EAS is flaming us now

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-20 09:33pm

Special page maybe?

So do they have some problem given that now Mike knows about certain allegations that have been said against him...yes, it would fan the flames...but honestly aside from creating a special page all for this, it will more than likely be on the Hate-Mail page.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-01-20 09:35pm

well . . . arent most ignorant arguments placed on the hatemail page, while ignoring hurt feelings?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-20 09:38pm

Alyeska wrote: Is this a future debate, or an old debate? If its the old debate, they might not want it published.

But they would have no legal grounds for preventing its publication, as Mike's policy on the matter is clear and consistent.

And no, I am not kidding. I myself was more then a little irritated with Mike when he started placing his debates in the Hate-Mail section. It sends a message to the person your debating that you don't respect them at all. Intentional or not, that is how the people on the recieving end read the situation. If Mike retitled his section Hate-Mail & Debates (and changed the URL), there is a much smaller chance of there being future conflict over how it was published. Also leaving out comentary helps. Letting each sides arguments stand alone as is.

The commentary adds to the debate. Besides which, Mike doesn't substantively alter things after the fact with his comments. Frankly, there's no legitimate reason to be concerned with the "Hate Mail" title of the page, as it makes no difference to the substance of what is said (the point of the page).

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-20 09:38pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:well . . . arent most ignorant arguments placed on the hatemail page, while ignoring hurt feelings?

Exactly. Who cares? If you can't take the heat...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 09:39pm

By the way, one point of clarification on a much earlier remark from their board:

Our distaste of Wong and his band of snarling orcs comes from after the shock and horror of going to their website. Rampant cussing, Name-calling, insulting, disgusting, zealous hatred of Star Trek. When some of us went over to voice our personal opinions of you (on their own perrogative I might add), you attacked them like the pack of ravening orcs you were. And then you traced their IP address back here and started acusing US of sending "trolls" over there! You violated the sanctity of our board with baseless acusations.

Note highlighted portion: you actually can't trace someone's IP address to the board they came from, as it is based on their Internet connection, not the site they're currently browsing. You can only trace the HTTP_REFERER environment variable passed from their browsers if they direct-linked from there to here. The only person who can do that on this board is me, and I never received any request for such a trace, so I don't know where they got this idea.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-01-20 09:41pm

and in a post of no particular relevance, lord wong has 6069 posts.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 09:41pm

If I don't describe things for the readers with editor's notes (which do not represent actual alteration of their text because they are clearly demarcated), then I would have to embed those kinds of remarks into the rebuttal itself, which would probably only enrage someone because nobody likes to see somebody trying to use him as an object lesson. That in itself might be amusing except that you would see major subject changes as a result.

As for calling it "Hate Mail", that is precisely what most of it is. And Bernd would have no right to demand that I call it anything else since he has been trash-talking me for a long time, so he would certainly fall into the category even if others don't.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-20 09:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:By the way, one point of clarification on a much earlier remark from their board:
Our distaste of Wong and his band of snarling orcs comes from after the shock and horror of going to their website. Rampant cussing, Name-calling, insulting, disgusting, zealous hatred of Star Trek. When some of us went over to voice our personal opinions of you (on their own perrogative I might add), you attacked them like the pack of ravening orcs you were. And then you traced their IP address back here and started acusing US of sending "trolls" over there! You violated the sanctity of our board with baseless acusations.
Note highlighted portion: you actually can't trace someone's IP address to the board they came from, as it is based on their Internet connection, not the site they're currently browsing. You can only trace the HTTP_REFERER environment variable passed from their browsers if they direct-linked from there to here. The only person who can do that on this board is me, and I never received any request for such a trace, so I don't know where they got this idea.

A tad bit paranoid are they

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-01-20 10:15pm

Hmmm... I've been over there a few times using the link off the main site, however I'm not registered in their forums and I've never posted a thing there. Perhaps they noticed that they've been getting hits on their site from SD.net and recoiled in horror, screaming "the ravening orcs are at the gates!"

I've got to admit, I like the sound of "ravening orc."

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-20 10:18pm

FYI. The Cease Fire has again been instated. I will vicously naw at anyone who posts anything remotely resembling an insult towards anyone at EAS.

MinutiaeMan · Post by **MinutiaeMan** » 2003-01-20 10:32pm

Allow me to introduce myself as the other administrator of the SCN.

This... well, conflict has caused a heck of a lot of bad blood on both sides. Some of it might be justified, but a lot probably isn't. Hopefully it is in the process of winding down -- at least, that's what I'm trying to do on the SCN side -- but I'd like to present my case and try to establish some kind of understanding here.

I realize that I may not have had all of the facts at first, but my impression of StarDestroyer.net as a whole (since I first discovered the site in August 2002) has been that of a closed-minded board that promotes a singular method of enjoying science fiction programs, and seems devoted to ridicule, harassment, and ignorance of alternate points of view or beliefs. That was the reasoning behind my "horde of orcs" comment -- which I freely admit I made first at the SCN. It was mainly intended as humor, fictitious imagery -- NOT a personal insult towards any specific individual.

I understand and respect individual opinions regarding issues, even ones I personally consider pointless -- as long as others likewise respect MY opinions. The SD.net as a community devoted to "the mockery of stupid people" (as the board motto states) -- and I see those "stupid people" all too often as people who simply choose to enjoy science fiction shows differently. I myself have enjoyed some material here on this board -- both Mr. Wong's "Conquest" and Stravo's "StarCrossed" have been immensely entertaining to me... but I keep the fictional realms separate for the most part, and enjoy each on their own merits. Some Star Trek fans (or any person, for that matter) simply feel defensive when a group of other people openly attack their preferences, their interests, and call them "ignoramus," "mindless," and "stupid." I see many (though not all) people here attempting to validate their own interests by attempting to discredit other peoples' interests.

A few members at the SCN have suggested that we "agree to disagree." Potentially an over-simplistic (and admittedly cliched) solution, but is it too much to ask that people be allowed to pursue their own interests without being insulted and ridiculed by others? (Specifically, without webmasters having their efforts and opinions trashed simply based on personal preference?)

I publicly apologize for any generalizations I have made regarding the community of StarDestroyer.net, and for not recognizing the interests of the individuals that make up the board. I do not approve of what the SD.net website stands for in any manner, but that does not excuse any personal attacks against others -- especially the many members here who do NOT participate in these ongoing arguments.

A final comment, to hopefully wrap things up: both sides of this issue must swallow their pride and drop the argument. Constant recriminations and accusations will do nothing but heat up the argument again, like so many real-world conflicts ongoing today. I and the other SCN moderators will discourage further cross-board debate on our board; I hope that the same can be done here.

Note: I will post this identical message on the SCN, and discourage any further debate on this.

MinutiaeMan · Post by **MinutiaeMan** » 2003-01-20 10:35pm

EDIT: I've been drafting this message for little while, and so I apologize for the slight lateness...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 10:38pm

It took balls to come here after saying those things and own up. I respect that.

However, this psycho-babble bullshit of claiming that we "validate our own interest by denigrating others" is nonsense. If one can produce objective evidence that someone is wrong, there is nothing wrong with flatly saying he's wrong, instead of some mealy-mouthed declaration of subjective relativism. You have your way of doing things, we have ours, but this "holier-than-thou" declaration of moral superiority did not need to be included in your message. It is precisely that sort of thing which inflames opinions; come here, apologize, and get a subtle dig in while you're at it.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-20 11:04pm

MinutiaeMan wrote:Allow me to introduce myself as the other administrator of the SCN.

Welcome to SD.net.

This... well, conflict has caused a heck of a lot of bad blood on both sides. Some of it might be justified, but a lot probably isn't. Hopefully it is in the process of winding down -- at least, that's what I'm trying to do on the SCN side -- but I'd like to present my case and try to establish some kind of understanding here.

To be honest, I'm really not sure what you're talking about. From what I see on SD.net, the "bad blood" is limited to a small group of posters, the majority of which realize that their problems are not with your entire board but rather with individuals who post occasionally on that board. There is obviously a difference between the two.

I realize that I may not have had all of the facts at first, but my impression of StarDestroyer.net as a whole (since I first discovered the site in August 2002) has been that of a closed-minded board that promotes a singular method of enjoying science fiction programs, and seems devoted to ridicule, harassment, and ignorance of alternate points of view or beliefs.

I'm not sure that I agree. Many posters on SD.net (including myself) enjoy disparaging stupid people, however to claim that this makes us somehow "close-minded" is to dismiss the merits of the work that some of us have done. If you read my rebuttal of Mr. Anderson's website, you will find that a great deal of scientific work is actually done by members of this board. The same will be true if you read Mr. Wong's site. I can't tell where you have been given this impression, but I find it astonishing that anyone could come here and believe that we are ignorant to alternative points of view or beliefs. Again, I would direct you to my rebuttal of Mr. Anderson's website, which shows conclusively that I read and understood what Mr. Anderson had done, but disagreed with it. I recognize that one individual does not make a board, but my response was fairly representative of the work that goes on here, and was lauded to a considerable extent by other posters.

That was the reasoning behind my "horde of orcs" comment -- which I freely admit I made first at the SCN. It was mainly intended as humor, fictitious imagery -- NOT a personal insult towards any specific individual.

But that was the problem. Instead of attacking an individual (ie. saying that Master of Ossus is full of shit), you instead derided the entire board and judged all of its members rather than the few you had had contact with. I understand the source of your error, but I don't think that it was appropriate for what was going on at the time.

I understand and respect individual opinions regarding issues, even ones I personally consider pointless -- as long as others likewise respect MY opinions. The SD.net as a community devoted to "the mockery of stupid people" (as the board motto states) -- and I see those "stupid people" all too often as people who simply choose to enjoy science fiction shows differently. I myself have enjoyed some material here on this board -- both Mr. Wong's "Conquest" and Stravo's "StarCrossed" have been immensely entertaining to me... but I keep the fictional realms separate for the most part, and enjoy each on their own merits. Some Star Trek fans (or any person, for that matter) simply feel defensive when a group of other people openly attack their preferences, their interests, and call them "ignoramus," "mindless," and "stupid." I see many (though not all) people here attempting to validate their own interests by attempting to discredit other peoples' interests.

Again, I agree with you on principle, but disagree with your assessment. The vast majority of posters on the "SW vs. ST" forum enjoy both universes. To claim that we try to disparage someone based on which series they enjoy more is not acceptable. However, it is acceptable to measure objective things and mock people who are flat out wrong. To be honest, I see far more comments like "Star Trek ownz" or "Star Wars sucks" on other vs. boards than I do here, which is part of why I enjoy the atmosphere here. I think that most people on SD.net understand that to argue with someone based on subjective taste is stupid, but to argue with someone based on objective analysis is not.

A few members at the SCN have suggested that we "agree to disagree." Potentially an over-simplistic (and admittedly cliched) solution, but is it too much to ask that people be allowed to pursue their own interests without being insulted and ridiculed by others? (Specifically, without webmasters having their efforts and opinions trashed simply based on personal preference?)

Again, I don't see what the disagreement is. Mind you, I had never even heard of your board until this incident occured, but I honestly cannot figure out why our two boards dislike each other. The problems any individual poster has with another individual on the other board are just those, and not emblematic of a kind of manic hatred towards another site or another board in general. I agree with you that people should be free to pursue their pass-times in peace, but I will not prevent people from mocking others on demonstrably incorrect and objective statements that the other individual has made.

I publicly apologize for any generalizations I have made regarding the community of StarDestroyer.net, and for not recognizing the interests of the individuals that make up the board. I do not approve of what the SD.net website stands for in any manner, but that does not excuse any personal attacks against others -- especially the many members here who do NOT participate in these ongoing arguments.

But, you just made another generalization during the same paragraph as your apology for doing so. I have no problems with personal matters that are kept personal. The problem here is that people are translating their dislike for an individual on the other board to the entirety of that board, as you did above.

A final comment, to hopefully wrap things up: both sides of this issue must swallow their pride and drop the argument. Constant recriminations and accusations will do nothing but heat up the argument again, like so many real-world conflicts ongoing today. I and the other SCN moderators will discourage further cross-board debate on our board; I hope that the same can be done here.

Note: I will post this identical message on the SCN, and discourage any further debate on this.

Again, I don't see that there is any "pride" to be swallowed. I have nothing against your board in general, or what it stands for. I do, however, reserve the right to like or dislike whomever I choose, so long as that matter does not expand to encompass otherwise uninvolved parties. To prevent members of our two boards from doing so represents the worst possible form of censorship--censorship of belief--and I do not wish it to come to that.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-20 11:20pm

This kind of "we look at it differently from the way you do, so our conclusions are just as valid" shit has been thrown around since ASVS first graced USENET. This has nothing to do with how we choose to "enjoy" sci-fi. I didn't go and see Episode II with a notebook, pencil, physics book and calculator when it first came out. I sat back and enjoyed it.

The point here is how we analyze sci-fi for versus debates in the context of who would win in a fight. There is only one way to do that, and that's through the use of objectivity and the scientific method. Most people who decry either SD.Net or ASVS for this approach only do so because they don't understand the scientific method or are intimidated by math or both. Most Trekkies hate that approach because it invariably leads to Trek being slaughtered by the Empire.

MinutiaeMan · Post by **MinutiaeMan** » 2003-01-21 01:22am

(This post is now my own opinion, not relating to the SCN or EAS at all.)

Mr. Wong, so far I've viewed much of the SD.net material as offensive because of some of the generalizations that I've perceived. If these are false perceptions, then I certainly would appreciate information to help me form a new opinion. So far, the sheer volume of material seems pretty overwhelming, which is why I haven't delved into many of the details. I've read the introduction on your main site, parts of your hate mail, and today I've started to look into your essays.

I understand that the website has a specific focus, but what I see on this board is a common attitude of confrontation and belligerence that goes far beyond that -- to the point of accepting only one point of view, only one way to enjoy science fiction -- specifically Star Wars and Star Trek. Your talk of "objective evidence" is, to my mind, another generalization, because there are almost as many different tastes for entertainment in this world as there are people. Certainly not everyone on the Internet presents their opinions and arguments in a clear, consise, and intelligent manner -- but does that justify personal attacks? I don't believe so. And that is the reasoning behind that specific comment.

Darth Wong wrote:It is precisely that sort of thing which inflames opinions; come here, apologize, and get a subtle dig in while you're at it.

I don't wish to restart the issue here, but there's more than one way to end a debate aside from one person capitulating entirely. I'm trying to present my opinions as I (and I believe, as some other Trek fans) see the situation. I wasn't trying to further the argument.

If we have our way of doing things, and you have yours, is it still necessary to say that other sites do not use "rational analysis" and dismiss them because they're "pseudoscientific"? (I've read these kinds of comments in the "Opinions of EAS" thread.) Some Trek fans enjoy some more... I guess subjective analysis. And from some peoples' point of view your ridicule constitutes the same "holier-than-thou" attitude that you just mentioned.

It seems we're both guilty of the same crime.

Durandal wrote:The point here is how we analyze sci-fi for versus debates in the context of who would win in a fight. There is only one way to do that, and that's through the use of objectivity and the scientific method. Most people who decry either SD.Net or ASVS for this approach only do so because they don't understand the scientific method or are intimidated by math or both. Most Trekkies hate that approach because it invariably leads to Trek being slaughtered by the Empire.

I certainly respect that, and that definitely clarifies things for me in some ways. You're right -- based on the hard-physics analyses that I've read, Star Wars would certainly kick the crap out of Star Trek. My problem, though, is that many people here seem to treat that as the ONLY way to approach science fiction universes, either when they meet or on their own. And even worse, it seems that the judgement of comparative technical capability is extended to become the only way to approach either universe.

Part of what formed my opinion about this community is the responses I read in the "Opinions on EAS" thread, and the reaction to the way some Star Trek fans present their opinions on their own website. This is, after all, the realm of science fiction and fantasy -- can you apply the same types of reasoning concerning the development of planet-destroying superlaser technology or matter-transporter devices to, say, the art of creating the One Ring? It's entertainment, and fantasy, and at some point I think that a line needs to be drawn. Where that line is left should be up to the individual.

Durandal wrote:This kind of "we look at it differently from the way you do, so our conclusions are just as valid" shit has been thrown around since ASVS first graced USENET.

I agree that a lot of the things we see on the screen are dictated by the laws of physics -- which is certainly a valid assumption. My personal opinion, though (and this is the "look at it differently" part) is that some effects must be interpreted subjectively because they're almost certainly impossible as portrayed by the visual effects! In the end, Star Trek and Star Wars are both fictional, and subject to entertainment as the ultimate determiner rather than scientific accuracy. And that's why I don't look at these issues the same -- at least not all the time. (At any rate, I've never considered the two universes in such depth anyway -- nothing more than a simple "how would it look?" musing or two.)

Master of Ossus wrote:To be honest, I'm really not sure what you're talking about. From what I see on SD.net, the "bad blood" is limited to a small group of posters, the majority of which realize that their problems are not with your entire board but rather with individuals who post occasionally on that board. There is obviously a difference between the two.

From what I've seen, the debate has gotten personal on both sides. Certainly it's not the entire community, for either of us. Perhaps I overstated things when I was trying to tone things down instead...

That was the reasoning behind my "horde of orcs" comment -- which I freely admit I made first at the SCN. It was mainly intended as humor, fictitious imagery -- NOT a personal insult towards any specific individual.
But that was the problem. Instead of attacking an individual (ie. saying that Master of Ossus is full of shit), you instead derided the entire board and judged all of its members rather than the few you had had contact with. I understand the source of your error, but I don't think that it was appropriate for what was going on at the time.

Agreed. As in so many other incidents, it was an attempt at humor that was seriously ill-considered and insulting. (And I wasn't really thinking of any reaction from your side of the issue -- which probably makes the insult worse, right?

) That's why I've offered my personal apology.

To prevent members of our two boards from doing so represents the worst possible form of censorship--censorship of belief--and I do not wish it to come to that.

In the three years that I've been a mod or admin, I've always been pretty lenient regarding peoples' opinions. When I meant "discourage," I'm referring to the open attacks and inflammatory arguments, not a general discussion.

Allow me to describe a bit of my background on this issue -- I've read the occasional crossover fanfic for years now. I've got Stravo's "StarCrossed" story bookmarked and check it frequently for the latest chapter. I've read many of the Star Wars novels in the past, own all the movies, and maintain my own Star Trek website. I've even had an occasional daydream about what a crossover battle would be like. (My personal favorite is Shadow warships attacking a lone Borg cube. Technologies aside, that would be some incredible imagery, IMO!) Anyway, I've enjoyed some of these ideas... but I don't take them nearly as seriously as some people seem to. (Note: *seem* to. Again, I realize that I'm an outsider.)

So, in conclusion, I'm willing to look at the different approaches... but what's irritated me is how some individuals -- who don't necessarily represent the mentality of the entire community, but nonetheless either promote it -- seem to create an "us or them" attitude that ultimately decreases the enjoyment of either show for me.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-21 01:37am

MinutiaeMan wrote:I certainly respect that, and that definitely clarifies things for me in some ways. You're right -- based on the hard-physics analyses that I've read, Star Wars would certainly kick the crap out of Star Trek. My problem, though, is that many people here seem to treat that as the ONLY way to approach science fiction universes, either when they meet or on their own. And even worse, it seems that the judgement of comparative technical capability is extended to become the only way to approach either universe.

It seems to me fans taking the conclusion that their series's groups would get the stuffing effortlessly kicked out of them by one entity from another series too seriously and an insult to their enjoyment of Star Trek.

I'm a Warsie. I firmly believe nothing (save omnipotents and special one-time lost wonder tech) in Trek would make things difficult for the Galactic Empire. Star Trek butchers science, engineering principles, and other things, particularly since Berman Trek came into being.

However, despite the technobabble, despite the mistakes Trek's made, despite the fact of how I stand on the vs. issue, and how I enjoy SW more, despite all of that, I have, and do enjoy Star Trek often and I see it bringing things to the table SW simply cannot as a medium do. I enjoy the greater volume and diversity of ST canon material and enjoy it immensely.

The vs. debate has zero to do with my analysis of individual points of either series either compared against each other (such as medical tech in the "Could the Feddies heal Vader?" thread) or independently, nor does it affect my enjoyment and why I enjoy them regarding both series.

I believe it is that misconception and the defensiveness of those who do not see the rationale for our analytical methods who have issues with SD.net.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-01-21 01:44am

The "us or them" attitude that you refer to I think is an overstatement. We spend as much time ripping into and apart parts of SW as we do Trek, seperately, aside from the VS forums. And I would even venture to guess even more time discussing general science, logic, and morality. (anyone got a post count total for the SLAM forum as compared to the VS forum?)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-21 02:07am

MinutiaeMan wrote:Mr. Wong, so far I've viewed much of the SD.net material as offensive because of some of the generalizations that I've perceived. If these are false perceptions, then I certainly would appreciate information to help me form a new opinion. So far, the sheer volume of material seems pretty overwhelming, which is why I haven't delved into many of the details. I've read the introduction on your main site, parts of your hate mail, and today I've started to look into your essays.

I understand that the website has a specific focus, but what I see on this board is a common attitude of confrontation and belligerence that goes far beyond that -- to the point of accepting only one point of view, only one way to enjoy science fiction -- specifically Star Wars and Star Trek.

Actually, you will note that the belligerence is usually directed at people who spout nonsensical tech claims about Star Wars or Star Trek, not at people who simply say they prefer Star Trek subjectively. The problem is people who masquerade their subjective preferences under a facade of pseudoscience. We call this subjective bullshit. Most people call such people posers.

Your talk of "objective evidence" is, to my mind, another generalization, because there are almost as many different tastes for entertainment in this world as there are people.

Strawman fallacy. At no time have I claimed "objective evidence" on the matter of "tastes for entertainment", but rather, on the technical claims people were making.

Certainly not everyone on the Internet presents their opinions and arguments in a clear, consise, and intelligent manner -- but does that justify personal attacks? I don't believe so. And that is the reasoning behind that specific comment.

Why not? If someone says something stupid, why is it not "justified" to accuse that person of stupidity? I do it to creationists, I do it to Trekkies if they spout technical idiocy like the troll who said that four photorps could destroy an entire planet, etc.

I don't wish to restart the issue here, but there's more than one way to end a debate aside from one person capitulating entirely. I'm trying to present my opinions as I (and I believe, as some other Trek fans) see the situation. I wasn't trying to further the argument.

You were trying to say that you're better than us. You are still trying to say that you are better than us. And on what basis? Intelligence? No. Morality? Since you started flaming us before we started flaming you, that's on pretty shaky ground too. Manners? Unimportant superficialities. So what's your basis for your constant insinuations and occasional outright declarations of superiority?

If we have our way of doing things, and you have yours, is it still necessary to say that other sites do not use "rational analysis" and dismiss them because they're "pseudoscientific"?

If they make claims about preferring Star Trek, no. If they make claims about scientific or technical claims as they relate to sci-fi, yes. Your inabilit to distinguish between the two speaks volumes about your methods.

(I've read these kinds of comments in the "Opinions of EAS" thread.) Some Trek fans enjoy some more... I guess subjective analysis.

The concept of "subjective analysis" is almost a contradiction in terms. Analysis requires rational thought. What you speak of is subjective opinion masquerading as analysis. It is precisely the sort of double-speak and dishonesty which leads to a contemptuous reaction. Be honest or be prepared to accept criticism, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim objectivity while refusing to practice it. You can't use scientific terms and spout numbers without being able to back them up in a scientific manner. You can't support claims couched in scientific language while using distinctly unscientific means to generate them.

And from some peoples' point of view your ridicule constitutes the same "holier-than-thou" attitude that you just mentioned.

More rational than thou, not holier-than-thou. This is no smal distinction, since I can back it up.

My problem, though, is that many people here seem to treat that as the ONLY way to approach science fiction universes, either when they meet or on their own.

No one said that it's wrong to be completely subjective, but a lot of people try to have it both ways: they spout pseudoscientific jargonated treatises on the technology of fictional universes without the slightest effort to observe even the most fundamental concepts of science or the scientific method.

And even worse, it seems that the judgement of comparative technical capability is extended to become the only way to approach either universe.

Bullshit. Find one example of anyone here saying that it's wrong to compare them thematically, for example. What you will find is that we dislike the hypocrisy and dishonesty of those who try to have their cake and eat it too.

Part of what formed my opinion about this community is the responses I read in the "Opinions on EAS" thread, and the reaction to the way some Star Trek fans present their opinions on their own website. This is, after all, the realm of science fiction and fantasy -- can you apply the same types of reasoning concerning the development of planet-destroying superlaser technology or matter-transporter devices to, say, the art of creating the One Ring?

Yes. The One Ring has never demonstrated the ability to destroy a planet or even directly affect anyone or anything at a distance, therefore it is perfectly rational to say it can't, and that the Death Star would annihilate it along with Middle Earth. What's the problem with that?

It is also perfectly valid to say "I like LOTR more than SW". In both cases, the type of statement is justified by an appropriate proof (objective/rational in the first case, and none in the second case). As I said before, you are trying to excuse people for mixing and matching.

I agree that a lot of the things we see on the screen are dictated by the laws of physics -- which is certainly a valid assumption. My personal opinion, though (and this is the "look at it differently" part) is that some effects must be interpreted subjectively because they're almost certainly impossible as portrayed by the visual effects!

No, if true it would only mean that they cannot be reliably interpreted at all. Opening the door to subjectivity as evidence is basically allowing people to invent facts at will.

In the end, Star Trek and Star Wars are both fictional, and subject to entertainment as the ultimate determiner rather than scientific accuracy. And that's why I don't look at these issues the same -- at least not all the time. (At any rate, I've never considered the two universes in such depth anyway -- nothing more than a simple "how would it look?" musing or two.)

I've heard all of this bullshit reasoning before. Fine, just say that you think Star Trek ships are very pretty, and talk about character development. But as soon as you start talking about watts, joules, gravitons, photons, alloys, or anything else scientific, you must either use scientific methods to arrive at your conclusions or admit that you're full of shit, and trying to have it both ways.

From what I've seen, the debate has gotten personal on both sides.

Actually, we have been consistently pointing at your statements and attacking them, while you have been consistently pointing at your claims about our collective character and my personality and attacking them. Do you recognize the difference? Or are you just too goddamned stubborn to admit you were wrong without attaching a "but you're just as wrong" addendum to it?

Agreed. As in so many other incidents, it was an attempt at humor that was seriously ill-considered and insulting.

Don't try to pass it off as humour. It was quite obvious that this was your sincere opinion, even if you could have worded it differently.

So, in conclusion, I'm willing to look at the different approaches... but what's irritated me is how some individuals -- who don't necessarily represent the mentality of the entire community, but nonetheless either promote it -- seem to create an "us or them" attitude that ultimately decreases the enjoyment of either show for me.

I would criticize you further, but your unprovoked flaming of this board and subsequent attempt to blame us for bringing it upon ourselves speaks for itself.

I commend you on actually having the guts to come here and state your piece, but you still insist on promoting some mealy-mouthed swamp of opinion in which anyone who promotes any sort of standard for determining whether something is right or wrong must be close-minded.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-21 02:16am

Master of Ossus wrote:Who the hell is the "Shadow" he refers to. We have numerous posters with the word "Shadow" in their screen-names

Yeah but only one that matters

Ofcourse I'm no longer that involved, it's mostly sporadical.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-01-21 02:19am

Nevermind, I went and check the figures myself...and more or less, my assumptions where correct. If you're going by Topic counts, SLAM beats out the VS forum. If you're going by sheer number of posts however, VS wins. But much of this might be attributed to the simple responces of us users in regards to debates that are brought up. (I.E "This is gonna be good", "This should be intresting" etc.)

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-01-21 02:21am

And on a futher note, the pure SW forum currently ranks in with more post topics than either forum. So this whole "us or them" crap about us being singleminded/only bashing Trek etc, is crap...because we spend more time (more topics-wise) debating or talking about Wars than VS!

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-21 02:24am

Darth Wong wrote:As for calling it "Hate Mail", that is precisely what most of it is. And Bernd would have no right to demand that I call it anything else since he has been trash-talking me for a long time, so he would certainly fall into the category even if others don't.

Personally I think the section has expanded, I believe a better name would be something like "Communications" with the subsections like Hatemail, Debates and such, pretty much like you got it now.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-21 02:27am

beyond hope wrote:I've got to admit, I like the sound of "ravening orc."

We are the HORDE!

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-21 10:24am

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:Who the hell is the "Shadow" he refers to. We have numerous posters with the word "Shadow" in their screen-names
Yeah but only one that matters

Ofcourse I'm no longer that involved, it's mostly sporadical.

OOOOOOHHHHH. You. Okay. Actually, that makes sense. I always think of you as HDS, and so I was going through some of the other "shadows" we have on our board. That makes sense, now. Okay.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

EAS is flaming us now

Re: EAS is flaming us now

Re: EAS is flaming us now