What if Mike Wong is a Trekkie?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-24 10:24am

Vertigo1 wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I am a Trekkie.

Excuse me for a second.....

It would have made more sense if you had read the whole post. He's saying that he knows a lot of worthless Trek trivia, knows episode names, watches the show regularly, and has an archive of the stuff. By MOST people's standards he is a Trekkie. That does not make him a pro-Trek debater, which is (I think) what the original question was about.

And I still don't see how he could be a pro-Trek debater. He just could not fall for those fallacious interpretations and silly logical fallacies.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2002-09-25 03:18pm

Master of Ossus wrote:It would have made more sense if you had read the whole post. He's saying that he knows a lot of worthless Trek trivia, knows episode names, watches the show regularly, and has an archive of the stuff. By MOST people's standards he is a Trekkie. That does not make him a pro-Trek debater, which is (I think) what the original question was about.

And I still don't see how he could be a pro-Trek debater. He just could not fall for those fallacious interpretations and silly logical fallacies.

Dude, I was teasing him.

Note the

smiley. Sheesh, you folks have got to lighten up!

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2002-09-26 01:21am

Dude, I was teasing him. Note the smiley. Sheesh, you folks have got to lighten up!

So now you are calling us fat?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-09-26 08:26am

Were I to wake up one morning and become an ubertrekkie, my method of doing so would be to act as the Trek version of Curt Saxton (a REAL Trek version of CS, NOT Graham Kennedy's fakey version thereof) - watching episodes with a critical eye, looking for hard data on performance and trying to rationalize inconsistencies in a way that makes sense (unlike GK, who rationalizes inconsistencies in a way that amps up the power estimates for ST).