Picard vs StarWarsStarTrek Commentary

[Praeothmin]

I disagree.
I believe the best way to appraoch any discrepencies is simply to rationalize things using common sense and logic...

[Picard]

And what about story issues? Series' are not only about "who has bigger gun"? What if two options are equally logical and valid in face of remaining evidence?

[Admiral Breetai]

Ah, I get it. But I think there should be one series that take precedence over rest of canon (either TOS or TNG) as way of solving continuity issues.

why? the primary canon in trek is every single series barring a major retcon by paramount

[Picard]

See post right above yours.

[Praeothmin]

And what about story issues? Series' are not only about "who has bigger gun"? What if two options are equally logical and valid in face of remaining evidence?

Then we debate and argue as to which conlcusion is the logical one... ;)

Do you have such an example?

[Picard]

Not as of this moment, no. But I think that there are some contradictions between TOS and TNG, or within TOS itself. (I might remember one - Romulans issue, I believe it was. One episode they meet Romulans, and next time both Enterprise's crew and Romulans act as if it was first contact situation). I might have gotten it wrong, thought.

[Mike DiCenso]

The second time Romulans are encountered in TOS, there is no indication it was a first contact situation. In fact, the Romulan Neutral Zone and everything as mentioned in "The Deadly Years" , is in near-perfect lockstep with how it is described in "Balance of Terror".

The third encounter with Romulans in TOS is in "The Enterprise Incident", and has no indication that it was a first contact scenario, either and the continuity with the two previous Romulan episodes is not in any way contradicted. In fact the plot to steal the Romulan's new improved cloaking device predicated on the two powers already being fully aware of one another for quite some time.

TNG does nothing to abrogate any of the above.
-Mike

[Picard]

One question - what is maximum size of posts? Beacouse it seems that I and SWST have already posted some 50 cm - 1 m posts.

[Lucky]

One question - what is maximum size of posts? Beacouse it seems that I and SWST have already posted some 50 cm - 1 m posts.

I think the size of a post is measured in characters.

[Picard]

I know. But it doesn't show here, so it might as well be that there is no limit.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I know. But it doesn't show here, so it might as well be that there is no limit.

The board settings allow for very long posts. The reason why is that we used to have posters regularly hitting the default post size limit (and also hitting session time-outs).

[User1632]

One question - what is maximum size of posts? Beacouse it seems that I and SWST have already posted some 50 cm - 1 m posts.

I'd say that if you have to ask, it's already too long! :D

I don't like to address every single line in a post, because you end up quoting the whole thing, and missing the forest for the trees, often missing the entire point altogether; also it precludes other people following the debate, since it's just an endless quagmire of "I said, you said..." and it gets longer with each post.

It's far better to condense it down to the bare-bones points you're trying to make, since it simplifies things immensely.
I see a lot of accusations that SWST is "ignoring evidence;" but if there's too much of it, then it's easy to overlook things.

[Picard]

Problem is that he is ignoring evidence; he gets same points repeated to him over and over again, in 5 centimeter as well as 50 centimeter posts, and yet he simply ignores them. It isn't accidental. And if posts are too long, then you copy them into Word, point by point, and adress them same way. And when you had enough, you take a break and then continue adressing points when you stopped, even if it takes days. If he doesn't have time; fine. I can wait, and I don't see why anyone else couldn't. It isn't like anyone's life is depending on discussion here. But dishonesty and intentional ignoring of points in post... big no.

And no, condensing down to bare-bones won't solve a thing, beacouse in that case discussion quickly regresses to screaming "I am right!"; "No, I am right!" etc. Discussion is about evidence; and if there is crapload of evidence, then you are free to use crapload of time to adress it. Althought I doubt he ever needs crapload of time - all he does is to get some Warsie propaganda from SDN (site or forum), SBC or somwhere else, and repost it here. He doesn't look in evidence when he is given one, and only repeats old, worn down and disproven myths.