Word IQ Definition of SW vs ST

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-10-15 05:31am

Interesting biased read..

+http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Star_T ... _Star_Wars

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-10-15 07:11am

Has some odd bits of note.

Literally it's This site is Such and Such...etc. What I find intriguing is that basically it gives that condemantion to anyone associated and gives the most cursory view of the sites involved.

Which in of itself can create problems since it's no different then calling CBR and Comiccon.com the same sides of the coin. All in all it serves a purpose but is just too basic an entry and at times has this chiding tone(wait for flames...I can almost hear the hyucking)

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-10-15 09:33am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_versus_Star_Wars

In any case, I've just added a little bit to the Wikipedia article, to include useful sites for reference, even if they aren't strictly STvsSW.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-15 12:25pm

Great Kazuaki, that way people can judge for themselves. The person that wrote the article that Lord Poe referred to is a real moron.

Utah Jak · Post by **Utah Jak** » 2004-10-15 04:59pm

Interesting article. Anyone else notice that most of the sites were Star Wars biased? (not that its a bad thing)

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-15 08:01pm

Utah Jak wrote:(not that its a bad thing)

Also not a good thing.

Darksider · Post by **Darksider** » 2004-10-15 09:42pm

Alyeska wrote:
Utah Jak wrote:(not that its a bad thing)
Also not a good thing.

Why not?

It's not like trek can actually win.

If all they had was a link to darkstar's site then we'd get a million trek fanwhores invading all over the place.

Besides, it's not like the sites are insanly pro-SW, it's just a couple of sites from early-era ASVS'ers, who merely state the logical and factual outcome

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-10-15 10:19pm

Utah Jak wrote:Interesting article. Anyone else notice that most of the sites were Star Wars biased? (not that its a bad thing)

Not to mention there really aren't all that many comprehensive pro-ST sites.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2004-10-15 10:34pm

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
Utah Jak wrote:Interesting article. Anyone else notice that most of the sites were Star Wars biased? (not that its a bad thing)
Not to mention there really aren't all that many comprehensive pro-ST sites.

There's almost too much material. Star Trek has the same huge "expanded universe" in novels, books, etc similar to Star Wars. With the addition of a ten movies, five series and hundreds upon hundreds of episodes. That's a huge amount of material to make any sense of. Hell, I want to make a website solely about the Borg, and I find just that aspect of Trek daunting in size.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-16 02:35am

Darksider wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Utah Jak wrote:(not that its a bad thing)
Also not a good thing.
Why not?

It's not like trek can actually win.

If all they had was a link to darkstar's site then we'd get a million trek fanwhores invading all over the place.

Besides, it's not like the sites are insanly pro-SW, it's just a couple of sites from early-era ASVS'ers, who merely state the logical and factual outcome

Care to prove how merely being Wars dominated is automaticaly a good thing? Whichever side the site owner favors is irrelevent. By your reasoning if I were to create a site it would automaticaly be inferior simply because I prefer Trek over Wars.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-16 03:14am

Alyeska wrote:
Darksider wrote:
Alyeska wrote: Also not a good thing.
Why not?

It's not like trek can actually win.

If all they had was a link to darkstar's site then we'd get a million trek fanwhores invading all over the place.

Besides, it's not like the sites are insanly pro-SW, it's just a couple of sites from early-era ASVS'ers, who merely state the logical and factual outcome
Care to prove how merely being Wars dominated is automaticaly a good thing? Whichever side the site owner favors is irrelevent. By your reasoning if I were to create a site it would automaticaly be inferior simply because I prefer Trek over Wars.

Having watched a South Park rerun tonight, I think I'll steal a line: "Get the sand out of your vagina."

The connotation is that the sites are bias, when all they're doing is presenting the truth. If you made a ST site that wasn't falacious, then it would be fine. If you distorted the facts to fit your ideas of what "should be " (AKA Darkstar), then you deserve to be shit on.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-16 03:56pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Having watched a South Park rerun tonight, I think I'll steal a line: "Get the sand out of your vagina."

The connotation is that the sites are bias, when all they're doing is presenting the truth. If you made a ST site that wasn't falacious, then it would be fine. If you distorted the facts to fit your ideas of what "should be " (AKA Darkstar), then you deserve to be shit on.

Utah Jak made the useless comment saying that being wars dominated was not a bad thing. I pointed out that this is not true and then Darksider contended that being wars dominated was a good thing. So you can sod off for all I care.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-16 03:58pm

Alyeska wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Having watched a South Park rerun tonight, I think I'll steal a line: "Get the sand out of your vagina."

The connotation is that the sites are bias, when all they're doing is presenting the truth. If you made a ST site that wasn't falacious, then it would be fine. If you distorted the facts to fit your ideas of what "should be " (AKA Darkstar), then you deserve to be shit on.
Utah Jak made the useless comment saying that being wars dominated was not a bad thing. I pointed out that this is not true and then Darksider contended that being wars dominated was a good thing. So you can sod off for all I care.

Dude, you have to get that sand out of your vagina.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-10-16 05:05pm

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_versus_Star_Wars

In any case, I've just added a little bit to the Wikipedia article, to include useful sites for reference, even if they aren't strictly STvsSW.

Um, it looks like you just copy-pasted the list of links from Web IQ, because other than additional links, it's word for word the same as Web IQ's.

Usually it's better to actually write stuff on your own than directly copy it from another source.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-10-16 05:06pm

Damn it, I mean Word IQ.

Additionally, I don't see much wrong with the article cited in the OP.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-10-16 05:09pm

Last time...

Okay, which entry is the original: Wikipedia's or Word IQ's? Because they're pretty much identical.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-16 05:43pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Having watched a South Park rerun tonight, I think I'll steal a line: "Get the sand out of your vagina."

The connotation is that the sites are bias, when all they're doing is presenting the truth. If you made a ST site that wasn't falacious, then it would be fine. If you distorted the facts to fit your ideas of what "should be " (AKA Darkstar), then you deserve to be shit on.
Utah Jak made the useless comment saying that being wars dominated was not a bad thing. I pointed out that this is not true and then Darksider contended that being wars dominated was a good thing. So you can sod off for all I care.
Dude, you have to get that sand out of your vagina.

And you need to grow a brain.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-16 07:20pm

Alyeska wrote:
Darksider wrote:
Alyeska wrote: Also not a good thing.
Why not?

It's not like trek can actually win.

If all they had was a link to darkstar's site then we'd get a million trek fanwhores invading all over the place.

Besides, it's not like the sites are insanly pro-SW, it's just a couple of sites from early-era ASVS'ers, who merely state the logical and factual outcome
Care to prove how merely being Wars dominated is automaticaly a good thing? Whichever side the site owner favors is irrelevent. By your reasoning if I were to create a site it would automaticaly be inferior simply because I prefer Trek over Wars.

No, but if you said Trek has more firepower than Wars ships, or that the Federation could beat the Empire, it WOULD be automatically inferior, because it would be contradicting the facts.

Just TRY to explain how the Federation could POSSIBLY beat the Empire WITHOUT distorting facts, or ignoring evidence.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-16 07:22pm

Praxis wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Darksider wrote: Why not?

It's not like trek can actually win.

If all they had was a link to darkstar's site then we'd get a million trek fanwhores invading all over the place.

Besides, it's not like the sites are insanly pro-SW, it's just a couple of sites from early-era ASVS'ers, who merely state the logical and factual outcome
Care to prove how merely being Wars dominated is automaticaly a good thing? Whichever side the site owner favors is irrelevent. By your reasoning if I were to create a site it would automaticaly be inferior simply because I prefer Trek over Wars.
No, but if you said Trek has more firepower than Wars ships, or that the Federation could beat the Empire, it WOULD be automatically inferior, because it would be contradicting the facts.

Just TRY to explain how the Federation could POSSIBLY beat the Empire WITHOUT distorting facts, or ignoring evidence.

Which is entirely irrelevent. Bias of the site owner should not factor into determining the validity of the site.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-10-16 07:52pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Last time...

Okay, which entry is the original: Wikipedia's or Word IQ's? Because they're pretty much identical.

It's Wikipedia's, as you can see the article conforms to the style of other wikipedia articles. There are a lot of reference sites that simply mirror their stuff from wikipedia, I've started to notice.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-10-16 09:16pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Um, it looks like you just copy-pasted the list of links from Web IQ, because other than additional links, it's word for word the same as Web IQ's.

Usually it's better to actually write stuff on your own than directly copy it from another source.

WHAT THE FUCK? I wrote that shit about the AOTC:ICS myself, from MEMORY, dammit. If Web IQ's blurb looks exactly the same, they were just fast in copying it, not the other way around!

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-10-16 09:18pm

And those two links to SWTC and DITL I added myself. As for the links before, they were there all the time. I didn't add them.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-10-16 09:24pm

The GNU Free Documentation license has this to say on copying:

2. VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.

This is why sites like thefreeencyclopedia.org can copy Wikipedia wholesale.

It's slightly irritating, but that's just the way it works.

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-10-17 03:04am

Ahh...*coughs*...I, ah, edited the list of links at the bottom of the Wikipedia article a while ago merely to be more informative, not to make assumptions or judgments. What I edited it from was far more biased than what I added in.

Now that I look at it again, I see that someone removed this bit that I added to the entry for Darkstar's page:

"The site was originally a criticism of Wayne Poe's USVSD, but it has eventually evolved into a scathing condemnation of Stardestroyer.net in general and Michael Wong in particular."

Also looks like that someone inserted a link to Furry Conflict right under the first link. Gee.

I, ah, will make a couple more edits.

P.S.: My bad. Sorry.

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-10-17 03:29am

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Um, it looks like you just copy-pasted the list of links from Web IQ, because other than additional links, it's word for word the same as Web IQ's.

Usually it's better to actually write stuff on your own than directly copy it from another source.
WHAT THE FUCK? I wrote that shit about the AOTC:ICS myself, from MEMORY, dammit. If Web IQ's blurb looks exactly the same, they were just fast in copying it, not the other way around!

Relax, Kaz, your addition hasn't shown up at WebIQ.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Word IQ Definition of SW vs ST

Word IQ Definition of SW vs ST

Well, they basically just took it from here and added bias

Re: Well, they basically just took it from here and added bi

Re: Well, they basically just took it from here and added bi

Re: Well, they basically just took it from here and added bi