Coiler accidentally put two l's at the end of it. Here is a working Link.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Besides, your link doesn't work. Either Wong recently removed it, or you don't check your own sources beyond one click. That has to suck.
Breaking down the statistics: SDN vs SFJ polls.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
On the whole, a not particularly apt critique of Brin's critique... nor does it change the fact that Brin is attacked in much the same manner irregardless of his literary and scientific credentials, in precisely the terms I quoted.
He also misrepresents Brin. For example, he says:
Now, we could go on all day about how good a reading we personally think Brin's is, but the basic fact of the matter is that SDN displays no respect for his credentials as an award-winning science fiction author, a noted critic of literature and society, as a rocket scientist, or anything else - nor do those complaining most loudly about his critique have any qualifications related to literature, so far as I know. He is villified, talked about in a manner little different from any other person disagreeing with SDN - whether educated or not.
He also misrepresents Brin. For example, he says:
In the mean time, David Brin had this to say about non-mythic heros:Did he notice that Wedge Antilles and Lando Calrissian destroyed the second Death Star?
Although, to be perfectly fair, Brin has severe doubts about the "normal guy" status of Wedge, noting that he's as blue blood royalty as they come:The whole Luke-Vader-Emperor scene in Return of the Jedi is IRRELEVANT! It makes absolutely no difference to the success of the rebellion. The only characters who matter a bit in the actual plot climax are the wookie and Lando!
I'm serious. Watch Return of the Jedi again carefully. None of the "Force" people -- from the Emperor and Vader to Leia and Luke -- make the slightest difference at all to the actual victory achieved by the Rebel forces.
THAT is the only part of the film I like, and hardly anyone noticed it. (Certainly not Lucas, or he'd have changed it!)
Et cetera. (Of course, it's commonly stated on SDN that the death of the Emperor and Vader caused the fleet to break up into chaos and defeat, and many seem to be claiming the Empire to be good - as I saw on ST.com - which would further Brin's argument.)And there's more! Anyone notice the names of the other candidates for Chancellor? Minister Antilles of Alderan? Maybe the dad of Captain Antilles, the first dude Vader crushes to death in the first movie? Cousin of Luke's wingman, Wedge Antilles? Could it be a coincidence? Destiny? (Or maybe Clue No. 2?)
Now, we could go on all day about how good a reading we personally think Brin's is, but the basic fact of the matter is that SDN displays no respect for his credentials as an award-winning science fiction author, a noted critic of literature and society, as a rocket scientist, or anything else - nor do those complaining most loudly about his critique have any qualifications related to literature, so far as I know. He is villified, talked about in a manner little different from any other person disagreeing with SDN - whether educated or not.
- Cock_Knocker
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:07 am
You seem to have missed the point, yet again. Opecoiler pointed out very clearly that Brin was not arguing the strengths and weaknesses of Trek vs Wars ships. Play up this guy's creds all you like, but its still an obvious red herring to the actual argument at hand.
But I'm sure y'all already knew that.
"Star Trek is the McDonalds of science fiction"
--David Gerrold
But I'm sure y'all already knew that.
"Star Trek is the McDonalds of science fiction"
--David Gerrold
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
Except, the point is that he made a literary argument for Trek over Wars and the specifics of that argument are what's mocked, regardless of his literary credentials. In his attempt to be a literary critic of Trek and Wars, Mike claims Wars is better because of an ecomonmy based on limited goods (regardless of how harmful those machines are being to the environment), while Trek is said to be a 'Marxist-Leninist Utopia' despite the evidence, claims the american dream is only about making money, which is rediculous- it's about enhancing one's prosperity through education, career opportunities and freedoms and getting your fair share of other parts of the society. You sure as hell don't necessarily need money for each and every one of those.
He even says that Trek is 'designed to promote West Coast American left-wing liberal socialist viewpoints to the world'. If he really wants to bring real world politics into this, in a country he isn't even in, it'd be more accurate when spreading propaganda to say that it's left wing liberalism from Hollywood and New England, but he can't even get his propaganda right.
But, what does he know? He doesn't have a degree in sociology or history or english or political science. His education is supposedly in engineering. He has no credentials to critique Trek or Wars, so he shouldn't even try. Or does he think that a literary critque, being a 'softer science', is something that you don't need a degree for.
He even says that Trek is 'designed to promote West Coast American left-wing liberal socialist viewpoints to the world'. If he really wants to bring real world politics into this, in a country he isn't even in, it'd be more accurate when spreading propaganda to say that it's left wing liberalism from Hollywood and New England, but he can't even get his propaganda right.
But, what does he know? He doesn't have a degree in sociology or history or english or political science. His education is supposedly in engineering. He has no credentials to critique Trek or Wars, so he shouldn't even try. Or does he think that a literary critque, being a 'softer science', is something that you don't need a degree for.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
As I pointed out, his science fiction credits are even more exceptional than his scientific credits... and the rhetoric is precisely the same.Cock_Knocker wrote:You seem to have missed the point, yet again. Opecoiler pointed out very clearly that Brin was not arguing the strengths and weaknesses of Trek vs Wars ships. Play up this guy's creds all you like, but its still an obvious red herring to the actual argument at hand.
Is the education issue a red herring? Never more clearly than when the SDN community invokes it, for it is perfectly clear that SDN doesn't have any respect for education among its opponents. Brin is one of a long string of examples making that perfectly clear.
For those of you interested in a statistical update - I readily admit the statistics are of limited use, of course, but still, they clearly do not support the contention that SDN is exceptionally well educated at the point where we had 173 and 23 votes (my last check). The numbers have changed relatively little.
Probability that SDN has a higher percentage with a bachelor's or higher education: 36% (+/-10%)
Probability that SDN has a higher percentage with a lower-than-bachelor's education, discounting "other" category: 71% (+/-10%)
I reiterate... the claims made by many prominent members of that community, namely that they have a monopoly on higher education and are opposed by "uneducated kiddies," are exceptional and have no foundation in any kind of data.
We could name opposing individuals with various sorts of credentials, or we can look at polling data, or anything else, but nothing supports this exceptional claim. It's pure propaganda - and a red herring at best.
- Cock_Knocker
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:07 am
He can be Einstein, for all the good it will do you. You're still parading a red herring around like an obtuse moron. You still refuse, and will continue to do so, the main argument Mike Wong posited: Show ANYONE with an education above the amazing ninjas here who can prove him or Dr. Saxton wrong on their conclusions.Jedi Master Spock wrote:As I pointed out, his science fiction credits are even more exceptional than his scientific credits... and the rhetoric is precisely the same.
As for Brin, I'd rather go with Gerrold as a much better authority on Trek. Not only is he an accomplished writer, but he's been instrumental in Trek's legacy since TOS.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
The last time it was attempted, the discussion at SDN was wrapped around and around that important facts were left out and it was concluded that the person in question was lying when there wasn't any proof he was.
Edit: Hang on, Gerrold?! He did a extra spot in DS9, but hasn't done much work since early TNG and then, he did a script that was bought, but was shelved instead. The ones that were responsible for a big chunk of where Trek has gone has been Taylor and especially Brannon and Braga...you know, those two people that have routinely been blamed for Trek's downfall? Are you saying you've forgotten about all the bitching and whining and complaining that was done about them? Don't give me any crap that Gerrold has been instrumental at all during the last 15 years of Trek. He hasn't done anything substantial for Trek since the animated series.
Edit: Hang on, Gerrold?! He did a extra spot in DS9, but hasn't done much work since early TNG and then, he did a script that was bought, but was shelved instead. The ones that were responsible for a big chunk of where Trek has gone has been Taylor and especially Brannon and Braga...you know, those two people that have routinely been blamed for Trek's downfall? Are you saying you've forgotten about all the bitching and whining and complaining that was done about them? Don't give me any crap that Gerrold has been instrumental at all during the last 15 years of Trek. He hasn't done anything substantial for Trek since the animated series.
- Cock_Knocker
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:07 am
More hand waving without any nod to specifics. Show me exactly where Mike Wong's claims on his website were refuted by such an individual. Since you're being intentionally vague, I'm asking for specifics. Not TJHairball, "Um, yup, he's wrong."GStone wrote:The last time it was attempted, the discussion at SDN was wrapped around and around that important facts were left out and it was concluded that the person in question was lying when there wasn't any proof he was.
You love idiotic strawmen, don't you? If you'll actually read what I said, you'll see that I quite clearly indicated that Gerrold was instrumental in Trek's legacy since TOS. I did NOT say he was involved in its downfall. Gerrold left that sinking ship when Roddenberry himself was screwing things up.Edit: Hang on, Gerrold?! He did a extra spot in DS9, but hasn't done much work since early TNG and then, he did a script that was bought, but was shelved instead. The ones that were responsible for a big chunk of where Trek has gone has been Taylor and especially Brannon and Braga...you know, those two people that have routinely been blamed for Trek's downfall? Are you saying you've forgotten about all the bitching and whining and complaining that was done about them? Don't give me any crap that Gerrold has been instrumental at all during the last 15 years of Trek. He hasn't done anything substantial for Trek since the animated series.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
I'm pointing out something that is, argumentatively, a red herring, and in factual practice, apparently false propaganda. This is precisely my point.Cock_Knocker wrote:He can be Einstein, for all the good it will do you. You're still parading a red herring around
Actually, I think if Einstein went to the trouble of coming back from the dead in order to criticize Star Wars, a few more people resident at SDN might take him seriously, but when you show such lack of respect for expertise, you give lie to the claims that some (e.g., Opecoiler) have made, that you're collectively willing to listen to someone who is willing to prove s/he has a college degree by turning over all their personal information.
What's the point? There's no reason to.
We seem to have several here. I am not the only one here who can lay claim to an education - not by far. By my estimate, a significant fraction of the population of this board meets or exceeds the bachelor's level of education.Show ANYONE with an education
Case in point demonstrating precisely how all the talk about education actually obstructs argument. You and the rest over on SDN spent several pages trying to convince themselves that TJHairball didn't actually have any qualifications, and so he did nothing but defend his credentials until he left in apparent disgust.Not TJHairball, "Um, yup, he's wrong."
Leave aside Graham Kennedy, Bernd Schnieder, G. M. Sarli, Karen Traviss, Pablo Hidalgo, and David Brin, all of whom have offered quite publicly disagreement to material found on that website. In the case of Traviss and Brin, it would be more appropriate to say that the website in question has chosen to go out of its collective way to disagree with them.
Leave aside the fact that there's absolutely no evidence for the claim whatsoever, and both specific (see above list) and statistical (see polls) reasons to believe the contrary.
After all, it's a red herring in the first place. You don't need an education to demonstrate that Saxton's methodology is flawed; all you need is to be able to read and understand what he's writing.
- Cock_Knocker
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:07 am
Yet again, you're willfully ignoring the main premise. I'll not bring it up again, as your continued dodging of it speaks volumes.Jedi Master Spock wrote:I'm pointing out something that is, argumentatively, a red herring, and in factual practice, apparently false propaganda. This is precisely my point.
And again, dodging the point. Not one of you has demonstrated that Wong's or Saxton's conclusions are incorrect.We seem to have several here.Show ANYONE with an education
Continue to dodge the point. It only makes us laugh harder.You and the rest over on SDN spent several
Show me where Graham Kennedy has proven Wong's or Saxton's conclusions are incorrect.Leave aside Graham Kennedy,
Show me where Bernd Schnieder has proven Wong's or Saxton's conclusions are incorrect.Bernd Schnieder,
Show me where G. M. Sarli has proven Wong's or Saxton's conclusions are incorrect. And no, his hopelessly flawed Endor rebuttal doesn't cut it, as it was torn to shreds upon peer review.G. M. Sarli,
Show me where Karen Traviss has proven Wong's or Saxton's conclusions are incorrect.Karen Traviss,
Show me where Pablo Hidalgo or David Brin has proven Wong's or Saxton's conclusions are incorrect.Pablo Hidalgo, and David Brin,
Continue the dodge game.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
If there's a main premise that hasn't been addressed, you need to communicate it more clearly.Cock_Knocker wrote:Yet again, you're willfully ignoring the main premise.
We have, as have most or all of the others I mentioned. Simply because you choose not to believe it does not change that fact, and claiming so in support of their conclusions is simply circular.And again, dodging the point. Not one of you has demonstrated that Wong's or Saxton's conclusions are incorrect.
For example, Sarli's debunking of the Endor Holocaust stands quite well. Simply quoting a handful of partisans expressing disagreement with a few of his particulars does not in any way, shape, or form change the basic facts Sarli pointed out:
- The scaling and position of the Death Star used by Saxton are objectionable, being both inconsistent within the film as well as inconsistent with most of the non-visual information.
- Implosive effects are noted in the EU and in the film, as well as described in the novelization's description of the original Death Star's similar demise. In short, nothing in the film actually requires the Endor Holocaust to happen, and the details suggest it didn't.
- A wormhole sucking down most of the DS2 debris is noted in the EU (Vader's Glove).
- The continued survival of Ewoks is noted in the EU, and of course there is no Endor Holocaust within the EU.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
strek-v-swars.com's board is down. Blame Omega for not getting it running again because he's been busy or for not passing it off to someone else or for passing it off to someone else but they didn't get it running again. That is where I could point to. It's not vague.Cock_Knocker wrote:More hand waving without any nod to specifics. Show me exactly where Mike Wong's claims on his website were refuted by such an individual. Since you're being intentionally vague, I'm asking for specifics. Not TJHairball, "Um, yup, he's wrong."GStone wrote:The last time it was attempted, the discussion at SDN was wrapped around and around that important facts were left out and it was concluded that the person in question was lying when there wasn't any proof he was.
I don't use them.You love idiotic strawmen, don't you?Edit: Hang on, Gerrold?! He did a extra spot in DS9, but hasn't done much work since early TNG and then, he did a script that was bought, but was shelved instead. The ones that were responsible for a big chunk of where Trek has gone has been Taylor and especially Brannon and Braga...you know, those two people that have routinely been blamed for Trek's downfall? Are you saying you've forgotten about all the bitching and whining and complaining that was done about them? Don't give me any crap that Gerrold has been instrumental at all during the last 15 years of Trek. He hasn't done anything substantial for Trek since the animated series.
You clearly have no idea what a TV legacy is. All he did was work on scripts, as a writer and editor and did some voice work for most of his time with Trek. He wasn't ever that big of a guiding hand for Trek. If your criteria for being responsible for the legacy of something is Gerrold, DC Fontana was leaps and bounds more important than Gerrold every was. She's been far more important to the franchise. Berman was in charge when the whole franchise was at its peak (TNG, around the middle of the series). Not Gerrold. He was more instrumental for Trek's legacy than Gerrold.If you'll actually read what I said, you'll see that I quite clearly indicated that Gerrold was instrumental in Trek's legacy since TOS. I did NOT say he was involved in its downfall. Gerrold left that sinking ship when Roddenberry himself was screwing things up.
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5836
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
- Cock_Knocker
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:07 am
Clearly, you have no idea what a TV legacy is, or have no idea how to research a topic you're arguing about. David Gerrold not only wrote one of the two most popular episodes of Star Trek ever aired, but he is the author of the TNG writer's/director's "bible".Gstone wrote:You clearly have no idea what a TV legacy is. All he did was work on scripts, as a writer and editor and did some voice work for most of his time with Trek. He wasn't ever that big of a guiding hand for Trek.
So again, Gerrold was chiefly responsible for what TNG was to begin with. And again, Berman was the instrument of Trek's massive decline over the years.
Also, as one of the two authors of one of the two most popular episodes of Star Trek ever aired (funny how the author of the other one, Harlan Ellison, also has less than positive things to say about Trek), and, an author with over 50 books to his credit and holder of Hugo and the Nebula awards, he has more believability than Brin, who has never worked on Star Trek in any significant way whatsoever.
So, when he says:
...he must know what he's talking about.David Gerrold wrote:"Star Trek’ is the McDonald’s of science fiction; it’s fast food storytelling. Every problem is like every other problem. They all get solved in an hour. Nobody ever gets hurt, and nobody needs to care. You give up an hour of your time, and you don’t really have to get involved. It’s all plastic.â€