I recently participated in a thread like this on another set of boards.Kartr_Kana wrote:Sorry for the stupid comments. I just find that two pages of an old argument rather...silly? No offense. If you just want to go over the same ground again and again its your time to waste.
I would be more than happy to not have to cover the same ground again and again. But, right on schedule, Trek-boys would waltz in and make the same asinine claims. Shoot one bunch down, and someone else joined the thread, insisting on the same tactics. Instead of accepting fact and logic, they insisted on exceptions, on phase-inversions and near-warp prestidigitation and Kevin Uxbridge.
Fantasy is all well and good. And while Star Trek's original communicator may have inspired the form of flip-phones, it's guaranteed that those dreamers knew their physics and electronics, and weren't trying to invent a subspace transceiver assembly to make it all work.
Nope. I got called 'hostile,' and told 'we just want to have fun'.
Shoot, they can't even argue Trek using Trek sources. They can't reason out the basic three-act teleplay. Mention 'Wagon Train to the Stars,' and they probably don't even know what 'Wagon Train' is, or think it's a brand of dog food.
That's fun? Steeping oneself in ignorance?
Whatever.