Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by 2046 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:19 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:15 pm
Which I note what version of the ship had them:


1. Given your wacky behavior right now, you're not a trustworthy source.
2. You didn't make a case, just a statement, and used a crappy image. I researched the matter myself and found a shot of it dead to rights.
originally there might've been some contention among the staff as to what everything was.


Oh look, fake history.

It was *never* a window, even when the lit squares existed on the model. Show otherwise or abandon the claim.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5775
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Mike DiCenso » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:09 am

And it isn't in precisely the right spot.

This isn't pedantry . . . you're the one claiming a window for TOS but rejecting it for TMP, so I want you to recognize that your argument is equally bad both times. What you are doing is making a choice of what to believe then cherry-picking evidence and ignoring the contrary until it "fits", but you cannot do that, insult me for disagreeing, and think I'll just say "yes, sir".
It is pedantry. The window-like behavior of the screen is easy to see in that one episode. And now you're projecting your own bad choices onto me as a result and derailed the conversation.
No, making a point about your flagrantly inconsistent argument.
No, I made a point that there was a precedence, and even acknowledged that it was an inconsistency within what was established in TOS.
You'd already gone full explosive, so don't pretend this thread is disconnected from the other. I responded because the fact that you would try to delete the viewscreen and invent a window on the TOS bridge to desperately try to make Discovery less ridiculous is appalling.
Not inventing anything. Just showing how a precedence could be made for it and that TOS was inconsistent with itself on the matter. There's some markings on early versions of the models that indicate a possible window and one episode depicted (wrongly) that it was a window. That's all.

You are the one who went full explosive just for me pointing that YATI out and turning it into more.
Generous? What, did you think I was supposed to argue that the side lights are not windows ergo the front one isn't? While not incorrect, that argument isn't mine, because I am doing just fine directly challenging your bogus claim instead of taking the side road.
Yes, quite generous in acknowledging that. Sure there could be side windows that if you go into a companion way that surrounds the bridge there's some observation ports or whatever, but they don't go through to the bridge and the fact that they are identical otherwise to the front one is good evidence that they aren't. So there you go. And I'm surprised you didn't catch them there.
You'd like that, wouldn't you? "Aw c'mon Mike, that was third season silliness, just ignore it" is hardly a powerful condemnation of your nonsensical claim.
That would be more rational and more in-line with how I know you previously to act and argue. It's an inconsistency and we both know it. I just said that TOS was inconsistent with itself by pointing it out and and you went near postal about it.
Do you not know who I am?
Not the person I knew, apparently.
You are literally arguing that it's a window based on rules you have made up about how what you yourself just called "fucking magic shit tech" must, and can only in your mind, operate!

You can get pissed at me all day long if you're doing so based on that level of silliness. It's sad, and I wish you'd reconsider, but at the end of the day it's just stupid and there's clearly no preventing it.


Sorry, but I made a valid observation on it. Everything is frozen on the ship, even the little winking and blinking lights it. That is a clear fact. To argue otherwise is just madness and ignores what is shown happening in the scene.

That's what you're now asking me to do. Ignore evidence. Every other system just happens to be frozen in place and you're seriously wanting me to believe that the only system working just as fine as always is the viewscreen? Really?
Why ask me? You're the one so damned certain of how the thing works that by your own statement the viewscreen should've shown the planet from orbit, still. You explain it to us. How did it keep the lights on, and why did it do that but could not possibly have let the viewer show a live image?
Uh, no. That is dishonesty and an attempt to twist what I have said. The observation based on what we are allowed to see is that all the systems are frozen along with the crew. Flint even describes the process as a form of suspension, at least in context of the crew. So it's not hard to come to the conclusion here. Is it possible that a light is winking still in some random corridor? Sure. But based on what is available to us, that isn't likely.

Why is very light indicator frozen in the scene, even the viewscreen lights, yet the viewscreen continues to operate of all the many systems on the ship? Why is Kirk looking in through it?
So no light changed at all? The suspension was a perfect zero? Why do you think this? Please, prove your case . . . and perhaps you should've done so before insulting me.
Okay, show me a changing light in that scene.
"Chakoteya is a "she", not a "they", and her color commentary isn't canon. Congrats for having another fan as wrong as you on that point, though."
Ah, so everyone who disagrees with you is wrong now? That's just arrogance. It's valid for pointing out that a person or persons independent of the two of us came to the same conclusion.
Well, then, stop pissing down my back and telling me it's raining if you know me.
As above.
If you *burn* it for power, figuratively speaking, yeah. But using it for transportation? Isn't that what the tardigrade does every day?
Maybe, but then again we saw that being was a natural part of that ecology. The spore drive using Stamets is a forced one. It's not unreasonable to believe that Starfleet would put a halt to its use, at least on a large scale until it can be fully understood what the ramifications are.

So it isn't mutiny, by your own view.
This is silly. What Kirk and Spock eventually did is, by definition, mutiny.
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
I say the same thing back to you.
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by 2046 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:33 pm

Let's get one thing very clear. Your efforts to pretend that I am picking a fight with you or was the one to escalate the conversation outside the bounds of politeness are wholly false.

It was you who declared me to be on a hateful, Saxton-like crusade of not wanting to acknowledge things.

"you seem to be on a crusade here"
"Let go the hate. You're beginning to sound a lot like Curtis Saxon"
"2040 doesn't want to accept such a thing"

. . . not to mention your other dismissive and flippant bits, like deciding a 3-D model wasn't the canon version so deciding it was best to just spew nonsense pics: "Since you're using a non-canon version, I'll just pick a few that don't agree entirely with either".

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... =8&t=46674

Since then you've only escalated further, declaring dishonesty, subtle efforts to hide things, claiming false histories of behavior, et cetera. There was even what appeared to be a moderation threat (separate from your edit).

This is your crusade. The only explosiveness on my part is refusing to acquiesce to your doubling-down on nonsense like "we see him look at the ship, therefore he's peering inside!"

Pro-tip: When confronted with a debater's piss-poor argument based on little more than wishes that the debater, when challenged, tries to cover for with insults, veiled threats, and other nonsense, I don't withdraw my superior argument. This is why I keep asking if you know who I am, 'cause you damn sure seem to have forgotten.

That you now appear to admit this to be mere trollery is sad. Remember, you just said your own side-square argument is "good evidence that they aren't" windows . . . alongside your continued fanciful claim that I didn't notice them that I already disproved . . . meaning that you're seemingly arguing a claim you don't believe, not for some purpose but just to argue.

So what's your deal, Mike? What's going on with you? Had you asked for help you'd have received it, but trying to use me as the whipping boy for whatever psychological torment you are experiencing is not healthy or productive.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by 2046 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:46 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:09 am
The window-like behavior of the screen is easy to see in that one episode.


While that's not correct, window-like behavior is equally easy to see in TSFS. Why didn't you claim that's a window? It was a simple question.
There's some markings on early versions of the models that indicate a possible window and one episode depicted (wrongly) that it was a window. That's all.


The above is a clear backpedal on your part. I'm not dissing the new tack, mind you, but don't pretend you weren't arguing hard for a window (and other counterfactualisms) like you pretend here:
I just said that TOS was inconsistent with itself by pointing it out and and you went near postal about it.


That's bullshit, Mike. You're literally reimagining the thread in your head at this point, revising your past claims and pretending I was ill-behaved.
You are the one who went full explosive just for me pointing that YATI out and turning it into more.


Had you presented it as wiggle room over an inconsistency you wouldn't have met such resistance. Instead, you claimed Discovery wasn't inconsistent based on your claims of TOS, I rejected your claims, and you quickly cried dishonesty, blindness, et cetera.

Go re-read the thread.
You are literally arguing that it's a window based on rules you have made up about how what you yourself just called "fucking magic shit tech" must, and can only in your mind, operate!

You can get pissed at me all day long if you're doing so based on that level of silliness. It's sad, and I wish you'd reconsider, but at the end of the day it's just stupid and there's clearly no preventing it.


Sorry, but I made a valid observation on it. Everything is frozen on the ship, even the little winking and blinking lights it. That is a clear fact.


You just proved the point I made in the quote of me… you've decided how Flint's suspension works, in your mind, and in your mind I am dishonest for not agreeing.

And I gotta say, that's ballsy as all hell given that you later say "Ah, so everyone who disagrees with you is wrong now? That's just arrogance."

Can you not see that you're the aggressor and making this personal, Mike?
To argue otherwise is just madness and ignores what is shown happening in the scene.


Oh, wait, I am dishonest *and* crazy for disagreeing with you.
That's what you're now asking me to do. Ignore evidence. Every other system just happens to be frozen in place and you're seriously wanting me to believe that the only system working just as fine as always is the viewscreen? Really?


That's clearly not what I argued, Mike. That's a dishonest response on your part.

Again, I said: "The lights were on in the ship. Obviously there were working systems. The viewscreen was obviously one of them." Since that didn't faze you, I then drew it out in more detail, saying: "The "frozen" lights were still operating because they were still emitting light. By necessity this means power was being created and transmitted. That means some systems were operating, such as fusion reactors or the warp core, both of which need fuel pumped in, cooling, et cetera.

The viewscreen was obviously one of the working systems."

Let's dumb it down further.

Imagine a light bulb is a little machine gun that shoots photon bullets. For the light to be shooting, it must be getting a supply of ammo. That means that even if the bulb/gun is stuck in the "firing" position, it isn't that the ammo supply system is similarly stuck, because the cartridges clearly keep coming to supply the gun.

If the ammo supply system is working, and thus is powered, is it shocking to think that maybe something else could be working, too, like a missile launcher? And if the ammo supply system for the gun is electrically powered, is it shocking to conclude that other electronics might be working?

(Indeed, you also skip over the part about suspension being zero or not. You've decided that Flint's device brought everything to a dead stop. As we know, this is not true. I gave you a way out by hinting that maybe Flint simply slooooooowed things down. In that case, the viewscreen might still function since I rather doubt it runs at 24fps.)
Why ask me? You're the one so damned certain of how the thing works that by your own statement the viewscreen should've shown the planet from orbit, still. You explain it to us. How did it keep the lights on, and why did it do that but could not possibly have let the viewer show a live image?
Uh, no. That is dishonesty and an attempt to twist what I have said.


Bullshit. It's *disagreement*, not *dishonesty*.

Dammit, man, I realize you busted out the Warsie comparisons first, but surely you must realize that impugning those who disagree as dishonest nutjobs merely *because they disagree* is hardly an SFJ trademark, but instead SDN.
Why is Kirk looking in through it?


He isn't!
It's valid for pointing out that a person or persons independent of the two of us came to the same conclusion.


So? Facts aren't based on consensus, even if you had it. Good grief, go to the DITL board or Flare or most anywhere and see how many people think Discovery is actually Prime, if all it takes is a number of adherents to make reality.

For that matter, close up shop here and go beg forgiveness from SDN.
If you *burn* it for power, figuratively speaking, yeah. But using it for transportation? Isn't that what the tardigrade does every day?
Maybe, but then again we saw that being was a natural part of that ecology. The spore drive using Stamets is a forced one. It's not unreasonable to believe that Starfleet would put a halt to its use, at least on a large scale until it can be fully understood what the ramifications are.


You're creating a distinction where none exists in the source material. And again, if Starfleet hasn't figured out that it could damage the multiverse a year into its use (not even counting the study time, ship construction, et cetera), I doubt a hostile species is going to avoid using it for awhile.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5775
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:49 pm

2046 wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:33 pm
Let's get one thing very clear. Your efforts to pretend that I am picking a fight with you or was the one to escalate the conversation outside the bounds of politeness are wholly false.

It was you who declared me to be on a hateful, Saxton-like crusade of not wanting to acknowledge things.

"you seem to be on a crusade here"
"Let go the hate. You're beginning to sound a lot like Curtis Saxon"
"2040 doesn't want to accept such a thing"
"It looks different, naturally, but I can bet that STDJWs (of the type who insist it'll all fit perfectly and ignore the "visual reboot") are going to claim that it could totally have been refurbished despite literally costing thousands of ships worth of material."

You come bursting on with that and you have the nerve to call me hateful? Can you not understand why I'm pissed off at you for your arrogant attack on anyone that might have an actual legitimate thought on why the station might be different? Even after I pointed out that your own images overlaid on the DISC one shows that a major portion of the station's stem is clearly under construction and made it look very different. It even highlighted that the skirt portion was clearly under construction with a big jagged outline, and yet you kept right on going.

That seems to be a crusade to me.

You basically did something I thought you'd never do. Try and shut down any sort of real discussion by claiming that someone who says X is therefore some sort of pejorative you've invented. A Poisoning the Well fallacy here.

Worse, you've been arguing badly against the evidence provided (dialog and real-word definitions) that Kirk and Spock committed mutiny against Commodore Decker. It's pointless crusading or trolling.
Since then you've only escalated further, declaring dishonesty, subtle efforts to hide things, claiming false histories of behavior, et cetera. There was even what appeared to be a moderation threat (separate from your edit).

This is your crusade. The only explosiveness on my part is refusing to acquiesce to your doubling-down on nonsense like "we see him look at the ship, therefore he's peering inside!"

Pro-tip: When confronted with a debater's piss-poor argument based on little more than wishes that the debater, when challenged, tries to cover for with insults, veiled threats, and other nonsense, I don't withdraw my superior argument. This is why I keep asking if you know who I am, 'cause you damn sure seem to have forgotten.
Threats? Don't you dare. Had this been other places, you'd have been long since banned. You've been banned her because you got into a similar fight with Oragahn. That's real history. I regret now that you've managed to drag me into the same thing.
That you now appear to admit this to be mere trollery is sad. Remember, you just said your own side-square argument is "good evidence that they aren't" windows . . . alongside your continued fanciful claim that I didn't notice them that I already disproved . . . meaning that you're seemingly arguing a claim you don't believe, not for some purpose but just to argue.
Not trolling. This is just being honest about where the evidence leads. But you've been ignoring it and being combative for no good reason except to argue for the sake of arguing because... Discovery reasons. Honestly, what difference does it make if that one scene just happens to have the viewscreen mistaken as a window? What reason? None. I tried being nice by giving you a few legit ways to argue out of it. It's contradicted by other canon but it is also useful in showing that there could be a precedence for having a bridge window.
So what's your deal, Mike? What's going on with you? Had you asked for help you'd have received it, but trying to use me as the whipping boy for whatever psychological torment you are experiencing is not healthy or productive.
Dude. Lighten up. This is not that important just like the planetary shield fight wasn't. Here the inconsistencies aren't that big a deal, but when someone drops something showing just how contradictory even TOS was with itself, you go off over it.

I'm beginning to wonder if the absence of the Versus Debater crowd has left you without anything to go against.

Were you just innocently "trolling" when you wrote:

"It looks different, naturally, but I can bet that STDJWs (of the type who insist it'll all fit perfectly and ignore the "visual reboot") are going to claim that it could totally have been refurbished despite literally costing thousands of ships worth of material."

Come on. This is asking for a fight. What are you contributing here to this and the Spacedock discussion with this crap? It's like you want to a victim in all this, just like you were on Twitter.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5775
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:46 pm

2046 wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:46 pm
While that's not correct, window-like behavior is equally easy to see in TSFS. Why didn't you claim that's a window? It was a simple question.


What "window-like" behavior are you talking about? Who looks into the ship from outside through it? Why are you making a false equivalency out of this?
The above is a clear backpedal on your part. I'm not dissing the new tack, mind you, but don't pretend you weren't arguing hard for a window (and other counterfactualisms) like you pretend here:
Bullshit:

"Not exactly. "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" versions of the Enterprise had rectangular markings and in one case, a light square where a window-like viewscreen would be. But in addition to that, there is the infamous "Requiem for Methuselah" scene of Kirk peeking into the bridge through a "viewscreen", that if it were a simple monitor, would show a frozen image of whatever orbital view it last saw before Flint zapped the ship and shrank her down to a desktop model. Instead, Kirk can be clearly seen moving around outside and looking inside through it:"

I never there once said anything about all throughout TOS that the viewscreen was a window. That is you badly misconstruing what I said there.
That's bullshit, Mike. You're literally reimagining the thread in your head at this point, revising your past claims and pretending I was ill-behaved.
Nope. You've been going postal over everything just about in this thread, from me pointing out that some markings on the front of the bridge in two different early versions of the ship and one scene in an episode could indicate a window, and I even gave some speculation on how such a thing could be among the staff from disagreements on the nature of the ship's tech to a simple and deliberate contradiction to just a flat out gaff, but you went nuts and refused to let it go.
Had you presented it as wiggle room over an inconsistency you wouldn't have met such resistance. Instead, you claimed Discovery wasn't inconsistent based on your claims of TOS, I rejected your claims, and you quickly cried dishonesty, blindness, et cetera.

Go re-read the thread.
Bull. That was clear that I used a few examples to illustrate that precedent was set back even then for a window.

You just proved the point I made in the quote of me… you've decided how Flint's suspension works, in your mind, and in your mind I am dishonest for not agreeing.
I'm calling you dishonest for not acknowledging what happened in the episode and what other people also observed about that scene. Is the ship and crew suspended? Yes. How do we know? Flint describes it that way and we see the lights frozen in place. The ship is sitting on the desk top, not moving, no impulse engines or thrusters apparently working since it's just motionless. No working nav deflector since people can approach the ship from the front without being bounced away.

So, if it's not frozen, and remember Flint said the crew would be released maybe in a thousand or two thousand years, that means they are suspended protected from time's effects to some in some manner. So what is it, then?

Also, you've ignored definitions of mutiny so that you can claim TOS is not inconsistent with itself.
Can you not see that you're the aggressor and making this personal, Mike?
"It looks different, naturally, but I can bet that STDJWs (of the type who insist it'll all fit perfectly and ignore the "visual reboot") are going to claim that it could totally have been refurbished despite literally costing thousands of ships worth of material."

"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."

Oh, wait, I am dishonest *and* crazy for disagreeing with you.
What else would you calls someone completely ignoring very clear cut evidence and without justification?
That's what you're now asking me to do. Ignore evidence. Every other system just happens to be frozen in place and you're seriously wanting me to believe that the only system working just as fine as always is the viewscreen? Really?

That's clearly not what I argued, Mike. That's a dishonest response on your part.
You mean like how you claim what I said about the viewscreen in the first place? See my response above about the ship's systems and how you ignored their state of being, what the implications might be if they were all working exactly as they were on orbit, just now tiny and with a suspended tiny crew no longer able to guide the ship.
Let's dumb it down further.

Imagine a light bulb is a little machine gun that shoots photon bullets. For the light to be shooting, it must be getting a supply of ammo. That means that even if the bulb/gun is stuck in the "firing" position, it isn't that the ammo supply system is similarly stuck, because the cartridges clearly keep coming to supply the gun.

If the ammo supply system is working, and thus is powered, is it shocking to think that maybe something else could be working, too, like a missile launcher? And if the ammo supply system for the gun is electrically powered, is it shocking to conclude that other electronics might be working?
See my response above. You have only selected one thing, the lights maybe being on, then ignored the fantastical elements of the scene in general, that nothing was moving inside that we can see and the little ship as soon as it appeared didn't go flying off the table on impulse power or push people aside with its navigational deflector beam, etc. Just those lights, just that viewscreen are working out of everything else.

So, you think this is something special that the light is visible and the viewscreen is just happening to be the only thing on the ship that works like a viewscreen at that moment? See how ridiculous that is?

The lights being on is in many ways another inconsistency like how Geordi and Ro Laren in "The Last Phase" didn''t fall through the E-D's decks or that they didn't asphyxiate from a lack of sufficiently amounts of phased oxygen to breathe, etc.
(Indeed, you also skip over the part about suspension being zero or not. You've decided that Flint's device brought everything to a dead stop. As we know, this is not true. I gave you a way out by hinting that maybe Flint simply slooooooowed things down. In that case, the viewscreen might still function since I rather doubt it runs at 24fps.)
That actually would have been an interesting take on things, ala some effect similar to the Scalosian water or whatever, but it doesn't follow through since KIrk is moving normally in real time and unlike with the Scalosians, was not given any kind of instructions to show Kirk at normal speed.
Bullshit. It's *disagreement*, not *dishonesty*.

Dammit, man, I realize you busted out the Warsie comparisons first, but surely you must realize that impugning those who disagree as dishonest nutjobs merely *because they disagree* is hardly an SFJ trademark, but instead SDN.
Why is Kirk looking in through it?

He isn't!
But he is and even if by some chance he isn't, it is the only thing there that can be seen moving at normal speed or not completely suspended. So why oh why is the screen acting exactly like a window in that context when it shouldn't?
So? Facts aren't based on consensus, even if you had it. Good grief, go to the DITL board or Flare or most anywhere and see how many people think Discovery is actually Prime, if all it takes is a number of adherents to make reality.
Not an equivalent thing. Discovery being Prime was decided by the people who own and create Trek.
For that matter, close up shop here and go beg forgiveness from SDN.
Nope. But I do hold out hope that you lighten up and maybe we can get back to discussing things normally. The fact that you're still here and posting freely is evidence against us going all SDN.
You're creating a distinction where none exists in the source material. And again, if Starfleet hasn't figured out that it could damage the multiverse a year into its use (not even counting the study time, ship construction, et cetera), I doubt a hostile species is going to avoid using it for awhile.
I'm just doing what we've always done, speculate within the framework of the information provided to us. I can see a lot of legitimate reasons based on what has been established why Starfleet would ban the spore drive and classify the work. I just presented one of many possible scenarios. Remember that in the Mirror universe that the mycelial reactor was spun off the research from Mirror Stamet's work on spore drive. So if nothing else they'd have to damn well be careful that no one else can get this and from there learn how to build another reactor and threaten the multiverse again.

On the other hand, reports are that season 2 will involve Section 31...
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5775
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Mike DiCenso » Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:00 am

2046 wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:19 am
1. Given your wacky behavior right now, you're not a trustworthy source.
2. You didn't make a case, just a statement, and used a crappy image. I researched the matter myself and found a shot of it dead to rights.
Then you acknowledged it existed. And I say you're the one who's acting wacky right now.
originally there might've been some contention among the staff as to what everything was.

Oh look, fake history.
Oh look, speculation based on being informed about how things were.
It was *never* a window, even when the lit squares existed on the model. Show otherwise or abandon the claim.
Speculation on my part, yes. But abandon a reasonable possibility for it happening in the show? No.
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by 2046 » Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:34 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:49 pm
2046 wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:33 pm
Let's get one thing very clear. Your efforts to pretend that I am picking a fight with you or was the one to escalate the conversation outside the bounds of politeness are wholly false.

It was you who declared me to be on a hateful, Saxton-like crusade of not wanting to acknowledge things.

"you seem to be on a crusade here"
"Let go the hate. You're beginning to sound a lot like Curtis Saxon"
"2040 doesn't want to accept such a thing"
"It looks different, naturally, but I can bet that STDJWs (of the type who insist it'll all fit perfectly and ignore the "visual reboot") are going to claim that it could totally have been refurbished despite literally costing thousands of ships worth of material."

You come bursting on with that and you have the nerve to call me hateful?


Uh, yeah, because I was poking fun at a completely absurd minority, Trek's answer to Flat Earthers and SW Biggatonners, a minority no one here* gave an indication of being part of before.

A month ago you were praising the "new take" and "version" of the Enterprise but giving no indication you'd make the ridiculous argument that it was actually the same ship being refit back and forth, which is the argument you're making now regarding Spacedock, and using insults to try to shore up.

Among the tech-minded, there are folks who acknowledge Discovery is a reboot and folks who only acknowledge it's a "visual reboot" (a nonsense term, of course, but that's for another time). These two groups can disagree mightily, fighting over producer comments and marketing-department-weaponized canon policy stuff and continuity and so on.

All indications are that you were firmly in the second camp.

There's a third group, composed of those who won't even acknowledge the visual reboot. That means they are refusing to see what their eyes show them *and* refusing to accept what the producers are telling them. They insist that it's one big happy timeline and everyone just wears whatever uniform using whatever unique equipment and blah blah blah.

The STDJWs are composed of members of the second and third groups, often the third.

These people are, on a functional level, insane, because it takes an inordinate amount of mental effort to even be in the second group.

More in a bit.

(* Sothis has gone full STDJW troll as Darth_Timon on Twitter, so basically it was safe to assume that he might pick up the cause whether or not he believed it, just to oppose me. But that's still not the same thing as having a true believer amongst the group.)

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by 2046 » Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:56 pm

So, we left off with you suddenly jumping into the third group, though I was not aware of this, or your simmering anger toward me, at first.

I therefore presumed that it was purely a discussion of whether or not the Discovery Spacedock looked the same as the real one, which of course it doesn't. Needless to say, then, I found your personal attacks shocking.

Had I realized you'd jumped the shark I'd have been less surprised by the attacks, since leaping straight to such things is the modus operandi of the STD Justice Warriors.
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:49 pm
Can you not understand why I'm pissed off at you for your arrogant attack on anyone that might have an actual legitimate thought on why the station might be different?


You didn't provide a legitimate thought, Mike. You said it was the same but for being incomplete. I went to great lengths to disprove that amicably, and your responses, which started as merely dismissive, became increasingly erratic and hostile.
You basically did something I thought you'd never do. Try and shut down any sort of real discussion {…}


You mean by dismissive handwaving followed by posting irrelevant pictures alongside escalating personal attacks and questioning honesty based on the fact I disagree with you? That's what you've been up to.
Worse, you've been arguing badly against the evidence provided (dialog and real-word definitions) that Kirk and Spock committed mutiny against Commodore Decker. It's pointless crusading or trolling.


No, it's rejection of nonsense with counterevidence. I realize there's a fine distinction of perspective between being legally relieved of duty by subordinates and mutiny, but you reject that and call it all mutiny no matter what, be it crazy Garth or depressed Decker.

Unless, like you, we're hell-bent on disagreeing with Spock's statement that there'd been no mutiny on a starship, then we would logically err on the side of not-mutiny for the events noted, which is trivially easy and proper, and requires no semantic games or extra conspiracies or willful ignorance of canon statements.

If you would step back from Discovery then maybe you wouldn't have to fight TOS.
Since then you've only escalated further, declaring dishonesty, subtle efforts to hide things, claiming false histories of behavior, et cetera. There was even what appeared to be a moderation threat (separate from your edit).
Threats? Don't you dare. Had this been other places, you'd have been long since banned.
Irony is responding to a note about moderation threats with immediate reference to banning.
I regret now that you've managed to drag me into the same thing.


I haven't dragged you anywhere. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from ceasing your personal attacks.
That you now appear to admit this to be mere trollery is sad. Remember, you just said your own side-square argument is "good evidence that they aren't" windows . . . alongside your continued fanciful claim that I didn't notice them that I already disproved . . . meaning that you're seemingly arguing a claim you don't believe, not for some purpose but just to argue.
Not trolling. This is just being honest about where the evidence leads. But you've been ignoring it and being combative for no good reason except to argue for the sake of arguing because... Discovery reasons.


The above is all wrong.

1. A type of trolling is to argue what you yourself don't believe just to get your opponent's goat up. An example is how you suggest you think the window claim you're making is false based on the things on the side of the bridge, yet you continued making that argument even while trying to hint your side-light argument to me and then pestering me for not making that inferior argument.

So who's arguing for no good reason except Discovery?

2. As noted, you've been the aggressor here, not me.

Indeed, call it a failing on my part if you like, but as I have said before, it's one thing for someone to make an incorrect argument, it's another for them to not listen to the disproof and keep brazenly making the same claim, and it's another still for them to compound that with insults and flames. I become less and less likely to shut up the higher (or lower, I should say) along that path one goes.

That very much applies here.
Honestly, what difference does it make if that one scene just happens to have the viewscreen mistaken as a window?


It makes a lot of difference, obviously, or it wouldn't have been such an important part of your Discovery apologetics. Others have used it in the same way, sonce as you say "It's contradicted by other canon but it is also useful in showing that there could be a precedence for having a bridge window."

It's your argument. Own it. Or, if you think it makes no difference, then concede.
So what's your deal, Mike? What's going on with you? Had you asked for help you'd have received it, but trying to use me as the whipping boy for whatever psychological torment you are experiencing is not healthy or productive.
Dude. Lighten up. This is not that important just like the planetary shield fight wasn't.


If it wasn't that important then why the hell would you take it to the level of personal attacks and non-canon-picture shitposting as soon as I'd proved my point?
I'm beginning to wonder if the absence of the Versus Debater crowd has left you without anything to go against.


You're projecting. I have plenty of things to engage on, many more important (as Sothis can attest, given his creepy cyberstalky behavior regarding my Twitter feed).

I'd prefer not to be engaging, actually, since (a) I have a lot of other stuff to do in real life, (b) I have a lot of other stuff to do with this hobby, (c) I had no interest in having an old ally start shit like this.

{Edit: Focus on C for a moment. What possible reason could I have to want to get into a shitstorm like this with you? The answer is none. There was no reason for it, whether in regards to base practical considerations like keeping you on as moderator were there to be/have been a future board ownership change or just in general.

I tried to convince you about Spacedock to help you move from the confused second group toward the first, as most of the folks I consider equals or betters . . . Bernd of EAS, Graham of DITL, assorted folks at Flare . . . have also done. Instead, you started stomping your foot and moved further away from the reasonable view, making increasingly unreasonable claims and insults that demanded a response.

I hoped for and expected better, and I am very disappointed in you.}
Were you just innocently "trolling" when you wrote:

"It looks different, naturally, but I can bet that STDJWs (of the type who insist it'll all fit perfectly and ignore the "visual reboot") are going to claim that it could totally have been refurbished despite literally costing thousands of ships worth of material."

Come on. This is asking for a fight. What are you contributing here to this and the Spacedock discussion with this crap?


Suppose in the recent discussion on the Discovery Mirror Universe bombardment against Florida that I had said "well, Flat Earthers will get pissed about this scene since it shows part of a globe", and you, having previously spoken in terms of globes, suddenly decided to take up the mantle of Flat Eartherism and claim it wasn't a globe we saw, and that I was a crusading hater, dishonest, and blah blah blah.

That's basically how I view the Spacedock thread and your newfound (late) offense to my first post in it that you're trying to retcon as your casus belli.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:04 pm

I know I'm a week late to the party here. My apologies, this is now normal, but there are a couple of things going on here.

First, the screw-up with the deleted post. Mike DiCenso, I'd say you owe 2046 an apology detached from the rest of the argument going on here. There's something interesting Trek-wise to talk about here, some things perhaps needful to talk about between the two of you personally and forum-business wise, and separating the discussion seems wise.

Be really careful about delete buttons, they're generally permanent. I've been able to fix some of the mistakes I've made with them by pulling out of back-ups, but 2046's post would have been too recent for the most recent backup.

2046, let us please leave phrases like "STD justice warriors" and "pyschotroll" behind. Mike DiCenso screwed up by deleting your post, and I would be really angry about it too. I screwed up worse last year, if anyone is counting. I have no idea how good your reasons are for being angry at Sothis, but he's welcome to participate in discussions here if he stays polite, and I would like you to follow the same standards.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5775
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Mike DiCenso » Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:06 pm

I've already issued an apology in the Spacedock thread:

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 4&start=15

I think an apology is owed by 2046 most definitely to Sothis who had nothing to do with this other than a single post.
-Mike

User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Trinoya » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:09 pm

While I do agree with an apology needed, I think the more relevant part should be that the actions within twitter or elsewhere should not hold relevance to this discussion.

I do not believe a formal warning is warranted over this behavior, but lets just put it all behind us for now and move on.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by 2046 » Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:30 am

I'll certainly avoid bringing Sothis up as example of the type of terms to be left behind in the future. I have plenty of other example tweeters if needed, though none quite so persistent in following me around. Part of the goal was to block any efforts on his part to start the same behavior here, and it's so far so good on that front and will hopefully remain so.

The post deletion was an annoyance, but Mike covered the apology side for that event adequately. As noted, I reconstructed the post, so other than not fixing the order of posts as suggested there was no harm.

As for the rest, I haven't even been here for days out of sheer disgust at the unnecessary situation. Mike, while I might not be so keen to have your babies now (as I had quite recently joked to JMS), and while I still think trying to argue against the visual reboot differences is flat-earthery, I will apologize if you thought I was addressing you as an STDJW in the initial post, and hope the description of the three different types of detail-oriented STD fan is meaningful in explaining my point of view.

More broadly, and here not referencing any situation specifically, but I truly have no interest in the squabble side of things, though will defend myself if I believe I am accused inappropriately. It's never the best to assume the worst of others then tell them so, especially in an environment of mutual respect (or the rule to fake it in a polite and reasoned discussion environment).

It can be difficult to produce de-escalation / de-confliction and disagree at the same time in the same post. (That's a smaller subset of the general problem in society of folks not knowing how to disagree without also hating and impugning the person they disagree with.) While I think it is possible to disagree politely and believe(d) I know how when in the mood, I am evidently not good at it, as it seems at times my fire extinguishers are filled with gasoline. Sometimes I have to assume no fire extinguisher will do at all, and sometimes that's probably true. However, it's safe to say that everyone here and in modern society at large could use more reading up on de-escalation strategy, myself included.

That having been said, should the conversation continue on the points in this and the Spacedock thread where things escalated needlessly, I shall attempt to simply snip anything personal, good or bad, and hope such issues are confined to private messaging going forward.

Sothis
Bridge Officer
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:17 am
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Sothis » Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:34 am

I have to say that I am disappointed unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations about me remain in public view, however I consider the matter closed if everyone else does.

Darth Spock
Bridge Officer
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Darth Spock » Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:48 pm

I was going to add my thoughts to 359's original list but really, most of the items there aren't real deal breakers, whether they're reliant on semantics like there being "no record" of mutiny in the Federation or the preexisting retcon for Klingon cloaks. Again considering the "Balance of Terror" to feature a new "practical invisibility screen" or the new cloak in "The Enterprise Indecent" which was expected to be detectable in the near future. Most of those things are comparatively minor, even the discrepancies in the space dock don't seem so radical considering the crazy overhaul they made on the Constitution class in TMP way back in '79, in fact the appearance on the Enterprise here in Discovery bothers me more, the idea that they'd be flipping major hull modifications back and forth is ridiculous.

The Klingons are the biggest deal breaker though, they aren't even just a cosmetic change but have radical changes to their biology... But, heck, even that could be 'Treked away. In TNG "Genesis" an "intron virus" turned Worf into a prehistoric, hairless clawed beast in a few days. It's conceivable some Klingon's may have worked to counteract the Klingon augment virus and further separate themselves themselves from the repulsive smooth heads by returning to more "pure" primordial Klingon roots. I think this fits with what I'd expect with current racial divides and what I've heard about producers modeling Klingons on Trump supporters.

Then again, it's possible they feel free to play fast and loose with continuity what with these word games about Discovery being "canon" and "prime" universe. With Discovery's spore drive, they could start anywhere but so long as they end in the prime universe, they've met the requirements. It'd be the biggest stretch yet for not just a few episodes but an entire series to have most of its history rewritten, but I can see it happening, with the ship Discovery being the lone piece of "real" prime line 'Trek just as Voyager was an island of the Federation alone in a foreign land. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the show's writers are intentionally riding the fence until the CBS/Viacom merger gets resolved. In which case they almost certainly will play some timeline hopping games and tie everything into one big pretzel package, maybe even giving Quentin Tarantino that "Yesterday's Enterprise" film remake he wants, but in the TOS era.

Lately I've given up on optimism for such things being handled with care and attention to detail, but if this little snippet is any indication, maybe there's hope that the honchos over there are actually trying. I guess we'll see.

Post Reply