Most retarded "Talifan" criticism ever

[Bryan Lambert]

What's the difference? However you structured it, you still declared that the targets of your article were deserving of the highest levels of contempt, and many of your comments here have further reinforced the notion that you think you are intellectually superior to us.

Actually, most of that ramping up occurs, as I've tried to make clear, in tomorrow's half of the column. That's my point. People who argued the 3 million number as an intellectual exercise are not who I object to. People who argue it as a legitimate campaing to redress an important wrong are. And people who cross several very scary lines are the Worst Nerds in the title.

[Bryan Lambert]

I also find it downright bizarre that you find there no room for a middle ground between 'hard sf' and 'completely inconsistent acid trip where nothing can be said to relate to anything else'.

This isn't what I find. I admit I didn't discuss this in epic detail, because it was a side point, not my main thrust, but what I find is that there's no room for a middle ground between "hard sf" and "mass media entertainment".

In situations where you have no more than a handful of collaborators, and media that allow for time and space to properly worldbuild, you can, and have, any degree of hardness or softness you like. But with something like Star Wars, with thousands of hands in the Play Doh jar at any given time, there's a very, very low upper limit to how "hard" the SF can be.

[nightmare]

I'm sorry, this is the second time you've said this, and I'm not sure what you mean by "new column".

The column currently published as the home page of youaredumb.net, titled "The Worst Nerds", dated May 30, is part one of the two-part column, and what we've been discussing here all afternoon. It hasn't been edited or altered in any way since it was autoposted at midnight.

Part Two, "The Worst Nerds: Episode V" will be autoposted at midnight tonight and be dated May 31.

Technical peculiarities. I was, like I said before, doing something else and when I opened up your column again to make certain that my memory wouldn't play tricks on me before replying about it, a different article was presented. I had only switched tabs and it had only refreshed (I thought), so it looked to me as if you had been real quick to present part 2 (yes, I obviously didn't look at the date), particularly since that article also focused on nerds and in this case their lovelife; seems to be a reoccurring theme for you? It seemed to fit perfectly as a followup article.

So anyway, although I guess that was an older article, the basis of it stands; it does show better that you don't always gloss over all nerds as a homogenous group.

[Noble Ire]

What's the difference? However you structured it, you still declared that the targets of your article were deserving of the highest levels of contempt, and many of your comments here have further reinforced the notion that you think you are intellectually superior to us.

Actually, most of that ramping up occurs, as I've tried to make clear, in tomorrow's half of the column. That's my point. People who argued the 3 million number as an intellectual exercise are not who I object to. People who argue it as a legitimate campaing to redress an important wrong are. And people who cross several very scary lines are the Worst Nerds in the title.

...

Have you actually seen these people, or any of their works? I mean, certainly, many people would be quite happy to see the error fixed one day, and are prefectly content to keep on debating the point until such a change comes, but people who crusade against the 3 Million number as though it was some vital part of their lives? Find me one. Here, or in any part of this debate. Find me a person who has seriously threatened legal action against Traviss, or suggested physical attacks on her or her supporters (don't try the inverse, though; Traviss herself has implied death threats at least twice against her opponents in the debate).

Many of the people here are so interested in the topic simply because it is an element of one of their favored hobbies, be it Star Wars, or simple debate, and as such are interested in seeing a flaw in the entertainment mended, or are exploiting the flaw itself for enjoyment (just see Poe's 'Talifan' video). None of us are fanatics; we have seen their kind here before, and most have been quickly expelled for their behavior.

[Stark]

My first post on Page 2 contains my response to Darth Wong's objections. I'm sorry you missed it, but this thread has moved pretty fast.

Oh fuck off. I'm sure you think you're clever, but passive-aggressive behaviour is just lame. I read it, and it sucked. You're now faffing about with your personal definitions of terms like 'hard scifi'. But don't worry, I'm too lame to understand your stylish writing and it's lame, sad and pathetic to detect and lambast inconsistency. Thanks Brian.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, most of that ramping up occurs, as I've tried to make clear, in tomorrow's half of the column. That's my point. People who argued the 3 million number as an intellectual exercise are not who I object to. People who argue it as a legitimate campaing to redress an important wrong are. And people who cross several very scary lines are the Worst Nerds in the title.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of people like me who argue it as an intellectual exercise and in an effort to get it changed, but don't place much importance on it? Also, who has crossed "several very scary lines?" If you're referring to Traviss, who threatened to kill us, then I'd agree, but what do you accomplish by arguing that with us?

[Bryan Lambert]

that article also focused on nerds and in this case their lovelife; seems to be a reoccurring theme for you? It seemed to fit perfectly as a followup article.

I done five of these most weeks since Jan 2004. I have a lot of recurring themes. One of them involves a pissed-off fern.

I think you got caught in the taxonomy system that's never worked quite right despite my sysadmin's best attempts, and jumped to another article in the Be A Better Nerd series - that'll happen if you use the navigation underneath the columns instead of the archive navigation on the left. From the description, it was the sexnerd column.

It's partly an artifact of having to use a blogging-oriented CMS for something that's not much like a blog.

[Surlethe]

Mr Lambert here is free to put whatever he wants up on the internet on his own website, just like Ms Traviss; however, when he comes here and writes lines like "You are not the target audience, you are the TARGET. That's an important difference.", he reeks of trolling.

Naturally, I disagree with his strawman of the method we use to analyze science fiction, and its ensuing non-sequitur, since there is no other objective manner to scientifically analyze science fiction. I should also add that of course, tomorrow's column will almost certainly mention Mr Poe's website and its mockery of Ms Traviss; since it'll be going up in two and a half hours, and I have surgery tomorrow, I won't be reading it, but it seems to me that if I'm correct, he'll be falling into hypocrisy by ignoring the fact Mr Poe and others like him mock Ms Traviss for the very same reason Mr Lambert mocks us: entertainment.

[Bryan Lambert]

Out of curiosity, what do you think of people like me who argue it as an intellectual exercise and in an effort to get it changed, but don't place much importance on it?

Pretty much what you'd expect, I hope. I think placing any importance on getting it changed is more importance than it deserves, because I believe the audience's sole responsibility in art is as a consumer, not an active participant, and that purchasing a ticket to something is not the same as purchasing a share of stock in it.

But, as they say, as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses...
[/quote]

[Bryan Lambert]

I should also add that of course, tomorrow's column will almost certainly mention Mr Poe's website and its mockery of Ms Traviss; since it'll be going up in two and a half hours, and I have surgery tomorrow, I won't be reading it, but it seems to me that if I'm correct, he'll be falling into hypocrisy by ignoring the fact Mr Poe and others like him mock Ms Traviss for the very same reason Mr Lambert mocks us: entertainment.

I'd like you even if you weren't a mod. You put some thought into this. And you can spell "hypocrisy" right.

Unfortunately, in this case, hypocrisy will be a very difficult thing to either claim or defend, as it doesn't hinge on a concrete, verifiable contradiction, but instead on different subjective interpretations of both motive and what constitutes value in entertainment.

I'm not above a little self-contradiction or hypocrisy when it suits my whim, but in this case, all I ask is that you accept that my position is based genuinely on my interpretation.

[apocolypse]

I'd like you even if you weren't a mod. You put some thought into this. And you can spell "hypocrisy" right.

Wait a minute, I thought that putting some thought about something into a post and discussing it was nerdy? And big fucking deal about the spelling. God you are the walking epitome of style over substance aren't you?

I'm not above a little self-contradiction or hypocrisy when it suits my whim, but in this case, all I ask is that you accept that my position is based genuinely on my interpretation.

And that's the point dipshit. It's your fucking interpretation, yet completely based on subjective feeling. If you haven't been able to figure this out by now, shit like that isn't going to get you far.

Edit: I suppose I should qualify the above as "shit like that isn't going to get you far here", because it does work on some.

[Noble Ire]

I like how you deftly avoided my request that you point out a single time when any one of us actually behaved in the manner you insinuate that we do, Bryan (I also liked the spelling jab; you truly are a man of focused and discerning wit).

[18-Till-I-Die]

How about you just STATE WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY instead of tip toe around saying "Wait till tomorrow, i cant be bothered".

IOW, put up or shut up. What are these spectacular points that the second column will provide? Enlighten us!

[Stark]

Out of curiosity, what do you think of people like me who argue it as an intellectual exercise and in an effort to get it changed, but don't place much importance on it?

Pretty much what you'd expect, I hope. I think placing any importance on getting it changed is more importance than it deserves, because I believe the audience's sole responsibility in art is as a consumer, not an active participant, and that purchasing a ticket to something is not the same as purchasing a share of stock in it.

But, as they say, as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses...

Even more witty soundbytes! I love it.

[Bryan Lambert]

Code: Select all

I like how you deftly avoided my request that you point out a single time when any one of us actually behaved in the manner you insinuate that we do, Bryan (I also liked the spelling jab; you truly are a man of focused and discerning wit).

Look. It's one of me against, at last count, all but one and a half of you. I have engaged in a nigh-Herculean effort to treat each individual poster I've responded to with approximately five percent more respect than they offered me. If I don't respond to one point from one poster, feel free to assume you've bested me in your arena of combat. And frankly, since I cannot even get people to agree on how I've insinuated you behave, I can't provide an example, can I?

If you people didn't think spelling was fair game, why does rule one of your forum include

You will also use capitalization properly, not to mention punctuation, sentence breaks, paragraphs, etc. If you don't like to type decent English, either learn or leave. Greater allowances for deviation from proper English may be made for those for whom English is a second language, within reason. You must at least give the impression that you are sincerely trying to construct proper English sentences.

For the most part, I've let the spelling thing go. But this board -has- set some damn high standards for itself.

[Surlethe]

I should also add that of course, tomorrow's column will almost certainly mention Mr Poe's website and its mockery of Ms Traviss; since it'll be going up in two and a half hours, and I have surgery tomorrow, I won't be reading it, but it seems to me that if I'm correct, he'll be falling into hypocrisy by ignoring the fact Mr Poe and others like him mock Ms Traviss for the very same reason Mr Lambert mocks us: entertainment.

I'd like you even if you weren't a mod. You put some thought into this. And you can spell "hypocrisy" right.

Actually, I'm not a moderator; I'm a senator. There're several slight differences (the biggest one is that I lack mod powers ...). And I could spell "hypocrisy" correctly when I was in third grade; in general, I have little respect for people who can't spell.

Unfortunately, in this case, hypocrisy will be a very difficult thing to either claim or defend, as it doesn't hinge on a concrete, verifiable contradiction, but instead on different subjective interpretations of both motive and what constitutes value in entertainment.

The easiest way to resolve whether or not Mr Poe intends to entertain is by asking Mr Poe himself why he put the site up; I could certainly be wrong, but I know that I was entertained by his write-up. In fact, one could argue that mockery possesses value in entertainment at a very basic level; we, and, of course, you, do it all the time for entertainment.

Actually, it would be beneficial, I think, for you to read up on the history of the versus subculture we all come from. Eleas has a nice write-up on it here explaining how flaming came to be such an accepted part of the culture. In particular, Mr Poe, with his website, is certainly making a point, and it's quite arguable that the manner in which he makes his point -- i.e., the behavior you'd (if my guess is correct) be attacking -- is irrelevant to the essence of his argument.

EDIT: also, check here for another explanation of flaming: "Important note: for you people who ask why I don't take the moral high ground and adopt a firm, restrained, mature tone when dealing with these people, I would like to remind you that we are talking about whether the Empire would kick the Federation's ass! What the hell does maturity have to do with this? To most of its participants, this debate is a vacation from maturity. Those of us who have done this for a long time judge each others' efforts on skill and knowledge, as well as scientific accuracy and logical consistency. Maturity is simply a red herring, and as far as I'm concerned, the very idea of a "mature" Star Wars vs Star Trek debate is outlandish. In my experience, people start whining about "maturity" when they're trying to distract the audience from the fact that they're getting their asses kicked."

I'm not above a little self-contradiction or hypocrisy when it suits my whim, but in this case, all I ask is that you accept that my position is based genuinely on my interpretation.

All I ask is that you not shrink from being identified as a hypocrite if you do it.

[Jim Raynor]

Out of curiosity, what do you think of people like me who argue it as an intellectual exercise and in an effort to get it changed, but don't place much importance on it?

Pretty much what you'd expect, I hope. I think placing any importance on getting it changed is more importance than it deserves, because I believe the audience's sole responsibility in art is as a consumer, not an active participant, and that purchasing a ticket to something is not the same as purchasing a share of stock in it.

But, as they say, as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses...

So consumers are just supposed to shut up? They're never supposed to say what they want out of the company, or voice their displeasure when the company does something to piss them off? Anyone who knows even a bit about business knows that pleasing your customers, giving them what they want, and maintaining good relationships with them are very important.

[apocolypse]

Look. It's one of me against, at last count, all but one and a half of you. I have engaged in a nigh-Herculean effort to treat each individual poster I've responded to with approximately five percent more respect than they offered me.

How in the hell do you think the advocation of "exile, euthanasia, or chemical castration" for a good number of board members here as respectful is beyond me.

For the most part, I've let the spelling thing go. But this board -has- set some damn high standards for itself.

You don't even know why that rule was set up in the first place, so don't even try to quote it and pretend you'll have a leg to stand on. But go ahead. I'd love to see you report someone to a mod.

[Noble Ire]

Look. It's one of me against, at last count, all but one and a half of you. I have engaged in a nigh-Herculean effort to treat each individual poster I've responded to with approximately five percent more respect than they offered me. If I don't respond to one point from one poster, feel free to assume you've bested me in your arena of combat. And frankly, since I cannot even get people to agree on how I've insinuated you behave, I can't provide an example, can I?

You do have a point; allowances should be made for the volume of posts piled against you. Still, I don't see how you can justify your position, at all, if you say that you can't actually find any evidence here at of the behavior you're railing against. You're essentially admitting that your stance is utterly baseless, even from a subjective standpoint.

As to spelling, I hardly think a handful of misspelled words are enough to place me, or anyone else here, in violation of board policy. And quite frankly, if such a failing is so offensive, a moderator will bring it up. For you to bring it up merely reinforces the preception that your position is utterly lacking of merit.

[Stark]

Ire, he could just SHUT THE FUCK UP until his next article goes online and he has time to write a proper response, instead of spraying his brief, style-over-substance charged, meaningless posts all over the board and then whining about it.

[Bryan Lambert]

So consumers are just supposed to shut up? They're never supposed to say what they want out of the company, or voice their displeasure when the company does something to piss them off? Anyone who knows even a bit about business knows that pleasing your customers, giving them what they want, and maintaining good relationships with them are very important.

Ah, but we're talking about the unplesant, messy intersection between art and commerce here. The pure businessman is obligated to smile and help you when you enter his store and tell him you're displeased. The pure artist is obligated to tell you to fuck off. And if you don't like it, you go to another artist and buy their art instead.

Fandom, unfortunately, interferes with this basic transaction, because it keeps the buyer from abandoning art they dislike. Fans tend to feel both an obligation toward, and an ownership of, someone else's art. So they exhibit difficulty letting go. Difficulty picking and choosing. Difficulty making the commercial decisions that would impact the commercial aspect of the art.

Comic fans buy this month's X-Men comic even though they didn't like the last one. Game fans choose mediocre licensed properties because of their emotional attachment to characters. Etcetera. These are just examples, and some people are a lot worse than others, but I've felt for years that it's much better to like good stuff wherever it comes from than to try to fix bad stuff because of its setting.

[Noble Ire]

Ire, he could just SHUT THE FUCK UP until his next article goes online and he has time to write a proper response, instead of spraying his brief, style-over-substance charged, meaningless posts all over the board and then whining about it.

He could, but he has demonstrated a tremendous ego. I suspect that leaving a thread in which he has been granted such copious amounts attention would be neigh impossible.

[Bryan Lambert]

How in the hell do you think the advocation of "exile, euthanasia, or chemical castration" for a good number of board members here as respectful is beyond me.

Well, obviously, after that point. I meant just in my posts here. And I didn't actually say "respectful", I said -more- respectful. Which in some cases left me quite a bit of room to play in.

As for the exile, castration, and euthanasia, if you can't put hyperbole in a polemic, where can you put it? I actually did reword that in attempt to make it clear that I didn't think those should be punishments meted out for Super Extreme Nerds, but rather the only alternatives to remaining Super Extreme Nerds for life. But I'm guessing that bit fo nuance won't earn me any sympathy.

[Jim Raynor]

Ah, but we're talking about the unplesant, messy intersection between art and commerce here. The pure businessman is obligated to smile and help you when you enter his store and tell him you're displeased. The pure artist is obligated to tell you to fuck off.

More stupidity. The artist is "obligated" to tell critics to fuck off? More like the artist should listen for valid criticism in an effort to improve.

Fandom, unfortunately, interferes with this basic transaction, because it keeps the buyer from abandoning art they dislike. Fans tend to feel both an obligation toward, and an ownership of, someone else's art. So they exhibit difficulty letting go. Difficulty picking and choosing. Difficulty making the commercial decisions that would impact the commercial aspect of the art.

Comic fans buy this month's X-Men comic even though they didn't like the last one. Game fans choose mediocre licensed properties because of their emotional attachment to characters. Etcetera.

These fans are dumbshits. Many people here don't buy SW Expanded Universe products that they know will be of poor quality. Many people have already said that they won't buy Karen Traviss's crap.

These are just examples, and some people are a lot worse than others, but I've felt for years that it's much better to like good stuff wherever it comes from than to try to fix bad stuff because of its setting.

Finding alternatives and protesting crap in your favorite franchise are NOT mutually exclusive. You still haven't given me a reason why increasing the chances of a product that you like being produced by telling the company what you actually want is bad.

[Bryan Lambert]

He could, but he has demonstrated a tremendous ego.

This is something I cop to freely and without abandon, and I thank you for noticing it.

I suspect that leaving a thread in which he has been granted such copious amounts attention would be neigh impossible.

Oh, no. To be honest, the thing that's still keeping me here is the segment of the conversation that is interesting, reasoned, and fair. I give the board credit - when I came here this afternoon, I didn't dare hope I'd see some of the stuff that's come out of this discussion. It warms my cold, 'Net-cynic's heart.

And I love the "neigh-impossible" joke - I used it last year when I wrote about the guy who got fucked to death by a horse.