Most retarded "Talifan" criticism ever

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-05-30 04:48pm

As for his "nerditry" argument, I would like to see any criticism of the behavour of Star Wars fans which could not be applied in equal or greater measure to sports fans or religious people. Since when is it particularly "nerdy" to read something that was poorly thought out and say "hey, that's fucking stupid"?

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2006-05-30 04:53pm

VT-16 wrote:Now, I read that you thought "3 million" sounded big and impressive. Know what's more impressive than that? 13 million. And that was just one side of a planetary war. The Germans in World War II, in fact.

To really put this number in perspective, let's do some very simple math.

The current active strength of the all-volunteer US military is about 1,425,000, compared to a national population of about 298,000,000. With our handy Microsoft Windows calculator, we know that this represents somewhere around 0.478% of the population. Of course, these are all estimates, but it's close enough for this kind of work!

Now, we take a planet of Earth-life population, of which there are probably thousands (or hundreds of thousands) in the Star Wars galaxy. The population of Earth being circa 6 billions as of the year 2000, and taking the USA's volunteer military as our example, we arrive at 28,680,000 men, or well over nine times as many troops as the purported clone army, recruited without conscription on a single planet of average population. Considering the all-volunteer nature of the US army, this is clearly a low-end estimate.

In a war like WWII, the US military had a peak strength of about 12 millions against a population of around 132 millions--about 1 in 11, substantially lower than a nation like Germany and easily within the limits of economic and political sustainability. This would give a potential conscription pool of about 545,000,000 from our Earth like planet, or more than 180 times the size of the Clone Army. This is our high-end number.

The actual potential mobilization for a planet of Earthlike population in the Star Wars probably falls somewhere between those values--the point is that there are shitloads of these planets in the Star Wars galaxy, and an army of 3,000,000 men would be completely lost in the shuffle on just one such planet, even assuming an all-volunteer force.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-05-30 05:02pm

The only possible explanation I can imagine that would explain the "3 million man army" crap currently floating around is that there were 3 million of the best trained, hand-picked soldiers in the Republic that were chosen to provide DNA stock to clone an army of many times more. All resultant Clone Troopers would be made from this 3 million men.

There were obviously millions of Jango Fetts made on Kamino; if the cloning facilities churned out an equal amount of clonetroops from a "raw material" stock of 3 million soldiers (millions troops from each soldier-donor) that would be an army more in tune with the expectations of Star Wars.

That's the only fucking way I can see that number going down.

Even if you accept the uber-minimalist argument that the Empire was "one star system" and there were at best "a dozen" Star Destroyes, 3 million troops is still inadequate.

But I guess caring like things such as numbers and taking into account the actual films is too nerdy.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-05-30 05:07pm

Hey Lambert, if you saw a basketball movie where the score was 300-275 (pretty much an impossibility, as anyone who knows the game would tell you), would you not call it retarded?:roll:

And as others have already pointed out, you obviously know A LOT more about the subject than the average person, or even the average scifi fan. Why don't you get off of your high horse and stop talking down to us, Mr. Popularity? The one thing worse than a sad geek is a sad geek who has deluded himself into thinking that he's actually cool. I bet you got a lot of pussy while typing up your retarded scifi column.

And finally, anybody who actually argues that 3 million troops is a lot, when there are single countries in the past that have had more troops than that, is a complete, utter, irredeemable fucking moron.

Bryan Lambert · Post by **Bryan Lambert** » 2006-05-30 05:15pm

Wong, this thread is only four hours old. I'm not "ignoring" you. I'm just answering other points beyond your first post because they're shorter, they're simpler, and to be honest, they addressed things I actually said or wrote. Your original post is a whole 'nother bag of mice. I said I'd get to it, and you have absolutely no reason to repeatedly question me just because I haven't gotten to it by the time you were able to knock out another shouty, content-free post.

Now, as promised, your original concerns:

FIRST: I am not, in any serious way, arguing for the three million number. I'm not. I state this outright in the column itself:

These nerds felt that three million was a ridiculous low-ball number for the amount of clone troopers required to perform the tasks hinted at by the Star Wars prequels. They may be correct. I don't know.

So I can't really address all the posts in this thread questioning my military knowledge in regards to the number, because the number is merely context for what I'm discussing.

SECOND: I do not use the word "nerd" as a context-free universal pejorative. I'm not attacking the idea of nerd, the concept of nerd. The whole point of the Be A Better Nerd series is to address specific nerd behaviors I think are unhealthy and funny. That's why it's not the Stop Being A Nerd series.

ONWARD:

Notice how he spends most of his effort trying to pretend he's way too cool to be interested in sci-fi literature, even though he obviously must be interested if he even knows this argument is taking place.

This point is doubly wrong - first, I never said I'm not interested in sci-fi literature. I said I was dissatisfied with the current state of sci-fi literature as represented by the shelves of Barnes and Noble, which is something different.

Second, the nature of the Internet is that you don't need to be interested in something to find out about it. You just need to be in the same place as someone who happens to mention it. And YAD is a daily webcolumn. I've got to keep my eyes peeled and my nets cast wide.

For someone who claims to not care at all about sci-fi, he obviously cares enough to put forth arguments about the epistemology of visual sci-fi.

Again, I'm not someone who claims to not care at all about sci-fi, so this argument holds no water.

What's more indicative of a problem? Attacking an author for writing a stupid number into her book, or attacking people for being "nerds" because they don't like that number?

What's causing part of the confusion is that a number of things have happened around this three million number, and you are all assuming I'm criticizing all of them to the same degree. Not only is this not true, but you can't possibly determine that it IS true because the part of the column where I go into detail about specific behaviors hasn't even appeared yet.

Arguing over the numbers is... OK. Well, not OK per se, but it's like eating a Twinkie. It's not healthy, but some people think it's fun.

Arguing over the numbers for eight months is considerably unhealthier. That's a lot of Twinkies.

Agruing over the number using certain specific methods and tactics that have yet to be detailed in my column qualifies the perpetrators as what I like to call "clinically bugfuck", and makes them fair game for harsh comedy criticism.[/quote]

Bryan Lambert · Post by **Bryan Lambert** » 2006-05-30 05:17pm

I would like to see any criticism of the behavour of Star Wars fans which could not be applied in equal or greater measure to sports fans or religious people.

This just goes to show how little you know about me, my website, or the groups it targets with astonishing regularity.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2006-05-30 05:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:Since when is it particularly "nerdy" to read something that was poorly thought out and say "hey, that's fucking stupid"?

Hell, the analysis is useful to me since it helps me keep from doing the same stupid shit in my own writing. We actually discussed this some at a writers' convention I was at last week - the reason it's important to get stuff right, whether science or numbers or what-have-you, is to maintain the suspension of disbelief and allow the reader to maintain the illusion of being in the fictional universe. It wasn't put in quite those words, but (IIRC) it was Jack McDevitt who said it.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2006-05-30 05:22pm

Ugh. That article was the stupidest and most hypocritical thing I've read all day (and I've read idiocities from a 15-year-old creationist today).

Seriously? He knows what words like "Talifan" means and then thinks he is in some position to mock other people for being nerdy? If he truly bitterly resents knowing the 3 million figure, why the hell did he mention it? If he wanted to make the argument that people who argue over numbers in sci-fi, then the actual numbers they are arguing are irrelevant. It's obvious this tool isn't just saying "lol you are nerds" but also trying to argue for Traviss' retarded number. Of course, since he is not very intelligent, the extent of his argument is "They are 3 million. If you try to argue against that you are a nerd. I am not a nerd for arguing this, though."

I also like how he defends his number (because he really does make it his number in the article) by saying that movie-makers are sloppy people that don't care about the visual accuracy of the movie. Not only is that what the real Talifan's apparently say (hey, I know less about this debate than he does. He must be a nerd in dire need of euthanasia) but it's also the worst defense ever. Does he really think people resent the 3 million figure because they counted more clones than that, and not because real-life armies on this little planet are significantly larger?

Dear Mr. Lambert, you are dumb.

Also, the whole site seems to be the inbred bastard child of Maddox and SomethingAwful, except it's not funny and has an agenda.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-05-30 05:34pm

Bryan Lambert wrote:FIRST: I am not, in any serious way, arguing for the three million number. I'm not. I state this outright in the column itself:

So you admit the number is bullshit, and that you're just attacking people who think think the same way and call if for what it is? I repeat, would you call BS on a basketball movie where the score was 300-275?

SECOND: I do not use the word "nerd" as a context-free universal pejorative. I'm not attacking the idea of nerd, the concept of nerd. The whole point of the Be A Better Nerd series is to address specific nerd behaviors I think are unhealthy and funny.

It's "funny" to point out BLATANT bullshit in a poorly written piece of fiction?

This point is doubly wrong - first, I never said I'm not interested in sci-fi literature. I said I was dissatisfied with the current state of sci-fi literature as represented by the shelves of Barnes and Noble, which is something different.

So can you tell me what the fuck was the purpose of you saying "Holy shit, they're still publishing Star Wars Insider?" and acting like you couldn't judge the quality of Traviss's books because you haven't read, or even looked at the scifi section lately?

And since you apparently know the scifi genre well enough (read enough of it) to be able to dismiss every book in the scifi section as crap based on the cover, you're obviously a bigger nerd than I am. I haven't read a full scifi novel in years.

Second, the nature of the Internet is that you don't need to be interested in something to find out about it. You just need to be in the same place as someone who happens to mention it. And YAD is a daily webcolumn. I've got to keep my eyes peeled and my nets cast wide.

You still need to go to the right places to even know about something. The average person, hell, the average nerd doesn't even know about this issue. And how fucking cool do you think it is to keep your "nets cast wide" and lurk a million internet forums and websites?

Again, I'm not someone who claims to not care at all about sci-fi, so this argument holds no water.

No, you just claim to care less about scifi, which supposedly makes you cooler.

Arguing over the numbers for eight months is considerably unhealthier. That's a lot of Twinkies.

It's a pointless hobby, most of us KNOW that. And it's not like Traviss hasn't been fanning the flames herself. Furthermore, what the fuck am I supposed to do with my time, huh? Spend it emotionally investing myself in a bunch of games played by adult jocks like everyone else? It's NORMAL to spend your free time on useless trivial things for fun.

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2006-05-30 05:47pm

You know Bryan, I think the problem that many people here, myself included, have with this is the absolutely glaring and galling hypocrasy you're displaying. Wong's already pointed it out, but it's a rather obvious case of pot kettle black to bitch at people for having an issue with a stupid number and equally stupid "rationalization", and then run around and register and post at the very sci-fi message boards that are filled with these same "nerds".

Ryoga · Post by **Ryoga** » 2006-05-30 05:56pm

Hm. Looking at our dear friend's website for the last month or so...

Politics, politics, kvetching about the Doom movie and a bunch of overly-sensitive soccer moms, more politics, bitching about the new Star Wars DVDs, some bizarre rant about the use of a phrase the author dislikes, and so on and so on.

You must be a real hit with the ladies, huh sport?

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-05-30 06:12pm

Bryan Lambert wrote:Arguing over the numbers for eight months is considerably unhealthier.

Eight years from now, that number is still going to be wrong. Nevermind that the debate isn't really over something that was clearly wrong the instant it came out anymore. It's about the ridiculous defence put up for that number which has gone way into personal attacks and organized censorship.

You're an asshole for insulting me and my hobby indirectly, and just for your information, I'm a professional in IT since 16 years, married and have two kids, much like Mr. Wong and I very much consider myself having a life. I enjoy the entertainment given by sci-fi and fantasy in various media, I enjoy discussing triva around it, and I'm by no means ashamed of doing so.

Obviously you're simply making news for your website in the way tabloids do, by sensationalism and trampling over people. Your readers might not feel so nerdy about reading your stuff on the internet (something that was constricted only to "nerds" not so many years ago) when they can read about even sadder, supposedly, uber-nerds, hm?

Well, Mr. Bryan Lambert, guess who's the "worse nerd" here. I'll give you a hint; his initials are B.L. You're entitled to your opinions, but you're not entitled to get away scot free.

Bryan Lambert · Post by **Bryan Lambert** » 2006-05-30 06:19pm

Responding to Mr. Raynor:

So you admit the number is bullshit, and that you're just attacking people who think think the same way and call if for what it is? I repeat, would you call BS on a basketball movie where the score was 300-275?

I don't admit the number is bullshit or not bullshit. I am neither arguing for nor against the number. Therefore I am not attacking people because they think the same.

Of course I would think the basketball score is ridiculous. But I'd still mock someone who spent eight months trying to get the filmmakers to change it for the DVD release or reference a different score in the sequel. Because that would be crazy.

It's "funny" to point out BLATANT bullshit in a poorly written piece of fiction?

It can be. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. Depends on how it gets done.

So can you tell me what the fuck was the purpose of you saying "Holy shit, they're still publishing Star Wars Insider?" and acting like you couldn't judge the quality of Traviss's books because you haven't read, or even looked at the scifi section lately? And since you apparently know the scifi genre well enough (read enough of it) to be able to dismiss every book in the scifi section as crap based on the cover, you're obviously a bigger nerd than I am. I haven't read a full scifi novel in years.

I can, but I'll have to break it down. The purpose of the Star Wars Insider sentence was what we call a "joke". Jokes are made by people who produce "comedy". Comedy is material written with the express purpose of making the reader laugh.

I said I couldn't judge the quality of Traviss' books because I hadn't read them because, well, I can't judge the quality of Traviss' books because I haven't read them. It's a simple declarative statement intended to provide the reader with insight as to my point of view. Not having read Traviss' books doesn't indicate my interest in the genre either way.

The bit about the Barnes and Noble was another joke, as evidenced by the hyperbolic statements about seizures and restraining orders. The joke was at the expense of the current SF paperback market, which is, in my opinion, suffering from a glut of bad covers, multi-volume series, tie-in fiction, and the like.

I normally don't like explaining jokes in that much detail, but you did ask.

The average person, hell, the average nerd doesn't even know about this issue. And how fucking cool do you think it is to keep your "nets cast wide" and lurk a million internet forums and websites?

I didn't say the average person knew. I said someone who hangs out in one message board that I also hang out in knew. I find it difficult to concern myself with the statistical probability of an event I participated in first-hand.

And again, you people seem to think that my argument is that I'm somehow "cooler" than you. The word "cool" doesn't appear in the column. This isn't a coolness competition. This isn't "cool kids" vs. "nerds". Leave your latent swirlie issues at home or we're not going to get anywhere. Well, we're not going to get anywhere anyway, but we'll get there faster.

It's NORMAL to spend your free time on useless trivial things for fun.

One more time, on the off chance it sinks in - the column's halfway done. If you want to know what behaviors I take issue with, and the relative amounts I take issue with each of them, you can find out along with everyone else tonight at midnight when the column goes up.
[/quote]

Bryan Lambert · Post by **Bryan Lambert** » 2006-05-30 06:22pm

You know Bryan, I think the problem that many people here, myself included, have with this is the absolutely glaring and galling hypocrasy you're displaying. Wong's already pointed it out, but it's a rather obvious case of pot kettle black to bitch at people for having an issue with a stupid number and equally stupid "rationalization", and then run around and register and post at the very sci-fi message boards that are filled with these same "nerds". Rolling Eyes

I posted here once to correct some misconceptions about my site. Then I was invited by Darth Maul to discuss specific issues with the column.

Not that any of that matters, because it's not hypocrisy. And the only way everyone here is making it seem like hypocrisy is by misstating both what I'm criticizing and what I'm doing so that they look equal.

Bryan Lambert · Post by **Bryan Lambert** » 2006-05-30 06:24pm

You must be a real hit with the ladies, huh sport? Laughing

You know what's funny? I never mock nerds for "lack of sex life". You know why? Because it's untrue (fortunately or unfortunately) and because it's old, tired, and unoriginal.

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2006-05-30 06:26pm

Bryan Lambert wrote:I posted here once to correct some misconceptions about my site. Then I was invited by Darth Maul to discuss specific issues with the column.

How in the hell is calling someone a "nerd" because you disagree with what they do a misconception?

Not that any of that matters, because it's not hypocrisy. And the only way everyone here is making it seem like hypocrisy is by misstating both what I'm criticizing and what I'm doing so that they look equal.

Yes it is hypocrasy. I see it, Wong sees it, and apparently everyone else here does as well thus far. But please, keep trying to spin your way out of it. It would amuse me if it wasn't so trasparently pathetic.

Bryan Lambert · Post by **Bryan Lambert** » 2006-05-30 06:27pm

It's about the ridiculous defence put up for that number which has gone way into personal attacks and organized censorship.

And my columns are about the ridiculous offense put up in opposition to that number which has gone way into personal attacks and deeply disturbing behavior. So we're even on that score.

The rest of your post consists of Latent Swirlie Issues and don't relate to what I'm saying or writing.

Bryan Lambert · Post by **Bryan Lambert** » 2006-05-30 06:28pm

How in the hell is calling someone a "nerd" because you disagree with what they do a misconception?

I'm not calling you nerds because I disagree with you. I'm calling you nerds because you're nerds. That's the same reason I call myself one.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2006-05-30 06:31pm

Ok then, lets give dude the benefit of the doubt...since you wrote this OTHER part of the article, could you please give us some bullet points? Not saying a point by point study, merely state what behavior you find unhealthy, state it as you would in the article if you want. That way, if there are any misconceptions you can easily clear them up.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2006-05-30 06:31pm

Bryan Lambert wrote:Arguing over the numbers for eight months is considerably unhealthier.

If we applied this train of though to physics, then arguing about whether light had a wave nature or a particle nature is unhealthy, since the debate went on for dozens of years. If applied to chemistry, arguing whether the structure of benzene is in a state of equilibrium or resonance is unhealthy, since that debate went on for years. If we applied this same thought to biology, where it was argued whether Archaea should be made a separate group, that was also unhealthy.

Debates based on sound logic and reasoning, with empirical evidence, exist for a purpose: to weed out wrong information and paint a better picture of knowledge. Of course, you knew that...

Bryan Lambert · Post by **Bryan Lambert** » 2006-05-30 06:35pm

Ok then, lets give dude the benefit of the doubt...since you wrote this OTHER part of the article, could you please give us some bullet points? Not saying a point by point study, merely state what behavior you find unhealthy, state it as you would in the article if you want. That way, if there are any misconceptions you can easily clear them up.

That's a fairly bold request to make, given that I'm not the one criticizing things that are half-finished. I'm perfectly willing to table this for 24 hours, because I think we can all agree that it's not actually important in any way.

The lot of you have not exactly earned the privilege of a preview that the people who read my column regularly (and for comprehension) don't get.

IceHawk-181 · Post by **IceHawk-181** » 2006-05-30 06:36pm

In effect you are criticizing people and dismissing them as irredeemable fools simply because they chose to question a number in a Science Fiction Universe?

Whether or not you are aware of this, there are populations of people across the internet who like to spend their free time debating the minutiae of this series, just as you spend countless hours updating your small web-journal.

Go learn something about LFL Canon Policy, look at the source material outside of the Insider Article, and stop cowering like a prating sycophant before the visage of Karen Traviss.

If you wish to comment on a subject educate yourself first.

All of your hypocritical diatribe aside, we at least are willing to exercise an honest intellectual debate.

Unlike your self-indulged, ad-hominem presentation, we are obviously fools and nerds.

Go read a book, stop attacking people from afar, and leave people to their hobbies.

thejester · Post by **thejester** » 2006-05-30 06:54pm

To add to the Greek chorus giving historical examples of huge armies:

France, 1914-1918

Population: 40 million
Conscription: Yes
Mobilised: 8 million
Died: 1 million
Wounded: 4 million

Soviet Union, 1941-1945

Population: Approx 170 million
Conscription: Yes
Mobilisation (Armed Forces): 29,574,900
Mobilisation (All agencies): 34,476,700
Total losses (KIA/POW/MIA): 11,444,100
Total KIA/died of wounds etc: 6,885,100
Total missing/POW: 4,559,000
Total dead 1941-1945: 8,668,400
Total medical casualties: 18,344,148

Just to put the nail into the coffin:

Australia, 1914-1918

Population: 'Fewer than five million' (AWM)
Conscription: No.
Mobilised: 300,000
Killed: 60,000
WIA/POW: 156,000

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2006-05-30 06:58pm

Bryan Lambert wrote: That's a fairly bold request to make, given that I'm not the one criticizing things that are half-finished. I'm perfectly willing to table this for 24 hours, because I think we can all agree that it's not actually important in any way.

The lot of you have not exactly earned the privilege of a preview that the people who read my column regularly (and for comprehension) don't get.

A bold request? Really?

See you keep saying "Lolz read the next article, i'm not being mean!" but you have yet to actually say what was IN this article. Surely it cant be that hard to simply state your case outright instead of constantly pressing that "Dont worry the next article will explain it!"

You say that you find certain behavior unhealthy, so why not drop the attacks and insults and just out and out say what you feel instead of trying to make snide remarks and sarcasm?

This is assuming, of course, that you have any stance besides "LOLZ Warsies!!" but like i said, benefit of the doubt...

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2006-05-30 07:06pm

So, in essence, what you have currently posted is nothing. Nothing but what should have amounted to an introductory paragraph to the actual topic of discussion: Star Wars fans who have gone too far in their protestations of a number.

What was the point of putting it up if it didn't even address the topic? I would have thought it better to have actually completed the article so as to make explicitly clear what your views are and what they are based upon (you know, quotes, links, and such).

Out of curiosity, what twigged you to this particular Star Wars debate?