Wyrm wrote:If there's no new ground to cover, or people are bored with the topic, why should discussion continue?
Because of the desire to reinforce the belief. Why are so many threads on hyperspace charts allowed to keep cropping up and aren't locked, to name just one topic.
So you like to argue with scratched phonograph records?
To each his (perverted) own.
So, you
really think anyone that's a long time debator is gonna be swayed at this point to the other side? What?!
Bullocks. He's answered your points. Just like I'm doing (God help me). He's demonstrating that he's engaged with you.
He continued to ignore the faults in the argument. Using SDN's standard, he should have been brought up in front of our sentate, if we actually had one.
The problem is that you don't seem to be engaging with him. Nothing seems to click.
And yet...he's the one that dropped out of the discussion...only because he thought we weren't understanding him. He stopped talking with me and WILGA. It wasn't the other way around.
It's very hard to have a discussion with someone when they don't seem to be absorbing your ideas. Takes two to tango, dude.
No, it takes only one to pack up and leave...which is what he did with the discussion.
Explain MKSheppard.
In what regard?
Again, explain MKSheppard. He's all, "Glass the Mohommedians" (his term for Muslims), and somehow earned the title 'Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger'. Whenever I see him cross swords with SirNitram... man, the fur! It FLIES!! Quite franly, I don't know how he earns his keep.
I can't follow everybody at SDN, so you're gonna have to give me more specifics to work with. I don't stalk you people.
That's because your guns are clearly empty. How is that contradicting anything I have said.
How you define 'empty' in the specific instances of the TvW debate is subjective.
You're right that you wouldn't get too far. I've experienced your debate strategy... it's not stimulating.
So, the idea was brought up of why does Wong have to come here? Why not I go there? If I wouldn't last long there and I got banned, what excuse would you people have if I say that only posting in places where I can't respond is cowardly because they can't say it to my face, on a board I can respond to?
Wrong. You don't have to participate in verses discussions. If the verses discussion isn't your speed, you don't have to participate. Some trolls never touch the verses discussion, or any of the sci-fi forums, and they still get banned. They get banned for being trolls, not Trekkies.
And yet, you dare speak out against wars beating trek enough, you will.
No. You may never win a single discussion in all your tenure on SDN, so long as you gracefully admit defeat.
In the TvW discussions especially, you don't convert, you won't last long.
Bull. I disagreed with one of the mods, Master of Ossus... cussed him out in fact, on the effectiveness of fingerprints. I won that discussion. Haven't been kicked yet.
Wow..................Fingerprints. It's not the same subject, as the TvW discussions, especially on what's canon.
Of course it's stacked against you if you're on the side of Trek.
At least, you can admit it. Pretty much everyone else that has the prevailing view of the upper tier of SDN membership cloaks it in 'if you don't follow the rules, we'll ban you'.
It's a weak position.
It doesn't matter if it's a weak position or not. I'd be banned just because I believed Trek could beat Wars. We don't do that here. The management here hasn't banned people, like Kane Starkiller or Poe because the majority of people here (the people I'm refering to are those that post either regularly or semi-regularly) feel that thinking Wars would win is a 'weak position'. We don't ban people just because the think Wars could beat Trek.
In Mobile Suit Gundam Vs. Star Wars, even though I find giant robots cool beyond words, I still realize that the Gundams would get their asses handed to them by the Empire. Should I be surprised if I get my ass handed to me if I argue Gundams > Empire on SDN? Of course, and rightly so.
And if those in the senate thought that you should be banned because you thought Gundam could beat Wars, should you be, just because you felt differently than them.
Now let's suppose... just suppose... that Trek really is weaker than Wars. Wouldn't an honest debate also come to that conclusion? So how do you decide the difference?
There are many ways a weaker opponent can beat a stronger one. There are many real world examples of that. Strength is not always who has the most powerful weapon.
But, even if you still thought that there was a way for the weaker opponent could beat the stronger one and it essentially ended up being a discussion where'd you'd have to agree to disagree, should you still be banned or should the question of banning even come up...just because you had a different opinion?
So, if it really is an Us Vs. Them situation...
and they let the Time Lords and the Daleks win over the Empire...
THEN THEY MUST NOT BE WARSIES — They're WHOVIANS!!!
Your attempts to sidestep this point did not go unnoticed when I clearly wrote it's based on the TvW discussions primarily.
Why the fixation on Trek? Why not go for the whole enchalada and start crushing us Whovians with the same zeal? Why crush only Trek and not Gallifrey, or Skaro, or the Culture, or the Xeele.
See above about the TvW discussions focus. Besides, each one of those are god-like, uber civilizations that all provide wanked out and limited info on tech. It's much easier to spin something when there's more stuff to work with, like Trek. So, don't act like that's the same.