| Subject: Re: How long have you been doing this? |
Author:
capn hayes
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 21:05:57 10/19/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: NoHost/207.14.48.2
In reply to:
Warspite
's message, "Re: How long have you been doing this?" on 14:37:41 10/19/02 Sat
>>Don't mean to be insulting to anyone. I call'em like I
>>see'em. I always try to be fair.
>
>I think you do. It just seems to me that sometimes,
>these debates seem start with the assumption that the
>other guy is somehow lying or being stupid just
>because they don't agree. And yes, I may well be as
>bad as others in that. :(
>
>>I sometimes disagree
>>with basing canon info on a TV show that has been
>>shown to make error after error. Defending Star Trek
>>based on the onscren evidence can lead to mistakes in
>>good judgement.
>
>That is possible, but the on-screen evidence is all we
>have in these debate. Yes I agree that it sometimes it
>is contradictory. If this were a question of real life
>fighter aircraft, it would be easy to prove which was
>right. But we don't have the luxury of that. That is
>why we have the rules of canonicity. I think it is
>these rules that have led to our disagreements, and to
>the bad atmosphere. Unfortunately, I don't know how to
>fix that. The rules for this forum generally follow
>the rules laid out by the two companies (Lucasfilm and
>Paramount). The only exception would be the use of the
>TMs, and I have explained my reasons for allowing them
>many times (and those reasons are generally accepted
>on other forum too). We have to use what we have for
>the debates, and that generally means the on screen
>evidence, even if sometimes it is contradictory.
>
>>Although you are all good debaters and
>>I do enjoy discusing this. And I try not to take this
>>stuff that seriously, and never personally!
>
>I enjoy debateing this (I wouldn't have done it for
>four years otherwise), and generally I enjoy debating
>with you too. How about we set up group ground rules?
>Here are the two I feel are most important. What
>others would you like?
>
>1) No insults (either open (i.e "you prat") or
>backhand (i.e "but I'm not stupid like some people")).
>Resorting to insults conceeds the argument.
>
>2) If you make a claim, you must provide a film,
>episode or book reference to back it up at that time.
>For example, 'The Enterprise can be generally operated
>by one or two people (TNG:Remember me & TNG:11001001)'
>or 'An uncalculated hyper microjump can be made (Rebel
>Dream)'. If a reference cannot be stated, it must be
>accepted to be mere conjecture.
>
>How do those sound? What other rules would you like?
That sounds great! I will think about some other guide lines and get back to you. Although I don't think your rules are all that bad. To bad all we have is the ST TV show as our last line of reference.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 