Starfleet Jedi

Looks like our very own Mike DiCenso has upset a warsie on SDN by correcting their dogma on the SDN wiki and he has decided to make a whine thread about it in likely the hopes that it will result in a ban.


http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=146568

Given that Kane Starkiller said that they were out to put in as many examples as possible in, even if inaccurate shows that they don't give two shits about truth. I even pointed out where dialog and visual FX point to longer ranges.

It's hilarious to see Ted piss himself like this. It shows what a house of cards they've built for themselves there.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:Given that Kane Starkiller said that they were out to put in as many examples as possible in, even if inaccurate shows that they don't give two shits about truth. I even pointed out where dialog and visual FX point to longer ranges.

It's hilarious to see Ted piss himself like this. It shows what a house of cards they've built for themselves there.
-Mike

The fact he made a second post in his thread because he obviously did not like the fact he had got no replies or support shows desperation and a obsession typical of those on SDN.

I put up a challenge to Ted to return here to SFJN on the discussion page for the article, and debate the issues. But I doubt he'll will, given his previous track record. I also called him out for editing out references to visuals confirming longer ranges in at least a couple of the episodes.
-Mike

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:
The fact he made a second post in his thread because he obviously did not like the fact he had got no replies or support shows desperation and a obsession typical of those on SDN.

More like it shows "desperation and a obsession" on the part of Ted, I've said it before and I'll say it again; the average poster on SDN doesn't care about VS. Its probably the least active spot on the board.

No matter how you choose to slice it, it's still awfully damn pathetic.
-Mike

*shrug* He was put in charge of the wiki IIRC and it was obvious from the beginning that it would used to push an agenda.

That just shows what a bunch of hypocrites they are over there since they love to preach endlessly about the use of the scientific methodology, yet when substantial counter-evidence is shown, they whine and throw temper-tantrums rather than acknowledge and address them, or conceed.
-Mike

Again, as Dude said, this is only true for some of the denizens of SDN.
I think we should name specific names, or specific threads involved when saying things like "SDN doesn't allow truth", and instead say, for example (if we see it happen), "The guys in this thread here (insert thread name here) don't like the truth"...
That way, we don't put them all in the same basket.
I know I've been doing the same from time to time, and I started thinking it wasn't right, especially since I hated it when people put me in the same "Rabid Trekkie" group as Mike... :)

More importantly: Some members ARE less rabid.. I mean some of these people have been involved in the debate for over ten years. People do change after all, even if their opinions don't. In fact all things considered, save for the occasion super SFJN rant that happens, the bulk of the membership has ceased to care to that degree.

The Dude wrote:

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:
The fact he made a second post in his thread because he obviously did not like the fact he had got no replies or support shows desperation and a obsession typical of those on SDN.

More like it shows "desperation and a obsession" on the part of Ted, I've said it before and I'll say it again; the average poster on SDN doesn't care about VS. Its probably the least active spot on the board.

It was Ted i was refering too.

I think it doesn't matter if *some* SDN members are less rabid, because:

1. It's above all about the SDN mentality, which is sufficiently well established by now.
2. Even the less rabid SDNers people don't criticize SDN. What I mean by SDNers is people who don't seem to never leave that board for another board of the versusdom that precisely displays a different kind of mindset (so this excludes SBC for example).

It's too late to play nice towards SDN when they've been true suckers for a decade.

Trinoya wrote:More importantly: Some members ARE less rabid.. I mean some of these people have been involved in the debate for over ten years. People do change after all, even if their opinions don't. In fact all things considered, save for the occasion super SFJN rant that happens, the bulk of the membership has ceased to care to that degree.

Most people who look at SDN through the vs glasses don't give a rat's arse about what non-vs inclined SDNers do really. Generally, when come the rare times someone looks at the political opinions of SDNers for example, it's to see how they do a typical SDN thing even on a subject that has nothing to do with the vs scene.
And I actually disagree with the idea that they don't care. Perhaps they're not so razor sharp when it comes to Star Wars - and that remains to be proved because it's absolutely clear that any form of challenge to the main website's "facts" is like pouring blood in a pool full of sharks - they still are very active on some other universes, like WH40K.
The vast bulk of the membership may not care, sure, but the fraction of the old timers would debated before actually never cared ever. They had one vision, and that was it. We perfectly know that there was no true debate. What happened to them is the strict result of their silly dogmatic stance. The only thing that made them look like they cared more before is their considerably reduced proselytism. Now they're turtling and playing near total isolationism. They've cut the invasions. But then, again, go there and try to make things change, challenge their facts, and see how it will look like some foreign insect trying to getting inside a wasp nest. They still have that core, and it is that core that matters.

You mean like Destructionator XIII has been doing for the last few months?

I like the implication that we're all the same though, thanks, appreciate that.

The Dude wrote:I like the implication that we're all the same though, thanks, appreciate that.

What?
You're an SDNer?
Duuuuuuude, and here I thought you were a good guy...





;-)