Khas wrote:The last part of that post is what this site is about. Or at least what it TRIES to be about. It all started as something fun, but over the years has become 'serious business'. Why can't it go back to the old days?
I beg to disagree, sir.
It has always been serious business, in that it's ultimately a very techy and versus-orientated board, and JMS' personal pages precisely reflect that.
It doesn't mean we can't have other debates, though, and I think we have proved we could do that. However, as far as I am concerned, I have little passion for silly debates, sorry.
Now, what amuses me is the kind of people who think they're being smarter by pointing out the plebes focusing on firepower, for example, and doing bits and bobs over pixels and numbers instead of talking about scenarios in a more armchair general way.
First, we do both (and more), and secondly, it's fine and all to establish strategies and speculate about diplomacy, but what happens when you have finally proved that you can build A and B types of ships over X weeks and can move their to target C within Y weeks, only to realize that your ships don't even have... the firepower (or the range, sensors, shields or STL mobility) to threaten the enemy?
:)
Sunburst wrote:This is the least biased place I've found on the web to debate. Everywhere else seems to be biased towards Wars...heavily, and although this site is biased towards Trek I've noticed most people are open to everyone's ideas. Actually discussion happens here without petty bickering.
Here's the thing, these are fictional universes with fictional rules of physics, which break their own rules. There's really no black and white comparison, so everything ends up being a judgement call. And people with strong opinions will only become more devout in their belief when they find more people that believe like they do. It becomes a snowball effect.
The bias at SBC is so glaring that the only people arguing STvSW over there are the same old warsies and then some recent semi-trolls with multiple accounts (infinity/zing/geul, etc.), and that's all.
Trekkies have largely withdrawn to exclusively pro-Trek forums, with a very exceptions like here (although there's a pro Trek tendency, obviously) and the scifi forum, with its metalong versus threads.
leon_caboose wrote:Not petty bickering, but stubbornness. Posting stupid conjectures with no evidence. Making idiotic assumptions. Favoring one side and ignoring any reasoning on another part.
For instance, Mike wong has a page full of hate mail. On every single point that the other person has made, he totally shreds them. Does this mean that Mike wong is right? No! Does this mean that there aren't questions he couldn't answer? NO! On the other hand the people that debate with him, are so stubborn that even when he totally rips their theories apart, they STILL won't say their wrong. I mean, take St-vs-sw.net or whatever that one site is. He had a debate with Mike wong and got his ass kicked. You can see his debate in full on stardestroyer.net
However, on st-vs-sw.net he continues whining about how he won........i mean seriously, he say's he won and yet he got his ass handed to him.
I think you're largely incorrect about the true outcome of the debate between Robert Scott Anderson and Mike Wong.
If anything, if you spend more time over this board - assuming you are here for
good reasons - youwill see the evidence, and not necessarily the new kind but sources formerly ignored or quoted out of context, which prove RSA largely right over time.
Now it doesn't mean he's right about everything, far from it.