Starfleet Jedi

2046 wrote:ASVSesis

This was hilarious...

I got a good chuckle out of it. ;-)
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:After reading even a few enteries, I just shook my head and laughed. What a bunch of masterbatory revisionist nonsense! "Anyone can edit"? Ha! You have to register first, and we all know what that really means in SDN-speak: they get total control over who actually can write and edit the articles with anyone who attempts to write anything that is pro-ST, or tries to write more balanced articles on people they refer to as "trolls", then you'd no doubt be blocked, and probably had your personal registration information plastered up on SDN for all to see.

The tone and feel of that piece of crap is just the same as the old ASVS newsgroup "FAQ".
-Mike

At least ASVS was a level playing field, which is why so many Warsies moved on to SDN where they could control the debate. People on ASVS could not be controlled. You couldn't ban anyone, the most you could do was killfile them. You couldn't keep them from posting. I still post to ASVS, even though there's only a couple of people there. I want ASVS to come back to it's former glory, as I don't like or post at SDN. A lot of my friends from ASVS are there, but I don't like the place. I don't care for web based boards in general, because f the controlled nature, but I was invited here, and told it was a different kind of board. It seems to be, as far as I can tell, and will be posting here often.

With respect, although you cannot delete USENET posts, the Warsies tended to overwhelm with numbers where they couldn't win with words. They effectively voted themselves into power in a newsgroup that wasn't moderated, but acted as though it was, including setting up their own rules that many pro-Trek folks quite foolishly followed. But if that wasn't bad enough, the whole AoTC:ICS killed the debate when they finally got their own bible encoded that they could use to hammer over over the heads of the ignorant. They of course ignored anything else that showed SW firepower and technology in very unfavorable circumstances (thank goodness that Elim Garaks Obsidan Order pages were perserved by RSA at his site!).

That's why I seldom particpated there, except when the odd thread got cross-posted. It's not worth it, and only last year did I even bother experimenting with posting there in a thread to see what would happen. Not susprisingly, one of them was there lurking around waiting for someone to say anything against their party line, and start the rabid foaming at the mouth attacks. The same thing happened to JMS when he argued pro-Trek in an ST.com versus thread several months ago.

But anyway, I'am glad that you like it here so far, and I hope that you'll continue to particpate here on a regular basis. I also hope that you'll also take time to read JMS' technical commentaries pages, as well as maybe add or improve articles in the Databank wiki he set up.
-Mike

Cock_Knocker wrote:Actually, anyone interested in the true history of Star Wars vs Star Trek need only watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo_1RFuZgIg

*sigh*

I'm sorry, but I just have to comment here. This is clearly a propaganda film; it exists soley to push a certain biased point of view. But let's get into a deep point of showing just how much it is so.

I shall divide this up into a minute each (more or less).

Part 1

We come into the video with the appearence of a typical tactic to try to potray a sign of intelligence; a man in a nice suit in a library (this suggests that the man is sophisticated, intelligent, and successful) where he out and out states that Star Trek fans mock Star Wars fans...and apparently this was never returned because SW fans are too...sophisticated to lower themselves. This is horribly inaccurate; I doubt that most people mock the other save for the hardcore fans. They take a few quotes and then spin it into making it sound like the "trekkies" are idiots.

Then we get into where it's taken to online debates...where he claims that the rules of debate was finalized...since when was it? Surely most people favor the visual evidence over anything else, and only canon things were used because of the absurdity of using stuff that by in-universe laws, didn't happen, but who said that these rules were a 100% respected law that all must abide by, less they be considered as foolish? Nor were these "rules" expanded upon.

Then we see that siad trekkie claiming that him not being able to use the technical manuals was unfair...despite the fact that most of whom I've met don't care for the manuels. Furthermore, if this was a pro-Trek thing...why is it used by Wong? Oh, that's right, we don't want people to know that, now do we?

Part 2

We continue onto the second part of the video, where apparently the Warsie, who I must say is dressed as basically being mildly cool; he has a jacket, full head of hair, but declares his alligiance via the shirt. Clearly an indication that this guy is supposed to be accepted as the cool guy, or in a movie ideal of life; the good guy. Also notice their different location; the Trekkie is at home in a Trek-obsessed-decorated house all alone; indicating that he is a loser (of course, the point of making him having a balding head, unshaven, fat, and horribly dressed is already supposed to be telling us this), while the Warsie is of course, at some kind of club with music; suggesting that he has a social life when he is in fact, performing something that is contradictery to this.

Then we go back to "educated man" aka, the cultist mouthpiece. He claims that both sides use this accepted evidence (despite the fact that he never goes on to say what this evidence is...he just claims that it is accepted by both sides, which is incorrect since we clearly see that both sides are not agreeing as to what is evidence) to make real life calculations. The problem is he only comments on one site; clearly an indication that he wants to potray the SW side as organized, sophisticated, and intelligent. Rather than attempting to give his oppossing side a fair shake, he just waves them off with "technobabble stuff", despite the fact that in most debates, these methods or tricks are never allowed; because apparently its just cheating and a one shot thing...despite the fact that they use these one shot tricks in the majority of the god damn episodes. Then he tells us that trekkies scoff at the calculations and materials...but doesn't tell us why. He doesn't really explain why these claims are contested...he just tells us they are.

Part 3

Then we cut back to our biased idea of what a debate looks like; the cool guy, explaining that the turbolasers of an Imperial warships being 200 gigatons, which is supposedly supported by evidence...but they don't tell us what this evidence is...he justs says that it exists. We cut to the Trekkie, just basically "ignoring" his claim saying that it was never openly stated in canon...which at first seems like an attempt to show us where the warsie can explain what the evidence is...but instead we just getting him saying that the "accepted evidence"...well, why is it accepted? Who said it was accepted? What are these claims derived from? Furthermore, we again have another point in making someone looking right and someone looking wrong simply on the basis of a bias potrayel. The Warsie is displayed as sounding calm and more casual, where as the Trekkie is displayed as being childish and obsessed with the debate. Again, we have the same backround for the two to promote the initial desire to show one as better than the other.

Cut back to the sophisticated man, who is refering to Trekkies in a degrading manner who throw up "walls of ignorance"...despite the fact that he never explains why they do it...or give us evidence to support it. Of course, because he's already established in the victim's mind (I hesitate to call anyone who views this as a viewer, since this is directly made to alter someone's perception of a group via dishonest methods) that he is sophisticated, successful, and intelligent, we should believe him.

Then we get his line of Saxton...someone who is admittedly pro-wars, being allowed to write a cross section...which is not only glaringly wrong, but downright false. First off, he claims that this book is canon...why is it canon? Does he have a quote? A citation? Evidence? No, he doesn't. He just says it's true. Well, someone can say a lot of things and it not to be true. That's in fact, part of his attack upon the Trekkie side; they are idiots who spout things. And yet, he does it himself?

Part 4

Now we have the Trekkie, who I suspect by now is supposed to be Darkstar, is attempting to change the rules of debate...well, what are the rules of debate? We aren't told this very important and crucial detail. Why not? And why is he declaring it? If he wishes to say this, what would his evidence be? And if the rules of debate were established by the fans who are debating this...why is it a crime to change it once more? Are we to believe that the first set of rules are to be perfect? And if so why? And where is the evidence that suggests such a metting took place?

Part 5

And so we get the intelligent man once again speaking; claiming that Trekkies are using walls of ignorance and twisting the truth of the films. Well, how are they twisting these facts? What is the way that the Warsies take them? Why are these not shown?

Conclusion

This video provides no actual historical facts, no citations, no attempts at displaying why they're right, no attempts at displaying why Trekkies are wrong, no attempts at showing objectivity to the history of the debate, no attempt at showing what the rules of debate are, no attempt at showing the canon policies of both sides, and much more.

This is clearly a (poorly) made propaganda video made by an opposing debator to attempt to persuade others that he's correct because he says so and potrays someone in a negative light with no actual basis as to why we should believe him.

In other words, someone who is clearly unable to prove their position and must resort to personal attacks while attempting to sounding smart while making vague claims that they don't back up themselves.

--------------

Edit

As per my own experience at the start of the debate there, I was shocked at the levels of brutality shown by the debators. Because I was new and still fairly young, I was fairly easy to push around. Of course, they used some bullshit bullshit that because plasma didn't have a constant frequency, the cubes couldn't adapt to it.

This is of course, ignoring the fact that the Borg adapted to phasers that didn't have a consistant frequency as per Best of Both Worlds or how the Borg did adapt to a plasma weapon designed to make it impossible to match frequencies.

Eventually I just out and out quite out of literal disgust for the people there.

Tyralak wrote:

Mike DiCenso wrote:After reading even a few enteries, I just shook my head and laughed. What a bunch of masterbatory revisionist nonsense! "Anyone can edit"? Ha! You have to register first, and we all know what that really means in SDN-speak: they get total control over who actually can write and edit the articles with anyone who attempts to write anything that is pro-ST, or tries to write more balanced articles on people they refer to as "trolls", then you'd no doubt be blocked, and probably had your personal registration information plastered up on SDN for all to see.

The tone and feel of that piece of crap is just the same as the old ASVS newsgroup "FAQ".
-Mike

At least ASVS was a level playing field, which is why so many Warsies moved on to SDN where they could control the debate. People on ASVS could not be controlled. You couldn't ban anyone, the most you could do was killfile them. You couldn't keep them from posting. I still post to ASVS, even though there's only a couple of people there. I want ASVS to come back to it's former glory, as I don't like or post at SDN. A lot of my friends from ASVS are there, but I don't like the place. I don't care for web based boards in general, because f the controlled nature, but I was invited here, and told it was a different kind of board. It seems to be, as far as I can tell, and will be posting here often.

Well, I suppose our standards of tyranny have failed this brave fella, since he didn't post that much since his last post. :D

It's not necessarily the number of posts that speaks for a person as the quality of what they post and the level of discussion it generates. See Tyralak's "In defense of TDiC thread".
-Mike

Aw come on, that's Chinese snack philosophy. he just said he'd post here often.
Just pulling a leg, see? :)

Oragahn wrote:he just said he'd post here often.

True, but he never specified when... :)

Praeothmin wrote:

Oragahn wrote:he just said he'd post here often.

True, but he never specified when... :)

So you foresee a massive flood in two or three years?

Or two or three decades... :)

Or tomorrow... or even next Tuesday.
-Mike

If anybody doubted SDN BIAS and personal vendetta's style here is irrefutable proof provided by one of the MODs there.

Alyeska wrote:Your right, probably something like that. I don't like you. I never really did. Thing is, you were already on egg shells over a variety of things. You've had plenty of warnings before. I especially loved your claims about Dim mak. You were already on a razors edge and that post is merely what pushed you over the side. Thing is, we didn't just ban you because we wanted to. We have discussed your fate more then once and elected not to ban you until now.

FYI, plagiarism is not a crime.

To boot it off he tries to make it sound that is alright to falsely accuse someone of something he or she has not done simply because the courts do not see it as a criminal offense. Off course such a thing would also guarantee that you would never get a job in any paper or ever publish anything for the remainder of your days but you get the pictuire of what these people are like and what they are about, he will probably come here and post the threat I made against him and yes I did because at that time I was royally pissed and still am but death threats are not and have never been my style either. These guys love to push people to the edge that's for sure.

You really are a twit aren't you. I already nailed you cold on plagiarism from SD.net to SB.com. You then nitpick the definition of plagiarism to make it look like we are calling you a criminal. You are a sore loser.

Nice thread necro.

Alyeska wrote:You really are a twit aren't you. I already nailed you cold on plagiarism from SD.net to SB.com. You then nitpick the definition of plagiarism to make it look like we are calling you a criminal. You are a sore loser.

Nice thread necro.

Correction what you did was to fish for an "I took partial credit" angle because you knew that there was no way in this earth to make the charge on plagiarizing Mr. Oragahn work stick.