SDN has Found an "interesting" Board

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

SDN has Found an "interesting" Board

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:45 am

SDN has "Found an "interesting" Board"

In this thread
Cpl Kendall has wrote:Starfleet Jedi is pretty much the new hangout for the refugees from Darkstars failed board and Admiral Newlands old board. 99% of the observations and arguments raised there are taken directly or paraphrased from Darkstars site. In fact the only new info to come to light from that site is the revelation that Darkstars cadre is a bunch of neo-con wackaloons, which can be found in this thread.
There was the question what a neo-con is, which General Schatten has answered:
General Schatten has wrote:Neoconservative, morons who believe it's America's moral imperative to police the world, consequences be damned, and they were right even when they failed because of their own incompetence and instead blame those in opposition to their wars.
Then
Darth Wong has wrote:
AirshipFanboy wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It shouldn't come as any surprise that Darkstar followers are neo-cons. Darkstar himself is one too. Neo-conservative thinking prepares you for the kind of "us vs them, truth is a matter of righteousness rather than logic" thinking that pervades his site.
Darkstar is a neo-con? Oh Lord. How did we figure this out?
I got a message from an old friend which contained the following exchange (note: Darkstar is "2046":

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... =6306#6306
2046 wrote:Out of respect for Jedi Master Spock, this must be my last post in the thread. There is simply no way that a person such as myself can possibly be polite to Holocaust-deniers and their intellectual brethren that are active in this thread.

The following post, for instance, is as polite as I can bear to make it after six different edits spaced up to an hour apart.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: No. I've seen data formulated, showing that the list of islam fundamentalists terrorists said to be on the planes, and died on these planes... were apparently not on these planes...
So you went to conspiracy nut websites and are sick enough to buy into them? Despite the fact that all reputable sources (and the very sources who gave the initial reports of surviving hijackers) acknowledge mistaken identity regarding common Islamic names?

If they're alive, where are the pictures? Where's the Al-Jazeera interview with that dead-eyed sonofabitch Atta saying "yeah, uh, I'm alive and shit, so WTF?"

You waste time going to those loony sites yet are wholly ignorant of bin Laden's admissions and boasts that he did it? You listen to third-party tinfoil-hat whackaloons and never bother to read up on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who helped bin Laden plan it?

For crying out loud, you just confirmed Wayne Poe's suggestion about your headwear. It's a rare thing for me to agree with Wayne, but by damn you just made it happen. Doesn't that extraordinary event even give you pause?
and had activities (related to sex and alcohol) which didn't seem to fit with the protrait of your traditional AQ nutcase.
Islamic terrorists frequently engage in debauchery, often the night before attacks. They believe their sins will be washed away when they slaughter innocents in suicide attacks.

How is it that you can make some flawlessly logical post on Trek/Wars stuff, then 180 your way on the same topic, and also be so scandalously wrong here? Is your mind really that compartmentalized in regards to where your logic budget goes? Shit, man, if you have so little to go around I'd much rather you spend it on politics and become a esteemed fan of Star Wars than spend it on (some of) your Trek/Wars ideas and be a conspiracy wacko.

Now to Wilga:
And the interpretation of these rules is out of question. The legal opinion has shown that there is consensus about the interpretation of Article 51 UN Charter.
Okay, then . . . so why did we get UN resolution support in kicking Taliban ass? Even France, along with the rest of the European Council, said we were authorized by 1368.

Of course you don't accept that. Your entire position in this thread is based on failing to understand the text of UN resolutions, cherry-picking the parts you want to misunderstand the most, and doing the misunderstanding intentionally by defining terms with absurd narrowness, along with other semantic games.

And the really great part is when you directly ignore the UN in order to do it. I really love that. What next, EU Completism? It would fit the pattern of semantics gamesmanship and lying.

It's no doubt a perfect house of Teutonic BS in your mind, with the rough parts glossed over via your seemingly limitless capacity for intellectual dishonesty on this matter. All it proves, however, is your effete disdain for western civilization and your particular, deranged loathing for all actions of the United States.
the Taliban have said that they would consider to hand over Osama Bin Laden when the U.S. bring forward evidences
Yeah, just like they did in 1998, I'm sure. We've been over that. You've been ignoring my posts. I was quite fond of the naval example, for instance.
It would have been the duty of the U.S. to negotiate with the Taliban before starting a war, the worst and most prohibited act in international affairs.
It was the duty of the Taliban to fight terrorism within its borders, not harbor and support it even after terrorists operating from within Afghanistan perpetrated what is actually the worst act in world affairs.

Kane:
Actually it was US that aided taliban and other religious extremists in Afganistan to fight off the eeeeeevil USSR commies. That sure backfired didn't it. Maybe next time you won't get in the bed with islamists.
But you will won't you? Already giving billions of dollars of military aid to Saudi Arabia which are known to harbor the terrorists.
So you bitch when we kick their asses and you bitch when we don't? You bitch when we attack and you bitch when we pick our battles. Don't you recognize the fact that you're just bitching about the U.S. no matter what it does?
How is this different that US invasion of Panama in 1989 for example?
THEY DECLARED A STATE OF WAR WITH US! They said it existed, so we gave it to them. They were dumbasses, and met the fate of similar dumbasses through recent history.

Oh, and to whoever . . . using a civilian vehicle in wartime support of escaping enemy forces makes it a military target. Doing that in front of a US tank makes the driver f***ing stupid.

To sum up the thread:

1. US soldiers sent abroad, numbering in the many tens of thousands, unfortunately include a handful of criminal decidedly impolite person(s), lefty plants, and other assorted undesirables. Therefore a handful of terrible events have occurred, such as Abu Gharaib, the rapist, and the murderer. Compared to all past wars this is miniscule, and compared to even a civilian population of the same number such things are ridiculous to dwell upon with the pretense of a point.

2. Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on the United States and citizens of many countries, by their own statements and admissions. They knowingly and willfully struck at civilian and governmental targets in an effort to foment fear and force US concessions.

3. The War in Afghanistan was legal in the US, authorized by the UN, and supported by our allies. More importantly, it was dead right. The Taliban made itself a target by standing with our target at a time when we were not in the best of moods, and they got what was coming to them. There is no rationality in any attempt to claim that our action was unjust or improper, and indeed I cannot escape the suspicion that such claims are evidence of mental illness, brought on by attempting to hold to an impossible philosophy that requires extensive intellectual dishonesty.

4. The War in Iraq was legal in the US, authorized by the UN, and supported by our allies of consequence. More importantly, it was dead right. Based on intelligence long known internationally, intel that could not be disproved since Saddam never held properly to the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, the United States removed Saddam from power. His efforts to make the world believe he had nuclear and other WMD facilities, his known willingness to use them, and all that and more mixed with his own terrorist acts (per Wilga) and his known contacts with other terrorist Islamic extremist groups including Al Qaeda, made him a clear and present danger to the United States specifically, and international peace and justice generally.

Besides which, just in general, if you attempt to assassinate a US president, you've gotta know you're gonna get your ass handed to you. I mean, damn. Seriously, dude.

5. Leftist and conspiracist ideals of the sort espoused in this thread have weakened international security. North Korea has a nuke-lette, and successfully blackmailed the world instead of getting its ass kicked. Terror-sponsor Iran, headed by a modern-day Hitler-esque madman, is close to a real nuke. Even broken Russia is resurgent, behaving more and more like the Soviet Union every day as it supports Iran and other similar regimes. Other dictators and madmen are emboldened, and the forces of world evil are uniting.

You want the democracies of the West to stand idly by and invite their destruction from rogue nations, terrorists and their sponsors, and backwards philosophies.

You seek the withdrawal of the United States and its allies from Iraq, guaranteeing a bloodbath of the type seen when American leftists won our withdrawal from Viet Nam. But you don't care, so long as America's nose is bloodied. (That applies to both foreigners and the enemies within.)

You refuse to recognize America's triumphs, even those in your defense, and rejoice at America's failings, even those at your expense.

There is something incredibly twisted about your worldviews. No, not just the irony that you couldn't have them were it not for the people and government of the United States securing your freedoms, but that, for all our failings, for all our fears and doubts, and for all our missteps, the United States has, for the last 70 years at least, done our damnedest to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all we can practically help.

No one's claiming we're perfect, and certainly not me. I'm no huge fan of Bush. And even in the past 70 years this country has done some terrible things, both internationally and within its own borders and society. But we're a damn sight better than every other country that's ever wielded such power, and a helluva lot better than most who couldn't dream of it.

Is that why you hate us? And if those philosophies of life and liberty have made you loathe the United States, what does that say about your philosophy?
Can you feel the stupidity? Here's my favourite quote:
Darkstar wrote:The War in Iraq was legal in the US, authorized by the UN, and supported by our allies of consequence.
Unless I've been seriously misinformed about the identity of "2046", Darkstar is not just a neo-con, he's a full-fledged foaming-at-the-mouth neo-con. Of course, his opponent is also a twit, since he's apparently a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but that just tells you about the quality of people on that forum.
I have send "our" Cpl Kendall the following pm:
        • Hello Cpl Kendall.

          would you please clarify in the thread "Found an "interesting" Board" from SDN, in which you have linked to the thread "War crimes by US troops" from here, that all but one participants haven't the same opinion as 2046.

          As far as I can judge it, most of the participants don't "believe it's America's moral imperative to police the world, consequences be damned, and they were right even when they failed because of their own incompetence and instead blame those in opposition to their wars".

          Most of the participants of this thread have outright said that the wars were illegal.





          And please inform Mr. Wong, that it is fallacious to conclude that only because one participant in this thread seems to be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, all participants are "stupid" or rather to conclude from one example on "the quality of people on that forum".

          I have always thought, that he thinks, he is intelligent and educated. He should show it by not making fallacious conclusions.

          And if he is really intelligent and educated, as he likes to accent, he should know the differences between stupid and intelligent and educated and untaught.

          Only because someone don't knows something doesn't make that someone stupid. Only because someone is educated doesn't make that someone intelligent.

          And only because someone thinks that it is possible that there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 doesn't make that someone stupid.

          To think that something is possible doesn't mean that one believes in it.

Kazeite
Bridge Officer
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:45 pm
Location: Polish Commonwealth

Post by Kazeite » Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:47 am

WILGA, don't bother. To correct all those misconceptions, you should really start with weird idea that somehow our observations and arguments are almost exclusively based on Darkstars. Then there's this weird and absurd neo-con accusation...

If Cpl Kendall doesn't actually understand what we talk about, it's not surprising he jumps to such "innovative" conclusions.

It's kinda funny, actually, that SDN basically retcons every new pro-trek argument into "old, rehashed info taken from Darkstars site" :)

Narsil
Jedi Knight
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:59 am

Post by Narsil » Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:10 pm

When it boils down to it, I only agree with SDN in any capacity because they're not necessarily as blatantly wrong about scientific facts as Darkstar is, but I've had enough of both arguments to the point where I wouldn't touch the bloody Star Wars versus Star Trek debate with a fifteen foot pole.

'ICS proves Wars victory!', 'ICS is non-canon!', 'Paula's wrong!', 'Leland's wrong!', 'Darkstar's wrong!', 'Wong's wrong!', 'God's wrong!', 'You're wrong!', 'I'm wrong!' and so on and so-forth... at this point I couldn't care less about the lot of it.

Better to debate other sci-fi franchises, Star Wars and Star Trek have worn out their welcome as far as I'm concerned. The best sci-fi around at the moment is Doctor Who, closely followed by Ashes to Ashes and Life on Mars, and that's that.

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:21 pm

I'll tell you the same thing I told you in the PM. Mike Wong and SDN can read the thread for themselves and if you want your points raised you can crawl out from under your new username from which your hiding from the banstick and do it yourself. A user was recently banned for raising points from a banned member on Space Battles so I'm not going that route and even if I was so inclined I wouldn't do your work for you.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:11 pm

Well, all this shows is that Mr. Wong's not as informed, or open minded as he thinks he is.

If he had cared to read the posts, he would've seen that we certainly don't agree with all of 2046's (Darkstar) points, and that there were new vs arguments brought by other people here, JMS and Mr. Oraghan to name a few...

It's funny how he does exactly what he accuses "rabid Trekkies" of doing:
Talking about a subject he hasn't even read about... :)

What's that word I'm looking for?
Ah, yes... Hypocrisy... :)

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:29 pm

But, he does know about it. His years of battling against rabid trekkies, and Darkstar specifically, has given Wong psychic powers when it comes to debaters and the subjects they discuss, regardless of the topic.

Socar
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:09 pm

Post by Socar » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:51 pm

I'm so sick of this. Are we seriously going to start a new thread every single damn time something like this comes from SDN or wherever? Give it a rest already. Even the newest people to the community should be able to figure out by now that this isn't going to go anywhere.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:37 pm

I know that "this isn't going to go anywhere". But it makes fun.

Especially if Mr. Wong proves again his intelligence.

My response to Cpl Kendall was now quoted in that thread:
        • And please inform Mr. Wong, that it is fallacious to conclude that only because one participant in this thread seems to be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, all participants are "stupid" or rather to conclude from one example on "the quality of people on that forum".

          I have always thought, that he thinks, he is intelligent and educated. He should show it by not making fallacious conclusions.

          And if he is really intelligent and educated, as he likes to accent, he should know the differences between stupid and intelligent and educated and untaught.

          Only because someone don't knows something doesn't make that someone stupid. Only because someone is educated doesn't make that someone intelligent.

          And only because someone thinks that it is possible that there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 doesn't make that someone stupid.

          To think that something is possible doesn't mean that one believes in it.
Mr. Wongs answer was:
        • I love the way they think I need to somehow "prove" my intelligence by catering to their little egos and pretending that I give a shit what they think. I have a nice shiny degree and professional engineering license to prove my intelligence, and that's worth more than any of this ridiculous Internet nonsense. Really, what kind of imbecile thinks you establish your abilities by futzing around on the Internet? You establish your abilities by accomplishing things in the real world.
As everyone with a mediocre mind should be able to see, I haven't demanded that he proves that he is intelligent. I have only pointed out that his conclusions were fallacious - and that this is not an indication for intelligence. Maybe he is not able to see the difference. The difference is that someone who is intelligent doesn't say stupid things like he has done. If someone says nothing, that's neither a proof for intelligence nor for stupidity. But if someone says stupid things, like he has done when he has made fallacious conclusions, that's a sure indication for stupidity.

But - on the other side - it is interessting how he seems to feel at once as if his education is questioned and seems to think that it is necessary to refer to his "shiny degree and professional engineering license". I have the impression that his intelligence is a tender spot in Mr. Wongs self-esteem. Why does he accent his "shiny degree and professional engineering license" if he really things that he has no need to prove his intelligence?

It is interessting too, how he ignores thereby what I have actually said. His "shiny degree and professional engineering license" proves only that he is educated. That allone doesn't prove that he is intelligent. (Only for people who jump to conclusions. With that sentence I haven't said that he is stupid nor have I said that he is not intelligent. I have only said that his "shiny degree and professional engineering license" alone doesn't prove that he intelligent. All three possibilities are still open.)

Anyway, his answer indicates again that he is not able to address the issues of my response as one would expect from an intelligent person. Because he clearly hasn't adressed what was actually said. Pity.





Cpl Kendall wrote:I'll tell you the same thing I told you in the PM. Mike Wong and SDN can read the thread for themselves and if you want your points raised you can crawl out from under your new username from which your hiding from the banstick and do it yourself. A user was recently banned for raising points from a banned member on Space Battles so I'm not going that route and even if I was so inclined I wouldn't do your work for you.
Thank you for nothing.

You know that I don't can post on SDN without risking to lose my account. That's why I have asked you to transmit my opinion. And it wouldn't really be much work to do. I assume hereby that you are able to use drag and drop.



By the way, the first part of my question has dealed only with what you have already written. It was you who has indicated that the members of this fora are neo-cons.

After the debates we have had, especially in the from you mentioned thread, I can't see how you can really believe that I am (or the others but 2046 are) neo-conservative.

And if you indeed don't think that, you should clarify your claim.

You wouldn't be my mouthpiece. You would only correct your own fallacious statement.

But maybe you really think that the participants of that thread are majoritarian neo-conservative. Than - although I couldn't understand how you can think that in the first place - I could understand that you see no reason to correct your - in your opinion correct - statement.

Do you really think that the participants of that thread are majoritarian neo-conservative?



And if you would have transmitted the second part of my opinion, it surly wouldn't have ended with your ban from SDN.

As you can see, even Mr. Wong himself has quoted 2046. And other quotes from threads of the fora from this board were made without consequences for the quoter.

I would like to see how they could justify to ban you because you has only transmitted my opinion.

But if you really think that could have happened, you don't seem to have a great opinion of SDN.
Last edited by Who is like God arbour on Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:21 pm

Are you being purposely obtuse? They can see for themselves who is a neo-con and who isn't for themselves by reading the thread. I find it hard to believe that even with your poor grasp of the English language that you can be so slow.

User avatar
Soban
Welcome the new member!
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:05 am
Location: Tracking the Federation ship "undercover" in Culture space

Post by Soban » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:24 pm

I know that "this isn't going to go anywhere". But it makes fun.
With all due respect, you must be easily entertained then. Going over SDN's latest inane activities (just like them going over the latest activities here) is hardly my definition of fun, and as others have said it's getting real old.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:33 am

Cpl Kendall wrote:Are you being purposely obtuse? They can see for themselves who is a neo-con and who isn't for themselves by reading the thread. I find it hard to believe that even with your poor grasp of the English language that you can be so slow.
That's not the point at all.

You have implied that all - or at least most - members of this board are neo-cons. If you don't really think so, you should clarify that. Because then you have made a fallacious or misleading statement.

For an honorable person it should be self-evident to take responsibility for mistakes. Such a person would clarify it's statement and don't trust that others could maybe see the mistake. A honorable person would correct its wrong statement in the same way he has done it in the first place.

I don't know how it is in Canada. But in the most civilised nations that is not only self-evident but even enforceable. If for example the press has written wrong things about someone, this someone has the enforceable title that the press correct the wrong statement in the same way as it has done it in the first place. If the press has written wrong things about someone on the title page with a huge and bold article, it is obligated to countermand that wrong thing on the title page with an equally huge and bold article. It is irrelevant that all could read it too, if the countermand is written only on the last page in a tiny article.

Please contemplate why that is so!



That they could read the thread is irrelevant. Sure, they could do it. But the most of them won't do it. And you know it.
  • Or how do you explain Mr. Wongs comment, that is clearly showing that he hasn't read that thread. He self says that he has got a message from an old friend and then quotes 2046. He doesn't say that he has read the whole thread. And the quote he is giving is taken out of context and not representative for that thread.
  • Take for example the statement from that Darth Servo bloke:
    Darth Servo wrote:
    Darth Ruinus wrote:I noticed TheRedFear made a post about Federation ships supposedly "punking out" stars, such as being able to go into stars and take no damage,
    So they don't know the difference between a corona and the actual star and then wonder why we conclude they're idiots?
    Not only
    • that he only responded to what was said from Darth Ruinus without looking at what was really said from TheRedFear in his thread Versus the Sun - because he would have seen, that - as far as I see it - TheRedFear doesn't state in this thread that Star Trek ships have gone into an actual star
            • (meaning entering the chromosphere, photosphere or the core of the star - although the corona is technicaly a part of each star and entering the corona could already be described as entering the star.),
    • he also shows that he has either
      • not read this thread here and not even the quote of my response that is even in the same thread in which he has posted that rubish
      • or that he has not contemplated what was really said
      • or that he is too stupid to understand what was said.
      That someone doesn't know the difference between a corona and the actual star doesn't make that someone stupid or an idiot. If a medic, a philosopher, a mathematician, a historian, a jurist, a chemist or other graduates don't have that tittle of knowledge, doesn't make them stupid or itdiots. It is only not relevant knowledge for their profession. It doesn't make an astronomer or an engineer stupid if they for example don't know how the Protein biosynthesis is proceeding or aren't able to describe the chemical reaction of the photosynthesis including the Dark Reactions or Calvin-Benson Cycle - although they should have learned that already in school.
It's obviously that many members of SDN don't even bother to read the whole thread they are participating in, let alone the thread from another board they thematize. And even if they read something they don't bother to contemplate what was really said. Most things seems to be too complicated for them. One has to say clearly what one means and can not hope that they are intelligent enough to see the truth alone.






Soban wrote:
I know that "this isn't going to go anywhere". But it makes fun.
With all due respect, you must be easily entertained then. Going over SDN's latest inane activities (just like them going over the latest activities here) is hardly my definition of fun, and as others have said it's getting real old.
Why?

Makes collecting stamps, coins or other stupid things more fun?

It's makes fun to debate - sometimes.

What is wrong with that?

It's not as though as if I would only go over SDN's latest inane activities.

And to be honest, I like it especially because that's a chance for me to train a little bit my abysmal English. I have not only to read what was written in English, I have to write my own responses in English. And I think that it helps me to advance my English in the long run.
Last edited by Who is like God arbour on Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Narsil
Jedi Knight
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:59 am

Post by Narsil » Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:30 am

Who is like God arbour wrote:And to be honest, I like it especially because that's a chance for me to train a little bit my abysmal English. I have not only to read what was written in English, I have to write my own responses in English. And I think that it helps me to advance my English in the long run.
You could just try reading popular English-language literature that's often reputed to be quite good (mileage may vary). Or even writing your own bits of fiction and prose. There are more ways to advance your skill with the language than to simply debate a dead and tiresome debate that we're all very sick of hearing about, mate.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:51 am

Narsil wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:And to be honest, I like it especially because that's a chance for me to train a little bit my abysmal English. I have not only to read what was written in English, I have to write my own responses in English. And I think that it helps me to advance my English in the long run.
You could just try reading popular English-language literature that's often reputed to be quite good (mileage may vary).
I read English-language literature. It's not the problem to understand it. The greatest problem in learning another language is to become proficient enough to be able to express yourself in that language.
Narsil wrote:Or even writing your own bits of fiction and prose.
That would be a good training when my English is better. Now it would be a waste of time for that goal. Because I don't learn anything if I write a huge fiction with many mistakes in it.
Here, I have only small posts and see, how others react and how other are phrasing their responses.
Narsil wrote:There are more ways to advance your skill with the language than to simply debate a dead and tiresome debate that we're all very sick of hearing about, mate.
It may be that you feel that the debate is tiresome and that you are very sick of hearing abou it.

But that's irrelevant. I'm new to this debate and I'm neither tired nor sick.

Star Wars vs. Star Trek was debated for over twenty years. Does that mean that newcomers aren't allowed to debate that anymore because they can only bring forward what was already debated several times?

And by the way, I don't see that exactly that thema was ever debated.

But if it is not interesting for you, you don't have to participate in that thread nor have you to read it at all.

I think it is a little bit audacious to try to dictate what I can debate and what not - as long as I use the adequate forum for it. Nobody is forced to response to my challenge.

Narsil
Jedi Knight
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:59 am

Post by Narsil » Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:03 am

Who is like God arbour wrote:I read English-language literature. It's not the problem to understand it. The greatest problem in learning another language is to become proficient enough to be able to express yourself in that language.
Well you're doing well enough so far. Better than my father at the very least, and we're a whole family of native speakers. Hell, my dad's English by nationality as well as language and he doesn't seem to have the same command of the language that you have.
That would be a good training when my English is better. Now it would be a waste of time for that goal. Because I don't learn anything if I write a huge fiction with many mistakes in it.
Here, I have only small posts and see, how others react and how other are phrasing their responses.
You could always ask. Beta-readers help with that, and on the other hand you might well be doing something productive in the process; perhaps your interest in Star Trek and Star Wars in mutual terms could allow you to write fiction that features both, or at least elements of both.

And you also misunderstood me. I'm not commenting on the versus debate as being the tiresome thing that everyone's sick of hearing about; I'm commenting on the bloody SDN versus RSA debate that seems to have taken over.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:35 pm

In this thread, it is not my intention to defend RSA or 2046 or Darkstar or however he is called or is calling himself.

It's my intention to attack SDN by showing that there are stupid members and that even Mr. Wong, who likes to accent his allegedly intelligence by refering to his "shiny degree and professional engineering license" says unbelievably stupid things sometimes.

- deleted and changed -
Vympel wrote:I'm sorry, this is even better:
US soldiers sent abroad, numbering in the many tens of thousands, unfortunately include a handful of criminal decidedly impolite person(s), lefty plants, and other assorted undesirables. Therefore a handful of terrible events have occurred, such as Abu Gharaib, the rapist, and the murderer.
What ... the ... fuck? So, let me get this straight, an unspecified number of atrocities in Iraq have occured because "the Left", in it's infinite conspiratorial wisdom and foresight, actually planted .... planted!, troops in the American military with the intent of committing these acts to embarrass the United States!

Please, someone confirm this is Darkstar. This is just too demented, even for him.
What are lefty plants?
Last edited by Who is like God arbour on Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Post Reply