The hell? You're misremembering my point about Oragahn and wrongly applying it to me.
And who's picking the fight, here? (I'd already had the thought about you but was too polite to say it.) But, to pare down my previous explanation, the fact is your dismissive and stubborn refusal to acknowledge the obvious, upon which you then pile insult, is the only reason this conversation is ongoing.
As you kept refusing to acknowledge things, did I say that you were being willfully blind or a crusading loon or whatever? No, I said I must not have explained it adequately. That phrasing implies a certain faith in you. Hell, one of my worst insults to you in this thread was that you're smarter than the arguments you're making.
I had to moderate that nonsense, so yes I remember it all too well, Robert. There is a definite pattern. I don't know what it is lately, but sometimes you and to a similar extent Oragahn have taken on that is a bit disturbing and I had to lock the thread because you two wouldn't stop what you were doing which was no longer about debating anymore just scoring points. To put in the terms you just used, I'm shocked and I hold you in high regard that what you are doing sometimes just is off-putting.
Oh yeah, though, I am *totally* being the crusade-y badguy.
You've been on this kick against New Trek for a while. I understand you don't like the Kelvin Timeline or Discovery and that's all right, but trying to prove that Old Spock was not from the Prime universe because of some inconstancy without it being tongue-in-cheek is a little "crusade-y".
But it's Discovery, for crying out loud . . . they're intentionally redesigning everything and explicitly saying so. How the hell is that controversial and evidence of a crusading hater?
It isn't. But you took any change they made to mean that it is not the Prime timeline and your OP was geared as an insult to anyone who might explain it away.
To you, maybe, since evidently I am insulting your favorite thing.
By that I presume you mean Discovery. I like it. I don't love it. The series clearly has its faults and I'm not happy right now with what was done with Captain Lorca nor with Burnham saving Mirror Georgiou. But oddly few have actually touched on them, rather are arguing about minute things.
Some of us noticed it wasn't right, right away. Sorry you missed it, and refused to accept it when shown, but that's a whole big bag of not-my-problem.
Right and you made a big thing out of it. There wasn't enough difference to care about and you brushed off any idea that the station still under construction could be a factor or that it could be changed. Again, your OP pretty much backhands anyone making such a claim and you even went so far to misconstrue my own statements about it.
YBecause the evidence isn't.It makes more sense to assume a second space facility than to ignore the problems with this one and the senseless rebuild. Would that be suitably non-minimalist for you?
But it is there. The Kelvin and Prime Timelines for TOS are spun right out of the same technologies, the same number of planets, resources, etc. That the Prime Timeline doesn't have a reason (that we know of) to have a starbase like Yorktown isn't proof against it. It's the other way around. The application of the technologies to produce bigger ships and stations in response to the
Narada incursion and later the destruction of Vulcan is a huge motivator. They didn't suddenly get super advanced tech, they just went in a different direction with what they already had.
And a second Spacedock would make sense, really. Why just have one to service starships? We saw multiple large space stations as part of the Utopia Planitia shipyards in VOY's "Relativity" along with a swarm of the lattice drydocks. All of which were keeping position within a hundred km of each other. That's what DISC is doing when they dropped the Spacedock easter egg, they are showing a vast infrastructure that was only hinted at previously and now is realized.
Bullshit. You said it was the same exact design, the *only* discrepancies being explained by incompleteness, or "remaining differences {not again but the first time} being chalked up to it being incomplete", which is exactly what I said of what you said.
And I say bullshit back to you. Pretty much the same exact design meaning the same layout we saw in ST3, the other TOS movies, and the later TNG-era starbases. That the angle of this or that isn't exactly the same or the top is a bit wider or smaller doesn't change that. And given the station is still under construction is a factor.
Who's the crusader now? You're so damned butthurt that I insulted Discovery you're literally trying to create claims of dishonesty out of thin air.
You are being that way because you wanted to make the claim that this isn't Prime because Spacedock isn't exactly precisely the same even though at a glance it is easily recognizable as such.
You also seem to be bringing a lot of your Twitter frustrations over here as well, too.
That was from my first message in the thread! I simply didn't realize you aspired to be an STDJW at the time.
I wasn't being anti-chronological. You took it as such. The fact that you are trying to head off with your OP any distention or other explanation says a great deal.
Hell, maybe you can join the psychotroll Sothis and sneakily follow me around Twitter talking to everyone I talk to and disagreeing with everything I say without so much as an @ tag out of courtesy.
Okay.
Dude, the STDJWs are threatening and doxxing people who don't think Discovery is just the bee's knees. They're the Talifan all over again, and just as nonsensical in their beliefs. I'm sorry you took my making fun of them personally, but if you want to be one of them you deserve the time on the fainting couch.
That's terrible, I guess, if that's happening to you. But why drag that here? It's not necessary and it has nothing to do with anything at all for the topic by having an OP that deliberately insults people like that? No one is doxxing you, no one is censoring you, no one is banning you here.
Uh, any standards.
You tossed up a bunch of garbage, not a 3-D model that could be identically posed.
Nonsense. I know you're smarter than this. Come on, the model has enough differences that when you posed it can throw off the comparison. I showed you in turn a photo of the actual freaking physical model built by none other than the ILM staff and used it to illustrate the points I made.
Because I used a pre-existing model to get the same angle for comparison, much as I had already done an overlay. You just posted pictures of crap models and discussed their relative merits to obfuscate the actual situation.
No I did not. The line drawing illustration is actually extremely well done. The point being that using even modestly inaccurate models or drawings can throw off the comparisons being made. But regardless, your overlay only showed helped my case because it showed that portions of the station in DISC were still under construction and thus my original point was still valid about how you can indeed use the construction angle to explain some, if not all the discrepancies away.
And you're sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to acknowledge what you don't wanna hear, then insulting the person saying it.
Show me on the doll where the mean Trekkie hurt your Discovery-love and made it okay for you to repeatedly insult him, Mike.
You are going down the same route. You may not realize it, but you are. Saxton plugged his ears and didn't want to acknowledge that Lucas and Lucasfilm at the time had a different vision about the construction of the Death Star, from who started designing and building it, to how the Empire picked it up and continued with it.
This is you right now. The insults won't change that, Robert.
"Seem to", to you. The problem with your straw man is that I don't consider "any discrepancies" as proof. Hell, did I not just post Bernd's awesome overview of the situation?
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. You haven't given me a reason so far to doubt my assessment.
You've even subtly dropped that in this and other threads. It's amusing that you don't want to deal with evidence counter to your narrative, especially after all the years you spent arguing against this very sort of thing by Warsies.
Ah, now I am *subtly* up to nefarious and self-contradictory things? So I am not mistaken, or smarter than what I am saying, or even disagreeing because you've failed to explain adequately . . . nosirree, I am dishonest and trying to hide it, willing to be every bit the Saxton and Warsie-esque to achieve my insidious goal of . . . what? What's my angle, Mike?
Again, whose crusade is this, Mike? It sure doesn't smell like mine.
As explained previously. You don't want New Trek. So you've been picking at it. Old Spock wasn't "Our Spock", whatever that means, because of some discrepancies and now you're trying to use the visual reboot aspect of DISC to make the claim this isn't Prime.
That is another out of context assigning to me.
Again, bullshit.
"this is, as you ironically point out, is a show that is based around visually rebooting things, but has made it clear this is a visual reboot, and like it or not, set in the Prime Timeline. The showrunners and staff have been honest by and large about that since day one."
You don't whip that out in the middle of your apologetics unless it applies in some way. But if you wish to abandon the claim . . . oh wait, here it comes again;:
"Star Trek: Discovery is a reboot, and this is obviously not Prime Spacedock"
But it is supposed to be the Prime Spacedock.
See? Same thing. But where does it end? Was one of the ships from the pilot "supposed to be" a Miranda despite looking nothing like one?
So I guess instead of your fallacious assumption you should bust out a quote specifically about the new Spacedock. I'll wait.
It ends where you end it. There is a ship that has some elements of a Miranda, but it is not even generally the same enough that we could do the same for it the way we clearly can with Spacedock. This is not a huge reimagining ala the Klingon ships that we cannot tell at all what it is.
Where you went down the rabbit hole was fallaciously assuming that at some point there could be no upgrades or alterations to make it like what was seen in the movies. Your claim is that it would cost too much in the way of resources and then you railed against me for having pointed out that the Federation does have that capability, if they wanted to pull something like that off. You also in turn ignored a valid point that there was just as much time between DISC and ST3 (28 years) to do so.
Heck. by your reasoning the U.S. navy would never have done anything like this with the USS Midway:
Clearly it would cost too much and would have been better to build a brand new carrier instead of those major refits. The same thing happens with major shipyards in real life, just look at the multiple changes in the last hundred years for
Harland and Wolff. Because that is largely the role that Spacedock serves is as shipyard or nexus for such operations. So why wouldn't you make changes to a major shipyard and drydock facility if the need demanded it?
You can debate why Kirk imagined him that way but that's what it was.
If TOS was the only Star Trek we'd ever had, that might be so. However, TMP, TNG, and ST:ENT changed all of that in context. Retconned it, if you will. Why would Kirk imagine Kahless that way when he already knew, thanks to Jonathan Archer a 100 years ago, that wasn't true? Why would Spock not point out that Kahless looked wrong given Vulcan history with having had plenty of pre-Federation contact with the Klingons? If the Excalibans weren't sloppy with their mind reading, they could have seen in Spock's mind an accurate portrayl of Kahless.
Drop it, Mike. Just back away. You need to calm down and take a breather and decide if you really wanna keep embarrassing yourself this way.
Likewise, drop it. You took to fighting with Mr. Oragahn over planetary shielding when you made your points and could have walked away from it at any time. Also, you need to let go your feud with those people on Twitter and not to bring any of that here. I'm sorry to hear that you had that happen to you, but you came in here swinging away with your OP by declaring anyone who had an explanation to be such a fanatic.
-Mike