Mike DiCenso wrote:Nope, just showing how all three sources agree with one another.
l33telboi wrote:
Which equals you using the script as evidence. It's that simple. Ergo it’s perfectly valid for Oraghan to us the script to support his notions. Anything else would be a double standard.
Only used for purposes of
knowing intent, which, for some odd reason, you fail to grasp, either intentionally or otherwise. It is you that is twisting things around to try and justify Oraghan's flimsy attempt to solely use the
shooting script as his power estimate basis. All known transcripts of "True Q", for example, have the word "second" is cut off, and very nearly everyone agrees, regardless that "second" cut off by the klaxon. So you're both attempting to compare an apples and oranges situation where one situation is clearly defined by both transcripts as well as people listening to one where some people (currently a majority in one thread) hear one thing and others hear another, and the transcripts all agree with one (currently minority) side, but not the other.
l33telboi wrote:The rest of your reply is pretty much one giant red herring with some insults in it, but I’m feeling generous so I’ll just pretend I didn’t notice that:
You are just sadly degerating into SDN like tactics of misrepresenting other people's statements.
I don't much care for your obsession with SDN or your childlike snipes trying to pass me off as someone like them. To put it politely – it’s a rather illogical claim. What? You've failed to notice that when I debate I mostly debate franchises other then ST? You've failed to notice that I haven't even watched a whole lot of trek? So how, in your mind, you’ve somehow pegged me for a ST fanboy is beyond me.
Nor do I care for yours. I compare what you are doing to that group because like them, you are clinging like a drowning man to that one bit of flotsom solely for the purpose of winning the discussion because you apparently have an excessive emotional attachment to your interpretation of the sound of the first letter in a word spoken by a character.
l33telboi wrote:Heck, even the densest people on SDN have noticed that I'm not a trekkie.
Speaking of "red herrings" I don't care, either that you are or you aren't a Warsie or Trekkie. All I see is you acting like a classic SDNer and twisting what I say around because you are so emotionally locked up with this.
Your only counter is to use a link to a thread where people are giving subjective listenings. You also are forgetting my reasons for using the transcripts in the first place.
And what's your evidence? Using a fan transcript based on what one person heard? As opposed to my link which had 11 people partaking (quite a few people more on the IRC channel before that question was posed on the forum). Plus a non-canon script which you at times seem to regard as evidence and at times seem to reject as evidence.
I used several such transcripts as reference. All of them are in agreement with what was said. I will remind you:
1.) DVD subtitle transcript
2.) Graham Kennedy's transcript
3.) The Chakotaya.net transcript
These are three, seperate sources. Like it or not, the first one listed is an offical Paramount source, which was not reported first by me, but by another poster here as you well know.
l33telboi wrote:Oh, and need I remind you that you actually never did quote the script which you were supposed to be in possession of.
I have no doubt that you'll keep seeing yourself as having some form of moral high-ground on this topic. But as it stands, the majority is on my side. Trying to dismiss everything other people say because it's “subjective†is ludicrous. I mean, what, you have something that's not subjective that stands behind your side of the argument?
You have some people who agreed with you on SB.com. But there are. people here who disagree with you. There is enough contention here that just simply listening is not enough.
As for the script, unlike your one friend Striker1346's grandfather, I don't own a copy. So please stop with the lies and twisting. I merely stated I had seen it, and it had said "millions". By the way, what did Stiker find in the script his grandfather has?
1.) The scripts intended for Kim to say "millions". A non-canon source, but it at least gives us what was intended.
l33telboi wrote:If you want, I could post an excerpt from the tech bible for my fanfic which says billions. I mean they are of equal canonical worth, so why not?
How does your fanfic show the original episode writers' intent? It does not, and red herring noted.
2.) Disagreement on whether the actor, Garett Wang, actually said "billions" or "millions". This is highly subjective and what people hear is going to depend largely on their bias, where they live, and what language they speak, ect.
l33telboi wrote:Which is the only defense you have against 10 people saying it's billion opposed to your opinion. What? You don't recognize your own opinion as subjective? It's somehow worth more then the opinions of others? And to try to claim that SB of all places would be biased in trying to up the figures for Trek is probably one of the silliest claims out there. Heck, you yourself badmouth the place often enough because of the exact opposite.
No, but not just myself, but JMS and Graham Kennedy all think it's millions. There are also the few other people at SB.com that also think it was millions, too. Again, highly subjective interpretation. The offical DVD subtlitle transcript says "millions", too.
l33telboi wrote:
And the canonical status of this is...? That's right - zip. Indeed transcripts are nothing more then people that have nothing to do with the franchise trying to hear what is said. In other words - the exact same thing that was done in the SB thread.
The DVD subtitle transcript is not offical franchise material? Oh wait, I'll bet Paramount subtitle people are liars, too.
I still hold that position in the light of the continuing controversy. But I will amend it to note that some people are hearing "billions" as opposed to "millions".
l33telboi wrote:"Some"? Try substituting it for "the majority".
A majority in a single thread that only amounted to 10 people in the actual poll, and 9 in the thread (one of whom listened to the clip several times before deciding on "billion").. One person decided "millions" in the poll, one person could not access the sound clip, while two other people didn't apparently take things seriously to give real answers in the actual thread, and at least one person in the thread thinks it's "millions".
As an idea, maybe you should hold a poll here. The more people who partcipate in a study the more likely the results will be accurate. Here at SFJ, there is a more even split among the clear cut agree/disagree people, and people who aren't sure.
-Mike