www.ditl.org

DSG, you'll also want to learn the difference between flaming and, say, Tyyr simply using the term "asshat" in his post. Personally, I have no desire to attack. What you called an insult of mine was in fact a salient point which you choose to criticize as attack rather than answer. On that subject, "I know you are but what am I?" is hardly a credible debate response, though it seems to be the bulk of your response to me. BTW, we don't need help deciding who gets banned.

DSG2k wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:I've read enough of the threads you've been in to tell that quite a few people here have already gotten under your "thick skin". Its not so thick as you'd like to think.

To use an analogy, punching someone for disrespecting you is one thing. Punching them because they actually upset you is another. You'll want to learn the difference for future reference.

Wow, you're burning inside. Personal attacks on someone who you know next to nothing about. How upset you must be. Sitting at your computer, praying for some way to strike at someone you have no ability to strike. Knowing you have no chance of upsetting them, yet feeling that you have to try. While I don't go out of my way to cause pain to others. Yours is rather tasty at the moment.

Truth is that you've suffered both here. By that I mean you've been both disrepected and hurt (feelings of course) since you've been here. Must be so frustrating for you. You have no one to blame but yourself really. DITL didn't tell you to act the way you do. DITL didn't say that you have to jump through hoops for anything. Just that you're acting in a poor fashion. Then again, being me, what would I know about respect or being disrespected? Hurting someone or being hurt by someone? I'm sure everyone here would join you in happy jumping joy for the chance to say how I know nothing of such subjects.

Feel free to call them to arms over the matter.

Mikey wrote:DSG, you'll also want to learn the difference between flaming and, say, Tyyr simply using the term "asshat" in his post.

Had he merely used the term while discussing something else entirely, you might have a point.

Personally, I have no desire to attack.

Then stop.

What you called an insult of mine was in fact a salient point which you choose to criticize as attack rather than answer.

You claimed I "start with an assumption and mold the logic and interpretation of evidence to fit it". That's a personal attack, not a salient point. If you do not recognize the difference, the problem is not mine.

On that subject, "I know you are but what am I?" is hardly a credible debate response, though it seems to be the bulk of your response to me.

Considering that your "salient point" was a personal attack, and most of the rest of your post featured silly and childish attempts to insult me, you're hardly in a position to judge the posts of others on quality. Besides which, you were the one who tried to defend the aggressors by claiming their innocence, which I expended several lines to disprove.

In short, your post was hardly on-topic, so don't complain if I responded to the fluff as I saw fit. At the end of the post I presented the absurdity of your position . . . but you would rather ignore that and talk about me.

BTW, we don't need help deciding who gets banned.

I didn't ask if you did.

DSG2k wrote:

BTW, we don't need help deciding who gets banned.

I didn't ask if you did.

I'm keeping an eye on this debate, and therefore staying out of it, but I'll correct this point. You said, in response to Deep:

Why is it, then, that you shouldn't be banned?

If the mods and admins think someone should be banned, we will make that decision, not you. Butt out of matters that don't concern you.

<em>DSG2k</em> wrote:Had he merely used the term while discussing something else entirely, you might have a point.

He did in the first post which you regarded as flaming or attacking.

<em>DSG2k</em> wrote:Then stop.

Everything I've said has been in response to either the points of the debate or to the validity of the debating itself.

<em>DSG2k</em> wrote:You claimed I "start with an assumption and mold the logic and interpretation of evidence to fit it". That's a personal attack, not a salient point. If you do not recognize the difference, the problem is not mine.

It is in fact a salient point when it refers to your method of debate as used in this discussion.

<em>DSG2k</em> wrote:Considering that your "salient point" was a personal attack, and most of the rest of your post featured silly and childish attempts to insult me, you're hardly in a position to judge the posts of others on quality. Besides which, you were the one who tried to defend the aggressors by claiming their innocence, which I expended several lines to disprove.

I have made zero attempts to insult you - believe me, it would be far clearer if I had - and directed everything toward matters which have been relevant to the discussion, as I mentioned above. If you have a problem with someone disagreeing with you, then so be it. There is no "innocence" or "guilt" to be determined here.

<em>DSG2k</em> wrote:In short, your post was hardly on-topic, so don't complain if I responded to the fluff as I saw fit. At the end of the post I presented the absurdity of your position . . . but you would rather ignore that and talk about me.

The absurdity you claim to perceive has not been shown to exist in the real world... and I haven't "talked about you" at all save your method of debate - the invalidity of which is relevant.

Deepcrush wrote:Sitting at your computer, praying for some way to strike at someone you have no ability to strike. Knowing you have no chance of upsetting them, yet feeling that you have to try.

Oh, how you misunderstand.

1. You're not worth hitting, nor was my analogy an indication that I wanted to, your fanciful claims notwithstanding.
2. I'm not a troll like you. My goals are not your goals, nor is it likely you understand them, or me.

While I don't go out of my way to cause pain to others. Yours is rather tasty at the moment.

See, this is an example. I read something stupid like the above, full of vampire-wannabe or whatever sort of absurdity, and laugh both in amusement and a touch of disgust. Amusement that someone would even type such things about themselves . . . and a touch of disgust at the thought that you might actually believe you're gaining something if you were to hurt people on the internet.

I freely admit that having people claim I'm wrong based on their own illogic is frustrating, but that's as far as my emotions go. Equally frustrating is the fact that they are interfering in what was a potentially good discussion. Hell, Tyyr was even agreeing in concept with points I have made just a little while before my posts (arguing for a TOS Miranda, noting the small number of Constitutions per Kirk), but he's chosen to be an insulting fool rather than proceed with the discussion.

As for the silly insults, I refuse to allow illogical geeks who (a) are wrong and (b) have rejected agreeing to disagree while (c) riding along with me on the geek short bus of the internet to have their baseless insults go unanswered. It's not pain or even really pride, and certainly not wounded pride . . . you truly have me mistaken if you think I care what any of you think of me. As I said, I've dealt with far worse than you (and I think they finally figured out that I don't care what they think of me, either), and received flames that you would only wish you could muster.

I defend myself lest those not paying careful attention fail to realize the error of the idiots, thus being swayed a little by the insults rather than my arguments. True, those who would be swayed more by the insults than the arguments are themselves not necessarily that bright, but then we can all get in a hurry at times, and such things can nibble at even the best mind little by little. But it does frustrate me to have to waste time on such stupidity.

Just that you're acting in a poor fashion.

I'm acting in a wonderful fashion, actually, beyond the fact that I'm arguing with idiots (which itself is a hollow pursuit). If you disagree, the problem is yours and not mine.

I wish to make it clear I have no intention of flaming or attacking. Merely debating. I reserve the right to be brash, blunt, and maybe use mildly offensive terms (idiot, blind etc) because...well, its my opinion.

DSG2k wrote:That's wrong, because now you're speculating beyond what is seen. You're at liberty to do so, but don't tell me I'm wrong if I do not make the same leap.

I'm sorry but even I'm not that blind. You can see with your own eyes the recreation windows, same as on a connie engineering hull. It has the built up regions (purpose unknown) to the side (starboard in this case), same as on a connie hull. Since the hull section is devoid of other identifiers, what does that leave you with? Two Constitution identical features. In widely accepted debate standard, you don't make up stuff when evidence would support another more logical argument: A constitution engineering hull. You even claim it was an engineering hull, and yet you say i'm wrong?

Don't pretend this is a matter that Occam could get involved in. The Constitution claim is based on leaps of logic, and Occam's Razor hardly supports such things. Even if we grant that the Constitution-style engineering hull tube is present in its entirety, it does not follow that an entire Constitution Class ship was present, because we have it on good authority they do not exist save for a single example in the Starfleet Museum, as well as other suggestions that the class is long-gone.

Rather than ignore those facts as you are attempting to do, feigning the presence of a contradiction where one is not required (which, I'll point out, is itself a logical fallacy), I am asserting that it is merely a Constitution-style hull section of an unknown vessel that, unlike the Constitution herself, is not retired. Use of hull sections and entire hull components is not an unknown, so it isn't like I'm creating some impossible entity . . . I am merely avoiding canon contradiction by refusing to jump to the conclusion that a small hull section somehow proves that an entire Constitution Class starship was present.

The rest of your post is thus nullified, in concert with my prior comments on assumption of ignorance on the part of the characters.

The Razor refers to the idealism of "simplest is normally right", and not to Occam. I couldn't give a toss what Occam would or wouldn't be involved with (none of us can say, what with him being long since dead and all). However, the Razor is an accepted standard with which to govern debates. If you don't like that, well tough shit for you. It's how they operate, if not in a worldwide forum, it's what we work with here. Take it or leave it, your choice.

The contradiction is plainly evident. Picard says they are gone, save for the one in the museum. There is evidence that suggests that they are not entirely gone. They oppose one another, and form the contradiction. As a way of judging and deciding matters, we use the razor.

I'll admit that the Razor is perhaps an arbitrary standard to judge things. It may not always be correct that "simplest answer is usually right". Doesn't matter. In absence of irrefutable evidence, which is what we are dealing with here (as all you have provided is a statement contrary, and a "maybes" which are eliminated per the razor), the razor is the judge.

Captain Seafort wrote:

DSG2k wrote:

BTW, we don't need help deciding who gets banned.

I didn't ask if you did.

I'm keeping an eye on this debate, and therefore staying out of it, but I'll correct this point. You said, in response to Deep:

Why is it, then, that you shouldn't be banned?

If the mods and admins think someone should be banned, we will make that decision, not you. Butt out of matters that don't concern you.

And my point stands . . . I didn't ask if any of you needed help, nor was I making any recommendation to the mods about his banning. It was the equivalent of asking an evildoer why they shouldn't be jailed . . . I'm not calling cops or suggesting to anyone in authority that he be arrested.

So please, settle down, and don't tell me to butt out of things I didn't get into. I'm being piled on in this thread enough already without yet another invalid post. I was very clear with Mikey that I was not attempting to sideline moderate, and I don't appreciate the claim that I was even after I corrected him on the point.

That said, I will avoid the use of the term "ban" lest such confusion re-appear.

DSG2k wrote:So please, settle down, and don't tell me to butt out of things I didn't get into. I'm being piled on in this thread enough already without yet another invalid post. I was very clear with Mikey that I was not attempting to sideline moderate, and I don't appreciate the claim that I was even after I corrected him on the point.

Apparently I wasn't clear enough. You were backseat modding. Mikey pulled you up on it. This isn't a debate, but me telling you where you went wrong. You should also know that when mods start using green writing it means we expect the subject of our instructions to back off there and then. Now accept the correction and move on.

That said, I will avoid the use of the term "ban" lest such confusion re-appear.

Thank you.

Mikey wrote:

<em>DSG2k</em> wrote:Had he merely used the term while discussing something else entirely, you might have a point.

He did in the first post which you regarded as flaming or attacking.

Please do not lie. He claimed very clearly that I was being daft, intentionally engaging in an asinine argument, attempting to discredit someone personally, and thus either being dishonest or an asshat. Hell, his next post in the thread involved calling me an idiot and asshole.

So, stop lying to defend your comrades by claiming they are not attacking.

It is in fact a salient point when it refers to your method of debate as used in this discussion.

It is a personal attack, nothing more, when used in such a dishonest fashion as you did. Helpful critique is one thing, but trying to claim that the other party is just making things up is something else.

If you have a problem with someone disagreeing with you, then so be it.

Honest disagreement is fine. Agreeing to disagree is great. But I'm being insulted and flamed for disagreeing. So don't claim it's my problem.

DSG2k wrote: Also, flaming +1.

Wow, your skin must be paper thin if you consider that to be flaming.

Then why reject the idea for one when it is the only way to avoid intracanonical contradiction? Why is it that then, all of the sudden, no other classes exist?

You're just not listening at all are you? No one has said that but you. What has been said, repeatedly, and totally missed by you, is that when both the visual matches a Connie and the model used for the debris was a Connie the most logical assumption is that it's a Connie.

I'm just not going to toss the words out the airlock without good reason.

And once again you're not bothering to listen. His words do not in any way preclude a Connie being at Wolf 359, just one being on active duty at the time he made the statement. There have been several suggestions made that would explain the presence of the Connie without Picard even having to be wrong.

You have a partial segment of a Constitution engineering hull, so in your minds there's a contradiction between the rest of the canon and this imaginary completely-functional Constitution of yours.

The only canon contradiction is Picard's statement. Reference the above suggestions on how his statement can be total accurate and a Connie can still wind up at Wolf 359.

You guys even claim the class is fully active!

Again, strawman. No one has claimed that the class is fully active. The most that's been claimed is that one was in a condition that it was space worthy. That's it.

Then why won't you people stop arguing against the point?

Because you're claiming that inventing a new class of starship is the logical conclusion. It's not.

You're just trolling now. That's the precise opposite of my position, and you well know that.

Given that you're the only person advancing the claim it must be your position. No one here has claimed it.

If you'd actually like to refute a point, ya know, like how we know the ship in question was a Connie from backstage info, or how the scenarios we presented couldn't possibly jive with what Picard said then great. If you just wanna rage about how everyone is out to get you knock yourself out.

Enough said about this freak...

Reliant121 wrote:I wish to make it clear I have no intention of flaming or attacking. Merely debating. I reserve the right to be brash, blunt, and maybe use mildly offensive terms (idiot, blind etc) because...well, its my opinion.

DSG2k wrote:That's wrong, because now you're speculating beyond what is seen. You're at liberty to do so, but don't tell me I'm wrong if I do not make the same leap.

I'm sorry but even I'm not that blind. You can see with your own eyes the recreation windows, same as on a connie engineering hull.

Yes, you're seeing what appears to be the same windows, and thus you're not (seriously) speculating on that point. Obviously, then, that's not what I meant when I referred to speculating beyond what's seen, now is it?

The Razor refers to the idealism of "simplest is normally right", and not to Occam.

That's the simplified form of Occam's Razor. Sorry you didn't know such a basic nomenclature regarding logic.

The contradiction is plainly evident.

Only when you speculate and imagine a Constitution Class ship where none exists.

Then show me how you frigging imagine this whole new conjured ship then?

Okay, Say I take the badge and boot lid from an old Ford Cortina in the middle of a desert. Are you suggesting that someone comes along and says "obviously it's not a Cortina, they haven't been around for decades. it must be something else?"

Is this argument seriously about whether the Connie hull we see at Wolf 359 was an actual Connie or a previously unseen class?

And it's based entirely on Picard's Relics line?