed that it's picked up ever since
> > > > > SW2:ICS came out.
> > > >
> > > > Well, there was already plenty of evidence to suggest that the EU
wasn't
> > > > canon, which is where my argument came from.
> > >
> > > The EU was NEVER considered canon. It was called official. Which is as
> > > good as canon if it isn't contradicted. I can't believe I have to hold
> > > your hand for you.
> >
> > "wasn't canon" = "had no canonicity whatsoever"
> >
> > You're ascribing a level of canonicity to something which never had it.
>
> Which has never been stated anywhere. Ever.
Um, yeah, it has. That's what you're arguing for. You're saying the
non-canon has a level of canonicity that allows it to be used for
information, but at a lower level than the declared canon.
>
> > Also, I've never found the source for the idea that something from the
> > non-canon is "canon unless contradicted by canon", or the alternate
version
> > which says that unless the canon _directly_ contradicts the official,
that
> > the official is only wrong "on that point." Do you know anything about
the
> > source of that? I haven't found it anywhere.
>
> That's a logical extrapolation by us.
A-ha! Well, now, that's very interesting. So there's absolutely no
source for this concept in the Lucas canon policy? Very, very, very
interesting. I'll be sure to remember that.
>
> > > > Then, Lucas' comments about
> > > > the EU being a parallel universe and not his world cinched it up.
> > >
> > > Oh really? So a parallel universe wouldn't match up at all with the
> > > "real" one?
> >
> > Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. In a parallel universe, you and I
might
> > be co-rulers of Earth, but I hardly think we can apply that knowledge to
> > this world.
>
> So the EU is so out of tune with the "real" universe that it's totally
> useless. Gotcha.
There's no way to know how out of tune it is, except by the canon. For an
example, think about the weird timeline stuff in Star Trek. The entire
Enterprise command crew was the same in both universes, but got there
through totally different routes. Or, think of "Yesterday's Enterprise",
with the battleship Enterprise and starship Enterprise both at the same
location near an anomaly, one of them checking something out in the middle
of a war, the other engaging in peaceful exploration.
The EU might have in its history the same events from the canon, but with
all the parallel universe business going on, how everything fell into place
is probably totally different. And, like any parallel universe, some
things which exist in one may not exist at all in another, or will appear in
totally different forms. That is why it is dangerous to try to mix the
"other world"/"parallel universe" of the EU with Lucas' world of the movies.
> > > Or maybe he meant "parallel universe" in the sense that if
> > > something he did contradicted official material, it could easily be
> > > explained as a "parallel universe"?
> >
> > He never says anything of the sort. He refers to the entire world of
> > licensing as a parallel universe.
>
> Where?
"There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the
movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is
the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books.
They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they
do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel
universe."
> > >Here's some more for ya: Lucas has
> > > incorporated EU into Canon, the most obvious inclusion being
Coruscant.
> >
> > So? Elements that fall under "Infinities" have been incorporated into
the
> > EU, too. You're trying to claim that elements of the EU becoming
canon by
> > being in the canon somehow gives a level of canonicity to the rest of
EU.
>
> Strawman attack. I'm saying that Lucas can do as he chooses, which is
> the point of that quote.
Yes, he can, but his choices to include elements of the EU, such as a ship
or a character, do not grant canonicity in any degree to the EU, or make it
a part of his universe.
> > But, you must also then argue that your argument does not give any of
the
> > EU's continuity (or canonicity) to Infinities tales.
> >
> > Pick a consistent argument.
>
> I'd say the same for you, but you don't even have an argument, just
> misdirection.
My argument is perfectly consistent, and involves no misdirection.
> > > Oh, and I'll remind you that your argument/Lucas's quote only affects
> > > the novels, not the reference books and manuals based on Canon, such
as
> > > SW2:ICS.
> >
> > "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world
that
> > has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing
world
> > of books, games and comic books."
> >
> > Now, I think it is proper to exclude the _known canon books_ like the
film
> > novelisations from this list, but I don't see how it is proper to
exclude
> > reference books from the list.
>
> I take that back.
>
> Do me a favor and provide a source for that quote.
Cinescape Magazine, July 2002, an interview with Lucas. The quote was
provided by someone on SpaceBattles, but I hit a bookstore and confirmed it
for myself. Unfortunately, that's all he says on the topic.
> > > > > I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred
fucking
> > > > > hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the
> > > > > novelizations, Radio scripts, etc.
> > > >
> > > > So?
> > >
> > > Stop trying to neuter us just because you can't win.
> >
> > I'm not neutering you. Lucas is.
>
> The fuck he is. You're just trying to ream us with this because you
> can't win any other way. We've had no problems with this before.
Well, you have, you just didn't know until I came along and started arguing
the point. Then (how's this for timing) Lucas came along in the middle of
the debate and confirmed my suspicions.
> > Besides, can't you win with canon?
>
> Why should I trust you to accept canon evidence?
Because it is canon fact.
> > > > >Stop crying because of 200GT
> > > > > turbolasers.
> > > >
> > > > They don't bother me. That figure is just crap.
>
> Nice, you snip my reply and ignore it. Others have done that before. It
> has not gone over well.
I was making a point. Sorry if I offended you.
DarkStar
No, you're trying to ignore the plain statement of Lucas in favor of your
preferred interpretation of the Splinter quote.
GL - 2002: "There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world,
which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created,
which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and
comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of
time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved
in the parallel universe."
Main ideas you seem to miss:
Two worlds... my world, which is the movies... there's this other world that
has been created, which I say is the parallel universe... the licensing
world... they don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time...
Well, of course the parallel universe doesn't intrude in his chosen time
period of his universe... they aren't allowed to. They might rewrite his
universe's history in the minds of some who don't realize there's a
separation.
GL - 1994: "After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my
story - however many films it took to tell - was only one of thousands that
could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were
not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the
imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star
Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars
that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga."
Main ideas you seem to miss:
My story... one of thousands... about the characters who inhabit its
galaxy... not stories I was destined to tell... other writers, inspired by
the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided... new stories to the Saga.
There is only one real sticking point with the 1994 quote, and that is the
term "Saga". The rest, however, fits nicely in the idea that the EU has
no canonicity. For example, writing stories inspired by the glimpse of his
galaxy doesn't mean that the "thousands that could be told about the
characters" are occurring in his universe. After all, "my story" has
"characters who inhabit its galaxy"... but he never says the tales are also
stories in his galaxy, but instead are merely "inspired by the glimpse of a
galaxy that Star Wars provided".
Still, the sticking point is "Saga". However, the term "Saga" does not
appear elsewhere in the canon policy. Indeed, its only appearance in
relevant texts would appear to be the StarWars.com intro to the EU section,
where this quote appears: "Since the start, the Star Wars saga has been
expanded through novels, comics, and games." This is the very list of
things Lucas recently said belonged to another world, a "parallel universe".
> let me make this as clear as cn be, tere
> are two prominent Lucas quotes, you take your interpretation of one and
use
> it to completely invalidate the second.
Oh, please. You're taking the use of the term "saga" way out of bounds,
and trying to ignore the clear and present meaning of the 2002 quote as a
result. Don't accuse me of your own maneuver.
The Baron
>>>>Becuase the NR is somewhat smaller scale than the Empire at its
>>>>height?
>>>>
>>>Most of the Fanfics in the archive happen post-endor.
>>
>><SNIP!>
>>Fanfics and debates are somewhat different.
>
> So what?
<SNIP!>
Self evident.
> >Supposed.
>>So you ignored mine because it made you look and feel like an idiot,
>>ok nice.
>
>Since it would only qualify as sarcasm if it didn't make you look stupid
Would it? When has that ever been a prerequisite for sarcasm? In fact
as the 'lowest form of wit', sarcasm quite frequently makes the person
using it appear like an idiot. It would indeed appear to be a
PREREQUISITE in most cases.
> >It means you're fat.
>
>Kind of what the rest of that paragraph talked about.
<SNIP!>
You fat fuck.
>>When you dumb something down do you make it so that the grammar is
>>incomprehensible? Do you misspell a large majority of words?
>>Is this 'dumbing down'?
>
>Oooh trekkie argument, style over substance. The correct grammer would have
>been to list each action seperatly. But I was in a hurry so I settled on
>placing a comma.
I'll try again.
You said you'd made it as simple to understand as you could, yet this
is clearly not the case. Would you dispute that?
>I'm already aware I suck at spelling hence first response 'no
>spellcheck in newsreader'.
'I suck at spelling.'
'My command of the english language is better than yours.'
You have said both these things, WHY DON'T I TRUST YOU HMM.
>(snip)
>> Have you sought
>>>counciling?
>>>
>>4 grammar/spelling mistakes.
>>
>>Fatty.
>>
>Repeat above question and style over substance critisism
You fucking fat retard.