View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:30 pm



Reply to topic  [ 511 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
LMAO@SpaceBattles! 
Author Message
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 2239
Reply with quote
Rogerd wrote:
Okay, kind of hit a snag here people:

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthre ... 06&page=12

Any ideas of further rebuttal, 'cos I'm stumped.

EDIT: I cannot think of any further evidence to add to counter what's in thread.

You need to log in to see the page. You might want to quote the page you are talking about.


Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:28 pm
Profile
Redshirt

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 24
Reply with quote
There's literally pages worth.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516327]Can you show that?[/quote]

Incoming.......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iOeFPE8574

4.00 mins the SD's open fire - not gigatons
4.22 anomalous energy burst from SD in far left corner.
4.38 mins - not gigatons
6.08 concentrating fire on SSD, no bigaton explosions again
6.12 shield generator destroyed by a fighter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKWt0485uc4&feature=related

2.11 mins. Left corner an Acclamator is firing on another ship. Not bigatons
2.20 guns firing. Not gigatons.
2.31 mins. Centre screen. Again if gigatons the fighters would not be flying through the explosion
2.34 SPHAT firing - most impressive ship mounted weapon to date.
2.40 Trade Fedearion firoing on Acclamator. Damage to hull.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516327]Are you going to substantiate any of your claims, ever?[/quote]

Excuse me?! The only claim I've made is above.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516327]Or are you going to keep banging on that out-of-context GL quote and regurgitating flying turtle pictures?[/quote]

I didn't do the turtle pictures so you're complaining to the wrong person.

My quotes were taken from the Star Wars canon on wikiapedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_wars_canon#George_Lucas_and_Star_Wars_canon

As to the Lucas quotes, they'te above and not out of context and all are proven. Sorry but it's true.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516327]Or in other words, can you bring anything of substance to this argument, or are you going to keep repeating other peoples' disproved arguments, and when you're shown how they're wrong, stubbornly violate rule #14 with other peoples' material instead of defending yourself, for yourself?[/QUOTE]

Dude, there is no rule 14

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=100235

[QUOTE=Archimedes;7516380]Rogerd, you proved nothing about ICS being non canon or being seperate or EU being non canon.

Lucas NEVER SAID anything of "canon".

Biased Trekkie is biased Trekkie.[/QUOTE]

Idiotic Warsie cannot fucking read. Now start reading the evidence presented.

[quote=]LUCAS: "I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said, other people, could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions."[/quote]

[quote=]LUCAS: "They have their own kind of world. There's three pillars of Star Wars. I'll probably get in trouble for this but it's OK! There's three pillars: the father, the son and the holy ghost. I'm the father, Howard Roffman [president of Lucas Licensing] is the son and the holy ghost is the fans, this kind of ethereal world of people coming up with all kinds of different ideas and histories. Now these three different pillars don't always match, but the movies and TV shows are all under my control and they are consistent within themselves. Howard tries to be consistent but sometimes he goes off on tangents and it's hard to hold him back. He once said to me that there are two Star Trek universes: there's the TV show and then there's all the spin-offs. He said that these were completely different and didn't have anything to do with each other. So I said, "OK, go ahead." In the early days I told them that they couldn't do anything about how Darth Vader was born, for obvious reasons, but otherwise I pretty much let them do whatever they wanted. They created this whole amazing universe that goes on for millions of years!"[/quote]

Two different universes!

______________________________________________
[QUOTE=the atom;7516492]Sweet Jesus. You actually think that nuclear warfare in space means there should be mushroom clouds don't you? Long story short,[url="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#id--Nukes_In_Space--Nuke_vs._Spacecraft"]space doesn't work that way.[/url][/QUOTE]

________________________________________________
[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516527]First off, an ellipsis is three periods. Secondly, I was expecting math. After all, if your claim is one that requires math to prove (energy in an explosion), you are going to need to man up and use some numbers.

Or concede. You can do that, too.

And I'm still waiting on the proof of that claim. But you've also claimed that the EU is a wholly separate universe, and that's not been substantiated either.

So that's two claims you really ought to provide evidence for, if you would like them taken seriously.

I know, and your repeated lack of originality was rather the point of the complaint, which appears to have sailed right over your head.

And taken totally out of context...another point which seems to have eluded you.

You see, what you'd like to have is a quote where Lucas literally says, "things are different in the movies than they are in comics and books. A Star Destroyer in RotJ is a totally different thing than the Marvel Comics Star Destroyers, because they're parallel and separate universes."

But the quote you have doesn't saying anything like that. It's a quote from Lucas about the story elements he uses, when compared with the story elements from things like the novelizations, and how they are different and the details don't tend to brush up against each other. And if they do, Lucas' stories take precedence.

So you pretend one is the other. I don't think many here can't see the difference between those two statements, though.
Of course there is. Specifically, I am referring to the one that's also sticked at the top of this very forum as I write this, "Spacebattles is not a chan".[/QUOTE]
_______________________________________________

[QUOTE=Splattercat;7516486]I'm curious. Which is more current, the "Two Universe" statement or the "G-T-C-N Canon" policy?

Because the former is merely talk. The latter is corporate mandate.[/QUOTE]

Chee can say whay he liked but Lucas owns the company as therefore as such he is in charge. Owner > employee.
_______________________________________________
[QUOTE=the atom;7516492]Sweet Jesus. You actually think that nuclear warfare in space means there should be mushroom clouds don't you? Long story short,[url="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#id--Nukes_In_Space--Nuke_vs._Spacecraft"]space doesn't work that way.[/url][/QUOTE]

The fact that there were impacts and there was very little else shows that it is not the case.
_________________________________________________
[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516527]First off, an ellipsis is three periods. Secondly, I was expecting math. After all, if your claim is one that requires math to prove (energy in an explosion), you are going to need to man up and use some numbers.[/quote]

Don't need maths it is quite clear in the scenes, stop ignoring that fact.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516527]And I'm still waiting on the proof of that claim. But you've also claimed that the EU is a wholly separate universe, and that's not been substantiated either.[/quote]

Again in post above. Stop ignoring evidence.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516527]So that's two claims you really ought to provide evidence for, if you would like them taken seriously.[/quote]

Nice try and total fail.

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost.php?p=7516444&postcount=286

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516527]I know, and your repeated lack of originality was rather the point of the complaint, which appears to have sailed right over your head.[/quote]

Meaningless rubbish.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516527]And taken totally out of context...another point which seems to have eluded you.[/quote]

Rubbish and shifting the burden of proof.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516527]You see, what you'd like to have is a quote where Lucas literally says, "things are different in the movies than they are in comics and books. A Star Destroyer in RotJ is a totally different thing than the Marvel Comics Star Destroyers, because they're parallel and separate universes."[/quote]

Did you actually read the link???!?!?!? 'Cos it certainly seems you like didn't.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516527]But the quote you have doesn't saying anything like that. It's a quote from Lucas about the story elements he uses, when compared with the story elements from things like the novelizations, and how they are different and the details don't tend to brush up against each other. And if they do, Lucas' stories take precedence.[/quote]

See above, it most certainly does.

[quote=]There are two worlds here," explained 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 the 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.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516527]So you pretend one is the other. I don't think many here can't see the difference between those two statements, though.
Of course there is. Specifically, I am referring to the one that's also sticked at the top of this very forum as I write this, "Spacebattles is not a chan".[/QUOTE]

Please enlighten me into what Chan-lkike behaviour you think I have done.

[QUOTE=Archimedes;7516572]Who said that I am warise? I am nothing. I was just throwing out a bone. Still, "two universes" proves nothing. I can read, I assure you. I don't still see anything saying "canon" at all.

Try again.[/QUOTE]

Clearly you cannot read that much is evident.

I said anything not in the movies or TCW CGI is a different universe in line with Lucas's comments. So yes it proves that ICS is a different universe to the movies.

[QUOTE=the atom;7516741]So either there's a company-wide conspiracy and Lucas Licensing is in fact a rouge organization dedicated to spreading misinformation or Chee is following company policy and you're dishonestly quote mining for out of context snippets that you're desperately using to shore up a horribly broken position.

What?:wtf: 'Impacts' show that physics is wrong? Fuck you really are that stupid aren't you? Listen, if there's no medium of any kind for a blast to propagate, then there isn't going to be a blast wave or a fireball or anything one would associate with a really big bang. Then there's the fact that this energy is directed against a field that is absorbing and scattering the directed energy so in the end you're not coming away with a lot.

But of course, there's no SPACE! mushroom cloud so obviously I am wrong.:rolleyes:

Indeed it is.

[yt]7qF8a8BcIWs[/yt]

We're talking about canon you twit. It has everything to do with it. :wtf: Do you honestly even remember what we're talking about?[/QUOTE]
______________________________________________
[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516748]So, you're conceding the argument? If you give no mathematical basis for your mathematically-based claim, that's the only possible conclusion we can reach...and that's not just a forum rule, it's simply being reasonable.

How does that even make sense. How can a failure be a nice try?

Anyway, given that I've already addressed this post that you're inexplicably referencing now, we can only conclude that you're conceding on the Lucas argument as well.

I suppose you would say that, given that:

My Point
Your Head

How is it shifting the burden of proof to ask you to provide evidence of what you're doggedly insisting on?

Do you always whine this hard when you've lost a debate and you're backed into a corner?

As the saying goes...deal with it![/QUOTE]
___________________________________________
[QUOTE=the atom;7516741]So either there's a company-wide conspiracy and Lucas Licensing is in fact a rouge organization dedicated to spreading misinformation or Chee is following company policy and you're dishonestly quote mining for out of context snippets that you're desperately using to shore up a horribly broken position.[/quote]

Stop shifting the burden of proof. I have clearly provided quotes and you are now ignoring evidence.

[QUOTE=the atom;7516741]What?:wtf: 'Impacts' show that physics is wrong?[/quote]

It is more a poor choice of words on my part - nothing else. At the end of the day there were explsions by weapons supposedly doing gigatons of damage. Clearly not evident in the above evidence provided.

[QUOTE=the atom;7516741]Fuck you really are that stupid aren't you?[/quote]

Ad hominem

[QUOTE=the atom;7516741]Listen, if there's no medium of any kind for a blast to propagate, then there isn't going to be a blast wave or a fireball or anything one would associate with a really big bang.[/quote]

Or like the hull of the ship you mean.

[QUOTE=the atom;7516741]Then there's the fact that this energy is directed against a field that is absorbing and scattering the directed energy so in the end you're not coming away with a lot.[/quote]

Unofrunately this is dissproven by the previous links.

[QUOTE=the atom;7516741]
But of course, there's no SPACE! mushroom cloud so obviously I am wrong.:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=the atom;7516741]Indeed it is.[/quote]

I'm crap at maths but I don't need it to show that an explosion is certainly less than gigatons with visual evidence

[QUOTE=the atom;7516741][yt]7qF8a8BcIWs[/yt][/QUOTE]

Yes it disintegrates an asteroid of unknown material.
___________________________________________________
[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516748]So, you're conceding the argument? If you give no mathematical basis for your mathematically-based claim, that's the only possible conclusion we can reach...and that's not just a forum rule, it's simply being reasonable.[/quote]

Stop shifting the burden of proof. Evidence supplied so please debunk it with some countering evidence

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516748]How does that even make sense. How can a failure be a nice try?[/quote]

Word games and baiting.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516748]Anyway, given that I've already addressed this post that you're inexplicably referencing now, we can only conclude that you're conceding on the Lucas argument as well.[/quote]

Again failing to counter my evidence which showed that Lucas considers them two seperate universes.

Again: http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost.php?p=7516444&postcount=286


[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516748]I suppose you would say that, given that:

My Point
Your Head[/quote]

Irrelevant to argument and ignored.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516748]
How is it shifting the burden of proof to ask you to provide evidence of what you're doggedly insisting on?[/quote]

Evidence has been provided and you've failed to debunk it.

[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516748]Do you always whine this hard when you've lost a debate and you're backed into a corner?[/quote]

I'm not backed into a corner.
______________________________________________
[QUOTE=Splattercat;7516817]Unless the employee is sufficiently empowered by the owner to make such distinctions because the owner can't be bothered to.

Hint: that's Chee's job..."Continuity Database Administrator"

What Chee says regarding canon policy goes, unless Lucas has him change that policy. Lucas' opinion is, unfortunately, of lesser value.

Edited for clarity[/QUOTE]

Sorry but if Lucas says something that is different we go with Lucas as he is of higher standing within the company.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=902479

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=902494&privcapId=902479&previousCapId=902479&previousTitle=Lucasfilm%20Ltd

Chairman and Owner of greater import than anyone else.
__________________________________________________
[QUOTE=the atom;7516878]You haven't provided jack shit. Last time I checked, the holocron tier system is still company policy. If you want to insist on this line of reasoning, then I suggest you run along and find a statement that explicitly declares that this is no longer the case.

Why? Because you say so? Prove it. I want to see numbers, calculations, and/or links the prove definitively that the effects seen are not those resembling a large quantity of energy striking an energy field of unknown properties in the middle of a vacuum.

No, Ad hominem is when I say 'Your argument is wrong because you're dumb'. What I said was 'Your argument is wrong AND you're dumb:'. No rule says that I have to respect your delicate feelings, especially when you've been hurling profanities and insults in lieu of anything vaguely resembling a tangible argument. Hey....which fallacy does that remind me of?

Nearly all warships in Starwars use shields you know. But since you brought the topic up, I'd be fascinated to learn about the material properties of the armour components used in Imperial and Rebel warships since, y'know, you clearly know so much about them that you can casually make such an off the cuff statement without links or anything right?

'Unofrunately', you seem to have literally have no fucking clue what you even posted, so sorry if I don't

Actually you kind of do. "It doesn't look like it to me" isn't admissible as evidence here.

According to the TESB novelization the asteroid field is rocky in nature.[/QUOTE]
_________________________________
[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516908]No it's not. You should actually read what you linked to.

As you can see, he wasn't using your stupidity in an attempt to negate the claim. It was merely a tangential observation.

Stop pretending that's happening because you're unable to defend your claim. Once again, you said that you can show the weapons being used are less than gigaton yields. That takes math, fella. So get to it!

Your inability to respond thus far to what I said about that quote means you obviously have nothing to respond with. I guess it means my argument, that he's talking about story elements and not mechanics or technical details, must be pretty good.

Anyway, it's been about a page, and all I really wanted to do was offer you an opportunity to firm up your claims, as they were rather obviously flimsy and needed it. As you seem consistently unable to do so, that speaks for itself, but in my mind and I'm sure to anyone else reading this.[/QUOTE]
________________________________________
[QUOTE=Splattercat;7516921]Unless as stated above, he creates a position within his company that empowers someone to decide what is canon and what is not.

If the chairman of the company wants two different universes, he can tell his Continuity Database Administrator to dictate to the masses that Star Wars is two different universes. If he has done that I would like to see where.

If/since he has not, the canon policy written and maintained by the person the chairman has empowered to do so takes precedence over the chairman's own personal feelings.[/QUOTE]
_______________________________________
[QUOTE=Splattercat;7516921]Unless as stated above, he creates a position within his company that empowers someone to decide what is canon and what is not.[/quote]

Chee is empowered.

[QUOTE=Splattercat;7516921]If the chairman of the company wants two different universes, he can tell his Continuity Database Administrator to dictate to the masses that Star Wars is two different universes. If he has done that I would like to see where.[/quote]

Already provide innumerable times. I mean fuck me, this is what the fourth, fifth time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you actually read the previous quotes which blatantly state two universes. 'Cos this is the final time otherwise I'm PM'ing a supermod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Expanded_Universe#Continuity_and_canonicity

[quote=]There are two worlds here," explained 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 the 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.[/quote]

[quote=]LUCAS: "They have their own kind of world. There's three pillars of Star Wars. I'll probably get in trouble for this but it's OK! There's three pillars: the father, the son and the holy ghost. I'm the father, Howard Roffman [president of Lucas Licensing] is the son and the holy ghost is the fans, this kind of ethereal world of people coming up with all kinds of different ideas and histories. Now these three different pillars don't always match, but the movies and TV shows are all under my control and they are consistent within themselves. Howard tries to be consistent but sometimes he goes off on tangents and it's hard to hold him back. He once said to me that there are two Star Trek universes: there's the TV show and then there's all the spin-offs. He said that these were completely different and didn't have anything to do with each other. So I said, "OK, go ahead." In the early days I told them that they couldn't do anything about how Darth Vader was born, for obvious reasons, but otherwise I pretty much let them do whatever they wanted. They created this whole amazing universe that goes on for millions of years!"[/quote]

[quote=]There are two worlds here," explained 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 the 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.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Splattercat;7516921]If/since he has not, the canon policy written and maintained by the person the chairman has empowered to do so takes precedence over the chairman's own personal feelings.[/QUOTE]

If someone less senior says something which is then contradicted by someone more senior - guess whose take precedence? Well in this case it would be Lucas. Sorry but that is the business world.
_________________________________________
[QUOTE=Sir_Tanly;7516908]No it's not. You should actually read what you linked to.

As you can see, he wasn't using your stupidity in an attempt to negate the claim. It was merely a tangential observation.

Stop pretending that's happening because you're unable to defend your claim. Once again, you said that you can show the weapons being used are less than gigaton yields. That takes math, fella. So get to it!

Your inability to respond thus far to what I said about that quote means you obviously have nothing to respond with. I guess it means my argument, that he's talking about story elements and not mechanics or technical details, must be pretty good.

Anyway, it's been about a page, and all I really wanted to do was offer you an opportunity to firm up your claims, as they were rather obviously flimsy and needed it. As you seem consistently unable to do so, that speaks for itself, but in my mind and I'm sure to anyone else reading this.[/QUOTE]

Absolute rubbish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmYwX7r9ATo&feature=fvsr

2.42 onwards assaults on fighters. Sub-kiloton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIM0ReXhenc&feature=related

EU source for sub-kiloton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcC90kEN4Wg

0.55 mins

Attacks against a Acclamators in an atmosphere.

Sub-kiloton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQWkNkan-M4&feature=related

0.57 not gigatons
1.03 again sub-kiloton, no shield flares either.
2.32 sub-kiloton explosions

EDIT: We also have the Battle of Geonosis where those mini-turbolasers stop that Trade Federarion ship escaping. All impact it and although the shield likely absorbed most, when it clearly drops out of the sky then the lasers should have done full damage.

Here's some more quotes from Lucas

[quote=]CHEE: "GL is certainly not bound by the EU, though he's certainly open to using things created in it (Aayla Secura and the Coruscant name, for example). On the other hand, the quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not. The EU must follow certain tenets set by George through the films and other guidelines that he provides outside of the films."

Another noteworthy exchange between Lucas and an interviewer appeared in the May 2008 edition of Total Film magazine:

TOTAL FILM: "The Star Wars universe has expanded far beyond the movies. How much leeway do the game makers and novel writers have?" LUCAS: "They have their own kind of world. There's three pillars of Star Wars. I'll probably get in trouble for this but it's OK! There's three pillars: the father, the son and the holy ghost. I'm the father, Howard Roffman [president of Lucas Licensing] is the son and the holy ghost is the fans, this kind of ethereal world of people coming up with all kinds of different ideas and histories. Now these three different pillars don't always match, but the movies and TV shows are all under my control and they are consistent within themselves. Howard tries to be consistent but sometimes he goes off on tangents and it's hard to hold him back. He once said to me that there are two Star Trek universes: there's the TV show and then there's all the spin-offs. He said that these were completely different and didn't have anything to do with each other. So I said, "OK, go ahead." In the early days I told them that they couldn't do anything about how Darth Vader was born, for obvious reasons, but otherwise I pretty much let them do whatever they wanted. They created this whole amazing universe that goes on for millions of years!" TOTAL FILM: "Are you happy for new Star Wars tales to be told after you're gone?" LUCAS: "I've left pretty explicit instructions for there not to be any more features. There will definitely be no Episodes VII-IX. That's because there isn't any story. I mean, I never thought of anything. And now there have been novels about the events after Episode VI, which isn't at all what I would have done with it. The Star Wars story is really the tragedy of Darth Vader. That is the story. Once Vader dies, he doesn't come back to life, the Emperor doesn't get cloned and Luke doesn't get married..."[/quote]

You'll notice he states that I'll probably get into trouble for this, but it's okay!

In other words he's breaking official canon by saying it. This therefore takes precedence over anything before.


Last edited by User1662 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:30 pm
Profile
Redshirt

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 24
Reply with quote
There's loads more and not sure how to make it easiest to read if I'm honest.


Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:32 pm
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 2239
Reply with quote
Rogerd wrote:
There's loads more and not sure how to make it easiest to read if I'm honest.

I'd suggest that you use the quotes tags.
_____
Am I correct in thinking you are having a debate about the "Incredible Cross Sections" books?
, and logically if someone wants to use the Star Wars EU they must show the evidence does not conflict with higher levels of canon.

If so then these might help, the ICS are only suppose to show things that appeared in the movies:
viewtopic.php?t=463
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1597
There is a similar thread at Spacebattles.com that had pro-ICS debates admit there are no guns in the movies.

Then you have the claim of lightspeed turbolasers debunked
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30

Then you may want to read through this thread
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=534

This has some interesting EU info
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1127

Then you have odd stuff about Aderaan's destruction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1971

This is a short read, and would likely be helpful
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2247


Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:29 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6833
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
Rogerd, you'll save yourself lots of time and perhaps spare you a ban if you just go with the idea that there's a purist filter and an EUphile filter, both defining which sources you want to use. By default at SBC they accept the EU so you certainly don't want to derail a thread with talk about canon.


Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:08 pm
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 2239
Reply with quote
http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/ ... 277/page-5
Lord Squishy
Quote:
I'm glad to know we have your expertly-reasoned logical argument to back that up. Or are you turning into another Skyzeta? What are you basing this conclusion on?


SuperS4
Quote:
Unless you have a quote from the studio saying that the dialogue trumps visuals because of inconsistencies due to budget, etc, then would you kindly keep your baiting to yourself or the IRC channel. Thank you.


SuperS4 has no idea what he is talking about.

1) No one was talking about visuals being ignored 100% of the time for Star Trek or any series. They just don't think the visuals are 100% trust worthy in any visual sci-fi for a number of logical reasons, and are apparently in the process of being up dated in Star Trek's case.

2) No where in Star Trek canon does it state dialog is less canon then what is visually shown, but that is what SS4 would want you to believe.

In the end it is only logical to think dialog is more likely correct then visuals in a series that makes common use of technologies that warp space and time at all times.


Sun May 27, 2012 6:14 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2126
Reply with quote
Lucky wrote:
http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/accuracy-of-starfleet-weapons.225277/page-5
Lord Squishy
Quote:
I'm glad to know we have your expertly-reasoned logical argument to back that up. Or are you turning into another Skyzeta? What are you basing this conclusion on?


SuperS4
Quote:
Unless you have a quote from the studio saying that the dialogue trumps visuals because of inconsistencies due to budget, etc, then would you kindly keep your baiting to yourself or the IRC channel. Thank you.


SuperS4 has no idea what he is talking about.

1) No one was talking about visuals being ignored 100% of the time for Star Trek or any series. They just don't think the visuals are 100% trust worthy in any visual sci-fi for a number of logical reasons, and are apparently in the process of being up dated in Star Trek's case.

2) No where in Star Trek canon does it state dialog is less canon then what is visually shown, but that is what SS4 would want you to believe.

In the end it is only logical to think dialog is more likely correct then visuals in a series that makes common use of technologies that warp space and time at all times.

The idea that visuals are somehow more canon than dialog is embedded in the "documentarian" approach. It's something that can and should be identified, called out directly, and required to justify itself. The Saxtonites are assuming that because that's what Wong said to them, and they're taking his approach as gospel. (Never mind that they don't even consistently apply that; they'll take descriptions of turbolasers as "light speed" over clear visual evidence to the contrary.)

Taking visuals as literal documentation leads to a great many immediate contradictions, especially in DS9, where the visual scaling is notoriously inconsistent.


Tue May 29, 2012 10:12 am
Profile WWW
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6833
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
Lucky wrote:
http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/accuracy-of-starfleet-weapons.225277/page-5
Lord Squishy
Quote:
I'm glad to know we have your expertly-reasoned logical argument to back that up. Or are you turning into another Skyzeta? What are you basing this conclusion on?


SuperS4
Quote:
Unless you have a quote from the studio saying that the dialogue trumps visuals because of inconsistencies due to budget, etc, then would you kindly keep your baiting to yourself or the IRC channel. Thank you.


SuperS4 has no idea what he is talking about.

1) No one was talking about visuals being ignored 100% of the time for Star Trek or any series. They just don't think the visuals are 100% trust worthy in any visual sci-fi for a number of logical reasons, and are apparently in the process of being up dated in Star Trek's case.

2) No where in Star Trek canon does it state dialog is less canon then what is visually shown, but that is what SS4 would want you to believe.

In the end it is only logical to think dialog is more likely correct then visuals in a series that makes common use of technologies that warp space and time at all times.


If you look at this question of predominance of one component over the other, you'll notice some parallels with the exegesis of scriptures and associated commentaries.
Visuals, most of them, remain nothing more than an interpretation of the script.

We do know that for some franchises, the written material is openly contradicted by visuals on purpose. Such was the case of Andromeda. But we cannot make generalities, although visuals will always be a coating of the solid core that is represented by the scripts.

As a final product, both script and visuals are delivered at once. Let's notice though that the script is also interpreted by actors. It doesn't exactly come verbatim, as reading the script isn't enough. Like a tale, the narrator embodied by the director of the episode or the movie has a role to play in the way the story is delivered.

Now, all of this being part of the make believe, we do have to take visuals as correct if possible. But we know very well that the problems due to the depiction of real phenomena is ought to occur more with visuals, which are literally forced to represent something, while scripts will limit themselves to a brief description or note; example : a ship exploded.
Sometimes, visuals won't be used, but then there won't be much action going on, and suggestion is less and less fancied by modern audiences.

I think it is possible to go with both, and to favour script when visuals are in contradiction with script, but only if we consider that visuals are really at odds with what should happen. For example, firing ranges in the thousands of km should be easily observed and recognized if lacking despite being announced.
However, in cases of TDiC, there's no reason to ditch visuals because they represent effects which not only don't have to contradict dialog, but ring true to Trek in that this is an universe for which the audience is used to odd weapons and weird effects.

Another example, relative to Stargate Atlantis, is the episode "Echoes", with the ejection of its massive CME that behaves nothing like it should have, both in terms of size and speed. One of the approaches I suggested in my debate with Kane Starkiller was that we could go with a strictly scriptural approach, taking the script as if part of a book and completely ignore the nonsensical visuals. This is one of those much more complicated cases that really break the suspension of disbelief very hard, and I noticed some fans prefer to go with the easiest route, even if it pushes them to argue teeth and nails that visuals trump everything, even in light of a completely absurd depiction of a phenomenon that was easily imaginable based on what we knew, for which we would have specific expectations.


Tue May 29, 2012 10:45 am
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 2239
Reply with quote
Lucky wrote:
http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/accuracy-of-starfleet-weapons.225277/page-5
Lord Squishy
Quote:
I'm glad to know we have your expertly-reasoned logical argument to back that up. Or are you turning into another Skyzeta? What are you basing this conclusion on?


SuperS4
Quote:
Unless you have a quote from the studio saying that the dialogue trumps visuals because of inconsistencies due to budget, etc, then would you kindly keep your baiting to yourself or the IRC channel. Thank you.


SuperS4 has no idea what he is talking about.
1) No one was talking about visuals being ignored 100% of the time for Star Trek or any series. They just don't think the visuals are 100% trust worthy in any visual sci-fi for a number of logical reasons, and are apparently in the process of being up dated in Star Trek's case.

2) No where in Star Trek canon does it state dialog is less canon then what is visually shown, but that is what SS4 would want you to believe.

In the end it is only logical to think dialog is more likely correct then visuals in a series that makes common use of technologies that warp space and time at all times.


Mr. Oragahn wrote:
If you look at this question of predominance of one component over the other, you'll notice some parallels with the exegesis of scriptures and associated commentaries.
Visuals, most of them, remain nothing more than an interpretation of the script.

We do know that for some franchises, the written material is openly contradicted by visuals on purpose. Such was the case of Andromeda. But we cannot make generalities, although visuals will always be a coating of the solid core that is represented by the scripts.

As a final product, both script and visuals are delivered at once. Let's notice though that the script is also interpreted by actors. It doesn't exactly come verbatim, as reading the script isn't enough. Like a tale, the narrator embodied by the director of the episode or the movie has a role to play in the way the story is delivered.

Now, all of this being part of the make believe, we do have to take visuals as correct if possible. But we know very well that the problems due to the depiction of real phenomena is ought to occur more with visuals, which are literally forced to represent something, while scripts will limit themselves to a brief description or note; example : a ship exploded.
Sometimes, visuals won't be used, but then there won't be much action going on, and suggestion is less and less fancied by modern audiences.

I think it is possible to go with both, and to favour script when visuals are in contradiction with script, but only if we consider that visuals are really at odds with what should happen. For example, firing ranges in the thousands of km should be easily observed and recognized if lacking despite being announced.
However, in cases of TDiC, there's no reason to ditch visuals because they represent effects which not only don't have to contradict dialog, but ring true to Trek in that this is an universe for which the audience is used to odd weapons and weird effects.

Another example, relative to Stargate Atlantis, is the episode "Echoes", with the ejection of its massive CME that behaves nothing like it should have, both in terms of size and speed. One of the approaches I suggested in my debate with Kane Starkiller was that we could go with a strictly scriptural approach, taking the script as if part of a book and completely ignore the nonsensical visuals. This is one of those much more complicated cases that really break the suspension of disbelief very hard, and I noticed some fans prefer to go with the easiest route, even if it pushes them to argue teeth and nails that visuals trump everything, even in light of a completely absurd depiction of a phenomenon that was easily imaginable based on what we knew, for which we would have specific expectations.
That is what was being argued. It can be rather bad when the visuals contradict both the dialog and the plot of the movie/episode.

There are actually in-universe reasons to not trust the visuals from TDIC.

One thing often forgotten is that Star Trek ships are always warping space/time around themselves with their navigational deflector, anti-gravity thrusters, warp drives, and likely a smurf of a lot more. It's rather funny that there is a logical reason for things to seemingly change size for no reason in Star Trek.


Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:48 am
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6833
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
Lucky wrote:
There are actually in-universe reasons to not trust the visuals from TDIC.


Faking life signs isn't the same as faking a whole planet.


Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:59 pm
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 1761
Reply with quote
I'm reviving this because it seems like SB and especially the SB mods have lost it.

There's a site out there called Narutoforums. On that site, there's a section called the outskirts Battledome. It seems like the OBD as its regulars call it, is the new top vs section online and it seems to comprise a mix of debaters influenced by SD.net, Comic book Rumbles, all the old Otaku sites and Spacebattles itself. Well, the OBD is "new" full of venom and the users don't hold back when they see something they think is wrong. SB for years has been more or less the same way and for the last two years they seem to have been getting a taste of their own medicine.

That site has a "lets laugh at other forums and their dumb arguments" thread, with more than a few of their users posting on many sites. A lot of them on SB, and it seems like the OBD has been steadily gaining groundon SB. When you look at a lot of the OBD debaters that post on spacebattles, most of their posts involve mocking perceived SB idiocy, insulting the series that SB'ers love and generally putting the screws to them in a very hard way. They seem to be winning as well, given that they are getting loads of "likes" and the harder they push the more the average users and newbies seem to be swayed by their arguments.

So these guys are taking SB's vs section and they don't really even seem to be raiding, so much as using it as an amusing diversion from I guess the stagnation they have on their own site?

Well either way things have boiled over, I guess one of these guys insulted MLP too much and got banned. The other was taking the piss out of Naruto in a Naruto vs Tolkien debate both of these user apparently debated Corporal facehugger in another Tolkien debate shredded him (well, that's their story any way) and it seems odd that a few weeks after both mutually humiliate an Admin, they both get banned for minor infractions.

One of the two apparently appealed a ban and leaked the contents of the appeal thread.
http://www.narutoforums.com/showpost.ph ... count=1029

http://www.narutoforums.com/showpost.ph ... count=1030

and apparently, these guys have the SB staff so on edge they lurk NF because after he posted it.

http://www.narutoforums.com/showpost.ph ... count=1059

The hilarity of this is, their conduct blatantly flies in the face of their own rules regarding the affairs of other boards. Beyond that? You can disagree with the rudeness and their debate tactics or conclusions all you want, what can't be denied though is that it really does look like a case of an old Lion fearing a new nastier, healthier rival and doing everything he can to hold on.

Not sure if any of you were following this, beyond highlighting the general SB nonsense though.


Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:23 am
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am
Posts: 1162
Reply with quote
The pony thing was funny, but opening those links opened an infinity of browser tabs full of commercials about shampoo which all autoplayed. I wish I was kidding.
Seriously, like six per link.
Breetai, how the hell are you?


Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:17 pm
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 1761
Reply with quote
I'm doing alright Mojo, surviving. How're you? Still keeping this place amusing and whimsical?


Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:33 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6833
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
Admiral Breetai wrote:
I'm doing alright Mojo, surviving. How're you? Still keeping this place amusing and whimsical?


You've missed the equivalent of two full seasons of Eastenders here!


Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:16 am
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 2239
Reply with quote
Admiral Breetai wrote:
I'm reviving this because it seems like SB and especially the SB mods have lost it.

I'd argue this happened a while ago, and the reason I never became a member there.

Admiral Breetai wrote:
There's a site out there called Narutoforums. On that site, there's a section called the outskirts Battledome. It seems like the OBD as its regulars call it, is the new top vs section online and it seems to comprise a mix of debaters influenced by SD.net, Comic book Rumbles, all the old Otaku sites and Spacebattles itself. Well, the OBD is "new" full of venom and the users don't hold back when they see something they think is wrong. SB for years has been more or less the same way and for the last two years they seem to have been getting a taste of their own medicine.

Full of venom and lacking restraint does not sound like a good combination.

I think I have come across the site now and again, but it was rather ad heavy

Admiral Breetai wrote:
That site has a "lets laugh at other forums and their dumb arguments" thread, with more than a few of their users posting on many sites. A lot of them on SB, and it seems like the OBD has been steadily gaining groundon SB. When you look at a lot of the OBD debaters that post on spacebattles, most of their posts involve mocking perceived SB idiocy, insulting the series that SB'ers love and generally putting the screws to them in a very hard way. They seem to be winning as well, given that they are getting loads of "likes" and the harder they push the more the average users and newbies seem to be swayed by their arguments.

There are some doozies on the internet. It is rather scary the number of people who could not pass a basic biology or know what science is.


Fri Mar 20, 2015 7:51 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 511 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.