---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:06:58 GMT Subject: hehe Message-ID: -------- 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. 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? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pablo_sanchez2000@hotmail.com (Pablo Sanchez) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:53:43 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3d345cc7.432374050@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:06:58 GMT, "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. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:54:04 -0700 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <8fm8juc7cp0u84taq125smdn0s045jpr2e@4ax.com> -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as ) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:16:48 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "John Hansen" wrote in message news:8fm8juc7cp0u84taq125smdn0s045jpr2e@4ax.com... > "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as > ) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:56:22 -0700 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as ) on Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 16 Jul 2002 20:24:55 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <20020716162455.02188.00000727@mb-fs.aol.com> -------- 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. 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." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:23:54 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3d356fe5.16088869@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 16 Jul 2002 20:24:55 GMT, setesh@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' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 17 Jul 2002 20:31:42 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <20020717163142.10380.00000113@mb-bg.aol.com> -------- >Subject: Re: hehe >From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) >Date: 7/17/02 9:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <3d356fe5.16088869@news.freeserve.co.uk> > >On 16 Jul 2002 20:24:55 GMT, setesh@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, but 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. 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." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:12:40 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3d35eb0f.17636933@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 17 Jul 2002 20:31:42 GMT, setesh@aol.com (Setesh) wrote: >>Subject: Re: hehe >>From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) >>Date: 7/17/02 9:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time >>Message-id: <3d356fe5.16088869@news.freeserve.co.uk> >> >>On 16 Jul 2002 20:24:55 GMT, setesh@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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 18 Jul 2002 05:23:07 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <20020718012307.12948.00000928@mb-me.aol.com> -------- >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? >>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. 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." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:57:37 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3d36c8df.11610429@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 18 Jul 2002 05:23:07 GMT, setesh@aol.com (Setesh) wrote: >>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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 18 Jul 2002 19:54:29 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <20020718155429.13149.00000325@mb-fq.aol.com> -------- >>>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? >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. 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." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 21:02:18 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3d372c67.4536400@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 18 Jul 2002 19:54:29 GMT, setesh@aol.com (Setesh) wrote: >>>>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? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 19 Jul 2002 05:47:44 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <20020719014744.02178.00000735@mb-mc.aol.com> -------- >>>>>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. 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. 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." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:58:44 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3d380c90.61929917@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 19 Jul 2002 05:47:44 GMT, setesh@aol.com (Setesh) wrote: >>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'? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 20 Jul 2002 00:58:33 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <20020719205833.13062.00000639@mb-fq.aol.com> -------- >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? >>>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. 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." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 17:39:08 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3d399ef0.97888507@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 20 Jul 2002 00:58:33 GMT, setesh@aol.com (Setesh) wrote: >>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... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 20 Jul 2002 20:50:19 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <20020720165019.09195.00000712@mb-fj.aol.com> -------- >Becuase the NR is somewhat smaller scale than the Empire at its >height? > Most of the Fanfics in the archive happen post-endor. So battles are against 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? 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." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 22:29:59 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3d39e316.115337184@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 20 Jul 2002 20:50:19 GMT, setesh@aol.com (Setesh) wrote: >>Becuase the NR is somewhat smaller scale than the Empire at its >>height? >> >Most of the Fanfics in the archive happen post-endor. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 21 Jul 2002 05:26:18 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <20020721012618.01040.00000081@mb-fq.aol.com> -------- >>>Becuase the NR is somewhat smaller scale than the Empire at its >>>height? >>> >>Most of the Fanfics in the archive happen post-endor. > > >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 . 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." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:38:22 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3d3c09d0.64816062@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 21 Jul 2002 05:26:18 GMT, setesh@aol.com (Setesh) wrote: >>>>Becuase the NR is somewhat smaller scale than the Empire at its >>>>height? >>>> >>>Most of the Fanfics in the archive happen post-endor. >> >> >>Fanfics and debates are somewhat different. > > So what? 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. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Celes Knight" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:08:05 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- > 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. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:45:20 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "Celes Knight" wrote in message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12540754@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > Yes, regulars are cut more slack than non-regulars. No it's not fair, but > it's the way it is. Once you've proved that you're not the > troll-of-the-week and (perhaps more importantly) start providing sources for > your arguments, you'll be cut more slack as well. Start providing sources? Are you kidding? > you. However, keep in mind that "fair" doesn't mean "each side has a 50% > chance of winning" or "ST ships are about equal to SW ships". Fair means > that the circumstances are treated the same on both sides. Exactly. > > "You don't follow the rules" > > > > No, but I acknowledge the rules, even if they are not justifiable and > don't > > make logical sense. > > Which part of the rules are bad? Point them out. 1. The SW canon policy. (ignores Lucas) 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover) 3. "Also, when considering evidence, remember: SF writers sometimes borrow from leading edge science. Due to the nature of the job they can make mistakes. For instance Zero Point Energy was mentioned in Star Trek, but the amount of energy it supposedly has is vastly higher than in real life. We still must consider Zero Point Energy to have all the properties real life Scientists tell us, but due to suspension of disbelief we must assume for ST the writer is correct whenever they directly contradict. Not only that, but due to RoE #14 these properties will also hold true in SW as well." This rule is not followed. Those are the main ones I've noticed so far. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:14:24 -0400 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:kg9Z8.126229$iB1.7260223@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Celes Knight" wrote in > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12540754@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) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:31:10 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ah48mm$pujcf$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover) > > Ordover is not the only source, the ST.com FAQ, Tim Gaskill (the > maintainer), Mike Okuda, Gene's own quote (to wit he stated that only what > he made was real ST). Moreover Ordover is the editor in chief at the > publisher for ST fiction if he doesn't know the canon policy then who would? > Thank you for detailing the common silly argument. > > 3. "Also, when considering evidence, remember: SF writers sometimes > borrow > > from leading edge science. Due to the nature of the job they can make > > mistakes. For instance Zero Point Energy was mentioned in Star Trek, but > the > > amount of energy it supposedly has is vastly higher than in real life. We > > still must consider Zero Point Energy to have all the properties real life > > Scientists tell us, but due to suspension of disbelief we must assume for > ST > > the writer is correct whenever they directly contradict. Not only that, > but > > due to RoE #14 these properties will also hold true in SW as well." > > > > This rule is not followed. > > > In what sense are they not followed? Hypermatter comes to mind. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:00:36 -0400 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:OemZ8.245850$vq.13335371@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" 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. -- 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) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:51:22 -0400 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3D3602FA.910E1388@daltonator.net> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Celes Knight" wrote in > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12540754@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. -- Rob "Rob" Dalton http://daltonator.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:58:48 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3D3602FA.910E1388@daltonator.net... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Celes Knight" wrote in > > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12540754@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > [snip] > > > > Which part of the rules are bad? Point them out. > > > > 1. The SW canon policy. (ignores Lucas) > > Nothing Lucas says contradicts current policy. (sigh) > > 2. The ST canon policy. (based on Ordover) > > And the information on StarTrek.com. Actually, I don't disagree with the ST policy itself, just the fact that Ordover figures prominently. His opinion doesn't matter. > Meanwhile, we always get dicks like you who prance in here with > eloquent sophistry about how our current rules are wrong because "oh, > Lucas meant THIS, not THAT" and that sort of shit, which has the > resulting impression of the Trekkie (you) trying your damndest to shaft > the Warsies (us). And I've noticed that it's picked up ever since > SW2:ICS came out. Well, there was already plenty of evidence to suggest that the EU wasn't canon, which is where my argument came from. Then, Lucas' comments about the EU being a parallel universe and not his world cinched it up. > I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking > hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the > novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. So? >Stop crying because of 200GT > turbolasers. They don't bother me. That figure is just crap. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:44:31 -0400 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3D3760EF.9582D9E@daltonator.net> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3D3602FA.910E1388@daltonator.net... > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > "Celes Knight" wrote in > > > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12540754@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. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "It's tasteless, disgusting, and offensive. I love it." --Jeremy Piven, "PCU" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:09:21 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3D3760EF.9582D9E@daltonator.net... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3D3602FA.910E1388@daltonator.net... > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > "Celes Knight" wrote in > > > > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12540754@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? > > >Stop crying because of 200GT > > > turbolasers. > > > > They don't bother me. That figure is just crap. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 21:00:00 -0400 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3D38B610.C1BC60E4@daltonator.net> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3D3760EF.9582D9E@daltonator.net... > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > news:3D3602FA.910E1388@daltonator.net... > > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Celes Knight" wrote > in > > > > > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12540754@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. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "It's tasteless, disgusting, and offensive. I love it." --Jeremy Piven, "PCU" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 04:15:41 -0700 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3D38B610.C1BC60E4@daltonator.net... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3D3760EF.9582D9E@daltonator.net... > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > > news:3D3602FA.910E1388@daltonator.net... > > > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Celes Knight" wrote > > in > > > > > > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12540754@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. > > Snip rapists really deserve whatever they get. Another reason I hate Space Battles. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:15:53 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3D38B610.C1BC60E4@daltonator.net... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3D3760EF.9582D9E@daltonator.net... > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > > news:3D3602FA.910E1388@daltonator.net... > > > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Celes Knight" wrote > > in > > > > > > message news:Ez2Z8.233775$vq.12540754@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* 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:09:07 +1200 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- snip > > 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:42:16 -0400 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3D3600D8.8812C5AE@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. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason L. Miles Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:40:24 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <0e0cju8eqphjthlq9tor6hji4r9bqp8ct3@4ax.com> -------- On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:42:16 -0400, Dalton wrote: >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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:01:54 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3D3600D8.8812C5AE@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. > Don't like it? Fuck off. I've barely debated you, and I already actively > dislike you. Sorry if I interrupted your circle-jerk. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason L. Miles Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 21:11:37 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:01:54 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: > >"Dalton" wrote in message >news:3D3600D8.8812C5AE@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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:32:40 -0400 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:SBuZ8.250041$vq.13717734@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3D3600D8.8812C5AE@daltonator.net... > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > You know what's funny? I just spent a couple of days acting like > several > > > of you, and all the sudden I'm the worst troll in history. > > > > [snip bullshit] > > > > It's because you broke the rules. > > No, it started when I challenged the rules. If I had challenged the rules > in a way that let in more Star Wars... maybe allowing Mike Wong as an > "official" source, you guys would have all blown me. However, because I > pointed out the fact that the SW canon policy used here is incorrect, I > became public enemy number one. No you pointed out that you thought the policy was incorrect. None of the evidence you have brought forth would cause a reasonable person to change their mind when presented with the totality of evidence. Simply put you rely on selective interpretation which, in turn, requires elimination of data in order for your theory to be correct. things don't work that way, either accept all the data or stop pretending that your interpretation is the only correct one. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:10:39 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ah7fo5$r3g4v$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:SBuZ8.250041$vq.13717734@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3D3600D8.8812C5AE@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. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:08:00 -0400 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:PsSZ8.220670$Im2.11011431@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ah7fo5$r3g4v$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:SBuZ8.250041$vq.13717734@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > news:3D3600D8.8812C5AE@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. > > 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. > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:48:49 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ah9djc$qs616$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:PsSZ8.220670$Im2.11011431@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:ah7fo5$r3g4v$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:SBuZ8.250041$vq.13717734@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > > news:3D3600D8.8812C5AE@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. > > > > 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. > > > > No you haven't, you've IGNORED one of Lucas's quotes in favor of your > interpretation of the other one. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:38:07 -0400 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: <3D375F6F.52AEC78F@daltonator.net> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3D3600D8.8812C5AE@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" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 21:33:01 -0700 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3D375F6F.52AEC78F@daltonator.net... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3D3600D8.8812C5AE@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" Not to mention being plonked by many of us neutral moderates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mikewongisgod@hotmail.com (RayCav) Date: 18 Jul 2002 19:37:22 -0700 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- As most, if not all of us may know, a dear friend of CmdrWilkens past 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!* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:27:22 -0400 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "RayCav" wrote in message news:aa319b42.0207181837.30430463@posting.google.com... > As most, if not all of us may know, a dear friend of CmdrWilkens past > 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!* *Pops a cold one* Damn that felt good. Thanks man....seriously, it might be an odd tribute but that's the ASVS way. -- 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) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 23:39:37 -0700 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ah84hc$qpncn$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "RayCav" wrote in message > news:aa319b42.0207181837.30430463@posting.google.com... > > As most, if not all of us may know, a dear friend of CmdrWilkens past > > away recently due to a tramatic event. We all pulled through for her, > > and yet we failed. Therefore, I would like to dedicate my *plonk*-age > > of DarkStar, the worst troll since TOWNMNBS himself, to her. > > > > This plonk's for you! > > > > *PLONK!* > > *Pops a cold one* > > Damn that felt good. Thanks man....seriously, it might be an odd tribute but > that's the ASVS way. > > > > -- > Lcpl Burnett, G.R. > USMCR > BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG > > "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" > - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) > > I just want to know who mirror plated the Mini-Deathstar, actually since it's blowing up folks at the '70s dance and Karaoke I think I will just ignore it as camouflage. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:12:54 GMT Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "RayCav" wrote in message news:aa319b42.0207181837.30430463@posting.google.com... > As most, if not all of us may know, a dear friend of CmdrWilkens past > away recently due to a tramatic event. We all pulled through for her, > and yet we failed. Therefore, I would like to dedicate my *plonk*-age > of DarkStar, the worst troll since TOWNMNBS himself, to her. > > This plonk's for you! > > *PLONK!* You cannot blame me for events I could not have been aware of, RayCav, and surely you can find a better way to honor a person's memory. Cmdrwilkens, my sympathies for your loss. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:11:05 -0400 Subject: Re: hehe Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:WuSZ8.263701$vq.14609369@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "RayCav" wrote in message > news:aa319b42.0207181837.30430463@posting.google.com... > > As most, if not all of us may know, a dear friend of CmdrWilkens past > > 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!* > > 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. > 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. -- 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