linearA wrote:Of course I never explained that. Read my first post. I never once claimed that my method would somehow allow us to extract more information than SoD.
Then WHAT MAKES IT BETTER, dumbfuck?
In fact, I said the exact opposite in my first post. I readily admitted, from the start, that it is more subjective. I said only that it is more consistent. It only solves the problems inherent in SoD by treating them as accounts, rather than actual documentary footage. I have no clue what Saavik actually looks like, or what those matte paintings are supposed to look like, and I never said I did. But under my methodology, those matte paintings are not bound to be interpreted as accurate depictions, so the question is irrelevant.
Then WHAT MAKES IT BETTER, dumbfuck?
You’re merely projecting the problems with your methodology onto mine. Under the methodology I propose, we wouldn’t need to ask what Saavik actually looks like, or what those colonies actually look like, because we interpret them as accounts rather than actual documentary footage.
So? Even an account can be descriptive, moron. Does Saavik have a high-cheekboned face, as per ST3, or does she have a more round face, as per ST2?
SoD claims that this footage is actual documentary footage, so SoD is burdened with explaining things like the sort of questions you’re asking about Saavik, etc. My answer to “what does Saavik look like” is we don’t know, because the available evidence is contradictory. What is yours?
You know, I grow tired of your lies. How many times have I pointed out to you that SoD says we should treat it in a manner analogous to the way we treat documentary footage, which is NOT the same thing as saying that it is ACTUALLY of the same quality of real documentary footage?
That’s ridiculous. I never said we can’t trust anything deriving from SoD. I said a historical approach to the source material would be superior, because we wouldn’t need to explain visual discrepancies such as recasting and stock footage.
First, you don't even know what a proper historical approach is. Your approach is literary, not historical. Second, visual discrepancies under SoD are treated the same way as confusing experimental data in real-life. Something must be wrong with the experiment, so the result is junk and we file it under the "don't know" category. So in the WORST CASE scenario, SoD produces the same result as your method. In every other case, it produces far more information than yours does.
Furthermore, the methodology I’m proposing is nothing like creationism. Creationism sets out with the stated goal of explaining the existence we observe, but it offers little or no positive evidence for the cosmological model it advocates, instead focusing on negative evidence against the opposition.
Which is precisely what you're doing, liar. You don't give any reason whatsoever to prefer your method other than claiming that SoD is no good because it can't explain certain things which are unexplainable in-context anyway.
What I’m doing is pointing out the flaws in the methodology of SoD, and explaining how my methodology can correct them by reinterpreting the source material. I’m not claiming my methodology can extract information more accurately than SoD. In fact, I’m claiming the opposite.
Your methodology is totally ill-defined and doesn't "correct" jack shit, moron. It doesn't explain ANYTHING which SoD can't explain, and its only benefit, even according to your apologist spin-doctoring, is that it doesn't even try.
And as long as we’re throwing half-baked Creationist analogies around, perhaps it is you who more closely represents the creationist mindset in this case, in that you wish to hold on to the higher degree of certainty provided by your methodology, even though it yields inconsistent results and needs to clumsily explain away obvious problems, similar to the way creationists refuse to believe that the Bible may contain inaccurate passages.
Yet again, you resort to outright lies, asshole. Why don't you go through this thread and count the number of times I have pointed out that even in real-life science, we accept the possibility of error?
As I said in my previous post, your position is so weak that you have resorted to outright lies about my position in order to gain traction for yours. You're a lying little shit, and your "method" isn't even properly defined, much less demonstrably superior or even equal. Your method of argument is identical to that of "intelligent design" bullshit, which is the particular brand of creationist idiocy that your thinking most closely mirrors.
. He's obviously being dishonest about it. The flying letters are not really there, just like Savvik's "problem" is ignored, just like same backgrounds are ignored or just accepted, etc.