Battlestar Galactica music video

[MKSheppard]

That's a major part of the Pretentious Bullshit Factor of this show, so they won't get rid of it. They think "shaky-cam" equals hard, gritty drama and masks "Lifetime Channel Soap Opera In Space".

You know, I never even noticed shaky cam, until you people started talking about it "ZOMG! IT USES SHAKY CAM!". It's not as noticeable as you people say it is; it's only noticeable if you're watching the show on a computer monitor 12 inches from your eyes, and even then, it's more like a slight swaying from time to time.

And it makes for a better show IMHO, you don't have to design the sets completely around the camera, and providing access for the camera.

[General Zod]

Can you explain to me exactly how Galactica was in risk of being lost during the trip back to Caprica, as you know that would actually help better than showing how Galactica would rightfully place itself in harms way to save the better part of most of humanity stranded in New Caprica.

Did we watch the same episode? The Galactica was surrounded by basestars while it bought time for people to escape, was taking a very serious beating and it would have been hit by another nuke if it wasn't for the fact that the Pegasus came in at the very last minute to save their ass. Even Admiral Adama thought that they weren't going to make it out alive and chances are they probably shouldn't have, except for Lee deciding to disobey orders and leave the civilian fleet completely unguarded, putting the Pegasus at direct risk as well.

[General Zod]

That's a major part of the Pretentious Bullshit Factor of this show, so they won't get rid of it. They think "shaky-cam" equals hard, gritty drama and masks "Lifetime Channel Soap Opera In Space".

You know, I never even noticed shaky cam, until you people started talking about it "ZOMG! IT USES SHAKY CAM!". It's not as noticeable as you people say it is; it's only noticeable if you're watching the show on a computer monitor 12 inches from your eyes, and even then, it's more like a slight swaying from time to time.

And it makes for a better show IMHO, you don't have to design the sets completely around the camera, and providing access for the camera.

I dunno. I watch BSG on my computer all the time from about a foot and I've never really seen the shaky cam thing as a serious issue. It's just not that big of a deal imo.

[Darth Wong]

Oh right, because a race of master computer hackers couldn't possibly just fake a transmission, either voice or voice/video.

See below.

Thanks for reminding me of that stupid "network your computers and we all die" bullshit. Look, why don't you just admit that you have a rabid hard-on for trying to evangelically convert everyone to your favourite goddamned dreary sci-fi soap opera?

Thanks for avoiding the fact that simple Raptor to Raptor fly by will null any Cylon Trojan Raptor scenario.

Just how close do they do these flybys? How close do you have to get to another car before you can reliably identify the pilot in real-life? Frankly, if you put someone in that seat who has the right approximate hair colour, you'd have to get pretty goddamned close to see the difference.

As I said, knee-jerk apologism. Your posts are steeped in it. You're not thinking "is this a stupid idea or not". You're thinking "How can I make excuses for this show".

Stop projecting. The crew were right to be concerned over the plot, the risk of the Raptors and their crew where waaaaaay beyond the possible gains of the mission. Not that anyone seriously thought that THE ENTIRE FLEET hung in the balance. It was a mis allocation of resources with no clear objectives or gains.

If you have evidence to the contrary please feel free to post it, for I certainly don't remember anyone saying that the entire of humanity would be placed at risk by this mission.

If the Galactica is at risk, all of humanity is at risk. Don't be a fucking idiot; they don't have a goddamned safety margin. You are literally saying "well, all of humanity is on the razor's edge but if it turns out they have another battlestar then they can afford to risk one of them on a fool's errand". What the fuck concept of risk do you subscribe to?

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

I have to chime in here, but they did have a bigger, better, more advanced Battlestar at that time which could have hung around the Fleet.

[Stark]

You know, I never even noticed shaky cam, until you people started talking about it "ZOMG! IT USES SHAKY CAM!". It's not as noticeable as you people say it is; it's only noticeable if you're watching the show on a computer monitor 12 inches from your eyes, and even then, it's more like a slight swaying from time to time.

And it makes for a better show IMHO, you don't have to design the sets completely around the camera, and providing access for the camera.

Ironically you'd be right... but they don't. Aside from the zigzag corridors.

And I watch nBSG on a 37" LCD. You describing the shakycam as 'a slight swaying before your eyes from time to time' makes me wonder what fucking planet you're from. You know, other people have watched the show.

[Lord Poe]

You know, I never even noticed shaky cam, until you people started talking about it "ZOMG! IT USES SHAKY CAM!".

That's a steaming pile of horseshit. How can you not notice that idiotic shaky cam?

And it makes for a better show IMHO, you don't have to design the sets completely around the camera, and providing access for the camera.

The sets aren't a factor. Look up "steady-cam" and "camera jibs".

And I watch nBSG on a 37" LCD. You describing the shakycam as 'a slight swaying before your eyes from time to time' makes me wonder what fucking planet you're from. You know, other people have watched the show.

Do they use the "Michael J Fox cam"?

(Shaddap, I know its in bad taste!)

[Vympel]

Did we watch the same episode?

His recollection is better than yours

The Galactica was surrounded by basestars while it bought time for people to escape, was taking a very serious beating and it would have been hit by another nuke

No nukes were used.

if it wasn't for the fact that the Pegasus came in at the very last minute to save their ass. Even Admiral Adama thought that they weren't going to make it out alive and chances are they probably shouldn't have, except for Lee deciding to disobey orders and leave the civilian fleet completely unguarded

No, he left every single Viper Pegasus had behind to guard the civilian fleet, and left only enough Raptors on board to guard the skeleton crew.

[Crown]

Did we watch the same episode? The Galactica was surrounded by basestars while it bought time for people to escape, was taking a very serious beating and it would have been hit by another nuke if it wasn't for the fact that the Pegasus came in at the very last minute to save their ass. Even Admiral Adama thought that they weren't going to make it out alive and chances are they probably shouldn't have, except for Lee deciding to disobey orders and leave the civilian fleet completely unguarded, putting the Pegasus at direct risk as well.

Please pay attention. Mike and I are talking about the events of the end of seconds season not 'Exodus', so again enlighten me as to what bearing 'Exodus' has to this conversation.

Just how close do they do these flybys? How close do you have to get to another car before you can reliably identify the pilot in real-life? Frankly, if you put someone in that seat who has the right approximate hair colour, you'd have to get pretty goddamned close to see the difference.

In the episode 'The Captains Hand' (IIRC) a Raptor was arms reach from another one and identified the pilots as dead. Yes I do see your point about the difficulty of seeing another driver in a car (to go with your analogy), but a simple protocol of those returning remaining stationary until a Raptor from the fleet arrives and gives them the all clear, and given how close they can get, and what they can see as demonstrated from the afore mentioned episode, there really isn't anyway the Cylons could just 'throw it all together' in a reasonable time frame.

After all, we can assume that there is a time frame to work with, it has been said on the show more than once, we'll meet at Y at time X, so ...

As I said, knee-jerk apologism. Your posts are steeped in it. You're not thinking "is this a stupid idea or not". You're thinking "How can I make excuses for this show".

Liar, liar pants of fire. I said in the very first post that this was a stupid idea, I mean just brain numbing obvious writer fiat going on. What I disagree with, and what we are discussing, is your assertion that the fleet was placed in jeopardy from this action, and no, not from well they stand to lose X Raptors which would really hurt them on Z, Y, W fronts, which would lead to, and so on, etc.

You implied that from a direct consequence of their action, the Cylons could have jumped in and wiped them all out. Furthermore, you said that this was worse than anything oBSG did. Now, I have no idea about the last part, but so far you have failed to demonstrate the former as being true.

If the Galactica is at risk, all of humanity is at risk. Don't be a fucking idiot; they don't have a goddamned safety margin. You are literally saying "well, all of humanity is on the razor's edge but if it turns out they have another battlestar then they can afford to risk one of them on a fool's errand". What the fuck concept of risk do you subscribe to?

Again, Galactica being at direct risk by your Trojan'd Raptors could only occur if all reason and safety was thrown out the window, and while this argument is turning into a school yard 'oh yeah? Well I'm 100 x Infinity smarter than you!' degeneration, I am sincerely and honestly attempting to demonstrate safety protocols that we have already seen on the show, and that we can reason should be there. Much like if a Trekkie would say; well Otto could shape shift and get on the Death Star! And a Star Wars fan replied; yeah well they do have biological scanners so try again.

So I seriously don't understand why, when you say, they will fill captured Raptors with Nukes, and when I point out that A) this was already down with a civilian liner in '33' and B) the Galactica has Radiological alarms to detect nukes (although what happened to Baltar's one is confusing), I get the label of 'apologist' and 'zealot'.

Also, stop shifting the goal posts, you mentioned the ENTIRE FLEET, I said hardly, at worst just Galactica, and even that would take a convoluted series of ill luck that one could make the argument you're trying so desperately to hang on to some semblance of a point. Of course it would be devastating if the fleet lost Galactica or Pegasus, who's arguing different? I'm sure not.

[Stark]

No nukes were used.
<snip>

No, he left every single Viper Pegasus had behind to guard the civilian fleet, and left only enough Raptors on board to guard the skeleton crew.

You know, that battle really sticks in my mind as strange. Not only the offline-but-fine primaries, or the 'Cylons are so fucking stupid they scout with battleships', but why the hell they took so long killing Galactica at POINT BLANK RANGE where they were going to get damaged/destroyed by her explosion just like Pegasus. You'd think by the time Galactica was a crippled hulk they'd just pull back and set us up the bomb.

[General Zod]

Please pay attention. Mike and I are talking about the events of the end of seconds season not 'Exodus', so again enlighten me as to what bearing 'Exodus' has to this conversation.

I believe I was addressing your point about taking utter levels of stupidity to lose the Galactica. Go back to page twelve and re-read which section of your post I quoted. If I misremembered parts of Exodus I'm willing to concede the parts that I got wrong.

[Vympel]

You know, that battle really sticks in my mind as strange. Not only the offline-but-fine primaries, or the 'Cylons are so fucking stupid they scout with battleships'

What do you mean? Adama had his Raptors fire a decoy formation that looked like a pair of Battlestars- the Basestars then sent their Raiders at the decoys, drawing away their fighter support, just as Adama planned. The Basestars themselves didn't scout anything.

Remember, the plan called for Galactica to hold off two unsupported Basestars long enough for the civilian ships on the ground to take off- that's why Helo notes that the Raiders were scattered all over the place. When two extra Basestars showed up (who hadn't launched their Raiders), Galactica was basically screwed.

but why the hell they took so long killing Galactica at POINT BLANK RANGE where they were going to get damaged/destroyed by her explosion just like Pegasus.

We can see from the amount of fire Galactica took (and continued to take after Pegasus showed up) that it would've been a while before her hull was actually compromised enough for her to explode spectacularly- if at all- remember we see a Galactica-type Battlestar floating above Caprica, cracked in two and otherwise intact, in the Miniseries.

You'd think by the time Galactica was a crippled hulk they'd just pull back and set us up the bomb.

I don't think the Cylons use nukes unless it's the opening of an attack and the enemy is unprepared (like they did against Pegasus in "The Captain's Hand")- I assume because the point defence guns will shoot them down or the Vipers will shoot them down (miniseries). So they launch Raiders and use conventional missiles- and nukes are out if you've got your own craft in the air.

[Vympel]

Oh right, because a race of master computer hackers couldn't possibly just fake a transmission, either voice or voice/video.

Look at how this argument has progressed:

- They can track the Raptors back to Galactica.

- There's no evidence they can.

- No, I mean capture the Raptors, interrogate the crews, and then come back to Galactica loaded with nukes.

- Even if that happened, Galactica or the Viper CAPs radiological detection alarms would go off. They tried this trick already in "33" with the Olympic Carrier.

- That's stupid, what if they shield the nukes?

- Even if they did/could, we're just supposed to assume they'll let the Raptors on board without checking who's on them?

- They're master hackers, they'll just fake all the relevant transmissions.

The amount of things that have to go wrong (and the amount of assumptions you have to make about what the Cylons could do apart from simply shooting the Raptors down and killing their personnel on the ground) for this to happen does not equal some sort of massive risk to Galactica.

Look, why don't you just admit that you have a rabid hard-on for trying to evangelically convert everyone to your favourite goddamned dreary sci-fi soap opera?

He's made it clear that the mission was in his opinion, foolish. Just because he disagrees with you on the Galactica being placed at risk from it doesn't mean he's trying to "evangelically convert everyone". Where has he said anything like that? It's obvious you don't like the show, an argument about a plan in a given episode isn't going to change your or anyone else's mind- the show's entire approach is obviosly just not some people's cup of tea.

As I said, knee-jerk apologism. Your posts are steeped in it. You're not thinking "is this a stupid idea or not". You're thinking "How can I make excuses for this show".

He agrees it's a stupid idea, but not for the reasons you propose. Referring to evidence (radiological detection alarms, Cylons have tried this before, etc) isn't "making excuses". The writers were aware of that risk and addressed it in an episode. But by tacking on speculation like "what if they shielded the nukes from detection" and "the Cylons could just successfully fake all the relevant transmissions"- I could tack on any sort of what ifs to make any given plan in any sci fi show or movie look stupid if I was persistent enough- the evidence from a show to rebut a series of what ifs will always run out before the what ifs do. That doesn't mean a given plan is retarded because they didn't go through an exhaustive speculation session of every possible thing that could go wrong.

That's not to say retarded things don't happen in nBSG, but "Lay Down Your Burdens" placing Galactica at significant risk isn't reasonably one of them.

[Stark]

What do you mean? Adama had his Raptors fire a decoy formation that looked like a pair of Battlestars- the Basestars then sent their Raiders at the decoys, drawing away their fighter support, just as Adama planned. The Basestars themselves didn't scout anything.

Remember, the plan called for Galactica to hold off two unsupported Basestars long enough for the civilian ships on the ground to take off- that's why Helo notes that the Raiders were scattered all over the place. When two extra Basestars showed up (who hadn't launched their Raiders), Galactica was basically screwed.

Eh? Don't they clearly show the basestars themselves moving away from the planet, and the basestars reporting 'zomg decoys'? If not then it's not so bad, but I thought the Dradis showed the basestars being out of position by the time the fighters had ID'd the decoys. I didn't think the Cylons had launched all their fighters, so they would have to pull the carriers away or they'd just launch their fighters on top of Galactica's.

PS, don't basestars carry almost a thousand raiders? Where did they all go?

We can see from the amount of fire Galactica took (and continued to take after Pegasus showed up) that it would've been a while before her hull was actually compromised enough for her to explode spectacularly- if at all- remember we see a Galactica-type Battlestar floating above Caprica, cracked in two and otherwise intact, in the Miniseries.

If Pegasus can explode, why wouldn't the Galactica guys deliberately induce the same thing? It's not like during the orginal attack when computers were useless and noone knew what was going on: the Cylons were RIGHT THERE. Adama's hilarious addiction to romantic gestures aside, of course.

I don't think the Cylons use nukes unless it's the opening of an attack and the enemy is unprepared (like they did against Pegasus in "The Captain's Hand")- I assume because the point defence guns will shoot them down or the Vipers will shoot them down (miniseries). So they launch Raiders and use conventional missiles- and nukes are out if you've got your own craft in the air.

So... when the Galactica is crippled and defenceless... why not use nukes? They could have won the series right there instead of pounding away apparently uselessly (and not even concentrating on jump systems, as she was able to repair and escape relatively quickly). It looked just like they got in close and were firing at random. Cylon nuke stockpile vs two enemy ships remaining... you think they'd just spam like crazy.

Err, not that 'Stark needs it explained to him' is on topic or anything.

[Vympel]

Eh? Don't they clearly show the basestars themselves moving away from the planet, and the basestars reporting 'zomg decoys'?

Even if they did (I can't remember- will check when I get home)- they sent Raiders ahead towards where they thought Pegasus and Galactica were. That's not recon with Basestars, that's recon with Raiders.

If not then it's not so bad, but I thought the Dradis showed the basestars being out of position by the time the fighters had ID'd the decoys. I didn't think the Cylons had launched all their fighters, so they would have to pull the carriers away or they'd just launch their fighters on top of Galactica's.

Helo notes that their Raiders are scattered all over the place- I assume chasing the phantom Battlestars, fighting Vipers that Galactica launched to escort the decoy-launching Raptors, and fighting the insurgency on the ground.

PS, don't basestars carry almost a thousand raiders? Where did they all go?

IIRC the number is 792, but that's from the short-lived official magazine, not sure how accurate it is.

If Pegasus can explode, why wouldn't the Galactica guys deliberately induce the same thing? It's not like during the orginal attack when computers were useless and noone knew what was going on: the Cylons were RIGHT THERE. Adama's hilarious addiction to romantic gestures aside, of course.

I'm not sure what you mean- induce an explosion when?

So... when the Galactica is crippled and defenceless... why not use nukes?

Probably because they still had Raiders out there battling Galactica's Vipers. Or they might not have had any *shrug* Or they're just dumb.

They could have won the series right there instead of pounding away apparently uselessly (and not even concentrating on jump systems, as she was able to repair and escape relatively quickly).

We don't even know where the jump drive is on Galactica- there's certainly nothing on the outer hull that can clearly be identified as any particular system apart from the engines and guns.

It looked just like they got in close and were firing at random. Cylon nuke stockpile vs two enemy ships remaining... you think they'd just spam like crazy.

I think they were aiming at specific points at least some of the time- the Cylon missiles have a habit of arcing flight paths that take them to a specific place- as the camera zooms out, we see one curve under Galactica and hit one of her engines, which the Basestars didn't have an angle on otherwise.

Err, not that 'Stark needs it explained to him' is on topic or anything.

This whole thread has gone off topic.

[The Yosemite Bear]

hey I blame spilberg for making the hand cam so popular in action, damn jaws and j.park

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

I don't care how much this thread has developed. I'm staying on topic

More music vids:

Link
Fits Apollo, in some ways fits Starbuck, and in some ways, even Boomer.

Link2
Done to death, clubbed to death

[Darth Wong]

Just how close do they do these flybys? How close do you have to get to another car before you can reliably identify the pilot in real-life? Frankly, if you put someone in that seat who has the right approximate hair colour, you'd have to get pretty goddamned close to see the difference.

In the episode 'The Captains Hand' (IIRC) a Raptor was arms reach from another one and identified the pilots as dead. Yes I do see your point about the difficulty of seeing another driver in a car (to go with your analogy), but a simple protocol of those returning remaining stationary until a Raptor from the fleet arrives and gives them the all clear, and given how close they can get, and what they can see as demonstrated from the afore mentioned episode, there really isn't anyway the Cylons could just 'throw it all together' in a reasonable time frame.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about how good or bad the writing was, not whether the writers could do something stupid in another episode (as demonstrated by the real-life car analogy) in order to excuse this one.

As I said, knee-jerk apologism. Your posts are steeped in it. You're not thinking "is this a stupid idea or not". You're thinking "How can I make excuses for this show".

Liar, liar pants of fire. I said in the very first post that this was a stupid idea, I mean just brain numbing obvious writer fiat going on.

So? That doesn't change the fact that you continue to insist that humanity was somehow not at significant risk from this idiotic mission, despite the fact that the human race is supposedly and quite literally on the razor's edge of survival.

Also, stop shifting the goal posts, you mentioned the ENTIRE FLEET, I said hardly, at worst just Galactica

News flash, moron: the entire fleet is in grave danger ALREADY, and they are probably fucked if they lose their escort.

[Darth Wong]

Oh right, because a race of master computer hackers couldn't possibly just fake a transmission, either voice or voice/video.

Look at how this argument has progressed:

- They can track the Raptors back to Galactica.

- There's no evidence they can.

- No, I mean capture the Raptors, interrogate the crews, and then come back to Galactica loaded with nukes.

- Even if that happened, Galactica or the Viper CAPs radiological detection alarms would go off. They tried this trick already in "33" with the Olympic Carrier.

- That's stupid, what if they shield the nukes?

- Even if they did/could, we're just supposed to assume they'll let the Raptors on board without checking who's on them?

- They're master hackers, they'll just fake all the relevant transmissions.

The amount of things that have to go wrong (and the amount of assumptions you have to make about what the Cylons could do apart from simply shooting the Raptors down and killing their personnel on the ground) for this to happen does not equal some sort of massive risk to Galactica.

What the fuck makes you think I was wedded to a particular scheme of how the Cylons might threaten Galactica? Are you fucking retarded? If you are literally in a "flee or be destroyed" situation, any unnecessary exposure to the enemy is idiotic. It doesn't even matter whether you think you have planned for all possible enemy responses; you shouldn't be courting such responses at all. If the enemy is resourceful, he might do something you didn't think of. Did that occur to you? Of course not. In your brain-damaged thinking, if I can't show exactly how the enemy would fuck you up, there's no risk despite the fact that the human race is literally running for its survival at the time.

This is the crux of the problem that I'm having with both you and Crown; you are nitpicking what was never intended to be a detailed plan of how the Cylons might react. The whole point is that you don't risk anything unnecessarily when you are in such a precarious situation, but both of you have done everything you can to nitpick and dodge around that point. This progression of different angles is not an indictment of my argument; it is a demonstration of this exact point.

PS. Let's put this another way: as a risk-averse person, I am viewing this from the "unsafe until proven safe" perspective, so that any uncertainty means "unsafe". You seem to be viewing it from the "safe unless you can prove it's unsafe" perspective, so that if I can't show exactly how they would be defeated, the risk should be assumed minimal. This bears no resemblance to any kind of critical situation planning I can think of.

[Crown]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about how good or bad the writing was, not whether the writers could do something stupid in another episode (as demonstrated by the real-life car analogy) in order to excuse this one.

Don't tell me you can't distinguish between a person you know better than yourself (your wife) and another woman when you are in two cars, facing each other bumper to bumper, much like a shopping mall car park. Because frankly, I won't believe you.

So? That doesn't change the fact that you continue to insist that humanity was somehow not at significant risk from this idiotic mission, despite the fact that the human race is supposedly and quite literally on the razor's edge of survival.

Don't be a retard. There are degrees of risk and you know it. Your first post made it quite clear that you thought the entire fleet was at risk directly, I disagree, I believed that only the Raptors and personnel assigned to the mission were at risk. That is the discussion we are having, not whether or not this was a good allocation of resources AS I AGREED WITH YOU IN THE VERY FIRST POST THAT IT WASN'T. Are the bold letters gonna do it for you this time? Or are you going to continue to pretend that there is an actual disagreement on whether this mission was a good idea.

News flash, moron: the entire fleet is in grave danger ALREADY, and they are probably fucked if they lose their escort.

Ya think brain trust? Seriously did you need a spreadsheet to come to that conclusion?

What is your dysfunction man, I have stated again, again and again that this mission was a BAD IDEA, that the fleet couldn't even really afford to lose the RAPTORS AND THEIR PERSONNEL in this mission, let alone a Battlestar. For the UMPTEENTH TIME, of course losing the Galactica would be a blow (even with them having the Pegasus), YES losing it for this mission would be the HIGHT of stupid acts to go in the chronicles of ALL TIME STUPID ACTS in place number 1.

But the risk to Galactica, and the rest of the fleet, JUST. ISN'T. THERE. It is your concoction to attempt to place nBSG on oBSG 'Casino Planet' episode level. You're fucking grasping at straws and it is - frankly - pathetic.

This is the crux of the problem that I'm having with both you and Crown; you are nitpicking what was never intended to be a detailed plan of how the Cylons might react. The whole point is that you don't risk anything unnecessarily when you are in such a precarious situation, but both of you have done everything you can to nitpick and dodge around that point. This progression of different angles is not an indictment of my argument; it is a demonstration of this exact point.

And we agree with you, we've both fucking said it, clear as a fucking day mate. But you don't think we are sincere, or your blind to it. What kind of dipshits do you take us for anyway? Of course you don't risk things unnecessarily, I will quote myself again from my very first response;

I disagree with this, although having not seen more than 5 mins of the original series I can't possibly disprove it. I will say though that the risk was far less than you seem to be implying, although the possible 'rewards' for them going there was no where near acceptable to take that risk. It was an act of plot, a purly contrived one at that.

NOTHING that I have said since has contradicted my first response to you. The risk taken for this mission WAS NOT WORTH THE REWARD. Again you are just flat out LYING by trying to imply that I don't understand this concept.

I swear, I'm at the end of my rope here. Two scenarios;

1. Exactly as happened in the episode, Starbuck gets the itch between her thighs and convinces the old man to go back to Caprica to get her boyfriend back.
2. Same set up, except there's a twist, we're not going back to get Starbucks boy toy, we're going back to get the Nostril of Zeus. The Nostril of Zeus is the definition of Deus Ex Machina a wonder weapon that will instantly destroy every singly last Cylon in all the Universe, and stop them from ever evolving again. Ever.

So now the problem is one of risk/reward, which golly gee boy, what do you know, that's what every military action is about.

Situation A is just RETARDED, even if the only thing at risk was Starbuck's period, it wouldn't be worth it. Situation B, however, you would risk Galactica (or Pegasus) itself, and you know it.

PS. Let's put this another way: as a risk-averse person, I am viewing this from the "unsafe until proven safe" perspective, so that any uncertainty means "unsafe". You seem to be viewing it from the "safe unless you can prove it's unsafe" perspective, so that if I can't show exactly how they would be defeated, the risk should be assumed minimal. This bears no resemblance to any kind of critical situation planning I can think of.

Bullshit. Again you are either not paying attention, or just blind to what both Vympel and me are saying; this was stupid. We know that. Period. Full stop. End sentence.

Where this discussion is focused on; is exactly what was at risk. If we use your 'critical situation planning' guideline, then lets not send Raptors out to other systems to search for water. Yes we kinda need it, but there's always the chance that the Cylons being 'master hackers' could jump back and destroy the fleet. Ooops, I mean comandeer the Raptor that we sent out and place a nuke on it to blow up the fleet. SHIELDED! Yes, did I mention the Raptor would be shielded too? And of course, they would have time not only to break the pilots in interogation to rendezvous with the fleet again, but they'll also be able to by pass any kind of IFF measures and procedures.

Of course we are gonna keep sending Raptors to search for food/water/resources - you would to. Because even though the same risk is there as what was there for the trip back to Caprica, the rewards are worth it. In most cases the rewards are necessary. In both instances the same uncertainties apply, but other things force you, compel you to gamble that risk.

You, I and Vympel all agree that the risk they took in that mission wasn't worth the reward. What we are disagreeing on is exactly what was at risk. Was it;

1. The entire human race.
2. Battlestar Galactica, or
3. The Raptors and the personnel.

Here's the kicker me and Vympel both say number [3] and we also say that even if it's number [3] the plan was still too risky for the possible rewards. Period.

The only reason this entire discussion has spawned a two page reply fest is because of this exchange;

In the end, they took an unacceptably stupid risk {Crown's note :: the 'risk' being defined as the 'entire human race', i.e. the fleet}that was as idiotic as anything you can point to in the original series.

I disagree with this, although having not seen more than 5 mins of the original series I can't possibly disprove it. I will say though that the risk was far less than you seem to be implying, although the possible 'rewards' for them going there was no where near acceptable to take that risk. It was an act of plot, a purly contrived one at that.

I disagreed with what you characterised as what was at risk - not whether or not that there was any risk present - and no, a slippery slope falacy of losing X will hurt them in Y and Z areas does not apply. You mentioned the entire fleet, you are wrong. Grow up and deal with it. I was amused, I no longer am. If you chose to reply to this post and yet again continue to ignore that;

• I have already agreed with you that this mission was fucking stupid.
• That in any situation there exists a risk/reward analysis process by which we determine what risks are worth taking, and that I have stated that in this case the reward wasn't worth risking the Raptors and their crews.
• That the only place of contention between us is exactly. WHAT. WAS. AT. RISK.

Then I will consider this discussion forfeit, for I have neither the time nor patience to constantly repeat myself, only to have it conveniently ignored.

[Vympel]

PS. Let's put this another way: as a risk-averse person, I am viewing this from the "unsafe until proven safe" perspective, so that any uncertainty means "unsafe". You seem to be viewing it from the "safe unless you can prove it's unsafe" perspective, so that if I can't show exactly how they would be defeated, the risk should be assumed minimal. This bears no resemblance to any kind of critical situation planning I can think of.

I agree that it's unsafe- that's why I said when I first posted on this issue that the rewards (a few amateur insurgents) simply didn't justify the risk of craft and trained personnel- too many things could go wrong. The moment Starbuck said "we'll take heavy fire" and losses of "up to 20%" were expected, I almost choked on my drink. The mission being voluntary didn't make it better in my eyes. As it stands, if they Cylons had not chosen to abandon the 12 colonies, they would've all been wiped out by the Centurions and the Raptors would've been lucky to get away.

The whole "we have a duty to the people we left behind" and "making part of the future" and all that claptrap just seemed crazy.

There's always a risk that something unforeseen can happen but in this case, I don't think that the risk (to Galactica and by extension the fleet) is so unacceptable that the mission should've been abandoned because of it (ie. what Crown said about risk/reward). That a situation where the Cylons could somehow attack, destroy or sabotage Galactica because of this mission is hard to reasonably conceive (given the evidence we have) does figure into that for me.

Anyway, there's absolutely no way that a bad call (whether it risks Galactica+fleet or not) like that is as retarded as having them fart-assing about a casino planet in the pilot of the original show. While ill-advised, the sentiment to conduct a rescue of survivors when they finally have the means (the Cylon jump computer from the captured Heavy Raider) makes a hell of a lot more sense than that.

[Darth Wong]

Don't tell me you can't distinguish between a person you know better than yourself (your wife) and another woman when you are in two cars, facing each other bumper to bumper, much like a shopping mall car park. Because frankly, I won't believe you.

I see it is worse than I feared. You are actually so goddamned stupid that you don't see the problem with the writing when spacecraft can fly so close to each other that it's actually akin to bumper-to-bumper traffic in automobiles. Once again, you seem to ignore the fact that the writing itself is being criticized here.

Don't be a retard. There are degrees of risk and you know it. Your first post made it quite clear that you thought the entire fleet was at risk directly

Of course they're at risk, retard. You said yourself the Cylons have tried something like this before, and that means they've been scheming and planning. Of course, you assume they're retards and won't think of anything new, so any idea I come up with is just crazy-talk and shouldn't be taken seriously. Hell, you even OPENLY MOCKED any idea I came up with that might involve them doing a lot of planning or scheming, because of course, they wouldn't do that. Congratulations for demonstrating that you have the strategic thinking of a Trekkie.

I disagree, I believed that only the Raptors and personnel assigned to the mission were at risk.

You know, I'm growing tired of your lies. I never specified in my initial posts exactly which assets were at risk; I was talking about the risk to the entire mission to save humanity. Here is the post to which you initially responded:

In the end, they took an unacceptably stupid risk that was as idiotic as anything you can point to in the original series. The original series may have had bad writing, but at least it seemed to recognize on some level that it was camp. My tolerance for stupid plot takes a nosedive when a show takes itself as seriously as neoBSG does.

You'd think that they'd be doing everything in their power to get as far away from their vastly superior enemy as possible, but I never get that impression from the show. Instead, there's political intrigue and bizarre hokey religious bullshit and things like this "rescue mission" which could only have been dreamt up by a retarded hamster on crack. As I said, if the show didn't take itself so seriously I might be more inclined to overlook that stuff, but it does.

Nope, nothing there about whether it was Galactica, fleet ships, their fighters etc. at risk. Why? Because I was talking about the risk to the entire mission, you lying piece of shit. Your historical revisionism only tells me that you are incapable of arguing about this honestly.

It was you who started trying to argue about which particular problems might arise, and when I started arguing with you about that, you pretended that this was my initial argument. And now you have resorted to lies and projections like this:

It is your concoction to attempt to place nBSG on oBSG 'Casino Planet' episode level. You're fucking grasping at straws and it is - frankly - pathetic.

The only one here who is grasping at straws is you, by LYING about what I initially said and resorting to strawman distortions and blatant dishonesty in order to defend your beloved dumbshit show and all of its idiotic writing conventions. Did I ever defend oBSG's writing? No; I admitted it was stupid right up-front. The only one here who is rabidly defending a TV show is you.

And how the fuck is "let's stop on this casino planet" so much dumber than "let's stop on this dirtball planet" or "let's go back to Caprica", exactly? They all suffer from the same basic flaw: failure to make the characters follow the logical course of action that is dictated by their situation, which is to flee at all possible speed and put as much distance as possible between them and their enemies.

PS. About the religious bullshit, yes, I know their religion is actually supposed to be true. That does not defend the writing; it only plants Galactica in the annoying "all religions are basically true" category of bad writing. At least if a prophecy or ancient religious teaching is found to be based on something, it should be so distorted that attempts to follow it cause more harm than good.

[Crown]

I see it is worse than I feared. You are actually so goddamned stupid that you don't see the problem with the writing when spacecraft can fly so close to each other that it's actually akin to bumper-to-bumper traffic in automobiles. Once again, you seem to ignore the fact that the writing itself is being criticized here.

Yes ladies and gentleman, if it were up to Mike Wong, two spacecraft travelling at over twenty times the speed of sound, wouldn't, couldn't, possibly be able to 'fly' close together. Woe would have befallen the space programs of no less than two superpowers, had this brain trust had a voice. Thankfully for you, me, and humanity in general. He remains a voice in obscurity.

Of course they're at risk, retard. You said yourself the Cylons have tried something like this before, and that means they've been scheming and planning. Of course, you assume they're retards and won't think of anything new, so any idea I come up with is just crazy-talk and shouldn't be taken seriously. Hell, you even OPENLY MOCKED any idea I came up with that might involve them doing a lot of planning or scheming, because of course, they wouldn't do that. Congratulations for demonstrating that you have the strategic thinking of a Trekkie.

So me being a Trekkie is because I refuse to acknowledge ad hoc tacked on 'if they did this' scenarios for the sole purpose of you trying to shore up a losing fucking argument. Of course in your fantasy world only the Cylons would become more 'sneaky sneaky' the Colonials wouldn't evolve their own safety procedures, just like in real life ... hang on I think I see a flaw in your devilish logic!

You know, I'm growing tired of your lies. I never specified in my initial posts exactly which assets were at risk; I was talking about the risk to the entire mission to save humanity. Here is the post to which you initially responded:

In the end, they took an unacceptably stupid risk that was as idiotic as anything you can point to in the original series. The original series may have had bad writing, but at least it seemed to recognize on some level that it was camp. My tolerance for stupid plot takes a nosedive when a show takes itself as seriously as neoBSG does.

You'd think that they'd be doing everything in their power to get as far away from their vastly superior enemy as possible, but I never get that impression from the show. Instead, there's political intrigue and bizarre hokey religious bullshit and things like this "rescue mission" which could only have been dreamt up by a retarded hamster on crack. As I said, if the show didn't take itself so seriously I might be more inclined to overlook that stuff, but it does.

Nope, nothing there about whether it was Galactica, fleet ships, their fighters etc. at risk. Why? Because I was talking about the risk to the entire mission, you lying piece of shit. Your historical revisionism only tells me that you are incapable of arguing about this honestly.

That's rich asshole. If it was true that I was 'historical revising' this argument from the first post, then why didn't you correct me? Could it be because only now you're trying to back track the fucking issue because your more full of crap than a septic tank? I stated FROM THE FIRST POST ONWARDS that I did not believe that 'THE ENTIRE HUMANITY' is at risk;

They were also assuming that their scheme for avoiding backtracking would be effective; if they were wrong ...

and in the very same post;

Then again, the survival of the entire human race didn't depend on not being found.

There it is you schizophrenic delusional asshole. Your fucking assumption loud and clear. Not 'the mission to save humanity in general', but your assumption that the fleet was in direct danger by this action. That is what this replies are being directed to and you know it, I will not even respond to any of your attempts to shift the goal posts.

And while we're at it, lets look at my reply to the quote you gave;

In the end, they took an unacceptably stupid risk that was as idiotic as anything you can point to in the original series.

I disagree with this, although having not seen more than 5 mins of the original series I can't possibly disprove it. I will say though that the risk was far less than you seem to be implying, although the possible 'rewards' for them going there was no where near acceptable to take that risk. It was an act of plot, a purly contrived one at that.

The original series may have had bad writing, but at least it seemed to recognize on some level that it was camp. My tolerance for stupid plot takes a nosedive when a show takes itself as seriously as neoBSG does.

I'm trying hard not to get into the 'make Mike like nBSG' mind set, but didn't B5 suffer from even worse examples of such behavior?

You'd think that they'd be doing everything in their power to get as far away from their vastly superior enemy as possible, but I never get that impression from the show. Instead, there's political intrigue and bizarre hokey religious bullshit and things like this "rescue mission" which could only have been dreamt up by a retarded hamster on crack. As I said, if the show didn't take itself so seriously I might be more inclined to overlook that stuff, but it does.

I'm with you on this rescue mission (but for different reasons; it was a pure act of writer fiat, it came out of nowhere, and it went no where), I don't mind the hokey religious stuff, but come on, political intrigue has been a part of human nature since the first cave man picked up a rock and brained the alpha male to claim his spoils. It's not exactly something we'll ever do away with.

Wow, the unmitigated arrogance of me, agreeing with you that the rescue mission to Caprica didn't fit in with the 'general' goal of getting the fuck out of dodge. What ever will I agree with you on next?

And just what was your reply to me on this issue ... hang on, it's gotta be around here somewhere, I'm sure if I use my super powers I can find it ... no. What do you know. There isn't one. You let it lie then, and are now claiming that it was I who ignored it? Riiiiiight.

It was you who started trying to argue about which particular problems might arise, and when I started arguing with you about that, you pretended that this was my initial argument. And now you have resorted to lies and projections like this:

It is your concoction to attempt to place nBSG on oBSG 'Casino Planet' episode level. You're fucking grasping at straws and it is - frankly - pathetic.

The only one here who is grasping at straws is you, by LYING about what I initially said and resorting to strawman distortions and blatant dishonesty in order to defend your beloved dumbshit show and all of its idiotic writing conventions. Did I ever defend oBSG's writing? No; I admitted it was stupid right up-front. The only one here who is rabidly defending a TV show is you.

Liar;

I disagree with this, although having not seen more than 5 mins of the original series I can't possibly disprove it. I will say though that the risk was far less than you seem to be implying, although the possible 'rewards' for them going there was no where near acceptable to take that risk. It was an act of plot, a purely contrived one at that.

I'm with you on this rescue mission (but for different reasons; it was a pure act of writer fiat, it came out of nowhere, and it went no where), I don't mind the hokey religious stuff, but come on, political intrigue has been a part of human nature since the first cave man picked up a rock and brained the alpha male to claim his spoils. It's not exactly something we'll ever do away with.

That was from my first post, do I need to quote myself even more? Well I will, even though it has become apparent that you will either flat out ignore this evidence, or find some other way to shift gears;

I say again; the risk is hardly as great as you imagine, the really stupid thing about this scenario was that the reward wasn't worth the risk of losing the Raptors and the pilots.

Again, I'm not arguing that the entire mission was stupid from a risk/rewards stand point, but I am saying the risk to the fleet and to Galactica is NO WHERE NEAR as grave as you believe, and it would take MASSIVE, unprecedented levels of stupidity to actually lose the Galactica.

Stop projecting. The crew were right to be concerned over the plot, the risk of the Raptors and their crew where waaaaaay beyond the possible gains of the mission. Not that anyone seriously thought that THE ENTIRE FLEET hung in the balance. It was a mis allocation of resources with no clear objectives or gains.

Liar, liar pants of fire. I said in the very first post that this was a stupid idea, I mean just brain numbing obvious writer fiat going on. What I disagree with, and what we are discussing, is your assertion that the fleet was placed in jeopardy from this action, and no, not from well they stand to lose X Raptors which would really hurt them on Z, Y, W fronts, which would lead to, and so on, etc.

I'm not going to even bother quoting everything from my last reply to you, but if you consider any of the afore cited as examples of me 'defending the writing' than I don't know what kind of fucked up world you live in cunt. And here's something fun, the next time you start making accusations you fucked up dwarf, have the decency to provide evidence.

And how the fuck is "let's stop on this casino planet" so much dumber than "let's stop on this dirtball planet" or "let's go back to Caprica", exactly? They all suffer from the same basic flaw: failure to make the characters follow the logical course of action that is dictated by their situation, which is to flee at all possible speed and put as much distance as possible between them and their enemies.

That, is actually a very good point. Which is why I said in this exchange;

In the end, they took an unacceptably stupid risk that was as idiotic as anything you can point to in the original series.

I disagree with this, although having not seen more than 5 mins of the original series I can't possibly disprove it. I will say though that the risk was far less than you seem to be implying, although the possible 'rewards' for them going there was no where near acceptable to take that risk. It was an act of plot, a purly contrived one at that.

Which is why I never broached the subject at all. To me, I can't make judgement calls on shows I've never even watched, I can't possibly put it in any kind of meaningful context. I don't know whether or not the 'Casino Planet' episode would have rankled me or not (although as it stands it does, simply because I don't even watch 'camp' sci-fi shows, they don't hold my attention). I'm not comparing the two, I'm not even trying to defend one private Idaho over another. All I'm doing is saying that your exaggerated claim of the entire fleet was at risk, is just that - an exaggeration. A bold, flat out, spectacular attempt to make a situation sound more reckless than it is.

I flat out reject your assertion that you were speaking 'in general to the entire goal of keeping humanity alive' was what you were talking about in the post that I replied to - or any other posts that followed. You were talking about the fleet itself, period.

PS. About the religious bullshit, yes, I know their religion is actually supposed to be true. That does not defend the writing; it only plants Galactica in the annoying "all religions are basically true" category of bad writing. At least if a prophecy or ancient religious teaching is found to be based on something, it should be so distorted that attempts to follow it cause more harm than good.

Actually religion hasn't been given a green light at all, nor has it been defined as being true or righteous. You assume because the scroll of Pic-her-nose were true about the Tomb of Athena, then religion is being given a green light, but throughout the show the Cylons have implied that the Colonists religion is actually false, and that they know more about it than the Colonists do.

The show has actually taken a very agnostic attitude towards religion, sometimes it's all good, and at others all bad. Even those who are playing religious are atheist through and through. Neither the Colonists nor the Cylons are 100% pure religious, and the argument between the religious and atheist (from both sides) is one that is modeled on Earth. Those that are shown to poses religious conviction, are more often than not displayed as zealots.

In short you're assuming that just because certain passages in 'holy' scrolls have been proven right, then that is an affirmation on the whole issue of religion, which is a rather simple minded conclusion. There was no evidence of a deity in Athena's Tomb, what was evidenced was very advanced technology. To quote Arthur C. Clark; "Significantly advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic to more primitive intellects."

Why this needs to be explained to you is a fucking mystery. One of the Cylon models claims that God talks to them all the time, the other calls them self deluded schizophrenics. The show hasn't ruled on any which way yet. And you can check my posting history, because this isn't the first time I've posted as such.

But you know what Mike? When all is said and done, you are right. I am in the end, a liar. Do you know why?

I disagreed with what you characterised as what was at risk - not whether or not that there was any risk present - and no, a slippery slope falacy of losing X will hurt them in Y and Z areas does not apply. You mentioned the entire fleet, you are wrong. Grow up and deal with it. I was amused, I no longer am. If you chose to reply to this post and yet again continue to ignore that;

• I have already agreed with you that this mission was fucking stupid.
• That in any situation there exists a risk/reward analysis process by which we determine what risks are worth taking, and that I have stated that in this case the reward wasn't worth risking the Raptors and their crews.
• That the only place of contention between us is exactly. WHAT. WAS. AT. RISK.

Then I will consider this discussion forfeit, for I have neither the time nor patience to constantly repeat myself, only to have it conveniently ignored.

It turns out, that I broke my own promise.

[Darth Wong]

Yes ladies and gentleman, if it were up to Mike Wong, two spacecraft travelling at over twenty times the speed of sound, wouldn't, couldn't, possibly be able to 'fly' close together. Woe would have befallen the space programs of no less than two superpowers, had this brain trust had a voice. Thankfully for you, me, and humanity in general. He remains a voice in obscurity.

Yet again you demonstrate your goddamned liar credentials, not to mention your PhD in Smarmy Assholery. Why don't you tell the class how slowly and carefully you have to live up ships in order to do that, moron? By this logic, cars can routinely drive around at a distance of 1 inch from each other because it's possible to park with that little clearance if you do it very carefully. And what's that about "twenty times the speed of sound"? Oops, you tried to confuse absolute and relative velocity in order to pretend that it's something you can actually do quickly. Nice bit of dishonest bullshit there, and par for the course for you in this thread.

So me being a Trekkie is because I refuse to acknowledge ad hoc tacked on 'if they did this' scenarios for the sole purpose of you trying to shore up a losing fucking argument.

What "losing argument", asshole? My original argument NEVER depended upon any particular scenario, your lies notwithstanding. You INVENTED particular scenarios and then challenged me to look for holes in them, which I did. And then you pretend that these various scenarios somehow constitutes some sort of "desperate" argument on my part.

That's rich asshole. If it was true that I was 'historical revising' this argument from the first post, then why didn't you correct me?

Is this your idea of a rebuttal, moron? You take the thread on a tangent and then claim that if I follow it, this must have been my original argument? Yet again you demonstrate your seemingly boundless capacity to be an idiot and an asshole.

Could it be because only now you're trying to back track the fucking issue because your more full of crap than a septic tank? I stated FROM THE FIRST POST ONWARDS that I did not believe that 'THE ENTIRE HUMANITY' is at risk;

And I stated FROM THE FIRST POST ONWARDS that anything other than running away puts humanity at risk. The fact that you figure you can try to pin me down on some particular mechanism of disaster doesn't change that, liar.

They were also assuming that their scheme for avoiding backtracking would be effective; if they were wrong ...

and in the very same post;

Then again, the survival of the entire human race didn't depend on not being found.

There it is you schizophrenic delusional asshole.

And how does that change anything, fucktard? I stated very clearly that anything other than RUNNING AWAY is fucking stupid. Obviously they don't want to be found; that doesn't mean I necessarily thought the entire fleet would be destroyed in one mighty blow. That is nothing more than your fanciful interpretation added onto the following very simple statements:

1) It would be stupid to do anything but RUN AWAY.
2) They should not take ANY risk of being found.

Nowhere do either of those statements imply or require any particular kind of attack, nor do they require that the Cylons be capable of destroying the entire fleet in one mighty blow as you keep insisting that I've said. That is 100% you, trying to distort my argument because you either have the reading comprehension of a squirrel or the honesty of a fundie.

Wow, the unmitigated arrogance of me, agreeing with you that the rescue mission to Caprica didn't fit in with the 'general' goal of getting the fuck out of dodge. What ever will I agree with you on next?

Maybe you would try to explain why the fuck that isn't STUPID. You keep saying that you think I'm wrong for calling it STUPID; I suppose I should call it "slightly ill-advised" or some other mealy-mouthed phrase in order to avoid offending your delicate neo-BSG defender sensibilities?

And just what was your reply to me on this issue ... hang on, it's gotta be around here somewhere, I'm sure if I use my super powers I can find it ... no. What do you know. There isn't one. You let it lie then, and are now claiming that it was I who ignored it? Riiiiiight.

What "issue"? I see no point here other than your bizarre insistence that I'm wrong for calling it "stupid", and that you will only agree that it wasn't a very good idea while insisting that it wasn't actually stupid. What other emotionally sensitive terms would you like me to avoid, Mrs. Crown?

That was from my first post, do I need to quote myself even more?

Yes. You need to quote the part where you admit that it was FUCKING STUPID, because it was. You say it was "writer's fiat" and insist that somehow I was wrong for calling it "stupid" even though you can't find any way to defend it other than to say that they wouldn't necessarily lose the entire fleet all at once if it went to hell. Of course, this brain-damaged rebuttal depends on distorting my original argument from "anything but running away is stupid" and "they can't take ANY risk of being found" to "they would have lost their entire fleet in one shot".

<snip many more repetitions of the same ass-covering bullshit>

Face it, lying shithead. I posted two very simple propositions:

1) Anything but running away is fucking stupid
2) They should not take any risk of being found

You have utterly failed to show that anything was wrong with either of those statements, so you decided to distort what I was saying, relentlessly attack this distorted version, and then claim that there was nothing wrong with doing this because I apparently validated your strawman distortion by arguing with you about these specific tactical details of yours (I repeat: yours, not mine).

[Crown]

Yet again you demonstrate your goddamned liar credentials, not to mention your PhD in Smarmy Assholery. Why don't you tell the class how slowly and carefully you have to live up ships in order to do that, moron? By this logic, cars can routinely drive around at a distance of 1 inch from each other because it's possible to park with that little clearance if you do it very carefully.

Actually no. The difficulties of what we have to go through to get these spacecraft to line up, are trivial to a civilization which has faster than light travel, and mastered gravity. And are you seriously contending that people that can build mile long spacecraft, haven't mastered the art of aligning two bodies in space? Because that takes this argument to a whole new level of stupidity.

And what's that about "twenty times the speed of sound"? Oops, you tried to confuse absolute and relative velocity in order to pretend that it's something you can actually do quickly. Nice bit of dishonest bullshit there, and par for the course for you in this thread.

Actually I did nothing of the kind, the spacecraft are traveling at over twenty times the speed of sound relative to an observer on Earth, but to each other fractions of inches per minute - which is true. The point was to cover myself from your reply, 'cause here's the truth; I had no fucking idea what you meant when you wrote that bullshit. Honestly I had to read it over and over again, and still had to guess as to your meaning. At one time I actually thought you were going to state that I was arguing for a 'fly by', and thought ... nah, couldn't be ... although ...

What "losing argument", asshole? My original argument NEVER depended upon any particular scenario, your lies notwithstanding. You INVENTED particular scenarios and then challenged me to look for holes in them, which I did. And then you pretend that these various scenarios somehow constitutes some sort of "desperate" argument on my part.

This whole 'argument' began very simply; you stated; 'They were also assuming that their scheme for avoiding backtracking would be effective; if they were wrong ...' and I simply replied 'it was a more than safe assumption' and BANG we're off to the races. I never concocted any scenario you bullshitting bullshitter. All I did at worst was misunderstand your 'point'.

From that beginning we've had a nice little round robin of you accusing me of being a zealot trying to convert you to like the show [FALSE]. Of not understanding risk/reward [FALSE]. For using 'Trekkie' debating tactics [FALSE and rich coming from someone who used the classic 'Oddo could shapeshift onto the DS argument and then threw a hissy fit when it was point out that they have sensors].

Is this your idea of a rebuttal, moron? You take the thread on a tangent and then claim that if I follow it, this must have been my original argument? Yet again you demonstrate your seemingly boundless capacity to be an idiot and an asshole.

A statement of fact is not my idea of anything you turd. The quote you posted which was 'meant' to show what your 'original point' was dropped and forgotten. I make ONE statement of 'you are waaaayyy' overstating the risks in order to glamorise your argument, you tried to shore it up, failed, and now are crying foul over it. Boo-hoo.

And I stated FROM THE FIRST POST ONWARDS that anything other than running away puts humanity at risk. The fact that you figure you can try to pin me down on some particular mechanism of disaster doesn't change that, liar.

Yes you did, to which in principle I agree. However you also stated; 'They were also assuming that their scheme for avoiding backtracking would be effective; if they were wrong ...' and 'Then again, the survival of the entire human race didn't depend on not being found.'. To which I simply replied 'you are overstating the risks'. If statements are funny like that, you can abandon them whenever convenient, I guess what I should have said is; 'And if my Grandmother had balls, she would have been my Grandfather.' Which in hindsight should have been the only reaction I gave your post.

And how does that change anything, fucktard? I stated very clearly that anything other than RUNNING AWAY is fucking stupid. Obviously they don't want to be found; that doesn't mean I necessarily thought the entire fleet would be destroyed in one mighty blow.

'Necessarily' ... like 'vague and ambiguous wording that I now choose to correct, three pages later'? Riiiight.

That is nothing more than your fanciful interpretation added onto the following very simple statements:

1) It would be stupid to do anything but RUN AWAY.
2) They should not take ANY risk of being found.

Point 1 I would agree with, and in fact the show agrees with, and point 2 is also self evident. What we are discussing is what risks were involved, and how from a risk/reward scenario this was stupid. If they were going after The Nostril of Zeus (for example) then it wouldn't be. You mentioned that they were assuming that they wouldn't be at risk of being backtracked and that the entire fate of humanity rested on them not being found. Coupled together, how, exactly, do you expect people to interpret it?

Nowhere do either of those statements imply or require any particular kind of attack, nor do they require that the Cylons be capable of destroying the entire fleet in one mighty blow as you keep insisting that I've said. That is 100% you, trying to distort my argument because you either have the reading comprehension of a squirrel or the honesty of a fundie.

Then why not pull me up on it straight away? Why infact ignore it for three pages and then suddenly turn around and state it as some kind of revelation? I would have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt then, but after going through the entire gauntlet of disproving every stupid thing that came out of your mouth, I'm less inclined to.

Maybe you would try to explain why the fuck that isn't STUPID. You keep saying that you think I'm wrong for calling it STUPID; I suppose I should call it "slightly ill-advised" or some other mealy-mouthed phrase in order to avoid offending your delicate neo-BSG defender sensibilities?

YOU FUCKING LIAR. At no point did I say OR IMPLY that this mission wasn't stupid. ALL I SAID WAS THAT THE RISK WAS HARDLY AS GREAT AS YOU IMPLY.

What "issue"? I see no point here other than your bizarre insistence that I'm wrong for calling it "stupid", and that you will only agree that it wasn't a very good idea while insisting that it wasn't actually stupid. What other emotionally sensitive terms would you like me to avoid, Mrs. Crown?

Provide evidence of me saying that you are wrong for calling it 'stupid' asshole, and not of me saying 'you are wrong about what was at stake'.

Yes. You need to quote the part where you admit that it was FUCKING STUPID, because it was.

BWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What is your dysfunction man, I have stated again, again and again that this mission was a BAD IDEA, that the fleet couldn't even really afford to lose the RAPTORS AND THEIR PERSONNEL in this mission, let alone a Battlestar. For the UMPTEENTH TIME, of course losing the Galactica would be a blow (even with them having the Pegasus), YES losing it for this mission would be the HIGHT of stupid acts to go in the chronicles of ALL TIME STUPID ACTS in place number 1.

Of course, I didn't specifically use the word 'stupid' there, is that a requirement?

I swear, I'm at the end of my rope here. Two scenarios;

1. Exactly as happened in the episode, Starbuck gets the itch between her thighs and convinces the old man to go back to Caprica to get her boyfriend back.
2. Same set up, except there's a twist, we're not going back to get Starbucks boy toy, we're going back to get the Nostril of Zeus. The Nostril of Zeus is the definition of Deus Ex Machina a wonder weapon that will instantly destroy every singly last Cylon in all the Universe, and stop them from ever evolving again. Ever.

So now the problem is one of risk/reward, which golly gee boy, what do you know, that's what every military action is about.

Situation A is just RETARDED, even if the only thing at risk was Starbuck's period, it wouldn't be worth it. Situation B, however, you would risk Galactica (or Pegasus) itself, and you know it.

I used the word 'retarded' there ... but I guess that it isn't 'stupid' so it doesn't count right? Hmmm, what ever shall I do?

Bullshit. Again you are either not paying attention, or just blind to what both Vympel and me are saying; this was stupid. We know that. Period. Full stop. End sentence.

*crickets chirping*

Your a liar, and a builder of men of straw Michael Wong.

You say it was "writer's fiat" ...

Just as an aside; in what reality do you live in would anyone refer to 'writer's fiat' as anything other than a stupid fucking piece of plot? Seriously, I'd like to know.

... and insist that somehow I was wrong for calling it "stupid" even though you can't find any way to defend it other than to say that they wouldn't necessarily lose the entire fleet all at once if it went to hell. Of course, this brain-damaged rebuttal depends on distorting my original argument from "anything but running away is stupid" and "they can't take ANY risk of being found" to "they would have lost their entire fleet in one shot".

All of this has been answered and SHOWN TO BE BULLSHIT above. I have never said you were wrong for calling it stupid. All I did was say; the risk wasn't anywhere near as bad as you're saying. If I may have been wrong for 'misinterpreting' your dubious vague language, make no mistake I clearly wrote what I was talking about, so there isn't an issue here that we are arguing two entirely different things.

Face it, lying shithead.

At no point have I lied in this thread, unlike you. Every time you have accused me of lying you have been proven FALSE.

<snip many more repetitions of the same ass-covering bullshit>