Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
It's not mind-boggling at all. They're just a bunch of hypocritical little shits: quite typical of the breed. They probably know they're being hypocrites and don't care. It reminds me of Axis Kast, who once commented that hypocrisy is good as long as it gets the job done.Master of Ossus wrote:I find it mind-boggling that they can refer to us as "Saxtonian," but if we call them "Travessites" then it's baiting.
I suppose it's their way of saying, "We hate you guys."Master of Ossus wrote:I find it mind-boggling that they can refer to us as "Saxtonian," but if we call them "Travessites" then it's baiting.
dp4m wrote:Saxtonian, to me, is someone who believes in (like Newton) trying to use math/physics to explain what wouldn't ordinarily be explainable. Right or wrong, there's a logical basis for the calculations (at least on real-world Earth). I liken it, as I've said, to calling someone "Newtonian" or "Einsteinian" -- it's someone who believes in using a certain methodology, rather than being "a follower of" which is usually what the "-ite" suffix entails. Please note: you guys usually are (by definition) "wrong," since Saxton is non-canon in almost all aspects of the universe (except, in a Clintonian fashion, where he is canon of course!) but that doesn't make your math (or maths for your UK/AU members) incorrect based upon the assumptions you have to go on.
Calling someone a "Travissite" on the other hand, implies something akin to a cult. Especially since Karen's not advocating any methodology to follow, per se, it's just attempting to lump people who believe one thing into a group as a label, rather than attempting any real "good faith" debating on that score. I generally would also tolerate "Fandalorian" as well, on the same principle that these people are "fans of Mandalorian culture" which, again, speaks to a viewpoint and/or methodology rather than a cult of personality.
So that's pretty much how I view it. Obviously, if I see Saxtonian being used as an insult or epithet, I'll edit it, etc. But that occurs far less frequently IMO than the reverse... and if you think I've missed something, let me know about it. I'm not out to "get" people and I would like to enforce things equally, if I can.
Please, PLEASE tell me that this is a joke. Does he even realize what he says? "Especially since Karen's not advocating any methodology to follow" WTF?Calling someone a "Travissite" on the other hand, implies something akin to a cult. Especially since Karen's not advocating any methodology to follow, per se, it's just attempting to lump people who believe one thing into a group as a label, rather than attempting any real "good faith" debating on that score. I generally would also tolerate "Fandalorian" as well, on the same principle that these people are "fans of Mandalorian culture" which, again, speaks to a viewpoint and/or methodology rather than a cult of personality.
Jim, could it be this quote you were referring to (a reply to a question by Poe):Jim Raynor wrote:I recall a Chee quote from the Holocron thread at SW.com where he said the Databank is NOT always up to date, and I would like to use this smack this asshole down. Can anyone provide a link?
It can be found here: +http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa? ... start=9000Tasty Taste wrote:Executor's dimensions... When will the other spinoff literature and the Official
Site Databank show the ITW correction?
I don't know when/if the databank will be updated; that's up to the Online group. Databank entries usually don't get dynamically updated every time new information comes out.
Including the ITW book, which specifically stated it was 900km.Darth Wong wrote:The only reason to use the old 160km figure is the mindless assumption that EU cannot be wrong even though there have been numerous corrections over time in the past.
dp4m wrote: There will be no more canon debates.
By definition, this means there will be no more size debates.
Refering to my...blackmyron wrote:
Sorry Mange, but the above is what a real veiled attack looks like...
I find this to be particularly funny, as it would be taboo to make similiar veiled attacks on other VIPs.
Darth Wong wrote:That's why you have guys diagnosing themselves with Google, and then arguing with the doctor (yes, this happens; ask doctors).
This was dealt with in the very first episode of "House". House accused the guy of Google-ing his diagnosis, and called it "brilliant". Then he went outside to a candy dispenser and filled a pill bottle with candy, and told the nurse to give it to the patient!Isolder74 wrote:Im many of those cases can't the doctor have the pharmasist give a placebo of he see no reason to administer said drug?
I believe this was the VIP thread, right after Rostoni said the argument could continue. Anyone have the link? (Off to work again!)KT Jelly, on sw.com wrote:We'll consider any argument about clone numbers and how "impossible" they are or their not being canon ( or SSDs or dead Ewoks) to be trolling, because of the history of abuse relating to this topic. And LFL has confirmed on these very forums that the numbers are canon. And the argument has gone on here months ago, and - like the undead/ dead Ewoks and the SSD sagas - it's a known troll zone. Therefore...raise it yet again, and see what happens. The mods will act accordingly.
And the more fuss you make, the more books you end up selling for me. I've pointed out that irony before. Your call.
Personally, it's the unwillingness and the apathy to change. To quote Peter Gibbons "I just don't care".Darth Wong wrote:If we're allowed to use out-of-context backstage info, it's been stated by the people who did the FX that DS2 was intended to have a 500 mile diameter.Lazarus wrote:Unfortunately the DS outer surface sets they used for those shots were flat, so thats a no go, unless the DS is infinitely large.
I've been grappling with the question of what makes these people tick: loyalty to certain authors or precedents, scientific ignorance, etc. But I think that maybe, in the end, they're just driven by an innate hostility toward anybody who knows how to do this sort of thing and dares to apply that knowledge to Star Wars. They're like the people in high school who get angry at you if you use big words because they think you're trying to show off. And in both cases, the situation isn't helped by the presence of posers, who don't really know what they're doing but pretend they do.
But they care enough to call jihad against people who disagree with them. That is not apathy.Sunstreaker wrote:Personally, it's the unwillingness and the apathy to change. To quote Peter Gibbons "I just don't care".
I wish I could answer your question from their perspective.Darth Wong wrote:But they care enough to call jihad against people who disagree with them. That is not apathy.Sunstreaker wrote:Personally, it's the unwillingness and the apathy to change. To quote Peter Gibbons "I just don't care".
