Jedi Master Spock, post your education credentials

[Roondar]

Nice try...

And thanks! You helped me prove my point. I mentioned my education precisely hoping for a reaction like this :)

So you're an attention whore, nice.

Not quite.

See, the point of my post was not at all what you distilled it down to with your attempt. The main point was (which you seemed to miss) that an education is not a shield you can hide behind in a debate.

Arguments stand or fall based on their merits and not on the education/credentials of whoever posts them. Some people on SDN apparently feel their arguments are correct because of the education of the people who post them.

And as soon as Mr. Saxton or anyone else starts talking magic (i.e. Hypermatter in all it's forms, slower-than-light speed TL's that are still just photons even though they don't act like them, etc) they can't refer to their education as a shield to prove their point. See, I don't doubt the credentials of Mr. Saxton or anyone else in the debates. I doubt some of their conclusions and arguments.

And even if educated people are talking in their own field, a mistake is still a mistake after all.

Frankly, with the level of 'science' used in these debates (mostly early high school level at best) arguing that a formal education in the subject makes one better able to judge is downright silly.

Especially since some of the claims made by (or supported by) the people in question can be proven false with no more than knowledge of watts, joules, a calculator and about two minutes of effort (top end).

[Mr. Oragahn]

Frankly, with the level of 'science' used in these debates (mostly early high school level at best) arguing that a formal education in the subject makes one better able to judge is downright silly.

Especially since some of the claims made by (or supported by) the people in question can be proven false with no more than knowledge of watts, joules, a calculator and about two minutes of effort (top end).

Hey, stop that. Respect the myth damnit!

[GStone]

Roondar respects nothing...except pasta and animated skeleton bones.

[Who is like God arbour]

That's not exactly what I have said.

Then what did you mean?

• • [...] But the question, what use the knowledge and understanding of natural sciences have in the analyses of science fiction and the in it shown abilities, still stands. Why would someone with a degree in natural sciences be better qualified to analyze sience fiction, than a littérateur or a philosopher or a jurist or any other person, who has learned text analysis and interpretation (as long as they have at least the same knowledge and understanding of science, the author or producer of that science fiction has had and has observed)?

    • • • • Yes, if an author like David Brin would write a science fiction story, observing all known laws of nature and restrict the abilities and technologies in that story to these laws, what means that he wouldn't create abilities or technologies, which are or may not be possible, it would be really usefull to have the same knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature, such an author has used to create that science fiction.
            Because in such case, with such knowledge and understanding, one would be able to really understand, how the things are working. But let us be honest, such science fiction would be boring (abilities- and technology-wise, not necessary plot-wise).

That was to your try to justify the insulting of Traviss, as it was described in the OP. You have stated, that Karen Traviss was a Reservist and a member of the RFA and that in terms of military credentials she ranks somewhere between a cockroach and an Officer Cadet and that the fact, that it was only the RNXS would make her credentials even less impressive.

In case you didn't notice I passed on information while insulting her. The problem with you and your ilk is that you think looking at someones credentials logically is also an insult. Even though by your own admittance you don't understand enough to be a qualified judge.

No, I don't think, that looking at someones credentialsi s an insult. I never have said that or similar thing.
I think, that it is an insult to call her »Karen Travissty«, »particularly fucking stupid retard«, »bitch with a sorry existence«, »a fucking disgrace with childish behaviour«, »loony as a toon with a a persecution complex out her ass«, »a fucking cunt, who actually suck worse than KJA«, »someone, who has gone ballistic«, »someone, who went nuts«, »someone, who is a tyrannical maniac« (and that's only from one single SDN thread [1]).
It's irrelevant, what she has written or what her credentials are. Such insultings are always inappropriate. They are unnecessary, have nothing to do with freedom of opinion and endanger public freedom. And they show, that not only her work is not respected, but she as a human being is not respected too.

I have argued that she has with that more experience and training than all those, who have never served in armed forces but are insulting her nevertheless.

The problem is that not all experiance is valid to the topic at hand. In fact your going to see that her experiance is in fact not even worth mentioning once the last piece of info comes through but frankly even with what I've got it's more than enough to show that.

Would you have read my whole post, before starting to answer it, you would have seen, that this is exactly, what I have had already written.

I have not argued, that this is relevant.

Quite the contrary. I have always argued, that such things proves nothing. For example, I know that many officers are only doing administrative work and are no military genius either. I assume, that this is the same in the Canadian forces. Do you think, that Daniel Kaffee or Bud Roberts are good at military tactics and strategy - although they could say, that they are professional soldiers? Alone the fact, that someone has served in a force, doesn't proves his qualification to describe certain aspects of military if that lies out of his own experience.

Congrats, you get a gold star.

Please consider, that english is not my mother tongue. I don't know the meaning of »gold star« and it is not explained in my dictionary. What did you wanted to say?

And that's why there is no reason to insult Traviss because you think - not even know, that she has no real military experience.

See here that's the thing. From what I've it's more than enough to damn her. You just have to have the experiance to read between the lines.

The fact, that she may have no own experience is enough to damn her? Because, up to now, you don't know, what experiences she has.
And as I have said, even if she has no experience, that's not a reason to damn her or insult her. You don't have to like her work. But you also don't have to attack her in person. State, what you don't like in her work. State, what you don't like in her behaviour. But don't insult her, don't degrade her human dignity. With comments as the above, you are doing exactly that.

Furthermore, there is a difference:

• If one would say, that he has military experience, I would accept his expertise, as soon, as my experience and knowledge is outshined. I wouldn't even try to argue military topics with that person and accept, what he says - as long as he tries to explain it to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to conceede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.

Part of your problem is that you don't know enough to peg something as fallacious. And I see no reason to dumb things down enough for you to understand it. You can afterall look it up.

You don't know my own military experiences. I have served in the German forces. I have had common basic training in a paratrooper company. My special basic training was in an airborne sapper company. After that, I have made my skydive license. After that, I was again positioned in a paratrooper company. (No, I want prove it. We can talk about my experiences and about what I have learned. But I won't give further personal informations.)
I don't claim, that I have more experiences that you have. But I think to know enough, to regocnise the one or other fallacy. Besides that, I have enough common sense.
And if you want to debate, you have to explain sometimes your thoughts. You can't claim something and expect that all are believing you without any explanations, only because ypu say, that you have corresponding experience. If you expect that, you shouldn't debate at all.

[*]If one would say, that he has studied mathematics, I would accept his expertise, as soon, as my experience and knowledge is outshined, what would happen relativ soon because I hate mathe (it's not that I don't understand it, it's that - although my approach was always correct, my solutions were always wrong. I have always made silly fidget-errors). I would accept his solutions for calculations, from which I know, that I can't comprehend them or only with an effort, that's inappropriate. I would not question his calculations and have to trust, that he is honest. But I still would be able to check the premises of that calculation.

So why do you argue against Dr. Saxtons findings even though he is more qualified than you?

I have never doubted his caloulations. If he says, that it would need so and so much energy to destroy a planet, I believe him. If he says, that it would need so and so much energy to slag the entire surface of an planet within one hour, I believe him. I don't check his calculations.
But - as I have said - I check his premises.
I can ask, how he thinks to prove, that the Death Star main weapon is a DET weapon and not a CR weapon and that it delivers that energy and not only create a funky chain reaction.
I can ask, from where he takes the information, that a Star Destroyer is able to slag the entire surface of an planet within one hour.
His calculations may be correct. But - for me, that would only be interessting, if the premisses of these calculations are confirmed. And up to now, I don't see, that these premises are confirmed.

[*]If one would say, that he has studied engineering, I would accept his expertise in his field. But I would still expect, that he tries to explain its reason to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to conceede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.

So why do argue against Mike Wong when he is more qualified than you?

I have never argued against him in an area, in which he is more qualified than I am. And yes, there are some areas - even in the versus debate, where is knowledge is relevant. But, as I have shown - and you have again not confuted, in most areas, his knowledge is irrelevant. He is not able to explain Star Wars technology or Star Trek technology. He knows not more about subspace physic or hyperspace physic, than I know.

[*]And if one could say, that he has experience with subspace physics, knows, how phasers, turpolasers shields etc. are operating, I would accept his expertise. But I would still expect, that he tries to explain its reason to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to concede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.

So why do argue against those that attempt these things that are more qualified than you?

Would you have read my whole post, before starting to answer it, you would have seen, that I have had already answered that question. There is no one, who knows more about Star Wars technology or Star Trek technology than I know - as long as we have read the same books and have seen the same movies.
There is no one, who can claim to have experience with it or has studied it or can comprehend it.

But the latter will never happen because there is no one, who could claim that and there are no reasons, that could be explained comprehensible.[/list]

Ahh back to the it's Sci-Fi so it's not possible excuse again.

Would you have read my whole post, before starting to answer it, you would have seen, that's not only an excuse. You could have refuted my argument. But you have done nothing. Why is it an excuse? Why would someone with a degree in natural sciences are better qualified to explain science fiction, that is invented from soneone, who has not or only little thought about science, while inventing it?

And don't think, that I haven't noticed, that you still haven't responded to my questions and objections.

Why would I give you yet another soapbox? Everyone knows what your going to say anyways. And half the time the people on this board who agree with you won't even touch it.

Because you could refute my argument. You could prove, that it's only an excuse. You could prove, that someone with a degree in natural sciences is better qualified to explain the laws of subspace and hyperspace than someone, who has read the same books and has seen the same movies and knows as much about these things.

[Roondar]

Frankly, with the level of 'science' used in these debates (mostly early high school level at best) arguing that a formal education in the subject makes one better able to judge is downright silly.

Especially since some of the claims made by (or supported by) the people in question can be proven false with no more than knowledge of watts, joules, a calculator and about two minutes of effort (top end).

Hey, stop that. Respect the myth damnit!

If it makes you feel better, I find silly claims on both sides of the debate, well... Silly :)

@Gstone:

Nah, I don't respect animated skeleton bones at all. Unless they glow in the dark. Or sing.

[GStone]

Please consider, that english is not my mother tongue. I don't know the meaning of »gold star« and it is not explained in my dictionary. What did you wanted to say?

Gold stars are stickers that are given to children in the early school education years for excellence. When it's used by adults in a manner that is not friendly, it is used as an insult, suggesting that the one getting the gold star is just a child or is exhibiting childish behavior or just the accusation of being childish or having a similar behavior.

[Who is like God arbour]

OK ... ... ...

And how does that fit in the context?

• • • • I have not argued, that this is relevant.
        
        Quite the contrary. I have always argued, that such things proves nothing. For example, I know that many officers are only doing administrative work and are no military genius either. I assume, that this is the same in the Canadian forces. Do you think, that Daniel Kaffee or Bud Roberts are good at military tactics and strategy - although they could say, that they are professional soldiers? Alone the fact, that someone has served in a force, doesn't proves his qualification to describe certain aspects of military if that lies out of his own experience.

        Congrats, you get a gold star.

I mean, I'm not the one, who constantly asks for a proof for education. I have never claimed, that someone with a degree in anything has to be better qualified to explain things, that has nothing to do with his qualification. I have never claimed, that someone with military experience has to be a military genius in all fields.
What I have said is no profound insight but should be to everyone self-evident.
But these insight seems not to have reached those, who are still demanding degrees and proof of experience or education, even if it has nothing to do with the debated topic.
I would say, that with that statement, Cpl Kendall has realised at last, what I have known and said all the time and he should get the gold star.
But by claiming indirectly again, that Mike Wrong would be better qualified to explain subspace physic, he shows, that he has still not understood, that the whole education of Mr. Wrong is useless for that topic. Mike Wrong unchallenged could be the worlds best engineer and he would still not be able to explain subspace physic or hyperspace physic or turbo-lasers or phasers or shields etc.
Cpl Kendall doesn't seem to be able to understood that simple fact.

[GStone]

OK ... ... ...

And how does that fit in the context?

I get the impression that he meant it to mean = 'you said something that is obvious and you acted like it was something no one else could think of'.

At least, that is what he seems to want to assign to what you wrote, possibly as a way to deflect from what he has said previously.

[Mr. Oragahn]

So why do you argue against Dr. Saxtons findings even though he is more qualified than you?
So why do argue against Mike Wong when he is more qualified than you?
So why do argue against those that attempt these things that are more qualified than you?

What is your point?

[Cpl Kendall]

OK ... ... ...

And how does that fit in the context?

• • • • I have not argued, that this is relevant.
        
        Quite the contrary. I have always argued, that such things proves nothing. For example, I know that many officers are only doing administrative work and are no military genius either. I assume, that this is the same in the Canadian forces. Do you think, that Daniel Kaffee or Bud Roberts are good at military tactics and strategy - although they could say, that they are professional soldiers? Alone the fact, that someone has served in a force, doesn't proves his qualification to describe certain aspects of military if that lies out of his own experience.

        Congrats, you get a gold star.

I mean, I'm not the one, who constantly asks for a proof for education. I have never claimed, that someone with a degree in anything has to be better qualified to explain things, that has nothing to do with his qualification. I have never claimed, that someone with military experience has to be a military genius in all fields.
What I have said is no profound insight but should be to everyone self-evident.
But these insight seems not to have reached those, who are still demanding degrees and proof of experience or education, even if it has nothing to do with the debated topic.
I would say, that with that statement, Cpl Kendall has realised at last, what I have known and said all the time and he should get the gold star.
But by claiming indirectly again, that Mike Wrong would be better qualified to explain subspace physic, he shows, that he has still not understood, that the whole education of Mr. Wrong is useless for that topic. Mike Wrong unchallenged could be the worlds best engineer and he would still not be able to explain subspace physic or hyperspace physic or turbo-lasers or phasers or shields etc.
Cpl Kendall doesn't seem to be able to understood that simple fact.

Take a look at your first quoted post in this reply. Compare it to this:

According to Wikipedia, Karen Traviss served in both the Territorial Army and the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service.

Wikipedia:
The Territorial Army (TA) is the principal and Volunteer reserve force of the British Army, the land armed forces branch of the United Kingdom, and composed mostly of part-time soldiers paid at the same rate, while engaged on military activities, as their Regular equivalents. [...] The TA forms about a quarter of the overall manpower strength of the Army. Its original purpose was home defence although the establishment of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve in 1967 involved a restructuring and revised doctrine leading to provision of routine support for the Regular army overseas.
Territorial soldiers, or Territorials, are volunteers who undergo military training in their spare time either as part of a formed local unit or as specialists in a professional field. TA members have a minimum commitment to serve 27 training days per annum, with specialists only required to serve 19 days, which normally includes a two-week annual camp. [...] Territorials normally have a full-time job or career, which in some cases provides skills and expertise that are directly transferable to a specialist military role, such as NHS employees serving in TA Army Medical Services units.

With that, she has more experience and training than all those, who have never served in armed forces and have their whole knowledge about combat and war from TV and computer games, especially considering, that her military training in those training days would have been concentrated. How much military training have all those, who have claimed, that she knows absolutely nothing about military tactics or logistics?

You originally claim that Karen Traviss experiance is relevant to her stories by virtue of the fact that she simply served. You've since changed your position to say that military experiance isn't important unless it pertains to the subject at hand.

For that you get a gold star because you've realised what I've been saying. That experiance does not correspond to relevance.

[Who is like God arbour]

That's, again, not true. Maybe you should read again:

Now, what I'm about to do is analyze and compare the polls posted here and SDN. Obviously, if you really think that there's a significant difference in the honesty levels of the two boards, you don't need to read any further, as this post will be mostly useless to you.

Polls are about finding the MOST of a category. What the hell does it mean if a community has mostly undergraduates, if there's one genius on them? Absolutely nothing. The thing most of you kids don't realize is when Mike asks for people to show credentials, it's not because he thinks you need anything more than high school to do this... simple thing of Star Trek versus Star Wars. It's because he doesn't want to waste his time, and there happens to be a lot of morons in high school. That's it.

That's not it - nor, incidentally, have I seen any displays of scientific genius on SDN, for all that some people occasionally display brief moments of scientific competence.

It has been claimed that only "uneducated kiddies" - in those words - disagree with SDN's conclusions. It has been claimed that SDN's opponents are universally uneducated, and that the educated universally are found on one side of the VS debate. This is part of a pattern of propaganda supporting the main force of the argument offered by SDN, which is about a third ad populum, a third appeal to authority, and a third ad hominem.

Leaving aside the obvious handful whose credentials are known, up to and including people producing EU material as well as an award-winning science fiction author who did his undergraduate work at Caltech and has a Ph. D. in physics. He has worked for NASA, worked as a physics professor, consulted and served with practically everyone who is everyone. It may not take a rocket scientist to talk about Star Wars, but he is qualified as a rocket scientist.

On SDN, of course, he has been called a "spectacular moron," and it seems to be claimed that he knows nothing about science fiction or literary criticism - fields he is even more widely recognized in. On SDN, it is claimed that Karen Traviss, who both served in the British military and also worked as a defense correspondent, knows absolutely nothing military tactics, logistics, or even about Star Wars, which she is actively writing. It is claimed that Kennedy, who teaches physics to high school students every day, does not grasp the high-school level physics common to the VS debate.

Examples like those demonstrate fairly clearly that the propaganda about educated individuals all claiming SW will win is false. The statistics further suggest, more specifically, that the average SDN resident can't claim a superior education to the average SFJ resident.

As of the time I went over, checked, and copied and pasted, 78 respondents have answered SDN's poll, and an astounding 21 have answered ours here on SFJ. That's about as good as we can expect here for the time being. I'll assume that not too many ill-willed trolls [or propaganda-minded moderators] have influenced the results on either board, at least yet.

We may assume, of course, that any percentage on the poll is a random variable, approximately normally distributed with a standard deviation of around ~sqrt(p(1-p)/n) (about 10% smaller in the case of SFJ, because we have a significant fraction of the population answering).

The difference between those two is normally distributed with a mean equal to the difference of the means, and a standard deviation equal to the square root of the sum of the squares (assuming that they're independent; a few people like Opecoiler are registered on both boards.) We can check what the probability is that the sign will be positive or negative by asking a calculator, spreadsheet, or table of values to spit out the appropriate cumulative distribution function for 0.

I predicted we would have no statistically significant differences between the two polls. Was I right? Let's look at the percentages from the distributions. (+/- are the standard deviations of the distributions.)

Probability that SDN has a higher percentage with a bachelor's or higher education: 32% (+/-11%)
This actually starts to resemble statistical significance here to the assertion that SFJ has slightly more educated people.

Probability that SDN has a higher percentage with a lower-than-bachelor's education, discounting "other" category: 52% (+/- 11%).
No statistical significance here whatsoever.

But is there any large difference?

Probability that SFJ has more than twice percentage of "educated" individuals: Negligible accounting for error.

Probability that SDN has more than twice percentage of "educated" individuals: Negligible accounting for error.

Very unlikely. Anything else interesting? Well, assuming that "below high school" level or "in high school" level education corresponds universally to kids:

Probability that SDN has more "uneducated kids" than SFJ: 77% (+/-7%).

I was, in other words, a bit off here. It seems that the polls do suggest some minor differences in the populations of the two boards - most notably, SDN seems to do a better job reaching out to youth - but, ultimately, these demographic differences aren't very significant.

Karen Traviss was a Reservist and a member of the RFA. In terms of military credentials she ranks somewhere between a cockroach and an Officer Cadet.

Edit: Oh sorry it was the RNXS, which makes her credentials even less impressive. Essentially they were involved in evacuating ports in time of attack. That essentially limits her expertise to rapid movement of civvies which has nothing to do with how a military operates. It would be more impressive if she actually had been a member of the RFA, she still would have been a flat-faced civvie but at least she'd know how to refuel ships at sea and how to move ammo.

Karen Traviss was a Reservist and a member of the RFA. In terms of military credentials she ranks somewhere between a cockroach and an Officer Cadet.

If she was a Reservist, wouldn't she has been an active member of the military first? In Germany, only those, who leave the armed forces - after they have served and therewith are experienced and trained - can become Reservists.



Edit:

Edit: Oh sorry it was the RNXS, which makes her credentials even less impressive. Essentially they were involved in evacuating ports in time of attack. That essentially limits her expertise to rapid movement of civvies which has nothing to do with how a military operates. It would be more impressive if she actually had been a member of the RFA, she still would have been a flat-faced civvie but at least she'd know how to refuel ships at sea and how to move ammo.

According to Wikipedia, Karen Traviss served in both the Territorial Army and the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service.

• Wikipedia:
  • The Territorial Army (TA) is the principal and Volunteer reserve force of the British Army, the land armed forces branch of the United Kingdom, and composed mostly of part-time soldiers paid at the same rate, while engaged on military activities, as their Regular equivalents. [...] The TA forms about a quarter of the overall manpower strength of the Army. Its original purpose was home defence although the establishment of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve in 1967 involved a restructuring and revised doctrine leading to provision of routine support for the Regular army overseas.
    Territorial soldiers, or Territorials, are volunteers who undergo military training in their spare time either as part of a formed local unit or as specialists in a professional field. TA members have a minimum commitment to serve 27 training days per annum, with specialists only required to serve 19 days, which normally includes a two-week annual camp. [...] Territorials normally have a full-time job or career, which in some cases provides skills and expertise that are directly transferable to a specialist military role, such as NHS employees serving in TA Army Medical Services units.

With that, she has more experience and training than all those, who have never served in armed forces and have their whole knowledge about combat and war from TV and computer games, especially considering, that her military training in those training days would have been concentrated. How much military training have all those, who have claimed, that she knows absolutely nothing about military tactics or logistics?

But even if not, it's still don't justify the her treatment or that of David Brin, whose credentials are not in doubt. Karen Traviss was mentioned in only one single sentence in the whole OP from Jedi Master Spock:

• »On SDN, it is claimed that Karen Traviss, who both served in the British military and also worked as a defense correspondent, knows absolutely nothing military tactics, logistics, or even about Star Wars, which she is actively writing.«

And all you do is attacking that single sentence and ignoring all the other statements about rude behavior of the board, you are regularly defending.

And you and the likes of you wonder, why many people are not willing to debate at SDN or why many educated persons don't want to debate such topics at all. It's simply not possible at SDN because, instead of real, substantiated arguments, many SDN members use only argumentum ad hominem and get insulting.

Karen Traviss was a Reservist and a member of the RFA. In terms of military credentials she ranks somewhere between a cockroach and an Officer Cadet.

If she was a Reservist, wouldn't she has been an active member of the military first? In Germany, only those, who leave the armed forces - after they have served and therewith are experienced and trained - can become Reservists.

No you don't. In the UK you can join either the Territorial's or the Regular Army. No prior experiance is required, they have a volunteer system so you are free to choose. Germany has a conscript system so everyone serves and you apperently have the choice to remain in the Reserves when you leave. THat is common to other conscript systems such as Israel or Switzerland.

Edit:
According to Wikipedia, Karen Traviss served in both the Territorial Army and the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service.

• Wikipedia:
  • The Territorial Army (TA) is the principal and Volunteer reserve force of the British Army, the land armed forces branch of the United Kingdom, and composed mostly of part-time soldiers paid at the same rate, while engaged on military activities, as their Regular equivalents. [...] The TA forms about a quarter of the overall manpower strength of the Army. Its original purpose was home defence although the establishment of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve in 1967 involved a restructuring and revised doctrine leading to provision of routine support for the Regular army overseas.
    Territorial soldiers, or Territorials, are volunteers who undergo military training in their spare time either as part of a formed local unit or as specialists in a professional field. TA members have a minimum commitment to serve 27 training days per annum, with specialists only required to serve 19 days, which normally includes a two-week annual camp. [...] Territorials normally have a full-time job or career, which in some cases provides skills and expertise that are directly transferable to a specialist military role, such as NHS employees serving in TA Army Medical Services units.

With that, she has more experience and training than all those, who have never served in armed forces and have their whole knowledge about combat and war from TV and computer games, especially considering, that her military training in those training days would have been concentrated. How much military training have all those, who have claimed, that she knows absolutely nothing about military tactics or logistics?

You don't have to explain what the Territorials are, I am fully aware of the formation. Part of my objection is that we know nothing about her service. What trade was she? How long did she serve? Did she serve on active operations?

What you don't understand is that merely serving in the military does not qualify you to speak on what goes on, or use it as an example for your stories. If she was a Log Wog, how does that qualify her to write about Special Operations (the Clone Commando books)? There are huge amounts of people that served in the military that are shitpumps. There's even a small amount of them on SDN.

To add to that, there's no personal info of worth on her site or Wikipedia. So I can't figure her age or likely time of service, which would tie into what trade she was based on when the UK Army integrated women into the Army and what trades they were allowed to join.

And the fact that she was a member of the RNXS proves nothing. It is a civvie run organisation serving the military and is responsible for the evacuation or ports when under attack. We know nothing about her specific service with them, what function she had or how long she served.

And the fact that she doesn't mention what Operations she served on does not bode well. The majority of service personell are proud of their operations and will list them on their bios. Which leaves me to believe she did nothing of note.

But even if not, it's still don't justify the her treatment or that of David Brin, whose credentials are not in doubt. Karen Traviss was mentioned in only one single sentence in the whole OP from Jedi Master Spock:

• »On SDN, it is claimed that Karen Traviss, who both served in the British military and also worked as a defense correspondent, knows absolutely nothing military tactics, logistics, or even about Star Wars, which she is actively writing.«

And all you do is attacking that single sentence and ignoring all the other statements about rude behavior of the board, you are regularly defending.

You don't know anything about her service or the military in general, you are not qualified to speak on these matters. But I'm sure Google will serve you in good stead.

What does the fact that she was a defense correspondent matter? Do you know what that title implies? It implies that she reported on military systems, not the military itself. In addition we know nothing pertinent about her writings during that time, nor how long she did it. For all we know she reported on the latest upgrade to the bloody Mess Tent.

Third, I do not care what you think of the culture of SDN. If I didn't at least tolerate it, I wouldn't be there.

If you can find any info on Traviss's career then I encourage you to find it. So far I'm 0 for 5, I can't find anything. So I see no reason to assume that she's a military expert.

And you and the likes of you wonder, why many people are not willing to debate at SDN or why many educated persons don't want to debate such topics at all. It's simply not possible at SDN because, instead of real, substantiated arguments, many SDN members use only argumentum ad hominem and get insulting.

Their absence does not concern me. I rarely engage in SW vs ST debates on SDN except to provide a real-life military point of view and how it effects the debate. Most of the people on the board don't engage either, SDN has eleven other forums to participate in that are just as interesting.

Let me sum up this thread:

"Provide proof of your education. Without it your arguments need not be taken seriously by <random board>"

"Err, no"

"Stop evading!"

"I'm not evading - I said no"

"That is evading!"

etc...

Man, I'm not sure wether to laugh or cry... Nevertheless, I'll say again: an appeal to authority never works. Presence or absence of a formal education has no bearing on the correctness of an argument.

Especially not in something as silly as a Science Fiction debate. And until there is a formal education that teaches "Warp field manipulation" or "Turbolaser technology", kindly take your elitist crap about educational credentials and leave.

And before people try to play that card, I do in fact have a bachelors degree. And no, I do not care if you think my statement meaningless and require proof.

Your post broken down:

OMG! None of this is real, therefore we can't use science for our analysis! Why I'm on a forum dedicated to that, I don't know. But wait, I have an education too! So I'm relevant but I just said it doesn't matter, so why am I mentioning it?

[...]

Nevertheless, I'll say again: an appeal to authority never works. Presence or absence of a formal education has no bearing on the correctness of an argument.

Especially not in something as silly as a Science Fiction debate. And until there is a formal education that teaches "Warp field manipulation" or "Turbolaser technology", kindly take your elitist crap about educational credentials and leave.

[...]

Your post broken down:

OMG! None of this is real, therefore we can't use science for our analysis! Why I'm on a forum dedicated to that, I don't know. [...]

Why do you think, that this forum - or SDN or any other forum - is dedicated to use science for the analysis of "Warp fiel physics" or "turbolaser technology"?

• You have no evidence, that turbolasers are DET-weapons and phasers CR-weapons or that the main weapon of the Death Star is operating on the same principles as the turbolaser because you don't know, how each of them are operating and what exactly they are doing to their targets.
  

  • • • [...]
        
        Curtis Saxton, who holds a PhD in astrophysics, states:

        • Pinning down the nature of beam weapons in SW is a very very tricky proposition. If you take this option I recommend that you confine your discussion to statements of effects and capabilities. Trying to answer the question of "what is a turbolaser" will inevitably lead to a wild goose chase. Frankly, it's easier to make sense of hyperspace.

        [...]
        
        The exact nature of Star Wars beam weapons remains open to debate. None of the theories presented above explain all the effects of TL bolts. Only one thing is certain: turbolasers, blasters, and lightsabres are not lasers as we know them today.
        
        [...]

• You don't know, on which principles the hyperdrive or the warpdrive is based and therefore which is the better technology.
• You don't know, how a hypermatter-generator is exactly working because you don't even know, what exactly hypermatter is and what is done with it in that generator.
• You don't even know exactly, how the warp core is working, because, if it would work as it is said canonwise - through the annihilation of deuterium and anti-deuterium, it wouldn't be able to produce enough energy to accelerate the ship to the velocities, it has reached, relativistic effects ignored (And if it would work like the Alcubierre drive by creating a warp bubble of flat space, it would need far more energy than the annihilation of deuterium and anti-deuterium of the mass, a ship like the Enterprise could carry.)
• You don't know, how Star Trek shields are operating or how Star Wars shields, from which is said, that they are a volumetric fields, that extend out from the surface of the shield projector and diffuse applied energy back into the environment, although with that, they wouldn't be shields anymore, because a shield has per definition a clear outline, are exactly working.
• You don't even know, if Star Wars ships are equipped with neutrino radiators, let allone how they could convert excess energy into neutrinos.
  
  • • • • etc. etc. etc.

All you can do, is observe the effects and compare the different effect with each other and real life effects:

• How much damage does a phaser, how much damage does a turbo-laser and how much energy would be needed to achieve the same damage with real life weapons.
• How fast can ships get with their drive and how much energy would be needed to accelerate an object to such velocities in real life, ignoring relativistic effects.
• What protection gives a shield. To estimate that, you can't look, at how much weapon fire a shield can block, because you don't know, how that weapon fire strains the shield. It could be, that Star Trek shields are able to block Star Wars fire with ease or that Star Wars fire is not affected by Star Trek shields at all and vice versa or that Star Wars fire and Star Trek shields or Star Wars shields and Star Trek fire interact the same way as Star Trek shields and Star Trek weapons or Star Wars shields and Star Wars weapons. You can only take events, in which you really know the to the shields applied energy and even than, you don't know, if the shields woudn't be able to handle other sorts of energy better.
  
  • • • • etc. etc. etc.

Please explain me, where you would use science to analyse such things and why a degree would be usefull for that task!

WILGA, I suggest you bugger yourself. How anyone could mistake what I said for a serious post is beyond me. Sarcasm, look it up.

Maybe because the tenor of your post is, regardless how you have formulated it, the same tenor, many SDN members, inclusive Opecoiler, who has started that thread, but also Mr. Wrong and others, are striking.

And it may be, that I have problems to recognise english sarcasm, but it seems, that Roondar also hasn't recognised that your post was meant sarcastically.

And to be honest, I'm still not able to recognise the sarcasm in its tenor. The way, you have phrased it, may be parodic, but that doesn't change, what you have wanted to say with it - or rather, what I think, what you have wanted to say.

But regardless of that, I find my qestions and objections are still justified. Maybe, if you or Opecoiler or somebody else would have answered these questions, I wouldn't ask them again. But the question, what use the knowledge and understanding of natural sciences have in the analyses of science fiction and the in it shown abilities, still stands. Why would someone with a degree in natural sciences be better qualified to analyze sience fiction, than a littérateur or a philosopher or a jurist or any other person, who has learned text analysis and interpretation (as long as they have at least the same knowledge and understanding of science, the author or producer of that science fiction has had and has observed)?

• • • • Yes, if an author like David Brin would write a science fiction story, observing all known laws of nature and restrict the abilities and technologies in that story to these laws, what means that he wouldn't create abilities or technologies, which are or may not be possible, it would be really usefull to have the same knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature, such an author has used to create that science fiction.
        Because in such case, with such knowledge and understanding, one would be able to really understand, how the things are working. But let us be honest, such science fiction would be boring (abilities- and technology-wise, not necessary plot-wise).

So here you say that education or experiance doesn't matter because it's Sci-FI but when your talking about Traviss, some how it does matter because she was in the military.

Do you have a position or are you just spouting off whatever will help your argument?

So here you say that education or experiance doesn't matter because it's Sci-FI ...

That's not exactly what I have said.

... but when your talking about Traviss, some how it does matter because she was in the military.

That was to your try to justify the insulting of Traviss, as it was described in the OP. You have stated, that Karen Traviss was a Reservist and a member of the RFA and that in terms of military credentials she ranks somewhere between a cockroach and an Officer Cadet and that the fact, that it was only the RNXS would make her credentials even less impressive.

I have argued that she has with that more experience and training than all those, who have never served in armed forces but are insulting her nevertheless.

I have not argued, that this is relevant.

Quite the contrary. I have always argued, that such things proves nothing. For example, I know that many officers are only doing administrative work and are no military genius either. I assume, that this is the same in the Canadian forces. Do you think, that Daniel Kaffee or Bud Roberts are good at military tactics and strategy - although they could say, that they are professional soldiers? Alone the fact, that someone has served in a force, doesn't proves his qualification to describe certain aspects of military if that lies out of his own experience.

And that's why there is no reason to insult Traviss because you think - not even know, that she has no real military experience.

Furthermore, there is a difference:

• If one would say, that he has military experience, I would accept his expertise, as soon, as my experience and knowledge is outshined. I wouldn't even try to argue military topics with that person and accept, what he says - as long as he tries to explain it to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to conceede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.
• If one would say, that he has studied mathematics, I would accept his expertise, as soon, as my experience and knowledge is outshined, what would happen relativ soon because I hate mathe (it's not that I don't understand it, it's that - although my approach was always correct, my solutions were always wrong. I have always made silly fidget-errors). I would accept his solutions for calculations, from which I know, that I can't comprehend them or only with an effort, that's inappropriate. I would not question his calculations and have to trust, that he is honest. But I still would be able to check the premises of that calculation.
• If one would say, that he has studied engineering, I would accept his expertise in his field. But I would still expect, that he tries to explain its reason to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to conceede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.
• And if one could say, that he has experience with subspace physics, knows, how phasers, turpolasers shields etc. are operating, I would accept his expertise. But I would still expect, that he tries to explain its reason to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to concede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.
  
  But the latter will never happen because there is no one, who could claim that and there are no reasons, that could be explained comprehensible.

And don't think, that I haven't noticed, that you still haven't responded to my questions and objections.

That's not exactly what I have said.

Then what did you mean?

That was to your try to justify the insulting of Traviss, as it was described in the OP. You have stated, that Karen Traviss was a Reservist and a member of the RFA and that in terms of military credentials she ranks somewhere between a cockroach and an Officer Cadet and that the fact, that it was only the RNXS would make her credentials even less impressive.

In case you didn't notice I passed on information while insulting her. The problem with you and your ilk is that you think looking at someones credentials logically is also an insult. Even though by your own admittance you don't understand enough to be a qualified judge.

I have argued that she has with that more experience and training than all those, who have never served in armed forces but are insulting her nevertheless.

The problem is that not all experiance is valid to the topic at hand. In fact your going to see that her experiance is in fact not even worth mentioning once the last piece of info comes through but frankly even with what I've got it's more than enough to show that.

I have not argued, that this is relevant.

Quite the contrary. I have always argued, that such things proves nothing. For example, I know that many officers are only doing administrative work and are no military genius either. I assume, that this is the same in the Canadian forces. Do you think, that Daniel Kaffee or Bud Roberts are good at military tactics and strategy - although they could say, that they are professional soldiers? Alone the fact, that someone has served in a force, doesn't proves his qualification to describe certain aspects of military if that lies out of his own experience.

Congrats, you get a gold star.

And that's why there is no reason to insult Traviss because you think - not even know, that she has no real military experience.

See here that's the thing. From what I've it's more than enough to damn her. You just have to have the experiance to read between the lines.

Furthermore, there is a difference:

• If one would say, that he has military experience, I would accept his expertise, as soon, as my experience and knowledge is outshined. I wouldn't even try to argue military topics with that person and accept, what he says - as long as he tries to explain it to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to conceede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.

Part of your problem is that you don't know enough to peg something as fallacious. And I see no reason to dumb things down enough for you to understand it. You can afterall look it up.

[*]If one would say, that he has studied mathematics, I would accept his expertise, as soon, as my experience and knowledge is outshined, what would happen relativ soon because I hate mathe (it's not that I don't understand it, it's that - although my approach was always correct, my solutions were always wrong. I have always made silly fidget-errors). I would accept his solutions for calculations, from which I know, that I can't comprehend them or only with an effort, that's inappropriate. I would not question his calculations and have to trust, that he is honest. But I still would be able to check the premises of that calculation.

So why do you argue against Dr. Saxtons findings even though he is more qualified than you?

[*]If one would say, that he has studied engineering, I would accept his expertise in his field. But I would still expect, that he tries to explain its reason to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to conceede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.

So why do argue against Mike Wong when he is more qualified than you?

[*]And if one could say, that he has experience with subspace physics, knows, how phasers, turpolasers shields etc. are operating, I would accept his expertise. But I would still expect, that he tries to explain its reason to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to concede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.

So why do argue against those that attempt these things that are more qualified than you?

But the latter will never happen because there is no one, who could claim that and there are no reasons, that could be explained comprehensible.[/list]

Ahh back to the it's Sci-Fi so it's not possible excuse again.

And don't think, that I haven't noticed, that you still haven't responded to my questions and objections.

Why would I give you yet another soapbox? Everyone knows what your going to say anyways. And half the time the people on this board who agree with you won't even touch it.

That's not exactly what I have said.

Then what did you mean?

• • [...] But the question, what use the knowledge and understanding of natural sciences have in the analyses of science fiction and the in it shown abilities, still stands. Why would someone with a degree in natural sciences be better qualified to analyze sience fiction, than a littérateur or a philosopher or a jurist or any other person, who has learned text analysis and interpretation (as long as they have at least the same knowledge and understanding of science, the author or producer of that science fiction has had and has observed)?

    • • • • Yes, if an author like David Brin would write a science fiction story, observing all known laws of nature and restrict the abilities and technologies in that story to these laws, what means that he wouldn't create abilities or technologies, which are or may not be possible, it would be really usefull to have the same knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature, such an author has used to create that science fiction.
            Because in such case, with such knowledge and understanding, one would be able to really understand, how the things are working. But let us be honest, such science fiction would be boring (abilities- and technology-wise, not necessary plot-wise).

That was to your try to justify the insulting of Traviss, as it was described in the OP. You have stated, that Karen Traviss was a Reservist and a member of the RFA and that in terms of military credentials she ranks somewhere between a cockroach and an Officer Cadet and that the fact, that it was only the RNXS would make her credentials even less impressive.

In case you didn't notice I passed on information while insulting her. The problem with you and your ilk is that you think looking at someones credentials logically is also an insult. Even though by your own admittance you don't understand enough to be a qualified judge.

No, I don't think, that looking at someones credentialsi s an insult. I never have said that or similar thing.
I think, that it is an insult to call her »Karen Travissty«, »particularly fucking stupid retard«, »bitch with a sorry existence«, »a fucking disgrace with childish behaviour«, »loony as a toon with a a persecution complex out her ass«, »a fucking cunt, who actually suck worse than KJA«, »someone, who has gone ballistic«, »someone, who went nuts«, »someone, who is a tyrannical maniac« (and that's only from one single SDN thread [1]).
It's irrelevant, what she has written or what her credentials are. Such insultings are always inappropriate. They are unnecessary, have nothing to do with freedom of opinion and endanger public freedom. And they show, that not only her work is not respected, but she as a human being is not respected too.

I have argued that she has with that more experience and training than all those, who have never served in armed forces but are insulting her nevertheless.

The problem is that not all experiance is valid to the topic at hand. In fact your going to see that her experiance is in fact not even worth mentioning once the last piece of info comes through but frankly even with what I've got it's more than enough to show that.

Would you have read my whole post, before starting to answer it, you would have seen, that this is exactly, what I have had already written.

I have not argued, that this is relevant.

Quite the contrary. I have always argued, that such things proves nothing. For example, I know that many officers are only doing administrative work and are no military genius either. I assume, that this is the same in the Canadian forces. Do you think, that Daniel Kaffee or Bud Roberts are good at military tactics and strategy - although they could say, that they are professional soldiers? Alone the fact, that someone has served in a force, doesn't proves his qualification to describe certain aspects of military if that lies out of his own experience.

Congrats, you get a gold star.

Please consider, that english is not my mother tongue. I don't know the meaning of »gold star« and it is not explained in my dictionary. What did you wanted to say?

And that's why there is no reason to insult Traviss because you think - not even know, that she has no real military experience.

See here that's the thing. From what I've it's more than enough to damn her. You just have to have the experiance to read between the lines.

The fact, that she may have no own experience is enough to damn her? Because, up to now, you don't know, what experiences she has.
And as I have said, even if she has no experience, that's not a reason to damn her or insult her. You don't have to like her work. But you also don't have to attack her in person. State, what you don't like in her work. State, what you don't like in her behaviour. But don't insult her, don't degrade her human dignity. With comments as the above, you are doing exactly that.

Furthermore, there is a difference:

• If one would say, that he has military experience, I would accept his expertise, as soon, as my experience and knowledge is outshined. I wouldn't even try to argue military topics with that person and accept, what he says - as long as he tries to explain it to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to conceede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.

Part of your problem is that you don't know enough to peg something as fallacious. And I see no reason to dumb things down enough for you to understand it. You can afterall look it up.

You don't know my own military experiences. I have served in the German forces. I have had common basic training in a paratrooper company. My special basic training was in an airborne sapper company. After that, I have made my skydive license. After that, I was again positioned in a paratrooper company. (No, I want prove it. We can talk about my experiences and about what I have learned. But I won't give further personal informations.)
I don't claim, that I have more experiences that you have. But I think to know enough, to regocnise the one or other fallacy. Besides that, I have enough common sense.
And if you want to debate, you have to explain sometimes your thoughts. You can't claim something and expect that all are believing you without any explanations, only because ypu say, that you have corresponding experience. If you expect that, you shouldn't debate at all.

[*]If one would say, that he has studied mathematics, I would accept his expertise, as soon, as my experience and knowledge is outshined, what would happen relativ soon because I hate mathe (it's not that I don't understand it, it's that - although my approach was always correct, my solutions were always wrong. I have always made silly fidget-errors). I would accept his solutions for calculations, from which I know, that I can't comprehend them or only with an effort, that's inappropriate. I would not question his calculations and have to trust, that he is honest. But I still would be able to check the premises of that calculation.

So why do you argue against Dr. Saxtons findings even though he is more qualified than you?

I have never doubted his caloulations. If he says, that it would need so and so much energy to destroy a planet, I believe him. If he says, that it would need so and so much energy to slag the entire surface of an planet within one hour, I believe him. I don't check his calculations.
But - as I have said - I check his premises.
I can ask, how he thinks to prove, that the Death Star main weapon is a DET weapon and not a CR weapon and that it delivers that energy and not only create a funky chain reaction.
I can ask, from where he takes the information, that a Star Destroyer is able to slag the entire surface of an planet within one hour.
His calculations may be correct. But - for me, that would only be interessting, if the premisses of these calculations are confirmed. And up to now, I don't see, that these premises are confirmed.

[*]If one would say, that he has studied engineering, I would accept his expertise in his field. But I would still expect, that he tries to explain its reason to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to conceede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.

So why do argue against Mike Wong when he is more qualified than you?

I have never argued against him in an area, in which he is more qualified than I am. And yes, there are some areas - even in the versus debate, where is knowledge is relevant. But, as I have shown - and you have again not confuted, in most areas, his knowledge is irrelevant. He is not able to explain Star Wars technology or Star Trek technology. He knows not more about subspace physic or hyperspace physic, than I know.

[*]And if one could say, that he has experience with subspace physics, knows, how phasers, turpolasers shields etc. are operating, I would accept his expertise. But I would still expect, that he tries to explain its reason to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to concede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.

So why do argue against those that attempt these things that are more qualified than you?

Would you have read my whole post, before starting to answer it, you would have seen, that I have had already answered that question. There is no one, who knows more about Star Wars technology or Star Trek technology than I know - as long as we have read the same books and have seen the same movies.
There is no one, who can claim to have experience with it or has studied it or can comprehend it.

But the latter will never happen because there is no one, who could claim that and there are no reasons, that could be explained comprehensible.[/list]

Ahh back to the it's Sci-Fi so it's not possible excuse again.

Would you have read my whole post, before starting to answer it, you would have seen, that's not only an excuse. You could have refuted my argument. But you have done nothing. Why is it an excuse? Why would someone with a degree in natural sciences are better qualified to explain science fiction, that is invented from soneone, who has not or only little thought about science, while inventing it?

And don't think, that I haven't noticed, that you still haven't responded to my questions and objections.

Why would I give you yet another soapbox? Everyone knows what your going to say anyways. And half the time the people on this board who agree with you won't even touch it.

Because you could refute my argument. You could prove, that it's only an excuse. You could prove, that someone with a degree in natural sciences is better qualified to explain the laws of subspace and hyperspace than someone, who has read the same books and has seen the same movies and knows as much about these things.

Please consider, that english is not my mother tongue. I don't know the meaning of »gold star« and it is not explained in my dictionary. What did you wanted to say?

Gold stars are stickers that are given to children in the early school education years for excellence. When it's used by adults in a manner that is not friendly, it is used as an insult, suggesting that the one getting the gold star is just a child or is exhibiting childish behavior or just the accusation of being childish or having a similar behavior.

OK ... ... ...

And how does that fit in the context?

• • • • I have not argued, that this is relevant.
        
        Quite the contrary. I have always argued, that such things proves nothing. For example, I know that many officers are only doing administrative work and are no military genius either. I assume, that this is the same in the Canadian forces. Do you think, that Daniel Kaffee or Bud Roberts are good at military tactics and strategy - although they could say, that they are professional soldiers? Alone the fact, that someone has served in a force, doesn't proves his qualification to describe certain aspects of military if that lies out of his own experience.

        Congrats, you get a gold star.

I mean, I'm not the one, who constantly asks for a proof for education. I have never claimed, that someone with a degree in anything has to be better qualified to explain things, that has nothing to do with his qualification. I have never claimed, that someone with military experience has to be a military genius in all fields.
What I have said is no profound insight but should be to everyone self-evident.
But these insight seems not to have reached those, who are still demanding degrees and proof of experience or education, even if it has nothing to do with the debated topic.
I would say, that with that statement, Cpl Kendall has realised at last, what I have known and said all the time and he should get the gold star.
But by claiming indirectly again, that Mike Wrong would be better qualified to explain subspace physic, he shows, that he has still not understood, that the whole education of Mr. Wrong is useless for that topic. Mike Wrong unchallenged could be the worlds best engineer and he would still not be able to explain subspace physic or hyperspace physic or turbo-lasers or phasers or shields etc.
Cpl Kendall doesn't seem to be able to understood that simple fact.

OK ... ... ...

And how does that fit in the context?

• • • • Congrats, you get a gold star.

I mean, I'm not the one, who constantly asks for a proof for education. I have never claimed, that someone with a degree in anything has to be better qualified to explain things, that has nothing to do with his qualification. I have never claimed, that someone with military experience has to be a military genius in all fields.
What I have said is no profound insight but should be to everyone self-evident.
But these insight seems not to have reached those, who are still demanding degrees and proof of experience or education, even if it has nothing to do with the debated topic.
I would say, that with that statement, Cpl Kendall has realised at last, what I have known and said all the time and he should get the gold star.
But by claiming indirectly again, that Mike Wrong would be better qualified to explain subspace physic, he shows, that he has still not understood, that the whole education of Mr. Wrong is useless for that topic. Mike Wrong unchallenged could be the worlds best engineer and he would still not be able to explain subspace physic or hyperspace physic or turbo-lasers or phasers or shields etc.
Cpl Kendall doesn't seem to be able to understood that simple fact.

Take a look at your first quoted post in this reply. Compare it to this:

According to Wikipedia, Karen Traviss served in both the Territorial Army and the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service.

Wikipedia:
The Territorial Army (TA) is the principal and Volunteer reserve force of the British Army, the land armed forces branch of the United Kingdom, and composed mostly of part-time soldiers paid at the same rate, while engaged on military activities, as their Regular equivalents. [...] The TA forms about a quarter of the overall manpower strength of the Army. Its original purpose was home defence although the establishment of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve in 1967 involved a restructuring and revised doctrine leading to provision of routine support for the Regular army overseas.
Territorial soldiers, or Territorials, are volunteers who undergo military training in their spare time either as part of a formed local unit or as specialists in a professional field. TA members have a minimum commitment to serve 27 training days per annum, with specialists only required to serve 19 days, which normally includes a two-week annual camp. [...] Territorials normally have a full-time job or career, which in some cases provides skills and expertise that are directly transferable to a specialist military role, such as NHS employees serving in TA Army Medical Services units.

With that, she has more experience and training than all those, who have never served in armed forces and have their whole knowledge about combat and war from TV and computer games, especially considering, that her military training in those training days would have been concentrated. How much military training have all those, who have claimed, that she knows absolutely nothing about military tactics or logistics?

You originally claim that Karen Traviss experiance is relevant to her stories by virtue of the fact that she simply served. You've since changed your position to say that military experiance isn't important unless it pertains to the subject at hand.

For that you get a gold star because you've realised what I've been saying. That experiance does not correspond to relevance.

Does Karen Traviss knows absolutely nothing about military tactics, logistics, or even about Star Wars?

Did you know, what exactly she has done as a member of both, the Territorial Army and the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service, what experience she has?

The answer to both questions is NO.

That's why I have objected your claim, that her military credentials ranks somewhere between a cockroach and an Officer Cadet.



Have I claimed, that her military credentials are relevant?

NO



Please show me, where my position has changed. Please show me, where I have claimed, Karen Traviss experiance is relevant to her stories. That's not what I have said, neither in the quote, you have given, nor somewhere else.



It's a fact, that you have changed your position: First, you have claimed, that her military credentials ranks somewhere between a cockroach and an Officer Cadet.

And than, you have stated, that part of your objection is that you know nothing about her service.

But if you have known nothing about her service and her experiences, neither as a member of both, the Territorial Army and the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service, nor as a defense correspondent, how can you claim to be able to judge, that her military credentials ranks somewhere between a cockroach and an Officer Cadet?

[Roondar]

@W.I.L.G.A.

Wow.. That is one long post..

I'd like to make a humble suggestion about posts like this: it's usually better to limit the amount of quoting done, especially when quoting stuff that is 'old'. The post you made is so long and so redundant (90% of it is quotes without comments) you can't possibly expect someone to really read all of it.

Especially since what you wanted to say came across perfectly with just the non-quoted part.

It's better in that scenario to merely state the bottom bit of what you posted (meaning the not quoted part). People will likely still understand what you mean and it's easier on the eyes!

Note that this is just meant as friendly advice, not an attack. It just makes things easier to understand.

[Cpl Kendall]

So you quoted all that from two threads and you still don't understand. Your grasp of English is either incredibly poor or your so obtuse that you may as well not know any English at all. Come on, your parodying yourself at this point.

[Who is like God arbour]

So you quoted all that from two threads and you still don't understand.

With other words, you are neither able to show me, where I have allegedly claimed, that Traviss military credentials are relevant nor where I have allegedly changed my position.

Your grasp of English is either incredibly poor or your so obtuse that you may as well not know any English at all. Come on, your parodying yourself at this point.

I think to understand enough English to understand, that this is not a question of my grasp of English.

I'm convinced, that I know, what I have said and I'm convinced, that I have understood, what you have said.

And if I would be mistaken, you could have shown me, where I have said something, that you could have understood as a claim, that Traviss military credentials are relevant. I don't see, that someone could something, I have said, understood that way. But, as I have said, I could be mistaken.

[Mr. Oragahn]

So why do you argue against Dr. Saxtons findings even though he is more qualified than you?
So why do argue against Mike Wong when he is more qualified than you?
So why do argue against those that attempt these things that are more qualified than you?

What is your point?