I thought I follow Timo's suggestion and take the nasty subject here.
I know that I am rather losing than making friends now, but this is an issue of utmost importance to me. My opinion on this issue may seem extreme as you read on, but I am sure that it's not me who has has a problem with my opinion here. I just feel the need to fight against manipulation and against ignorance.
For those who are not familiar with the site in question, please go here: http://www.stardestroyer.net (You *need* to read quite a bit to understand what is going on there)
Now I would be really interested to know what merit people may still find in that site. I felt like vomiting right on my keyboard the first time I went there already three years ago.
But it's even much worse than the first impression. Mike Wong, in a fascist manner (which refers not only to the style but even more so to the methods), is building an overall ideology "Star Wars rulez, Star Trek is weak, ST is also scientific crap, ST fans are morons, ST writers are communists". He stirs up real-world and fictional arguments at will. He always weighs the very same kind of evidence differently if it only helps his cause. He picks only the worst examples of Star Trek. He frequently misuses real science for his purposes where it just doesn't apply, just like Nazi scientists who strived to prove the superiority of the white race. He exposes his university degree and expects his critics to be scientifically qualified. He posts only the silly comments (and comments on them) on the issue, as if all ST fans were idiots (thereby acting against all silently accepted laws of internet privacy). At the same time, he vehemently supports the very same kind of dull people on the SW side with his "scientific" analysis and with a message board in which all resistance from the part of "trekkies" is immediately knocked down by his minions. This list could go on forever.
Mike Wong violates about every rule of scientific analysis, of weighing arguments, of equal treatment, of internet netiquette, of decency and empathy and, last but not least, even every rule he allegedly imposes on himself for a serious scientific debate and that he proudly posts on his site (of course, claiming that "trekkies" fail to fulfill them). He claims to be a scientist. But he is a demagogue. The bad thing is that certain people follow him and certain other people find at least some merit in his analysis.
I can prove every of my claims with plenty of evidence. I have absolutely no understanding for any attempt to defend this document of preconceptions and paranoia. Please tell me! How in the world can anyone who knows this abomination of a site and who is not out of his mind defend Mike Wong? Tell me!
P.S. I am pretty sure that, in normal life, Mike Wong is a pleasant guy and I know from some e-mails I exchanged with him that it *is* possible to discuss with him, only that he would never publish that (because I am not a stupid "trekkie" stereotype who would fit with the site's goal). This is only meant as personal as Mike Wong exposes in the web what I need to understand as his very own opinion. I am in no way questiong his sanity or his ability to have a social life, although the website may create the impression that it's a problem to him.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
This personal crusade of yours is perhaps slightly less entertaining than the umpteen-billionth debate on Wars vs Trek.
I'd quote R. King, but I'm afraid the message would fall on deaf ears.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
If I wanted to entertain myself or anyone else, I would move as many light years away from that site as possible. The reason why I care about it is that some persons in whose abilities and opinions I use to trust have a soft spot for SD.net. I wouldn't give a damn about Wong and his minions, and I don't support the Star Trek site of this absurd war of the scifi universes either because it's beneath me. But here we have an issue where someone misuses science for propaganda (I have studied a scientific topic too and I wonder what they taught Wong), and too many usually sensible people are not critical about that.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
What is there to defend??? He runs his place with his ideology, as does CC. Asking to attack, or defend, any site is based solely on ones view of life, there are hundreds, at least, or sites that I look at and think, 'What a fucking moron.", but other may look at and think, "Hey, that's cool.".
Then with a domain name such as it has, I can see that they are less likely to be willing to except ST ideas over those of SW. Like UP putting up a star destroyer....
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
A few days ago I read an essay by Joseph Stalin where he defines nationalism (in class). We read parts of Mein Kampf in high school and university, a book forbidden in Germany. Although some were worried that we were reading Nabokov's Lolita at the age of 17 (talking about a 40-year old having a relationship with a 13-year old), it was a good novel and we discussed it for what it is. Jerry Lee Lewis has had a weird life even for a rock star, yet I can play his music even though I don't drink a lot, wouldn't marry my thirteen-year-old cousin or accidentally shoot my drummer (he was wounded).
Does Stalin's history mean that some of his thoughts about nationalism aren't valid? What if he was the only person looking at nationalism in a certain way? If I accept some of his arguments, does that mean I'm defending Stalin as a whole? I would not be acting in the interest of Stalin, I'm acting in the interest of a particular argument. You seem to be suggesting that Saxton's method of analysis + Star Trek = Mike Wong.
I'm not even suggesting Mike Wong is remotely comparable to Stalin, because he's an ok guy creating an often humorous website about a fictional Evil Galactic Empire. Being not as liberal, I've become extremely uncomfortable with some of the contents, though, and once sent him an angry e-mail about it. But he happens to be the only person trying to use real science to explain what we see onscreen, which is why I find some of his conclusions unique and valid. If there were other sites using the same particular method on Star Trek, one which I find interesting because it reveals just about every writing flaw and demands a higher standard on the part of the writers, I would be mentioning those sites and not using Curtis' site which looks at Star Wars.
Boris
[ September 16, 2002, 08:12: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Point taken, Boris.
I have sort of demanded a statement from you that you would completely dissociate from Mike Wong's site and all of its content. I think I have to apologize here.
The examples you mentioned are all valid, but wouldn't it be necessary to draw a line somewhere? I mean, would you quote Hitler or Stalin or any other despicable dictator as a positive example, and if only in a small side note, in an essay about bulding a modern democratic state? You are aware what would happen if you did.
I admit that Mike Wong's site has a few passages that are nice reading and reflect a correct understanding of science, but what are they worth for us, considering that they stand in the whole context of his ideologic debate? You could take Mike Wong as an example, let's say for exemplary web design, but not as an example for scientific analysis or for interpretation of fiction.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
But I'm not. I'm taking Curtis Saxton as that example, because just as there are more politically correct ways to support an argument for a democracy, there are more politically correct ways to support an argument for explaining what we see onscreen in terms of real physics and real human behavior.
You seem to be implying that looking too close on a show will always result in an attack on the show. That Curtis Saxton + Star Trek = an attack on Star Trek in the Mike Wong style. It is quite possible that a conclusion based on such a deep analysis will be supported by the writers (let's keep in mind that a lot of DS9 writers such as Ron Moore also noticed the problems with the Prime Directive or Perfect Humanity, and finally made O'Brien say in a sarcastic voice "we believe we've evolved..."). I find the revealing of such flaws good for Star Trek, and good for viewers who might be misled by the ideology portrayed onscreen.
But, again, I wouldn't necessarily use Mike Wong as an example, knowing that this will become problematic. I would use Ron Moore or an arbitrary essayist from one of those Essays on Star Trek types of books. Or I would point to Curtis Saxton's methods and suggest to someone to, just for fun, try to play by those rules and see what the results are.
Boris
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I am the last person who would deny general flaws in fiction such as Star Trek and Star Wars. But as I already mentioned in the previous thread that is now locked through my fault, I think that Curtis Saxton takes the whole issue a step too far. Call it over-analysis or over-interpretation or looking too closely. At some point we have to admit that it's only fiction and that we can't apply all of the rules exactly how they are in our real world. Curtis Saxton and Mike Wong pretend that everything must be understood just the way we see it. But stepping through single frames of a tape is not a valid method, as we are not supposed to see it that way. In a wider sense, ignoring that things may have been exaggerated or otherwise altered for the sake of drama or are just errors in the scipt or are mispronounced or are due to lacking VFX is not a valid approach.
Have a look at Wong's arguments. As much as he seems to understand the principles of physics, as much as he pretends to take into account a background, he fails to grasp the very sense of the fiction. He is obsessed with quoting bad technobabble of Star Trek and with proving that all kinds of devices like the transporter are crap as depicted, but even if his analysis were fair or were true (which it isn't) would he make a point with that? Would the flaws of some concepts or even single statements in any way devalue Star Trek as science fiction?
Of course, Star Wars is free of such flaws in his view, and even turbolasers, "1.5 over light" or the reactor that works "like a little sun" find a perfect explanation. Fine. I don't complain about that. If I were an SW fan, it would be content with that, knowing that it's only a show, made by people who sometimes make errors. But Wong makes it a dogma that Star Wars is free of errors (or at least, that errors may be explained), whereas Star Trek is all crap because some details are flawed. That's what I call, besides the ideological one-sidedness, a total failure to understand (science) fiction.
Still, I know that his mis-assessment of fiction is intentional after reading a bit of his own novel which, surprisingly and paradoxically, is more balanced than the alleged scientifically correct parts of the site. Of course, he says he is doing Star Trek a favor by displaying it in a better light than it is. Must I be grateful now?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Saxton and Wong don't hide the possibility that their conclusions will be different from what was intended, that it may not make sense to *impose* consistency on a universe. I've had this discussion with them, and Wong does seriously question whether it makes sense to apply such methods even to Star Wars (e-mail conversation). However, since they see it more as a scientific exercise than literary analysis, they don't care about the result.
Then again, how deep is too deep? What is rational to me may be irrational to someone else used to analyzing TV while watching it, just as some people analyze a book while reading. With such a closer look, you find an explanation that is a lot more reasonable with respect to what you've seen onscreen or read, even if it completely perverts the original intention. George Lucas takes a peek, says, "Great, I can use this to tell people that my show makes as much sense as 2001, or that I've planned it out perfectly." He may ignore some aspects as overinterpretation and accept others.
For instance, it is now official that the visible parts of blaster beams are not what does the actual damage, but rather an invisible beam travelling at c that arrives at the target beforehand. The only reason for such a convoluted explanation were a few instances where the VFX people accidentally made things explode before the blaster shot arrived.
The truth is, some writers prefer to rationalize the observed flaws even if they seem ridiculous at first, rather than admit to errors, even if it changes their original intention (JMS of B5 is almost always like this, as it helps him improve the show). They may not agree with everything, but they may later make a few adjustments to communicate their intentions more clearly or simply accept that the show had a flaw and now it's better. I'm arguing that we should simply show the producers what they've given us, and let them decide which "perversions" they like and which they don't. If we restrict ourselves from analyzing something simply because of a sense that it wasn't intended, we're not being original or helping in any way.
As for the sense of science fiction -- well, science fiction is an extrapolation of the present day, with all of its laws of physics and human behavior. An invisible man in science fiction ideally behaves in the exact same manner he would if he were standing right here in front of me. Were it fantasy, on the other hand, one wouldn't need to go into the how's and why's that much, but simply say "humans have evolved, accept it". Science fiction would not resist attempts to explain how it happened.
Boris
[ September 16, 2002, 11:34: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
Wow.
I don't like reading that site at all.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Though I didn't read all his comparative comments, I do find some of his observations important to consider in his section on AOTC. When I see the film again, I will have a new perspective on the events that are portrayed. Now, as for his anti-Star Trek stance, I encountered one such instance when discussing the weapons of a particular battle droid. They were jarring and didn't seem to fit with the context of the paragraph.
How do I handle this situation? As I do with ancient Christian and Jewish writings, I take the more negative, us vs. them, statements as an opinion, an opinion I don't agree with. I don't dismiss them nor do I pay credence to them. Ultimately, for me, the most important criteria is, do I learn something new? If yes, then the knowledge I gained is deemed more valuable in my estimation than any slight by the author against any group or organization.
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
"A challenge: Defend SD.net!"
Um, I don't need to defend visiting it. Nor SWTC. I go there to look, that's my excuse, just like on all other webpages I'm visiting.
Saxton? Ideology? Stalin? Hitler? High horses? You?
J/k, but about the criticism of Wong's and Saxton's chosen approach to ST/SW physics, isn't it just that you felt slightly worried that the letter-faithful crowd would outgrow our more generally-seeing crowd, not that we'd ever get to see an exact estimate of the real size of them two "crowds"?
Well if THAT notion scares you, Bernd, go out and get a shovel, dig three ten-foot holes in the ground somewhere for no reason (well you can say to improve the ballistical properties of the planet, similar to the dimples on golfballs), go back inside, take a shower, have hot meal and then go to bed, satisfied with the rust on your brain somewhat rubbed off.
Chooping wood is great too, but you can hurt your legs if you miss a swing with the herring.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
This has gone so far beyond the realm of reasonability that I can't even think about it anymore.
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Then what are you waiting for?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
More examples -- we've seen the Empire destroy an inhabited planet, but the rebels did kill a great number of people on the Death Stars likewise, and we're talking about a lot of their former fellow citizens. How many Ewoks have been killed after the latter blew up over Endor, poisoning the atmosphere?
I'm not sure Lucas would ignore this. Although he tried to soften it, he didn't ignore the fact that the Republic was the Empire, and to some completely destroyed the seemingly intended simplistic story of good vs. evil by creating the prequels. Likewise, one thing that's interesting about B5 is that it sometimes portrays things just as one-sided, but then suddenly goes out and attacks the original POV.
For instance, in "Shadow Dancing" we learn of the whole thing where Delenn has to watch Sheridan sleep for three nights in order to see his "true" face, allegedly revealed only in sleep. Allegedly, someone from the B5 crew said "So a man's true face is all mushed up against the pillow and drooling?"
Although it was unplanned, JMS gave this line to Sheridan in a later episode, because it was a real human reaction. Most of the current Star Trek writers would've probably laughed about it, but said, "hey, let's get serious, Gene Roddenberry wouldn't have wanted his perfect humans saying that."
This wouldn't have necessarily been the case in TOS, so we must ask the question of what is Star Trek? Science fiction or fantasy? Is TNG supposed to be a fantasy show or while TOS was science-fiction, and hence, should we have different criteria for looking at either?
Boris
[ September 16, 2002, 13:47: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This thread is what I imagine Clerks would be like if it had been written by Joe Eszterhas.
"Oh my god, Caitlin just betrayed you by having anal sex with Michael Douglas!"
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Something I notice is that this thread, despite all of my attempts, never gets to the point. What do you all think about it (about Wong, rather than me - although comments on the question are welcome too)? What would you write into Wong's guestbook?
quote:J/k, but about the criticism of Wong's and Saxton's chosen approach to ST/SW physics, isn't it just that you felt slightly worried that the letter-faithful crowd would outgrow our more generally-seeing crowd, not that we'd ever get to see an exact estimate of the real size of them two "crowds"?
Uhm, "exact estimate"?
I was yot asking anyone to defend himself, (and it's nothing to be ashamed of going there). I just wanted to hear opinions, or do you have none?
quote:For instance, it is now official that the visible parts of blaster beams are not what does the actual damage, but rather an invisible beam travelling at c that arrives at the target beforehand. The only reason for such a convoluted explanation were a few instances where the VFX people accidentally made things explode before the blaster shot arrived.
Let me say that this is a perfect example of 1. first overanalyzing something (who gives a damn on a beam that is too fast for the eye to track its tip?) 2. making up unnecessarily complicated explanations. Why not accept special effects as a real-world effect that is not perfect only due to the shortcomings of the equipment? Could I ever become so desperate that I had to care about totally irrelevant things? Maybe there should be a few hundred hours more of Star Wars, so that the fans care about the fiction as such again and not about its tertiary side effects. It's *not* a role model for Star Trek.
Keep in mind that I am someone who received lots of angry e-mails from casual fans because I did not like the Akiraprise and the too early battlecruiser. But somewhere I must draw a line between what I care about and what not.
quote:Same here -- we've seen the Empire destroy an inhabited planet, but the rebels did kill a great number of people on...
I don't know where and how this argument is going to fit in. Are we talking about the fiction or the real world?
quote:All I'm saying is that if we stop being like Star Trek writers and look at what's actually onscreen, we can make the show more serious, just the way it was in the beginning.
Oh man, I'm beginning to love Braga and his simplistic view of what may be on screen and what not. I mean, that man has a pragmatic approach. His silly ideas and plot rehashing anger me, but what alarms me almost more if a fan who takes everything literally comes along, doesn't hear the word "Ferengi" in the whole episode, and is happy because there was no error. In my view that's almost self-delusion. Just like Wong making up twisted explanations for everything flawed in Star Wars. Ironically, that way the "over-analyzers" will be with the "don't care" faction in the end and leave "generalists" like me all alone. Maybe Nimpim is right...
And yes, I know that I am taking this too far in the views of most people. But to me it matters more than political views, for instance, as I am primarily here to discuss about science fiction and not politics.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Just another attempt to provoke any response. If none of you is bothered by the style, the methods or the findings as presented on Wong's site, would anyone of you like to be in his incredibly extensive "hate mail" section? I mean, it's probably unprecedented that someone exposes critical comments (I assume without asking the people in question) in a dedicated section, and adds his two cents to any one of them, thus always having the victory on his side. And, to give his mischievous joy an additional boost, post it at his message board for all his minions to have a laugh about it. I admit that most "trekkie" arguments presented there are poor (a matter of selection from Wong's part for reasons we should be aware of), but should that be allowed?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
[Shatnerspeak]: "You've turned something I did as a lark for a few years into a colossal waste of time!!!"
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
This is great. I was getting tired of Sept. 11th being the only thing on the flameboard.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
BTW, before you posted, I'd edited out the politics argument as I'd changed my mind about it, so I'll pass on that one.
quote: Let me say that this is a perfect example of 1. first overanalyzing something (who gives a damn on a beam that is too fast for the eye to track its tip?)
Someone used to looking at such weird phenomena in real life?
quote: 2. making up unnecessarily complicated explanations.
Someone used to making up complicated explanations?
quote: Why not accept special effects as a real-world effect that is not perfect only due to the shortcomings of the equipment? Could I ever become so desperate that I had to care about totally irrelevant things? Maybe there should be a few hundred hours more of Star Wars, so that the fans care about the fiction as such again and not about its tertiary side effects. It's *not* a role model for Star Trek.
But even that fiction is subject to close analysis. The logic of not separating the Enterprise in a number of dangerous situations. The logic of exploding consoles. The logic of children aboard that are constantly running the danger of dying, even though they're not old enough to choose (in "The Making of Star Trek", we learn that birth-control is in place aboard the Enterprise instead).
The children were added because of the ideology that the ship explores, and doesn't fight. But it does fight, and ships often explode because the drama requires it. Should we ignore all the episodes with such plots likewise?
quote:
Oh man, I'm beginning to love Braga and his simplistic view of what may be on screen and what not. I mean, that man has a pragmatic approach. His silly ideas and plot rehashing anger me, but what alarms me almost more if a fan who takes everything literally comes along, doesn't hear the word "Ferengi" in the whole episode, and is happy because there was no error. In my view that's almost self-delusion. Just like Wong making up twisted explanations for everything flawed in Star Wars. Ironically, that way the "over-analyzers" will be with the "don't care" faction in the end and leave "generalists" like me all alone. Maybe Nimpim is right...
Maybe the crew is incompetent and didn't ask about the name? Maybe someone asked offscreen and the Ferengi didn't want to tell the name? Maybe they did learn the name, and all information about that first contact was lost? Maybe Starfleet decided to keep it a secret for some reason, just as they kept the Borg a secret? Considering how well they've managed to kept Archer and his Enterprise a secret, I wouldn't be surprised if his logs are off-limits.
There are many possibilities, and if we're serious about them instead of labeling them as errors, the writers might well do an episode based on one of them. One may overanalyze something by saying, for instance, that the Defiant actually changes size, but even there we have strange things like "One Little Ship" which require close consideration.
BTW, I'm not going to defend Mike Wong's site. I'm defending the "overanalyzing" method that he adopted from Saxton.
Boris
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
"Oh my god, Caitlin just betrayed you by having anal sex with Michael Douglas!"
An excellent example of what *I* see as overanalyzing.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: More examples -- we've seen the Empire destroy an inhabited planet, but the rebels did kill a great number of people on the Death Stars likewise, and we're talking about a lot of their former fellow citizens. How many Ewoks have been killed after the latter blew up over Endor, poisoning the atmosphere?
I'm going to have to quote the good Captain known as Michael here:
"science has conclusively proven what happens when an object of indeterminate size blows up with an indeterminate and unknown type of energy at an unknown distance from a moon of indeterminate size, and has an effect on a certain area which may or may not be completely populated and may or may not have been in orbit of something else and could quite possibly have been facing it, or not"
Personally, I'd have just gone with "Hnnng!"
And as much as I dislike SW vs ST debates, I am going to guiltilly admit that I agree with Bernd here. I tend to dislike any site with a "hate mail" section, since they are almost always there to say "Look at the morons and how I am better than them! Laugh!"
quote: For instance, it is now official that the visible parts of blaster beams are not what does the actual damage, but rather an invisible beam travelling at c that arrives at the target beforehand.
Well, thank god for that. I was losing sleep panicing over, when I went frame by frame through the movies, some things exploded before the beam got to them. Now though, I can finally rest.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I'm going to have to quote the good Captain known as Michael here:
"science has conclusively proven what happens when an object of indeterminate size blows up with an indeterminate and unknown type of energy at an unknown distance from a moon of indeterminate size, and has an effect on a certain area which may or may not be completely populated and may or may not have been in orbit of something else and could quite possibly have been facing it, or not"
I might as well pitch in with my own two cents...
I've generally avoided SD.net after learning about what it and its members basically stood for, but I did read some of their stuff out of morbid curiosity. I try to remember that everyone's entitled to an opinion, but frankly their rabid insistence that "Trek sux, Wars rulez" offends me.
First off, these are two separate works of fiction, which were never intended to coexist in the same universe. (The settings, not the shows themselves.) There is absolutely no point in coming up with arguments about whether a Star Destroyer can blow the shit out of the Enterprise. It's worse than useless knowledge; it completely destroys the fact that these are stories that are supposed to be enjoyed.
Furthermore, the attitudes and the length to which these guys go to "prove" their assertions -- not to mention the methods they use -- are quite disturbing. Anyone who tries to argue on their terms (that is, Trek is technologically more powerful than Wars) is immediately attacked as a whining fanboy with zero intelligence and an inability to see the "obvious."
Now, on the flip side, I will admit to generally enjoying two works of fan fiction that are published over there where the Federation gets its ass kicked. I enjoy the story not for the thrill of seeing the Empire beat up a supposedly inferior Federation, but for the interactions between characters that would never "really" meet. IDIC -- Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
To return to my argument about the attitudes that are prevalent over there, I'm going to present a perfect example: an excerpt from one of the pieces of fanfic that I mentioned above.
quote:Scene: Battle in Earth orbit.
The heavy turbolasers lanced out and the mighty emerald beams slashed through the starbase like scythes, tearing it into pieces, punching through the armored hull like paper. Explosions, hot plasma and debris tore through the deep gashes in the starbase. The weapons fire faltered and suddenly died as a massive explosion tore through the heart of the base, the great spinning top portion suddenly came loose, spinning away into the darkness trailing molten metal and hot gasses. The lower portion exploded like a roman candle, the very lowest stabilizing rod rocketed downward, driven by the force of the violent matter/antimatter reaction like nail into Earth�s atmosphere. The massive chunk of debris trailed through the atmosphere like a flaming arrow and descended into the clouds.
~~~~~ scenes cut ~~~~~
“Scooter, what do you see?”
Robert Scott Anderson, Scooter to his buddies, was staring out the window of his apartment across the bay, watching the deadly confrontation with a joyful expression.
“You should see this Timmy, they’re letting the Empire cross their lines of defense so that they can spring the trap on them. Once Starfleet has them where they want them, they’ll bitch slap them back to where ever it is that they come from. I mean come on, who are they to think they can conquer the Federation with LASERS?!” he answered derisively. “How’s the space battle going?”
“Well, according to the latest reports, the fleet is getting hammered.” Timothy Jones chuckled. “You have to love Starfleet intelligence, this disinformation campaign is really working. By making the Empire think that they’re destroying our fleet it lulls them into a false sense of security.” Jones replied with a braying laugh as he munched on some Doritos and stared at the holovision.
“To think, that asshole Wong said we should evacuate before the battle started.”
“What an ass, and give up these primo seats for Starfleet’s impending victory?” Scooter replied haughtily. “Hey after this is over, maybe they’ll finally accept my application to the academy.” Scooter wondered aloud as he glanced back at his best friend.
“Why not, they’ve only rejected you twice before, you know what they say, three times the charm.” Jones replied holding up a can of Soda to toast his buddy.
A low whistling sound slowly grew in volume.
“What the hell is that?” Jones asked.
“Maybe it’s the Starfleet smack down about to go into effect.” Scooter replied with a gleam in his eyes and quickly glanced out the window again. The whistling was definitely getting louder and now the building was shaking.
“What the hell?!”
Scooter slowly looked up and his eyes bulged as he saw the great fireball descending down on them. He turned to his friend, tears in his eyes.
“Timmy?”
“What?”
“Hold me.” Scooter begged.
The stabilizing rod from Starbase One plunged right through the tenement house and impacted into the earth in a multi megaton blast of fire and smoke. The blast leveled most of down town San Francisco.
The problem isn't necessarily that Mr. Wong is a fascist jerk himself -- as a purely theoretical exercise, I could perfectly understand the analysis of Star Wars technology and comparing the THEORIES to those same THEORIES from Star Trek. However, his entire site has gone much, much farther than that. Indeed, the passage quoted above was written explicitly for the purpose of making fun of pro-Trek visitors to that message board -- and the author himself admits this on the next page.
And on top of that, Mr. Wong seems to go out of his way to ensure that HIS views are hailed as the unassailable truth of science fiction -- and (perhaps illegally, certainly immorally) posts private e-mail discussions that are nothing more than flame wars as "proof" that Trek fans as a whole are fools for trying to support their show over Wars.
I can sum it up in just one phrase: "Can't we all just get along?"
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: "Oh my god, Caitlin just betrayed you by having anal sex with Michael Douglas!"
An excellent example of what *I* see as overanalyzing.
Uh...overanalyzing what? And where can I rent it?
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Finally some reactions on the intended topic of this thread.
Even if you all don't get the impression, I think that everyone should be allowed to enjoy any fiction the way he likes it. I can accept if Boris projects science fiction into the realm of the real world, while I myself strive to keep much of the illusion for myself. I don't think we really have a problem here. I can even live with those rabid fan boys and their stupid cross-over fiction, as it is easy to ignore them. They don't hurt anyone.
But Mike Wong does. He is twisting arbitrary scientific facts until they fit, and being a scientist myself, I will never accept that. I could live with his silly claims if it were all written from a naive fanboyish viewpoint, but the frequent insistence on "scientific" principles makes me mad. There is no excuse such as this all being a "scientific exercise". So it's fun to him to determine the amount of energy necessary to blast away the planet Alderaan as an exercise. What does it prove concerning the credibility or capability of the DS? Absolutely nothing. Moreover, if we observe the site, such excursions to science *without any additional arbitrary or custom-tailored border conditions* are rare among all the unproven assertions and propaganda.
As for the profoundness, any first-semester student should be able to do all the observations and calculations on Wong's site. That's a part of the scientific work, but not the decisive one. When Wong fails to see or does not want to see the function principle on the whole, he fails as a scientist. Actually, all his findings are "reverse deductions" (that's a word I just made up because I don't recall the exact term), meaning that he selectively produces input that suits his predefined conclusion.
I would enjoy this twisted science if it were a parody. But it is the original, and it is meant seriously.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:I'm going to have to quote the good Captain known as Michael here:
"science has conclusively proven what happens when an object of indeterminate size blows up with an indeterminate and unknown type of energy at an unknown distance from a moon of indeterminate size, and has an effect on a certain area which may or may not be completely populated and may or may not have been in orbit of something else and could quite possibly have been facing it, or not"
*lol* Exactly my point.
And thinking of the Endor issue again, what were you trying to say with that, Boris? That we should take into account (side) effects that the writers and VFX people may have neglected? Agreed. That's what I'm always doing as well, up to some extent.
But what gives it a bad taste is that, to some degree also on Curtis Saxton's unbiased(?) site, it is not used as an example that plots and VFX may be flawed, but converted into a fictional argument. It is used to re-interpret, even pervert the very meaning of the story along the lines "The rebels are just as evil as the Empire or even worse, when they kill millions of innocent people." It is quite obvious that certain SW Empire fan circles use every plothole, every ill-considered effect to prove that their (sick) personal view of the story on the whole is true. That doesn't even need to include Star Trek.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Isn't it sick that how Roddenberry destroyed the capitalism of TOS, the use of money, the conflicts between characters? He didn't care much about staying consistent with the show, a product by him and many different writers and producers (Gene Coon had pretty much taken over later on), and made it into what only he thought it should be in his old days. And whereas Saxton is trying to stay consistent with what was seen onscreen, Roddenberry wasn't even trying to show how TOS turned into TNG.
People do this all the time. There've been numerous cases where people took stupid stories that were never meant to be analyzed closely and made them into more interesting ones. Look at the comic "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" or the first two Batman movies and compare those to the Batman TV show or some of the 40s-60s comics. The DKR and the movies went wholly into the psychology of Bruce Wayne (why does such a rich, normal guy have the obsession of wearing a bat-cape at night and fighting crime?) As a result, DKR is an interesting story in its own right.
The movie "Mission: Impossible" broke the formula of the old show and chose to reveal the characters behind the mission, thus also creating an interesting story. One could argue that one could've made interesting stories in the old format likewise, but that's a creative choice, a kind of risk that Babylon 5 is taking all the time. JMS loves to set up seemingly simplistic stories and then turn everything upside down precisely by putting together the little background details that were never meant to be seen closely. And then if you go back and rewatch the original episodes, you can see the clues that led to the drastic shift.
Of course, most of these turns were planned out beforehand. But not all. DS9 did some of this with respect to the details of TNG, but not to such an extent.
I don't believe Saxton is trying to prove any sick views -- he's just looking at the show closely and drawing uncomfortable conclusions, although one could argue that he's interested in certain topics because of his profession, his political and other personal views, etc., but so is everyone. It's a way of creating derivative fiction, but it has been done before, even by Lucas. One might have said that "The Empire Strikes Back" was sick for perverting the original, comparably simplistic Star Wars movie by making Darth Vader Luke's father (this doesn't seem to have been planned). But it gave the entire story a whole another level.
BTW, I'm not saying that Saxton is imposing his views like Roddenberry -- what I'm saying is that imposing a new view or creating a story based on an overanalysis of old are two valid methods of creating new stories in a certain universe.
Boris
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"But Mike Wong does. He is twisting arbitrary scientific facts until they fit, and being a scientist myself, I will never accept that."
One. Site. Out. Of. Millions.
Sjeez. If there ever was a point to this thread, I think we've moved lightyears beyond it by now.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Boris: No fiction remains invariant, especially not if it continued for years or even decades and/or by different people than the original staff. We may call that evolution if we like it, or "an insult to the fans" if we don't. That's not the point here.
On a side note, the movie MI was definitely an insult to the fans. Jim Phelps as a traitor? That's like Picard betraying the Federation. Not to mention the incredibly stupid scenes on the roof of the TGV... I didn't consider for a second to watch the second part.
The true problem is that fans are creating their personal universe and are using elements of the basic setting in an inappropriate fashion. "ST vs. SW", "The rebels are evil" or, to some lesser extent (since it can't be excluded) "Starfleet Tac Fleet and Starfleet Marines". As I said, everyone is welcome to create his personal extension of a fiction, but not to alter it and tell others with "scientific analysis" that they must accept that version.
I agree that Rodenberry, at latest since TNG, did everything to keep materialism and money out of his fiction. In no way does this mean that he wanted to pursue a 20th century version of communism. Those who claim something like that are completely lacking the imagination that is necessary to understand science fiction. Why do I have to wage a lonely battle here to defend the vision of Star Trek?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Because the vision is different between the shows. TOS was about believability, believability, research, science-fiction writers. How would a real naval captain behave, that was the question?
The movies took the naval, militaristic parallel to an extreme. Early TNG was about this fantasy universe where everything is ideal and the humans have evolved and strive for bettering themselves. Is that the vision of Star Trek? Or is it perhaps the DS9 version, where the former is being mocked by Quark, by O'Brien, sometimes by Sisko?
I'm arguing that if people can't see these visions then they aren't looking closely enough. These shows were made with different visions by different executive producers. So, should we make everything as believable as was TOS? Or should we tend towards a mishmash of visions? Or should each show be analyzed independently?
Boris
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I could as well say that Star Wars is a run-of-the-mill fairy-tale with a simplistic and now completely exhausted good-vs.-evil ideology, using nothing but cliches rehashed from other fiction to relay its message as far as there is one at all and that the sci-fi aspect is only marginal and only formal. I could form for myself an opinion like that, but I don't do that because I have respect for the people who are fond of Star Wars and for anyone who has a hobby that enriches his life. And why should I? I simply don't need a justification for watching or appreciating anything. But if people like Wong, who give a damn on other people's opinions or ways of life, come along and spread huge amounts of their poisonous propaganda I have all the right to reject that *without giving any reasons*. I don't need to defend myself here and I will not further do that.
Boris: I don't mind that you have chosen (in the whole sci-fi discussion) a position of a critical and (over-) accurate observer who does get involved into certain issues, but has always the comfortable option to retreat as your preferences are not so definite. You are simply beyond a point where you may be attacked, and I should stop trying that.
It may be okay for you that you appreciate some parts of Wong's site and dislike some others. But I for myself would be ashamed and horrified to be listed as contributor on Mike Wong's site.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If this is what happens when someone "twists" science for their own means and puts it on a Web site, don't anyone ever, ever, ever mention the TimeCube around this group...
Oh, crap.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Post that at SD....
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Well, Timecube is always good for a laugh. But there is no comparison between this utter nonsense which is obviously written by a complete moron (or someone who just pretends to be one to get loads of visitors) and SD.net where Wong has turned scientific debates (or what he thinks is scientific and is a debate) into a form of art.
I would wish to read some less self-complacent comments, even if they are directed against me.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Bernd, if you associate yourself too much with the Star Trek vision, people might become worried that you don't have a taste for good writing, even if you do criticize some of it. Would you like to be associated with Gene Roddenberry? I suppose yes. But if you were a writer in Hollywood, other writers might become worried about your attitude toward intellectual property, wondering if you like people misusing you?
Do you know what kind of person Roddenberry was in real life? Have you read "Inside Star Trek: The Real Story" by Bob Justman and Herb Solow, "City on the Edge of Forever" by Harlan Ellison, or "Roddenberry: The Man and the Myth Behind Star Trek" (have only looked through it, but it deals with the same issues). How many writers have been hurt because he was loose about who did what on Star Trek, taking the credit for creating everything? He's lost a great number of friends over the years. He was a guy who's nice and polite in person, who sparked Star Trek, but also let a number of other people make it into what it became, and then took credit for their work.
If you're not in favor of Roddenberry, would you like to be associated with Harlan Ellison, writer of one of the best Star Trek episodes ever written, who hates him for spreading misinformation about the rewrites of "The City on the Edge of Forever", who looks at TNG seriously and says what it is compared to what TOS was? The guy who yells at everyone, loves to argue, who said that "one isn't entitled to an opinion, but rather an informed opinion." He tears apart people's writing in creative writing courses, and praises what he sees as good because he has a passion for good writing, even if he admits knowing little about other things.
What about Ron D. Moore, who also wrote a bunch of great DS9 shows, but posted the series of opinionated, one-sided interviews you so much dislike?
I'm sorry, but one doesn't create works of art by being tolerant of other people's opinions, always looking for a quick consensus. All of the abovementioned individuals were responsible for some of the best of what we've seen onscreen. Perhaps there are other Trek issues you cannot let pass just like that, such as web design, drawing schematics, or identifying Wolf 359 ships. I have a passion for good writing and good television, and see these forums as a place to voice creative criticisms and think of ways to improve the show by taking it as literally as TOS.
I see Mike Wong trying the same (he is a fan of TOS and lists Star Trek II as one of his favorite movies), which is why I support parts of his site while I find others completely weird, annoying and irrelevant. I've supported your site heavily because I've seen you have a passion for detail and good execution, and because your voice is being heard by some creative people on Star Trek.
Mike Wong has chosen to attack Star Trek and defend Star Wars because he honestly doesn't like what he sees in today's Trek, using an extremely annoying style. He's being objective in the narrow sense of deriving conclusions from what he sees onscreen without any preconceived visions of it.
Perhaps I really should put up my own website about this, but it would owe a lot to annoying people with something good to say.
Boris
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
What is the goal here? This reminds me of the thing about who has the better invisible deity/friend....
I think I am going to move along.... nothing to see here....
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
I hate Wong with a strong passion, and like Bernd, wanted to puke the first time I visited SD.net. The mere mention of his name annoys me far more than Lambchop Play-along and Barney put together.
What's the point of this thread again?
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
*tired*
I'm not saying that Roddenyberry was god and that there is only one true Star Trek. I only don't like if evidence is fabricated, misinterpreted, misused to prove something the way "revelation journalism" does. Books that strive to destroy the myths of, let's say JFK or Princess Di are extremely popular. In this respect, also the books written by former writers (I'm only familiar with the one by Justman/Solow) have to be treated with care - although I don't say they belong into exactly this category. I'm sure you are aware that most people have a personal gripe, want to become famous or just make a good bargain if they strive to disillusion people about something popular.
To continue with Ron D. Moore, as you say it is opinionated, and that's all I have to know. It's a personal view, and it doesn't really change how I see the show. The other way round, if Braga praises his own work in every respect, he can't convince me either that some shows I didn't like were great.
quote: I have a passion for good writing and good television, and see these forums as a place to voice creative criticisms and think of ways to improve the show by taking it as literally as TOS.
I'm glad that we basically agree in this point. Of course, I am not the creative type which I freely admit. I couldn't write an episode. If you want to build upon TOS and create a new show with the old spirit, good luck.
quote:I see Mike Wong trying the same (he is a fan of TOS and lists Star Trek II as one of his favorite movies), which is why I support parts of his site while I find others completely weird, annoying and irrelevant. I've supported your site heavily because I've seen you have a passion for detail and good execution, and because your voice is being heard by some creative people on Star Trek.
I am grateful for the support you have provided and also for some controversial but fruitful discussions (not necessarily this one). But as the years have passed, I have developed a slightly different and better defined view of everything. And I am grateful to people like Mike Wong who have shown me what not to do! So today I draw very clear lines between fact and fiction, Star Trek and other fiction, canon and conjecture, etc. Agreed, it's a mainstream way (although people did complain about my alleged obsession with details(!), or the lack of general information on my site, or even my arrogance), but I'm quite content with the very open and pleasant form.
quote:Mike Wong has chosen to attack Star Trek and defend Star Wars because he honestly doesn't like what he sees in today's Trek, using an extremely annoying style. He's being objective in the narrow sense of deriving conclusions from what he sees onscreen without any preconceived visions of it.
He may be objective, but at most within the scope of a single sentence. And I don't need to comment that Mike Wong should mean that all "honestly". If he did, he would be psychopath.
quote:Perhaps I really should put up my own website about this, but it would owe a lot to annoying people with something good to say.
If you put on a website what you have just outlined, I am sure I will dislike it. Do that, and you have taken the first step to becoming just like Wong. Sorry, Boris, but if you are seeking trouble instead of consensus about something we only have as a hobby, then you should re-assess if you are still doing that for fun or if you want to evangelize the unaware crowd with your truth. I can predict that the people who love Trek will avoid you and that you would get a clientele instead that made you blush.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I just noticed a parallel between me and George Bush in that we both suddenly bring up with force an idea to fight someone, which could have been done long before. And the UN doesn't really care. Never mind... It's late here...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Oh god no, don't start with that.
quote: Because the vision is different between the shows. TOS was about believability, believability, research, science-fiction writers. How would a real naval captain behave, that was the question?
The hard core believability, believability of children who shake their hands and make magic things appear? The believability of having gods walking around? The believability of there being 50 billion planets which have evolved almost "just like Earth"? The believability of the Captain, First Office and CMO hurling themselves into unnecessary danger week after week?
Sorry, but TOS was as much about "Ooh, look! Magical floating thingie" as TNG was, and had a good dose of the "humans are a lot better now than they used to be". Or did you ignore all the dialogue in "Tomorrow is Yesterday"?
quote: One could argue that one could've made interesting stories in the old format likewise, but that's a creative choice, a kind of risk that Babylon 5 is taking all the time. JMS loves to set up seemingly simplistic stories and then turn everything upside down precisely by putting together the little background details that were never meant to be seen closely. And then if you go back and rewatch the original episodes, you can see the clues that led to the drastic shift.
You keep talking about B5 is the present tense; "a kind of rish that B5 is taking all the time". You do know that it finished half a decade ago? And you do know that the final season was really, really, really shit?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: You keep talking about B5 is the present tense; "a kind of rish (sic.) that B5 is taking all the time". You do know that it finished half a decade ago? And you do know that the final season was really, really, really shit?
I'm not sure if that helps your point, I mean if ST can't keep up with a show that finished half a decade ago, how can it possibly be taking us where "no one has gone before"? Obviously it isn't taking creative risks which is especially sad given your second point...
Wheras ST has no major financial limitations on what it can bring to the screen, B5 was at risk of being cancelled at the end of its fourth season. Thats why all major plot lines were accelerated and essentially completed with the end of the fourth season. (Note the conspicuous lack of a fourth season cliffhanger and the prescence of a "reverse retrospective" for lack of a better word)
I consider it a miracle that the fifth season of B5 was as good as it was given that JMS had to scratch around for material to fill a whole season when he was dealling with a "finished" story.
As for risk-taking, note that in that very season there was a whole episode, enjoyable mind you, that flipped everything around and looked at the Psi Corps in a favourable light. In ST terms (given that ST has at least four times as much material), that would be like spending four episodes trying to convince the audience that the Borg are right....and partially succeeding.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Let's not drag this off into a pro-anti B5 debate eh? I liked the show. I loved the show. Season 5 was, bar one or two episodes, complete wank.
Also, the financial situation of B5 was not necessarily seperate from the type of show that it was. The argument "imagine if it had Trek's budget" doesn't hold up, because there's a chance that B5 would have had exactly the same viewing figures that it got anyway, and thus wouldn't have [i] deserved Trek's budget.
On the thread subject, let's pick an example where Wong appears to have altered the figures in order to make himself right.
What follows relate to hull strengths. Obviously ST hulls crumple into dust if they are sneezed upon, and SW hulls can withstand GOD HIMSELF!
quote:In the DS9 episode "The Jem'Hadar", the USS Odyssey was destroyed after an exchange of fire which lasted for less than 30 seconds, as seen in this Divx5 video clip. As it turned to flee, a Jem'Hadar fighter (which can be generously approximated as a 100 metre diameter, 25 metre high saucer) with a mass of perhaps 10,000 tons deliberately rammed the Odyssey at a velocity of roughly 600 m/s (it took 5 frames at 30 fps to cover its own length onscreen as it entered the frame). If we generously assume that it accelerated to 1 km/s by the time of impact, its kinetic energy would have been roughly 5E12 J (1.2 kilotons), and its momentum would have been roughly 1E10 kg�m/s (less than 1% of the TESB asteroid's momentum).
The Odyssey was so heavily damaged by the impact that the entire deflector array was destroyed and the plunging fighter smashed its way into the primary hull, thus destroying the entire forward area and leaving multiple decks exposed to space (it goes without saying that a warp core breach followed almost immediately afterwards). The duration of the impact was roughly 2 frames at 30 fps (0.07 seconds), so the reaction force would have been roughly 1.4E11 N (less than 1/400 of the TESB asteroid's impact force). Of course, the reflexive Trekkie response to this incident will be to find an excuse to dismiss it, so they might argue that the ship had suffered prior damage, so all onboard systems should be presumed non-functional (funny how they dismiss that possibility for the TESB asteroid, eh?). However, that would be ignoring the real point, which is that this incident conclusively demonstrated that the ship's physical structure cannot withstand that much force, and since its physical structure ultimately must absorb an impact regardless of whether it comes to its shields or its hull, this gives us an idea of the ship's general resistance to impact (a point hammered home by lethal 1 km/s ramming attacks against fully shielded Klingon cruisers in "Tears of the Prophets" and "All That You Leave Behind").
Counter argument by Guardian 2000 (who posts here, I believe):
quote:After assuming that a downloaded clip of the special effects of that episode was representing the total time of the battle (hence that silly "30 seconds" comment), he gives the Jem'Hadar fighter an estimated size and estimated mass. What goes unmentioned is that the density he uses for the Jem'Hadar fighter is 50 kg/m3, or 5% of water's density! He does make up for this a bit by "generously" quadrupling the actual speed of the Jem'Hadar fighter.
Suspicious, no? (No, for those who stopped caring).
And to be fare to Bernd here, this isn't about SW vs ST. That argument is, quite rightly, boring. It's about, in a large sense, how having a web-site and using complicated maths is a great way of getting anyone to believe whatever you want.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Good god... what is the point of a frame-by-frame analysis with the intention of determining real-life physics of a specific situation? IT IS A FUCKING TELEVISION SHOW. (Or a movie.) In the vast majority of the scenes, the visuals are created with the intention of LOOKING COOL. They're supposed to ENTERTAIN.
Now yes, Bernd and others (myself included) do try frame-by-frame analyses on occasion -- but these are all intended to discuss ideas that are relative to Trek, like comparing starship lengths or something. We're not trying to determine the speed of a phaser!
I think that this, more than anything else, indicates the poor attitudes behind a site like SD.net. The fact that such anal analyses are performed simply to prove that Wars is kewler than Trek. And the fact that there are scientific errors (like the density issue above) does not improve the situation any.
Is it simply that Wong and his gang must prove that Trek is inferior in order to enjoy Wars more?
quote:From Wong's front page: Although the site has some facetious overtones, it is still nonetheless an academic discussion of Star Wars, Star Trek, and real science. It is intended to entertain but also to educate and to encourage scholarly debate.
I would like to ask: What the heck does "real science" have to do with "science fiction"? And if that site is an example of scholarly debate, then I'd be terrified of seeing their idea of a full-blown uneducated rant.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
Mike Wong's insistance of using real science to infer things about fiction is like the social contract in government. By attempting to analyze things, you are tacitly saying that the things you're analyzing are coherent and consistent; else there would be no point in analyzing it. You have to assume that things make some sort of sense before you start work. If we say, "anything goes," then why do we try to figure out the right size of the Defiant? We do so because we willingly suspend our disbelief in the existence of the Defiant and pretend, for the sake of analysis, that is is real. There is a real Defiant, and we can figure out how long it is by comparing it with other real objects of known lengths. Naturally, nobody believes this, but for the duration of a discussion, it is implied.
Why do we stop at that level? Mike Wong argues that if you assume that things can be analyzed on a basic level then there is no logical reason why more detailed analysis isn't also appropriate. It is, in his mind, hypocritical to say, "Some things merit detailed analysis but some things do not." Particularly if the analysis is for the purpose of comparing two things that are otherwise impossible to compare. You have to have an objective standard for comparison in that whole silly game, or else there's nothing to discuss.
Mike Wong's way of doing things, when stripped of his insulting style, has it's merits. The discussions that we have (again, ignoring stylistic differences) are the same sorts of things that Wong discusses on his site, but to a much lesser level of detail. The only difference is that most of us only suspend our disbelief so far... we agree that the effects model makers added interesting details to their models, for instance, but we know that they aren't careful enough to get every shot accurate. I think it is important to seperate Wong's style from his substance. Even if his substance takes analysis to an extreme most disagree with, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with doing his so, if that's what gives him his jollies.
There were times when I get that detailed, but I usually tired of it quickly and return to the broader issues. Now, while I enjoy reading some of Wong's site for the same reasons Boris does, my own take on things is diametrically opposed. I am all about creator intent nowadays, and I contend that behind-the-scenes information is more important than canon, not less, especially when there's a debatable issue like the Defiant's length. And it doesn't stop at creator intent. Take the original Enterprise, for example. I figure she had to have visible RCS ports, docking hatches, phaser emitters, and torpedo tubes. In my personal universe she did. It makes sense to me, and that's most important. But that's just me, and if I were in a debate or something I wouldn't pretend it was fact.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Bernd, you clearly aren't the only person who does not find Wong's site entertaining. I do not. I also do not find, say, the UN's web collection of international treaties interesting (Because they make you pay! I love treaties otherwise. Love.) I do not, however, feel the need to "debate" it.
I am on your side, honest. But Star Trek vs. Star Wars is, like, at the very bottom of the geek hierarchy. People who dress up like anthropomorphic rats but do not have sex because they are saving themselves for their transition to the plane above human are higher up.
Bernd, Boris, I am sure that both of you are decent people. Consider, with the energy poured into this, how many interesting pictures of space ships could have been created? How many scene by scene breakdowns of, uh, scenes? While we have been reading this, how many books have gone unread? How much love unspent?
I am melodramatic.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I am on your side, honest. But Star Trek vs. Star Wars is, like, at the very bottom of the geek hierarchy. People who dress up like anthropomorphic rats but do not have sex because they are saving themselves for their transition to the plane above human are higher up."
Wow. You guys just got rated inferior to Furries. And, honestly, I'm not totally surprised.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:And to be fare to Bernd here, this isn't about SW vs ST. That argument is, quite rightly, boring. It's about, in a large sense, how having a web-site and using complicated maths is a great way of getting anyone to believe whatever you want.
Thanks. This is what I wanted to annotate too. The two sci-fi universes are just not supposed to be compatible. Even more, they are designed *not to be* compatible, so the distinction would be better. Comparing the apples and oranges may be fun for certain fan circles, but even if Wong would respect his own rules, the result would be absolutely pointless.
So why do I care about this obvious nonsense? Because Wong uses his calculations and close observations to impress his clientele. "Look, he has figures and screencaps, that can't be wrong." Because Wong stirs up real-world and fictional elements. Just read about the transporter. He hates the concept as unrealistic and because it would be immoral to kill and resurrect someone. Okay, he is entitled to his own opinion, although this is by no means how the transporter as a story concept works in ST (he obviously confuses this with his personal idea of the transporter in the real world). But he has to find an excuse why the Empire is not using the transporter, although its technology is (as he always "proves") vastly superior to that of the Federation. His explanation is that the Empire does not use the transporter because it is immoral! The Empire that has no bad conscience destroying whole planets! And this, of course, fits with his other observations that the Federation is ruthless and racist and communist and whatever evil he likes to find in it. If this isn't perverted, I don't know what is.
On a related note, we all know how fond Wong is of physics as the only true science. Actually, on his site, he calls social science a "pseudo-science". But he has the nerve to assess the type of society of the Federation as being communist! So either Mike Wong has a very short memory concerning his own ideology, or he thinks he is better than all the morons who have studied social science.
And for those who still don't believe, read his page about racism, all of it. It's the page where one can find most of his violations of his own principles in a compact form. One-sidedness would be a too mild term to describe how he excuses possible racism in SW, while taking offense about all sorts of occurences in ST.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Sol System: Yes, this is probably a waste of time, as only those who know Wong anyway understand what I'm talking of. But I'm an idealist, and I simply can't remain quiet about propaganda, pretense, lies and hatred as they occur in such a massive amount as on Wong's site and, moreover, are directed at people like us.
The entertaining value of Wong's site may lie in the eye of the beholder. There are probably enough people (and not only rabid Warsies) who cheer every time the stupied "trekkies" get their butts kicked. For people who allow themselves to be blinded by Wong's eloquence and arogance. For people who prefer propaganda over truth and rant over decency. I don't think that even the Master himself would contradict here. He knows on which side he can find himself.
This is a fight against windmills, of course. There is no way that I could sue Wong for his deeds. And I definitely wouldn't go to his forum and try to convince all the idiots there that they are following the wrong leader and ideology. We all know the person who frequently does, who has well-considered arguments, but who is facing all kind of resistance, from insults to death threats. Darth Wong leaves all the dirty work to his minions, and he could say that it wasn't him.
About Darkstar, I have read a bit of his site and I am alarmed that it is supposed to become a counterpart to SD.net. If you read this, Darkstar, please take the advice to take into account all evidence, to keep an open mind, to admit errors, not to lose sight of the whole when you are looking at details, to treat your opponents like human beings. Mike Wong has thrown all these virtues overboard.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The thing is, though, Bernd, the only people who really, deeply care about the things you are trying to disprove are far beyond help, not to mention notice. No one is being "pulled in" by this.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Sure, there is no way to convert any of these fanatics, or to keep innocent and unaware people who accidentally drop in from believing what Wong is saying. The purpose of the thread was rather to provoke statements from Flare residents what they think of it. What you think is what matters to me, not if the psychos over there strive to kill the Borg or the Teletubbies or each other.
As I understand, hardly anyone cares about Wong and would be willing to answer my question, and maybe it is good this way. Those who do bother to read some of Wong's essays seem to agree with me. With two exceptions. I know that I should rather try to attack the originator than Boris or Ryan, but I don't give a damn what Wong would tell me, eloquently eluding all my reproaches, while it is important to me what Boris and Ryan have to say. Thus the fierce dispute.
It is remarkable that Boris and Ryan frequently mention that it's only a matter of style, that I take offense by that, and that the rest is objective. But I can't stress enough that the style is only one point among many other forms of misconduct. Interestingly, this and some other arguments are almost identical to what Wong himself once told me. No, I don't think that Boris or Ryan would just repeat what Wong is saying instead of making up their minds. It is rather because especially Boris has taken a different approach to science fiction which happens, in some respects, to be compatible with what is left of sense amidst Wong's monstrous network of lies and propaganda.
I hope I am sensible enough to leave out the topic of Wong in the future. We may have different opinions at this message board, but as I see it, they are complementary rather than contrary. Let's build upon that, rather than struggling about something that need not concern us (at least not in the Star Trek forums). Of course, I can't guarantee to spare anyone from my wrath, should the name Wong be mentioned as a reference.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
I think that last line is the key here. If there were, for our purposes, a need to know some detailed bit of information we normally ignore, one of us might do the calculations. Many of us here have taken college-level physics and calculus, and could do most of the same calculations Wong does. Because on his actual technical analysis pages* he uses pretty objective methods, the same methods that some of us used back on RAST six or seven years ago, we would come to the same conclusions. You would accept those conclusions, in this hypothetical situation. But if someone had just said, "Mike Wong calculated blah, blah," you'd go nuts. The problem is that if, for whatever reason, one wants a nitty-gritty little calculated factoid, Mike Wong is 90% reliable, in my experience. If the situation comes up, I'll be sure to just pretend I did the math myself, lest I incur your wrath!
* I, in fact, spent several weeks debating Wong about his communism pages, so I'm with you there. Note it's not on his hate mail page simply because a.) I wasn't a blathering idiot, and b.) it wasn't a formal debate. Only people in one of those two categories get up there. I enjoy his hate mail because it's one of few places where the only type of Trekkie I don't like (DeFiAnT rUlEz! WaRz SuX!) get's bitch-slapped. They make themselves look far more stupid than Wong does.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Two annotations, Ryan.
1. You are right when you say that I would deny calculations or obervations only because they were made by Wong. This kind of intolerance is the least I can do against Wong's attacks. Since his findings are irrelevant to me anyway, that's not a great loss, even where he is right, in a very narrow sense.
quote: enjoy his hate mail because it's one of few places where the only type of Trekkie I don't like (DeFiAnT rUlEz! WaRz SuX!) get's bitch-slapped. They make themselves look far more stupid than Wong does.
They look stupid of course, because these "high-school kids" don't stand a chance against Wong's eloquence and his wealth of rebuttal templates that he has at hand, but that doesn't mean that Wong is right. Actually, he is performing not that well as he certainly could in several discussions even with some school kids, and only his additionally inserted remarks allow him to win the battle. Wong obviously takes great pride in getting the kids to get into silly arguments and finally insult him, which he sees as a moral victory. I see it as cowardice, as he evades any situation in which he would have to defend his position (or he simply doesn't post this kind of e-mails).
And since you are specifically mentioning the Trek faction of silly fanboys, I highly recommend to go to Wong's BBS to see the Star Wars side of the very same phenomenon. Wong, of course, has the nerve to claim that only Trek fans are like this, while housing and supporting a horde of rabid Warsies at his own message board.
BTW, I noticed only today that "Village Idiot" is not an automatic title for newbies, but a custom title for anyone the Master doesn't like (such as Darkstar). I have never seen such inhumanity in any other place of the web (well, maybe for S/M sites).
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:They look stupid of course, because these "high-school kids" don't stand a chance against Wong's eloquence and his wealth of rebuttal templates that he has at hand, but that doesn't mean that Wong is right. Actually, he is performing not that well as he certainly could in several discussions even with some school kids, and only his additionally inserted remarks allow him to win the battle. Wong obviously takes great pride in getting the kids to get into silly arguments and finally insult him, which he sees as a moral victory. I see it as cowardice, as he evades any situation in which he would have to defend his position (or he simply doesn't post this kind of e-mails).
Maybe I'm masochistic, but I've been tempted to open an e-mail dialogue with Wong and honestly ask him his motivations behind such a close analysis of Trek vs. Wars. I'd express my opinion that each series should be enjoyed on its own merits, etc. And see what happens from there -- whether it degrades into a flame match or stays a decent discussion.
Bernd, I hope you don't feel insulted by the following comparison... But did it occur to you that in some ways, you're as big an "authority" on Trek as Wong is (in some circles) for Wars? There's a great many sites out there that refer to EAS for starship lengths and other Treknology-related topics. And there are many fanboys out there who mindlessly parrot the same arguments without knowing the background -- on both sides.
(Of course, your methods and attitudes are completely different. )
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
All parties involved demonstrate a deep-seeted neurosis which almost certainly derives from an extreme deficiency in feminine coital compansionship.
Or it may be that the extreme deficiency in feminine coital compansionship derives from a deep-seeted neurosis regarding their respective pastimes.
In either case, somebody needs to go out and get laid.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I watch Star Trek and Star Wars. I recognize both as sci-fantasy. There isn't enough science in either to qualify as science-fiction.
For me, reading the technical discussions on Oberth-Class starship is as as comparing the differences between one universe to the other or attempting to gain an understanding of star destroyer specifications. The people who do both shows for the most part have college degrees which are not based in science or mathematics. There are rare exceptions, like Mr.Okuda of Star Trek. I just don't see the purpose in attempting to apply science or mathematics to such a show.
Bernd, the web is similiar to tv. If you don't like the program, there is the off switch.
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
no the problem is worse.. Mike wong has an ugly wife!
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:no the problem is worse.. Mike wong has an ugly wife!
I don't think that's an appropriate argument here, even if only as kidding. See Mike Wong's personal site, he has a more "normal" life than probably most of us. And I don't think his wife is ugly. In my view he has developed some sort of specific "web paranoia" Darth Wong may not be considered the same person as Mike Wong in real life.
And yes, Minutiaeman, I am aware and afraid of being a counterpart to Wong. I think there is a probability that I may become just as conceited and arrogant, but I know I will never be that unfair.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
I, and Boris for sure, can confirm that Mike Wong is, to use the stock phrase, "actually a really nice guy" when not on the topic of rabid Trekkies. I've emailed him about Trek-fact nitpicks here and there, debated communism with him, and had several conversations along those lines. Never have I seen him behave like he does on the site. In other words, Bernd, you're right on. He has a "web persona" for his site, one that he just takes to what many might consider a ridiculous extreme.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Hey, I noticed that I was just defending Mike Wong! But I agree from my own mail exchange with him (although it's long ago) that he was *nothing* like the mischievous guy he turns out on his website. But he sure has a problem, even if he doesn't know.
BTW, as his arguments were the same as on his site, I could well assess their validity without the "Imperial Officer" speaking to me. And they remained wrong.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Bernd,
do you have a web persona?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Darth Wong"? Sounds like a character is a SW-based porno...
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Well, the "Attack Of The Clones"-analysis on sd.net was very good, there are many benefits with analyzing Star Wars like Wong and Saxton does, not just technically and physically but socially and philosophically.
And much food for thought in the new Force-contemplations there, who have gotten renewed energy as a result of the events in SWII.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Bernd,
do you have a web persona?
I'm fatter in real life.
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
my web persona is exactly identical to real-life, frighteningly enough.
force contemplation is high on my list lately. searching for some spirituality in my life, i find that i believe in a concept that is about halfway between God and collective-subconscious. On many levels, it is identical to the Force. I don't liek the idea of a supreme omniscient deity, (because of all the problems it creates, blah blah blah) but the idea that we are all part of something larger is definitely appealing, and easy to subscribe to, even for a skeptic like me. If you find the right state of mind, of peace and away from your base instincts and use your intellect, you can percieve more than the equation of life gives you.
I just can't knock over battle droids yet.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: [QB] To return to my argument about the attitudes that are prevalent over there, I'm going to present a perfect example: an excerpt from one of the pieces of fanfic that I mentioned above.
quote:Scene: Battle in Earth orbit.
Grr. Never saw that before.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: I just noticed a parallel between me and George Bush in that we both suddenly bring up with force an idea to fight someone, which could have been done long before. And the UN doesn't really care. Never mind... It's late here...
I agree totally with your perception of Wong, his methods, and his site.
I also recognize the fact that my site, as well as the arguments I engaged in at SD.Net as DarkStar, also fall victim to some of the same sorts of commentary.
It is something I have seriously considered . . . whether to rise above that sort of thing, or scrap with the Warsies on their own terms (if only to correct the horrendous abuses of Trek).
As may be fairly apparent , I scrap with them on their own terms. Some of it is simply for the sake of trying to keep my wits sharp and improve on the quickness of them (especially important when I'm outnumbered 5-10 to 1). Some of it is because, like the crew of the Enterprise-C, I'd hate to miss a good fight. It's also hella-good psychological observation . . . I get to see behaviors and attitudes which people usually hide under the surface.
But still, I do agree at least in part with the principle that Wong ostensibly operates from . . . using the evidence to judge capability. Naturally, this is sci-fi . . . for the most part, visual FX are there to help tell the story. In the case of a human drama like Trek, the visual FX support the sci-fi angle, which is just a cover for the human elements . . . another layer of removal.
But, all the same, there's a certain entertainment value to be gained by looking at things that way, and I've known many a person who was curious what would happen if a Star Destroyer and one of the Enterprises tangled.
(I don't know what you think of his conclusions in regards to battles between starships, but I know I disagree with them. )
I guess what I'm trying to say is that many would agree that Wong's method, as applied and argued by his disciples, is highly questionable. You take the high road in reference to this fact . . . I'm taking a lower road.
And Bernd, I know you've corresponded with him, and have a certain opinion. I also assumed that he was probably a decent guy in real life . . . until I saw this:
"Editor's note: a few months ago, I happened to walk by a woman who was parking in a handicapped parking spot. I stopped, turned around, looked her in the eye, and said "nice place to park, bitch". She got angry at me, and complained that I was swearing in front of her kid. I called her a bitch again, and told her that she was setting a fine example for him by parking there."
^ If she wasn't handicapped, I agree with his response. The woman IS a bitch. Doesn't excuse him calling that in front of her kid, but that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve the title of "bitch."
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snay: The woman IS a bitch. Doesn't excuse him calling that in front of her kid,
Bingo.
According to the rest of the tale, the woman moved. Objective achieved, or so it would seem . . . but which is the better lesson (or "fine example") for the child?
1. Do not park in handicapped spots.
2. If you yell and curse at people, you will be feared and will get what you want.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
2
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes. Because obviously he couldn't have just said "excuse me, but I don't think you are handicapped. Couldn't you move to another spot, please?"
Of course, there's every likelyhood that he's bullshitting here anyway. Unless he really is that narcy in real life.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I don't mean to defend that woman parking in a handicapped spot, but dogmatism along with rude behavior in daily life is something that annoys me a lot. Certain people take pleasure in playing the Sheriff.
Darkstar, I don't want to tell you not to go the SD Forum any longer, especially not since you like to fight a battle when you're outnumbered. The problem is that the majority of Trek haters over there don't only have the majority rule, but they also dictate the rules. You would certainly have the moral victory to any unbiased observer (only that no unbiased person could stand reading that for only one minute), but you may become more like the people over there the longer you are trying to disprove them.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:2. If you yell and curse at people, you will be feared and will get what you want.
Wongspeak:
quote: "Who said I lost my temper. I enjoy beating down whiny little hatfuckers such as yourself."
"You are in a position to demand nothing, you whiny little shit. I respect intelligence, and you haven't shown any."
"A childlike, irrational, hopeless response. You'll probably run back to section31.com or whatever shithole you crawled out of and say something like "I tried to make some reasonable points, but they were only interested in insulting me because they're a pack of rabid Warsie dogs", as if no one here has ever made a logical point to refute your stupid-ass claims."
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: Darkstar, I don't want to tell you not to go the SD Forum any longer,
That isn't a matter of choice. I was banned after he challenged me to a debate and I suggested it be a rational, flame-free one. He'd already stated his belief that the challenged party set the terms, but he found those terms unacceptable. I tried to use his ego against him and goad him into accepting based on my terms and his own stated beliefs, but he chose to ban me instead over feigned offense at my goading efforts.
We are presently engaged in a debate . . . he chased me down after the ban, trying to backpedal and accept the rational discussion condition. However, he would only do so on the grounds that he got full control of the evidence and its interpretation.
I declined. So, he started debating without me. Unwilling to let my arguments come under attack without defense, I've engaged him. I'll let ya know how it goes.
quote:especially not since you like to fight a battle when you're outnumbered.
No, that's what they say. Never believe what they say about me.
The reason I'm not bothered by being outnumbered is that such a maneuver is the best way to see how my arguments stand. It's a trial by fire . . . and sure, there's a lot of trial by flame, but when I deliver the argument right there in the lion's den, I get to see how it stands up. In the midst of the flames and the fallacies, there's occasionally a decent counter-argument, or a decent remark showing where I need to be more clear.
That's why I posted at Wong's own forum (and the alt.startrek.vs.starwars anti-Trek support group) so often. It wasn't some odd quest for glory or craving for attention. It's the best trial by fire I can think of for my position.
(And actually, I'm probably about to stop posting for a little while, since there's absolutely no focus on the arguments at this point . . . they're all just talking about me and how much they wish I was dead.)
Granted, there's something attractive about going straight into the lion's den and blasting at it from within while hopelessly outnumbered. It's such a popular idea that it figured into three of the Star Wars movies. But that's not the point of why I argue.
quote:You would certainly have the moral victory to any unbiased observer (only that no unbiased person could stand reading that for only one minute)
There are a few people who engage in it or simply read it with the same mind-set that I do. I'm not trying to be the Wong for Trek. That would be disgusting, and I would have to shower frequently to get the mentally-dirty feeling to go away.
What I try to do is provide a fair analysis of both sides. Sure, I have an opinion, and I make it clear, but I don't hide, ignore, or try to rationalize away evidence which doesn't suit me. I try to address it all, and dispel the myths and rumors produced by the horrendous bias others have displayed.
quote:but you may become more like the people over there the longer you are trying to disprove them.
Indeed, there's something to be said for that. I've noticed the behavior of several of the formerly-reasonable ASVS opponents change over the past couple of years, becoming more and more Wong-like. I know I've become more likely to respond in kind when personally attacked or flamed. But, I'd like to think I've maintained the use of reasoning faculties that are evidently so easy to lose in such a debate.
I'm more than happy to receive constructive criticism. Let me know if there's anything you see that appears dastardly or Wongian on my site, either by e-mail or by site feedback: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWhi.html
Thanks!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I don't mean to defend that woman parking in a handicapped spot, but dogmatism along with rude behavior in daily life is something that annoys me a lot. Certain people take pleasure in playing the Sheriff."
Well, that really depends upon why he was doing it. If he thought "hey, she's doing something illegal, so I'm going to play sheriff", then I'm unimpressed. But, if he thought "hey, she's being an asshole, so I'm going to make her stop", I agree w/ him. After all, parking in a handicap space when you don't need it is a pretty jerky thing to do. Kinda like if you saw someone w/ a seeing-eye dog, so you bump into them and tell them to watch where they're going. If you saw the woman do that, wouldn't you feel alright calling her a bitch, even in front of her kid?
"According to the rest of the tale, the woman moved. Objective achieved, or so it would seem . . . but which is the better lesson (or 'fine example') for the child?
"1. Do not park in handicapped spots.
"2. If you yell and curse at people, you will be feared and will get what you want."
I'd say the better lesson is the one you didn't mention: If you park in handicap spaces when you're not supposed to, people will be hateful toward you.
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
I cannot explain why, but this thread still fascinates me.
Or, perhaps I can explain it after all: You people are so deeply immersed in this stuff that that reading most of this thread is like stealing a scan of a chronic obsessive's private diary.
Wait: Before you get ticked, thinking I just threw an insult: That's not an meant as an insult to any of you. Or a compliment, either. It's simply how it is. The very fact that you guys are essentially debating/analyzing to a savage degree the pros and cons of various websites presentation of debates/analysis of a fictional universe is fucking out there.
Again: That's not meant as an insult. Don't take it as such. Rather, I am in a state of awe. I, myself go far afield in the Geekworld, and thus, I can appreciate the state of mind you must enjoy to write things like this...
I believe that there is a sort of Geek-Force that hums in the back of our minds. It is subtle in most of us, coming out only in times of need. But for some, it is strong. Very Strong.
There are Geek Masters on this board, that is all I mean to say.
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Guardian 2000: "It's also hella-good psychological observation . . . I get to see behaviors and attitudes which people usually hide under the surface."
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
-Frederick Wilhelm Nietzche
Here's another timeless nugget.
When you wrestle with a pig, three things happen. First, you get completely worn out. Second, you get really dirty. And third, the pig has a blast.
You obviously haven't had any trouble adapting to their ways and antics over at SD, so mind the gap.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nimpim: Guardian 2000: "It's also hella-good psychological observation . . . I get to see behaviors and attitudes which people usually hide under the surface."
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
-Frederick Wilhelm Nietzche
I prefer the shorter edition of the same thought: "What you resist, you become."
Trust me, that's been kept well in mind.
My only worry is: "Never argue with an idiot. Some people won't be able to tell the difference."
And yes, I adopted some of their habits . . .
SPOCK Your use of language has altered since our arrival. It is currently laced with -- shall I say -- more colorful metaphors: "Double dumb-ass on you" -- and so forth...
KIRK You mean profanity. That's simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays any attention to you unless you swear every other word.
. . . but I'm reasonably certain that my reasoning faculties have not been dulled due to contact with some who simply don't use them. Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:There are a few people who engage in it or simply read it with the same mind-set that I do. I'm not trying to be the Wong for Trek. That would be disgusting, and I would have to shower frequently to get the mentally-dirty feeling to go away.
Of course, you have a general problem being the critic of the detractor. That takes the dispute to a meta level (while, as already mentioned, any discussion about fictional concepts is already on a meta level).
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Guardian, you're made of far stronger than stuff than I'll ever be, taking on Wong and his Warsie hoards like that. For this act, I salute you, and wish you the best. I read some of the stuff those Warsies said about you on SD.net, and was truly sickened by their arrogance. Most of them would probably believe the Earth was flat, if Wong told them so.
Now can someone explain to me in simple terms why a planet with shield would generate a halo when being incinerated? I'd imagine that if there were to be a visible shield interaction at all, it'd originate at the point of contact between Death Star's beam and the planetary shield, and spread out from there towards the other end of the planet, with the point of contact as the center.
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
The planet had angels on it?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Templar: Guardian, you're made of far stronger than stuff than I'll ever be, taking on Wong and his Warsie hoards like that. For this act, I salute you, and wish you the best.
Just a thought....and someone earlier might have said the same thing, but I'm a bit too tired to read through the whole thing.
Fighting with fanatics for no perceptable gain aside from the sheer interest of it seems rather futile at best, self-defeating at worst. Have you considered that that they'd have absolutely nothing to do if the occasional "Trekkie" didn't wander in to provide entertainment? I mean mean what would conversations be like?
Fan 1: "Hah, those fools they believe that weapon xyz is more powerful than weapon abc." Fan 2: "Yeah you said it brother, they be fools" Fan 1: "Yeah" Fan 2: "Yeah" Fan 1: "Now what?" Fan 2: "I dunno, lets go out and get a life."
Note that I didn't bother labelling them as SW or ST fans because the problem can be seen on both sides of the spectrum. Or we can simply think of this as a loss-gain exercise: What you have to gain by arguing: Nothing What you have to lose: Time, energy, and the fact that you're providing more fuel for the fire.
Whats the point? Unless you're so hopelessly deluded that you think that by inserting a clever turn of phrase or logical point into their forums, that they'll all suddenly see some non-existent light and become Trekkies...there doesn't seem to be anything to gain.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Templar: Guardian, you're made of far stronger than stuff than I'll ever be, taking on Wong and his Warsie hoards like that.
Well, thank you for the compliment, but I don't think it's strength so much as old past experience. I won't delve into my life story here, but just imagine the response in the Deep South Bible Belt to an agnostic guy living in their midst.
(I wasn't vocal about it like I am with STvSW . . . it leaked out through a friend. After that, the often-heard and always-wrong quote was "Ah'ma goan-a beat Gawd intuh you, bo-oy".)
quote:For this act, I salute you, and wish you the best.
I'm honored!
quote:Now can someone explain to me in simple terms why a planet with shield would generate a halo when being incinerated?
I'm still waiting for Wong to explain it in any terms. As far as I can tell, he saw the Generations phaser hit against the BoP and is translating that effect to Star Wars shields, even though no similar effect has ever been seen in the SW canon.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Whats the point? Unless you're so hopelessly deluded that you think that by inserting a clever turn of phrase or logical point into their forums, that they'll all suddenly see some non-existent light and become Trekkies...there doesn't seem to be anything to gain.
I confess that when I first started participating in the online debates a couple of years ago, I was under the foolish impression that I could change the minds of pro-Wars debaters.
As it stands, I've long since given up that hope. I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that part of it is my fault . . . I'm not great at persuasion . . . but there's still no denying the fact that many of them are diametrically opposed to anything besides an opinion akin to "sTAr tReK sUXorZ!!"
Still, the debates are useful for the creation and refining of material for my site. It's a nice way to wickedly trick them into making a positive contribution. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: Of course, you have a general problem being the critic of the detractor.
True . . . but I prefer to think of it as being a defender of that which he and others try to detract from. (Of course, that's a long list . . . )
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
as comparing the differences between one universe to the other or attempting to gain an understanding of star destroyer specifications. The people who do both shows for the most part have college degrees which are not based in science or mathematics. There are rare exceptions, like Mr.Okuda of Star Trek. I just don't see the purpose in attempting to apply science or mathematics to such a show.![[Cool]](cool.gif)