ZOMG the E-D can drill a 3000km hole in 19 seconds!!!!!!!!!!

[Serafina]

Aah, yes, excuses

Actually, there are multiple meanings of the word "amphibian." One is to a specific class of animals; the other is a more general meaning, meaning something that can be taken into or used inside the water. We usually say amphibious, but it's there:

am·phib·i·an
 /æmˈfɪbiən/ Show Spelled[am-fib-ee-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.any cold-blooded vertebrate of the class Amphibia, comprising frogs and toads, newts and salamanders, and caecilians, the larvae being typically aquatic, breathing by gills, and the adults being typically semiterrestrial, breathing by lungs and through the moist, glandular skin.
2. an amphibious plant.
3. an airplane designed for taking off from and landing on both land and water.
4. Also called amtrac. a flat-bottomed, armed, military vehicle, equipped with both tracks and a rudder, that can travel either on land or in water, used chiefly for landing assault troops.
–adjective
5. belonging or pertaining to the Amphibia.
6. amphibious ( def. 2 ) .

A briefcase that looks like a fish may well be designed to be carried easily underwater, and thus be literally amphibian.

SDN is very creative in coming up with explanations for how the ICS can be interpreted as correct, but not especially creative in explaining why Data says what he says.

Hmm, let's see. Yup, grasping at straws, like i expected.

First, you will note that the definitions for inanimate objects apply to VEHICLES. The correct word for describing someting that is not a vehicle and yet can be used on both land and water is....watertight.
Furthermore, you ignore that they are specifically referring to the appearance of that briefcase, NOT it's utility in different environments.

Your explanations is pretty much an ad-hoc argument - poorly constructed and at best remotely possible.




@ AVOCADO:

You claim my posted information were irrelevant. But if you had read and understood them you would know that your theory is not possible.

You have to show that your own theory has superior explanatory value than mine. That's basics 101 for academic discussions, don't you know anything about that?

You claim that you learned all the posted information in school, but it seems that you do not know anything about the structure of Earth.

As evidenced by you saying so, and ignoring what i wrote.

You are claiming that it is completely viable to inject the plasma trough the plastic mantle because it is not solid. You are referring to "magma shafts" that are essentially liquid throughout the mantle. But that is wrong.

Only the asthenosphere is not solid. And the asthenosphere is only 200 km thick. And "magma shafts" are not going deeper than the asthenosphere. That means that there are still round about 2.800 km of solid mantle rock between he asthenosphere and the core.

I am specificaly referring to plumes of hot magma, that normally occur at hotspots. Put simply, hot magma rises up, sometimes even penetrating the surface.
That magma is liquid, tough it can admittedly become solid later on. But obviously, they would chose a plume that is still liquid - given that they had only a few suitable locations, this is consistent with the episode.

How is the plasma supposed to go through that 2.800 km of solid mantle rock that underlies a pressure strong enough to prevent melting?

Simple, dumbass, if you are reading what i am writing:
It's not. The plume is liquid and freed a path.

»This plasma must obviously be capable of quickly moving through molten, high pressure metal (otherwise it would not affect the core), hence it can probably sink quickly through less-pressurized molten stone.« is no explanation at all – regardless that the mantle is almost exclusively solid and plasma usually has a lesser density than even molten mantle rocks and would therefore afloat above the latter (Buoyancy) and escape through the porous crust (something that cannot happen if plasma is injected into the core because the solid mantle prevents its escape to the surface of the planet).

It obviosuly must have low buoyancy, otherwise it would rise from the core even if injected directly. This is a requirement for both theories.

Furthermore you accuse me of constructing a strawman out of your argument. That is not true either.
Your theory was:

Yes, yes i do. Everyone can see that you did so. Again, by the way.

According to that, your theory was, that they meant the mantle and not the core when they have said core.

That means that they wanted to reliquefy the mantle.

My theory is basically that you can not rely on their terminology. This has been explained several times.
You are trying to imply that i am more specific than i claimed to be - essentially, you are going for semantic nitpicks (and lies, see above - or and right afterwards, too).

My explanation dealt with that theory by showing that it is not possible by showing that most of the mantle is supposed to be solid and that the solidifying of the asthenosphere wouldn't be a problem at all while the solidifying of the core would constitute a big problem.

The plasma had a free path due to a plume of liquid magma. Read what i am writing - liar.

Example of one of your stramans, copy&pasted from the same post where i accused you of such:

You constructed ANOTHER strawman in this attack, quite visible here:

If you assume that Starfleet personal are stupid and know next to nothing of the physics of their own universe, you have to explain how it is possible that they are able to build and operate a ship that can fly faster than light and can deceive complex plans and execute them successfully again and again. Both is not compatible. While it may be the easiest assumption in some instances, it is an implausible assumption because its consequences are not possible.

I never assumed that they knew no science at all.
I only assumed that they either universally switched the meaning of a word (everyone does it) - that's not incompetence.
Or that they simply misspoke in the heat of a moment - that is an error, but it not mean that they are incompetent. Everyone can misspeak, it happens.

You claimed that i made the assumption that they are incompetent, and then tried to disprove that. That's a classic strawman - attacking something your opponent never said.

'You attacked a version of my argument that was based on the claim that Starfleet scientists are incompetent.
However, my actual argument does not rest on such an assumption, while it is an unlikely possibility, it mostly assumes that they changed the meaning of several words.

How is that a strawman of your theory?

Or did you mean something else? Then you should have said what you meant.

Nowhere in your theory is it indicated that you think they wanted to eject the plasma into the mantle and affect the core that way.

That’s your new theory after I have shown that the solidifying of the asthenosphere wouldn’t be a problem at all and that it makes only sense to assume that they wanted to reliquefy the core.

Another LIE. I Specifically said so here:

Here it is:
They drill to a old magma chamber located above a hot spot. Since a hot spot with molten magma is close, this fits the criteria "molten core" if we assume that they misspoke or use the word "core" differently.
Then, they inject the plasma into that hot spot - the plasma must obviously be capable of moving fast trough dense liquids, or it would be useless when injected into the core as well. It will travel to the core due to gravity.

Anyone who knows what a hotspot is would understand that. Apparently, you are incapable of using lexika.

The next accusation is that I offered no actual alternate explanation. That is not true either. You know my theory: They drilled through the crust and through the mantle until they reached the pockets in the magma layer from where they injected sufficient plasma directly into the core. There were problems but they have solved these problems.

I admit that I do not know how they solved these problems. But I do not claim that it is impossible for them to solve them.

This theory is compatible with all available data. And contrary to your theory, the problems of my theory can be solved with technology while your theory does not work on a physical level.

The problem is only that you do not like it because it makes it necessary that the UfP has technology far superior to the current technology of mankind. But that is only to be expected of a society that is 400 years advanced.

You provide no proof for the capabilities that would be required to do so.
Given that my theory makes only one unproven assumption (where the lack of proof is far less severe), and yours makes about five where the lack of proof IS severe (we never see such powerful capabilities elsewhere), your theory fails.
It is NOT compatible with all available data, unless you ignore scientific data. This is not permissible under suspension of disbelief.

All the while you are like a broken record. You are repeating again and again that it is possible that someone can use a wrong term. I do not challenge that.

Not you, but Kor.
Besides, a broken record tactic relies on using the very same argument over and over again. However, my argument has been changed and apapted, that a part of it stays the same does not constitute a broken record.

But you are not showing that Data a n d Geordi a n d Julianna a n d Pran a n d Picard have done this mistake in this instance. I have shown why it is not plausible. You have ignored each single argument.

You tried to do so with ignorance of my words and lying about them.

Now you are coming with the new theory that they have changed the meaning of the terms crust, mantle and core (as they seem to have changed the meaning of the word energy).

But you are ignoring with that again the already provided argument that in the same episode they are using all three terms just fine.

If they haven not changed the meaning of these words, then they misspoke several times. Not surprising, given that none of them are trained geologist and they were quite busy at the moment.

Or an alternative theory of yours is that they simply misspoke in the heat of a moment. Yes, that can happen. But not in one discussion with several persons several times. They had a lengthy talk and have used the term core several times to explain what they want to do. The whole discussion wouldn't made any sense if the crucial term was wrong again and again.

It seems you have never spoken with scientists about a scientifical problem. It does not happen that they wouldn't ask again if one used a wrong term to clarify what was meant. And a fortiori they wouldn't continue to use the wrong term after it was used the wrong way the first time. That is not how a scientifical problem can be discussed at all.

Why not? Provide evidence that it can not happen, other than "i say so".

Actual scientist normally have a narrow field of expertise. Within that expertise, they have decades of experience.
Neither of those people in ST has. They obviously have access to superior databases and calculation capability, hence requiring less personal knowledge and capability to figure out the solution.
However, NONE of the participating persons is a geologist (with the possible exception of Juliana). It is simply inconceivable to claim that they have that much experience - being a jack of all trade doesn't work in modern science, there is simply too much to know.

I admit that you have not outright claimed that they are stupid.

I have anticipated such an argument because it is used very often at SDN.

And I think the anticipation was justified. If you insist on your theory that they have made a mistake when using the terms crust, mantle and core, it amounts to them being stupid because neither is it plausible that the meanings of the terms have changed nor is it plausible that all have misspoken in a lengthy but calm discussion.

Ah, so you admit that that was a strawman?

A further proof of your impertinence and ignorance is your next post concerning taxonomy.

It seems that you are ignoring what I have written only to spit your vitriol.

A taxonomy is nothing more than an attempt to categorize species accordingly to certain characteristics. It is arbitrarily after which characteristics the species are sorted. If you would know a minimum about the history of taxonomy, you would know how often the different systems have changed in time.

I SAID that it was about classifying things according to certain criteria.
However, such a process should NOT be arbitrary. If it IS arbitrary, it is of low scientific value.

But go ahead, provide an taxonomic system where it could be (or already was) feasible to assign arbitrary characteristics that can encompass such different biological niches as fish and amphibians.

Furthermore, even with a characteristic chosen, the created categories are depending on the species there are. On Earth there are many species with the characteristic fish. That’s why there is a category fish.

If there are no fish like species on another planet, their taxonomy wouldn’t include a category fish.

So much for the alleged universality of current taxonomies.

If you are trying to make a taxonomy for every different planet, you have no idea which one Data was referring to.
It would be vastly preferable to have one taxonomic classification, most likely based on the biological niche the species lives in.
Hence, an organism that spends all of it's live i water, can not breath air, does not have photosynthesis, is capable of moving under it's own power and has sexual reproduction would be called a fish. That could include, say, sea snakes - but not amphibians.
Amphibians are organisms that have an early aquatic stage in their livecycle, require a humid environment and can breath air. That directly contradicts some of the logical criteria for a categorization as a fish, even if we rely solely on their occupied biological niche.

But go ahead - provide a useful taxonomic system where one can classify fish and amphibians in the same category, without that category being insanely broad and hence useless.

Furthermore, a category is only created if there are enough species with the same characteristic.

A Category has to be specific, else it is useless.

But there are always species that can’t be sorted into one category non-ambiguously because their characteristic does not really fit to the category.

Do you know for example what a Coelacanth, a Panderichthys, an Ichthyostega, a Tiktaalik or an Eusthenopteron is? Are they still fishes or are they already amphibians?

They never were modern fish. We do not define our taxonomy according to biological niche, we use evolutionary biology.

However, in a system that uses either
-characteristics such as scales, breathing air etc.
-or biological niches as described above (they are admittedly similar)
an organism would be classified as an amphibian as soon as it fulfills the criteria.
This would not be the case for Coelacanth (which was remarkable for being early fish). By the way, that's a whole order already!
Also, Panderichthys was IIRC remarkable for showing adaptation for using it's limbs for direct propulsion by pushing them against the ground (walking). However, it was NOT capable of breathing air, it most likely occupied very shallow waters. Not an amphibian according to a niche-classification.
Ichthyostega had lungs and could occupy the biological niche of amphibians. According to my definition above, they would be classified as such.
Tiktaalik was remarkable for it's skeleton. AFAIK, it is unknown whether it could breath air. It is therefore impossible to classify by my definition above - that would not be the case if we knew whether it could fill the amphibian niche or not.
Eusthenopteron was IIRC a very early ancestor of tetrapods, way before all the other species here. Hence, no amphibian.

The cut-off line by my definition would simply be the capability to survive outside of water. Not that hard, is it?

Such species are sometimes sorted into a category although they do not really fit into it but the creation of a new category would not be appropriate because it would make the taxonomy unnecessarily difficult.

You do not understand modern taxonomy. It is not nearly as arbitrary as my model above, due to having way more knowledge.
We generally create suborders, not new orders, in case something diverges enough to justify this.
For example:
We have Chordates, which includes everything with several characteristics, including a basic nervous system and a tail.
One of the suborders of that are the vertebrates - those that have an internal skeleton. The other are the invertebrates, with an exterior skeleton.
After that, we have many diversions and suborders. First, there is an infraphylum for vertebrates with bony jaws (the others are IIRC extinct).
That has again two subgroups - bony fish and tetrapods.
The evolutionary ancestors of tetrapods would be part of the infraphylum, but not part of the superclass of bony fishes.
You can not jump between categories.

As an easier example:
In non-evolutionary taxonomy, birds (aves) are a class on their own.
In evolutionary taxonomy, they are a subgroup of dinosauria.

So - where am i going with this:
Simple: If you critizise my attempt at classifications, it's simply because you do not understand how modern taxonomy works.
It's possible that Trek reverted to an earlier form of taxonomy - but that's the explanation YOU require in order to claim that Data was not mistaken (that their classification is that broad). So don't blame me for any problems with that.

Of course, you are free to make your own classifications.

It is similar with the Archaeopteryx (with which you are certainly more familiar). In some taxonomies that species is still regarded as a saurian and in other taxonomies it is already a bird – although it is neither - and other taxonomies have created a category called archosaurs that encompass modern birds and crocodilians, pterosaurs and all extinct dinosaurs, as well as several other extinct groups.

Another fine example of ignorance.
By modern taxonomy, ALL birds are saurian.

If now a interstellar society decides to create a new and universal taxonomy that considers the species of all known planets, it can happen that species on a planet, who had their own category in the old, only the species of that planet considering taxonomy, are losing their category and are sorted into another category into which they do not really fit as happened with the examples above.

They would attempt to create a type of taxonomy that can be used on species without knowing their evolutionary history.
We already have that, it's called linnean taxonomy.
However, if they throw everything else out of the window, they are quite stupid indeed - linnean taxonomy was discarded for a reason.

If now on the majority of all planets no fish like species are found (with that I do not want to imply that on such planets are no animals which are living only in their oceans - but even on Earth we have many different kinds of animals living in our oceans that are no fishes) but species like Coelacanth, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik or Eusthenopteron and even on Earth fishes are near extinction (due to overfishing and marine pollution in the 20th and 21st century), it is only plausible to not create a category fish but to sort all fish like species into a category to which they are most similar.

"Kinds of animals". Sorry, i have to imagine using a blunt object on you - please, don't use creationist words. Thanks.

There. Better.
We already HAVE categories for those. Any of those would be classified as chordatic animals with vertebrate characteristics with sarcopterygii limbs and early tetrapodomorpha development.

In that case, it is possible that fishes can be regarded as primitive or underdeveloped amphibians as we are regarding the Archaeopteryx as a primitive and underdeveloped bird.

Your knowledge is outdated by - well, about fifty years.

That does not mean that the understanding of species or biology has changed – as you have insinuated in your fit.

If they apply it like you do, they have obviously reverted quite a lot.

But you will probably not understand that seeing that you are treating taxonomy as a holy grail.

I admit that i get quite upset when supposedly educated people do not know what i learned in 10th grade (when i was 16). All the above is taken from one of my old biology textbooks from school.

[Serafina]

And the EU clearly states that Alderaan had no shield. Period (yeah, that would have been covered years ago if Warsies had the honesty to provide that quote).

Provide evidence where the EU states this. It's YOUR job to provide evidence.
Oh, and in case you try to claim that i did not provide any proof - i did.
'Either way, you are supposed to provide evidence for your side of the argument.

Regarding the list of examples where you claim no planetary shield was present:

Naboo: Not surprising, they barely had a military and thought the Republic would protect them.
However, we learn from the EU (AotC: ICS) that they later construced one, which makes sense given their non-agressive nature and negative experiences.

The Gungans aided the Naboo in installing a planetwide shield network designed to protect against invasions after 32 BBY

Geonosis: It's called a surprise attack. They did not even know the Republic had an army.
But even if we ignore that, they did not except to go to war quite yet. Given that planetary shields take time to build, it's hardly surprising that they had none.

Generally, given that the Republic was quite peaceful for such a long time, it is not surprising that planets would not maintain an expensive planetary shield.

Coruscant: A planetary shield would logically not be on all the time if the planet is dependent on enormous supply fleets. A surprise attack which no one expected would logically not find the shield activated.
Furthermore, the EU states that the shield was later activated and managed to trap parts of the Separatist fleet.

Alderaan: We have visual effects that show us something that is best explained by a shield.
Furthermore, Vader states in the novel that the defenses of Alderaan were as strong as those of any other central planet. This is compatible with their peaceful nature, since a shield is purely defensive.
You claimed that some of the EU states that Alderaan had no shield, yet you do not provide any evidence.

Hoth: The rebels hardly needed a planetary shield, given that they did not plan to sit out a siege (which they could not do anyway). However, the theater shield gives us highest-level canon proof that Star Wars has the capability to erect large-scale shields that can withstand the firepower of several SDs and one SSD indefinitely.
Constructing a planet-wide shield would merely require a network of such generators.

Endor: If it was not protected by a full shield, why did the Rebels not
-bomb the shield generator from orbit
-send the shuttle in where the moon is not covered by the shield, therefore not requiring the lowering of said shield? For that matter, why did the imperials lower the shield instead of sending the shuttle in on a different trajectory?

This assumption is based on the fallacious "they do not show it in that diagram, therefore it does not exist". I already addressed that several times, the only answer was restating the disproved point.


If we take the calcualtion (or rather results) here:

The calculations for how much surface area the Endor-projected DS2 shield could have covered if spread out over the surface of a planet is covered in this thread here and here. In the best-case scenario it takes only 25 Endor-class shield generators to cover a planet the size of the Earth, and on the more realistic end of things over 2,300 of them.

And take the statement that is was based on the DSI-size, we do not require nearly as much shield generators.
DSII had a diameter of 900 km, and a surface area of about 2.544.690 square kilometers.
Compared that to the 160 km diameter and the surface area of 80.425 square kilometers, and you will find that the surface area of DSII is about 32 times larger.

However, that still assumes that the shield was hullhugging. This does not appear to be the case, since the fighters had to turn around in haste way before closing in on DSII. You can easily double the diameter of the shield, which increases the surface of the shield by a factor of four.
Taking the latter number, the shield of DSII was 128 times larger than your calculated surface area.

Taking your own calculations and statements, that gives us a minimum of 1 shield generator for a planet-sized shield, and a maximum of about 18.

[Wyrm]

Looks like these particular trekkies share not just a basic misunderstanding of science with creationists, but also a basic misunderstanding of taxonomy and evolutionary biology. Perhaps one day these two branches will fuse into a single obscene beast known as the Trekkie Creationist!

The bottom line is that these guys are using a ridiculous notion to support more ridiculous notions, just like young-earth creationists use ridiculous assumptions about physics and chance to support their notion of a Noahician flood.

That humans and their machines communicate perfectly has never been true in the whole of history. We should expect the occasional flub, and the occasional flub would make Data more human (you know the old saying), so for all we know Soong installed a flub-generator — we know he installed a dream program and took extensive care to make Data replicate humanity.

However, trekkies will ignore this fact of human existence and assign characters inerrancy like bible-thumpers assign the bible inerrancy, and with this they support nonsense not justified by the evidence, visuals and dialogue.

You claim that you learned all the posted information in school, but it seems that you do not know anything about the structure of Earth.

...

Only the asthenosphere is not solid. And the asthenosphere is only 200 km thick. And "magma shafts" are not going deeper than the asthenosphere. That means that there are still round about 2.800 km of solid mantle rock between he asthenosphere and the core.

Oh the irony! First off, if the mantle were solid, it could not convect and generate tectonics — including earthquakes. It is plastic, able to conduct S-waves, but not fully solid in that it will deform under any continuous pressure, slowly. But that's a minor point, because for the timescale of the episode the mantle may be treated as solid (billions of times more viscous than pitch).

However, this state of affairs only lasts while there is great pressure on the mantle's material, to the tune of a million atmospheres — the weight of the Earth. Pop that pressure, and the stuff of the mantle becomes much less viscous magma. Again, the multi-thousand km tunnel will collapse, because what you're drilling through amounts to fluid.

Another way to reduce the viscosity of the mantle is to heat it. Heat it, and it will turn into a true liquid and be driven by buoyancy to the surface. Furthermore, we know that the magma bubbles that form hot spots come from the core because we can see them via seismic waves refracting around them, floating up through the mantle to the surface in huge magma plumes. While there are mysteries in geophysics, this is not one of them.

[Wyrm]

NOEDIT!

A taxonomy is nothing more than an attempt to categorize species accordingly to certain characteristics. It is arbitrarily after which characteristics the species are sorted. If you would know a minimum about the history of taxonomy, you would know how often the different systems have changed in time.

Furthermore, even with a characteristic chosen, the created categories are depending on the species there are. On Earth there are many species with the characteristic fish. That’s why there is a category fish.

If there are no fish like species on another planet, their taxonomy wouldn’t include a category fish.

But Data is an android built by the Federation, which includes Earth and many species of fish as we know them, and he is talking to a simulated comic from the 20th century taking about Tip O'Neall carrying a fish-briefcase, and you are assuming that Data is going to be using a different planet's taxonomy, and that comic-guy is talking about some fish from Alpha Centauri III?

And you wonder why we laugh at you?

I should create a series called "Why Do People Laugh at Trekkies," with the tagline:

Why do people laugh at trekkies?
Only the trekkies don't understand why!

[Serafina]

WARNING:
This post is blatant mockery. Ask, and you shall receive - and you asked for it, Trektards.
But go ahead, try to use that as an ad hominem

I should create a series called "Why Do People Laugh at Trekkies," with the tagline:

Why do people laugh at trekkies?
Only the trekkies don't understand why!

*applauds Wyrm* Brilliant remark, old chap!


Hey, AVOCADO (or anyone else from Starfleetjediwankers.Net) - do you get the reference Wyrm just made?
I suppose not, but hey, surprise me. I'll be waiting for ya.

[Serafina]

That's not a problem since we can easily derive a 120 and 160 km diameter size for the Death Stars as detailed on RSA page here and Sarli's rebuttal to Saxton here. Both seperately coming to the same conclusion and tying in with Saxton's own averaging for the Death Star sizes before he arbitrarily goes the with 160km and 900 km numbers. The Death Star EU novel even stated that the differences are the result of different people using different measurements.

Really, that you folks take DorkStar seriously is the best indicator that you know nothing about the scientific method, or logic for that matter.

Either way, the 900 km diameter is canon.
Since canonic statements are also sorted by date, the recent figures of 900 km ARE canon.

Furthermore, we clearly see that the shield is projected far away from DSII itself, presumably to leave room to maneuver for ships docking with it (which obviously includes large material transporters).
That easily enhances the diameter severely.

[Serafina]

@ AVOCADO:

Suddenly you are referring to plumes of hot magma that normally occur at hotspots. Curios that you have never mentioned these plumes of hot magma before. But I’m supposed to know that this is what you are referring to. You even accused me of lying because I didn’t know that.

What, so adapting one's theory is "dishonest" or "incompetent" now?
Guess what, actual scientists do it all the time - it's one of the MERITS of science.
Not that you would know that.

Curios that in the article about plumes of hot magma you have linked to – and that not hidden somewhere but in the very first paragraph – there is written that the heads of mantle plumes can partly melt when they reach shallow depths. That means that they are solid in not shallow depths.

And by accident that is exactly what I have said the whole time. The mantle is almost exclusively solid. Only the asthenosphere is more or less liquid. And only in the asthenosphere does the plume pass over the solidus curve of the mantle. That means its temperature is then higher than the temperature at which mantle rock at the current pressure starts to melt.

Don't rely on a bloody Wikipedia article. I merely linked it for rough reference.
Furthermore, both the article and you fail to include any definition of "shallow depths"

Magma is by definition molten. Due to pressure, it might not actually behave like what we call a liquid, but that doesn't actually detract from my theory - all we need is something that can conduct the "plasma" they use, whose known properties dictate that it can penetrate high-density material.
Anything remotely resembling actual plasma would not be capable of penetrating anywhere into the molten (actual) core either - it might technically be liquid, but the densities are still incredibly high.

A short quote from Nature:

Here, we suggest that a necessary by-product of whole-mantle convection during the Earth’s first billion years is deep and hot melting, resulting in the generation of dense liquids that crystallized and sank into the lower mantle. These sunken lithologies would have ‘primordial’ chemical signatures despite a non-primordial origin.

Unfortunately, i do not have access to the full article.

Appealing to the normal state of the mantle is merely a red herring.

But you are still insisting that the whole mantle is liquid or that the plume of hot magma is liquid and that plasma can sink through it.

Yes, i do.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
If it can penetrate the outer core, why should it be incapable of penetrating a highly plastic magma plume?

And while it is correct that the heat that is rising from the core through such a plume might to be responsible for the creation of hotspots (that is still disputed), the article about plumes of hot magma as well as the article about hotspots, to which you have linked, are making it also clear that there is no contact (no shaft or suchlike) between such hotspots and these plumes of hot magma.

Oh, really?
How about quoting it?
And what about the following quote?

Hotspots are thought to be caused by a narrow stream of hot mantle convecting up from the Earth's core-mantle boundary called a mantle plume,[2] although some geologists prefer upper-mantle convection as a cause

Either way, i presented a possible transport mechanism. We do not know the exact nature of it in real life, but it is obvious that it can transport magma to the surface. Inverting that mechanism seems hardly impossible.

The plumes are merely created by the slow creeping motion of Earth's rocky mantle caused by convection currents carrying heat from the interior of the earth to the surface. The hotspots are created by the through the plumes rising heat. Nothing more.

But you are ignoring that and insist on your idea that it is possible to inject plasma from a hotspot into the liquid mantle and that it would sink through the liquid plumes of hot magma against the current through the whole liquid mantle to the core.

Again - why not?
Why should it be impossible to use a transport mechanism that already exists?

Then suddenly plasma has to have a higher density than mantle rock that is under enormous pressure. I assume that you know that buoyancy depends on the density. Only if the density (mass per unit volume) of an object is lower than the density of the surrounding matter will the object experience a force buoyancy greater than its own weight. That means that the plasma to sink through your still assumed liquid mantle has to have a higher density than the mantle, even when the plasma is not compressed anymore. You have to keep in mind that, if the plasma can sink through the mantle, there is nothing that could hold it compressed. Please explain how that is supposed to be possible.

Please explain how it is supposed to affect the outer core if it can not penetrate it due to high buoyancy.
The buoyancy of the plasma can be inferred from that alone - it is necessary either way.

Then you are ignoring that the problem of buoyancy wouldn’t be there if the plasma is injected directly into the core. Your problem is that you still insist on your idea of a liquid mantle through which the plasma can sink to the core. But if plasma is directly injected into the core, a solid mantle is able to hold the plasma in the core as the mantle (or inner tube) of your bicycle tyre holds compressed air in the tyre of your bicycle.

Nonsense.
If there was actually such as soldid boundary (there isn't), then it would still be impossible for a high-buonancy "plasma" to affect the core.

But if you insist on your idea that the plasma can sink through the heavily compressed mantle rock and that buoyancy wouldn’t be a problem, maybe you can explain why they have drilled the shafts at all. After all, if the plasma is able to sink through the heavily compressed mantle rock, it should be able to sink through the curst as well. They could have injected the plasma into the crust and it would have sunk through the crust and the mantle to the core.

Ah, so i am supposed to explain the property of something which all theories require? Great

Evidently, they need a minimum of plasticity for their project to work.
Plasticity obviously rises the deeper we go (with the exclusion of the inner core). A mantle plume (or other hot-spot cause) provides a high-density pathway, which would not be existent on a planets surface.

You complain that I have made out of your argument a strawman. I have countered that I have merely anticipated that you will attack the competence of all participating persons. And you have proven me right. And in your last post you provided even more proof how right I was to assume that this will be your argument to which it boils down.

Provide evidence where my argument RELIED on their incompetence.
Note that claiming that they are obviously NOT geologists doesn't count - given their access to vast databanks and calculation capability, they do not have to. They could merely access an already proposed solution.

Now you are trying to explain that none of the participating persons is a geologist (with the possible exception of Juliana) and that it is simply inconceivable to claim that they have that much experience. That’s why it is plausible that they have used the wrong term.

I’m not sure if that is a testament for your arrogance. Maybe you really believe that someone who has not studied a certain subject has to be totally stupid in this subject.

No, but he is obviously not what we would call an expert.
Why is it son unconceivable for you that they
-misspoke
-or that the Federation just changed the bloody meaning?

I have not studied geology and nevertheless I am able to differentiate between the terms core, mantle and crust just fine.

Ah, so you claim livelong expertise that prevents you from making a simple mistake.

I have neither studied biology and nevertheless I am able to differentiate between the terms heart, lung and liver just fine.

I have not studied history but nevertheless I am able to differentiate between the Hundred Years' War, the French Revolution and World War Two just fine.

Both are hardly relevant, given that they are not progressions which have yet to be exactly determined.
Differentiating between clearly different elements and several interconnected ones is hardly the same.

I have not studied physics and nevertheless I am able to differentiate between the terms solid, liquid and gas just fine.
Unlike Wyrm, who seems to think that plastic is a state of matter and that, because there are convections in the mantle, it can’t be solid as if it were impossible that solid matter can be deformed. But from someone who can’t read – because if he could he would have noticed that I have explicitly said, that the asthenosphere is liquid – and the asthenosphere is part of the mantle and responsible for tectonic [O] – one probably can’t expect more.

Hey, you even quoted parts of my description of the mantle [O]. But to ignore what already was said is standard SDN tactic. Insofar I really shouldn’t be surprised.

Oh the irony! You are claiming to be the more intelligent debater who are knowing how to debate and who are only interested in the truth. Yes I can see how good you are at debating and how interested you are in the truth.

It is also interesting that you complained that I explained this [O]. You claimed that I constructed a strawman out of your argument and tried to cover it with lot's of basic geology, you claimed to have learned back in school. But when Wyrm explained this, he gained your applause.

Hey, dispshit - liquid, solid and gaseous are not always that easy to differentiate.
We know many states where the differentiation doesn't apply as obviously as you think.

Plasticity is not a state, but it is a property of matter. Plasticity is what matters here, and it rises the deeper you go.

You do not have to have studied geology to be able to differentiate between the terms core, mantle and crust. To insist that Data and Geordi and Picard and Julianna and Pran are not able to do that means nothing more than that they are stupid because they do not even know the basics of geology.

It is the same as if I would not be able to differentiate between the terms above. If that would be the case, you were right to call me stupid.

Fine. So the Federation science bureau changed the meanings.
Furthermore, you are still trying to interpret their dialogue literary. People do not talk literary in real life.

Your argument becomes especially curios if one considers that you have claimed to have learned all that back in high school [O] and that I have to be stupid and incapable of using lexica because I – according to you – do not know plumes of hot magma or hotspots or what taxonomy is. You even questioned my age and if I have visted a higher school at all.

If that is exemplary for your benchmark, how can Data and Geordi and Picard and Julianna and Pran not be stupid if they are using the terms core and mantle wrong as you impute – and that not only once but every time in that episode?

Be honest at least and admit that this is to what your argument boils down: They are stupid. They do not know what they are saying. And that's why we can ignore the whole dialogue and interpret the episode how we like it.

Making a mistake while speaking and making the same mistake while writing are two different things.
In case of the former, you do not have time for research and corrections. In the case of the latter, you do.

Furthermore shows exactly this claim that you have complained about me constructing a strawman out of your idea, that they are injecting plasma into the mantle to liquefy the mantle [O]. You still have not shown how my response [O] to your idea [O] can be a strawman. But you are accusing me again of constructing a strawman and to lie about what you have written. You should know that it is not enough to claim that an argument you do not like is a strawman. You should show that it is a strawman.

It's simple:
My argument did not rely on them being incompetent, as it proposed an alternate explanation (which i marked as more viable).
You attacked a version of my argument that relied on their incompetence, ignoring the alternate explanation.
Attacking a weaker, partial or falsified version of ones argument is called "constructing a strawman".
QED.

AVOCADO, you have NOT explained the contradictions in your own theory, nor presented evidence for your required unobserved capabilities.
You tried to nitpick my posts again. However, you should establish your OWN theories.
This is not a court, this is science. Undermining your opponents arguments does nothing to strengthen your own.
You have failed to do the latter.

Come on, AVOCADO, present some evidence for your theory.





TrekTard Creationism:

On Earth there are thousands if not millions of biologists who had decades if not centuries or even millennia to study the flora and fauna of Earth and their evolution and develop several taxonomies. But such taxonomies are useless for a spacefaring civilisation which explores strange new worlds, seeks out new life forms and new civilizations and boldly goes where no one has gone before. Its explorers cannot consider evolution or relationships between different species on a planet they just have discovered. They usually do not even know most of all species on a planet they only visited for a short time and in one very limited area. And a DNA analyses is only useful if you have enough data from other analyses to compare them with. To be able to categorize the found flora and fauna nevertheless, they have to have a universal taxonomy that is far simpler than a few of the more complex taxonomies used currently on Earth. It has to be possible to categorize a species without knowing much about it, its origin and its evolution.

Hence, they would use a classification system/taxonomy that relies on:
-visible properties, such as bone structure, scales, feathers, lungs etc.
-the ability to fill a certain biological niche - if something occupies what amphibians occupy on earth, why not classy it as an amphibian?

You have NOT proposed any kind of taxonomy that could classify fish as amphibia or vice versa.

And I have nowhere criticized your attempt at classification. I have merely suggested that a spacefaring civilisation might have another taxonomy in which there is no category fish because there are not enough fish species in the universe to have their own category. There may be a category amphibian and because the fishes from Earth may be similar to amphibians of other planets (e.g. species like Coelacanth, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik or Eusthenopteron) they may be sorted into this category.

Not enough fish species in the bloody universe?
Get a grip on reality - on any planet with liquid water, life will fill that niche.

You clearly ignored how i classified Coelacanth, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik and Eusthenopteron for you.

Furthermore, when I’m speaking of a category for a species, I do not mean a higher category or a description of their characteristics. To say that we already have categories for Coelacanth, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik or Eusthenopteron and that any of these species would be classified as chordatic animals with vertebrate characteristics with sarcopterygii limbs and early tetrapodomorpha development is no real categorizing but a description of the characteristics of a species of a higher category. Of course they are vertebrates as most of all higher animals on Earth are such. But are they fishes or are they amphibians? That is the question you have not answered.

Point is, there are no fish which would be classified as amphibia. It is remotely possible to construct a taxonomy that has a wide classification "fish" which has a subgroup that includes "amphibia" - but such a taxonomy would be bad.

I ANSWERED your question, moron. They are NEITHER. The categories amphibia AND fish arose AFTER them.
Tetrapods are BY DEFINITION excluded from the category "fish".

That applies as much in evolutionary as in linnean taxonomy.

And by the way, these species were more modern than fishes. They are a kind of link between fishes and amphibians and – at least to my maybe out-dated knowledge – amphibians are considered the higher developed kind of animals.

Define "modern".
Despite what Star Trek tells you, there are no "higher evolved" animals.
Real biologist use "modern" simply as a qualified of being "recent" - NOT how closely related they are to us.

And maybe you can explain why »kind of animals« are – according to you - supposed to be creationist words and their use results in you imagining the use of a blunt object on me.

You obviously never debated a creationist in your life. Not surprising, given that you might as well be one.

I want to know which biology textbooks you have used in your 10th grade. Even my 13th grade biology textbooks do not contain such sophisticated taxonomy that it would be possible to take all what you have written about the taxonomy of Coelacanth, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik, Eusthenopteron or Archaeopteryx out of them.

I am sorry, i misused the word "textbook". I was referring to the notes/handouts we got during our classes, taken from a book in posession of our teacher. I did not want to imply that it was the textbook we students used.
Nevertheless, we learned the structure of taxonomy in grade 10. Not about those actual examples, but how taxonomy works - it's hardly difficult after all.

By the way, as you may conclude from the list of my textbooks, I have made my Abitur. Biology was one of my two Leistungskurse and in my Abiturprüfung I got 13 points in Biology. I admit that since then more than 10 years have passed and that I didn’t really needed Biology while studying jurisprudence, but I have a superb memory. I have not forgotten what I learned 13 years ago.

Evidently wrong, as you do not even know the basics of modern taxonomy. Implying that the ancestors of Tetrapods could be classified as fish is bad enough.

Maybe you start to grasp now, that there is a difference between real life and mankind's current understanding of the universe and the debate of science fiction, where things are possible that shouldn't be possible, where one has not all information because a movie or series usually shows one small detail of the created universe, where there are contradictions which usually wouldn't be possible if it were a real life and that it is necessars to suspend disbelief and chose a method to analyse and interpret it, that no scientist would chose to analyse and interpret something in real life.

Only someone who has no idea how a scientist works and how dependable a scientist is on the coherence of the universe (because otherwise he couldn't work at all), could hope to achieve any sensible results by using the same method on the analyse and interpretation of science fiction.

Now where does that tangent come from?
Oh, right, you want to play make-believe again!

"Suspension of disbelief" does NOT mean "ignore all the contradictions we see". It means "treat it like a real life observation".
If a scientists sees a contradiction in real life, he attempts to explain it, preferably using already observed things.
However, he wil NOT overthrow already established knowledge unless he has a good reason to do so.
There can NOT be a contradiction in any universe that adheres to rules. It might appear like there is, but that's only due to insufficient knowledge.
Star Trek has demonstrated that it obeys basic physics such as thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics. Shoving them out of the window would put Star Trek right in the realm of total fantasy.

If we CAN find an explanation that doesn't require new terms (capabilities, technologies, properties), it IS preferable.
I am attempting and succeding in finding such a solution using science and current scientific knowledge. The latter might not be yet perfectly established, but that's no crippling weakness.
You, however, require a vast amount of additional properties, you can't just handwave them away.


AVOCADO, you have NOT presented a taxonomic model where fish and amphibia are interchangable.
Instead, you have again relied on pure nitpicks and an attempt to undermine my credibility (based on admittedly false use of a word on my part).
You yet again demonstrate your scientific ignorance, since you do not even grasp basic taxonomy, which you SHOULD have learned in school, at least given that you made your abitur sometimes after 1995 (derived from first printing of your textbooks, if i am not mistaken on that).
Fish are NOT amphibia. The ancestors of tetrapods were NOT fish (taxonomically speaking), but rather relatives of the ancestors of fish.
Present a taxonomic model where fish and amphibia are interchangable, instead of relying on nitpicks.

[Wyrm]

And by accident that is exactly what I have said the whole time. The mantle is almost exclusively solid. Only the asthenosphere is more or less liquid. And only in the asthenosphere does the plume pass over the solidus curve of the mantle. That means its temperature is then higher than the temperature at which mantle rock at the current pressure starts to melt.

Produce this curve, with its legend.

On Earth there are thousands if not millions of biologists who had decades if not centuries or even millennia to study the flora and fauna of Earth and their evolution and develop several taxonomies. But such taxonomies are useless for a spacefaring civilisation which explores strange new worlds, seeks out new life forms and new civilizations and boldly goes where no one has gone before. Its explorers cannot consider evolution or relationships between different species on a planet they just have discovered.

AVOCADO, why do you assume that a Federation officer talking to a (simulated) 20th century comic must be talking about some alien taxonomy when the comic talks about a briefcase he specifically classified as "fish" shaped? Your "theory" is supported by nothing other than your desire to see your precious Data be the infallible, perfect database.

[Serafina]

Hey, the really moronic Trektard is back!

So you didn't. Then how can you claim that you do not debate like a creationist?

You listed at least a few of the things they do in a debate......i did none of them.

Easy really.

Ah, denial - isn't it fun?

Rubbish, in fact in both cases you actually tried to use your own math you screwed it up and in one case had that screw up pointed out by 2 other members of your board (the first one who did so also came to a faulty conclusion).

But in standard warsie style they did give you a CMA clause.

Look, kid - i never denied that my original calculation was not correct.
But the fact IS that i now have a correct one (even if i did not do it on my own) - and you can't challenge it, either because you have the math skills of a weasel, or because it's correct.

This is not a debate, you stuck your beak into my discussion regarding materail that was going to be used in a theory.

Your're pathetic.
FORMULATE your bloody theory. Saying "the asteroids are made for explodium" or "the federation can arbitrarily ignore physics to drill holes" both require theories of high explanatory value - you don't have any.
Without a theory, they are just assumptions - in other words, make-believe.

Its your video link WATCH IT............here it is:

Are you truly such a great imbecile?
You have to TELL and SHOW us what you see an infer - merely pointing at a video and screaming "LOOK AT IT" is no argument.
By your logic, i could point at, say, the whole of ANH and say "look at it".

It applies it contains a quantity if you choose to say that all dialog is wrom=ng or that all datas quoted figures are wrong because of a small sampling you are commiting a no limit fallacy.

You fail at basic understanding.

A category defines things - these things will obviously have a quantity, but the category itself has no quantity.
Again, you fail to grasp the meaning of basic words.

The size of the roid after impact compared to the size of the roid as the distance between it and the falcon closes.

It could be very large or very small - how do you infer a speed from it? What interdependent source do you have?
Oh, right, you are a moron who doesn't grasp basic geometry.
But go ahead - present actual calculations.

1. Everyone can see that you did not construct a post outlining your theory,

1. So what i never said i would...therefore i never lied by not doing so.

You claimed that you did after i challenged you. By your own admission, that was wrong and therefore a lie (since you obviously know better).

2. as i demanded and is customary in any debate.

2. I have flushed turds that mattered to me more than a demand from you, and again you sticking your beak into a private discussion regarding material for a theory is not a debate.

Tell me, hatfucker:
How can i crash into a private debate - WHEN I NEVER JOINED YOUR BLOODY MORON-FORUM?
Don't you get this? You do NOT have to adress me at all if you prefer to run away instead. I am NOT pursuing you.
Besides, a post in a public forum is hardly private.

This is not a debate and never was.

No consession is given.

So, if this is no debate - what is it?

You choose to misinterpret them to serve your bias.

Ah, yes, bias
Provide evidence that i misinterpretated them. Oh, wait, you don't know basic english words.

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

— in evidence 1 : to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns…are everywhere in evidence — American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2 : as evidence

The word is from the 14th century. Even for your knowledge base (before Newton, more than 200 years old), that should be enough.

I never said they were, in fact i clearly point out they are not and YOU quote me doing so......

No, you didn't.
But attempting the energy for a DET-reaction based on something that is based on a chain reaction is...rather pointless.

Talk about a liar and a nitpicker, you ignore what i actualy said and then lie as if i made a opposing claim.

Oh, so pointing out something that IS true is a lie now?
Note that i did not accuse you of claiming that they were, WankTard.


Oh, and because you posted nothing but mindless drivel:
Come out, Kor - come out and debate, you coward!

[Serafina]

Still ignoring the challenge, eh, Kor?

Anyway - you are a moron.
You clearly do not understand the scientific method, mathematics, physics, chemistry or even basic logic.
You invent evidence out of thin air, lie and cheat as often as possible, distort your opponents post willingly, claim that someone said something regardless of whether thats true or not, proclaim that you do not require to post any evidence or theory and can thus make up whatever you want, claim that you did things when everyone knows that you did not and so much more.
You truly ARE a Mindless Scooter Cockgoblins - you tried to use most of Darkstars arguments, but you do not get close to his deluded genius - you are not even capable of the skilled lies and obfuscation that DarkStar is famous for.
Your lies are pitiful, your arguments pathetic - and you are one of the most okona-like trolls i ever had to hunt down.

Deal with it - you have presented neither argument nor evidence, or even proposed a theory. You are engaging in pure wank.

I am actually surprised that you are tolerated on any forum that has ANY interest in rational debate - because you are clearly incapable of it.

Well, either way, i will flog your cretinous blabbering apart.

You should know better than others.

Why yes, actually i should, because i understand the psychological process of denial, both by first- and second-hand experience. Of course, i worked that out - unlike you, i am actually capable of improving myself.

I am not a kid but you certainly are.

And i never said you denied it.

Ah, so then why bring it up? Oh, right, because you wanted to imply that i did. Gee, how could i not see trough such a lame attempt at obfuscation?
And you certainly behave like a kid - your actual age has nothing to do with that.

Why would i?, it agreed with me....lol.

Oh, really now?
Curious that no other TrekTard agrees with you. Perhaps - oh, i don't know, because it doesn't?

A theory if it is complete will contain elements we are in fact discussing....so what is the point when you are already disagreeing with them and refusing to accept the truth already?.

You can not discuss without a theory to defend. Didn't i explain that earlier?
Oh, wait, you never actually learned anything about actual discussions. Sorry, my bad, i assumed that you weren't an uneducated idiot.

I did that.

Really?
How is just pointing at a video showing or telling anything?
Don't you know what these words mean? Let me explain it, child - you are supposed to give us a scene to look at and explain what we see. Is it really that hard?

A category has a quantity of at least 1 (as in 1 catagory) and a almost limitless internal quantity depending on what the catagory contains.

Actually, since a category is a concept, it has no numerical value. Not basic math, but still pretty damn bad.
Of course, you can insist on your stupid proclamation to call any singular thing a quantity from now on

IE:
1. Mr X speaks 15,000 times in the trek verse.

2. Mr X got summat wrong verbally twice.

3. Therefore every one of the 15,000 times MrX has spoken he is wrong.

No limit fallacy.

How about this:

1: Mr X speaks 15,000 times in the Trek verse.
2: Mr X got something extremely simple very wrong on numerous occasions.
3: Therefore, we do not know whether he is correct on more complex things.

Where does it presume that Mr X is wrong on every occasion?
NOWHERE!
Retard - you're almost as bad as a crossbreed between Neelix, Janeway and Okona.

The fact is that as the distance between the falcon and the roid closes the roid should look bigger due to objects at long distance being visually percieved as smaller than closer objects.

It does not look any bigger as it passes just below the falcon compared to its size when we first see it, therfore the initial range could not have been very significant at all.

Well, if it is possible to settle it on an actual value - go ahead, do the math.
Of course, you snip every challenge out of your replies - i heard running away is the new way to winning a debate now.

I said i had posted some of what you demanded and other stuff was in the title of the thread.

Don't you understand that i wanted a clear, summarized post addressing your theory and the evidence for it, while explaining the unprecedented capabilities and impossibilities while presenting evidence for them?
Naah, explaining it numerous times is evidently not enough for you to grasp something.

I never said it was a private debate, i said it was a private discussion.

Ah, semantic nitpicking that doesn't address the point.
Fine then, go ahead, explain the difference between a debate and an discussion.
And while you are on it, explain how i could crash into a private discussion while not even joining your board, and how it can be private while being in a public forum?

Yes i did and you snipped it AGAIN.

I was pointing out that the phaser effect disintigrated a amount of material that a DET weapon would need 10-19 gigatons a second to do.

The discussion was about the equivalent EFFECT phasers can produce compared to a DET weapon.

Which would be - quite pointless.
You seem to enjoy pointless things - are you afraid of needles?

Just superb, your getting owned and as usual resort to the standard SDN foulness....so predictable..

"Mommy, Mommy, that other child was mean to me, i don't wanna play anymore! Waaaah".
Guess what, possessor of a Kazon-like intellect:
Pointing out insults does nothing to adress my actual points.
You will also notice that i only use insults if someone makes pointless and/or stupid posts. You do it all the time - is it really a surprise that you get called what you actually are?


And because you continue to ignore it:
Come out, Kor - come out and debate, you coward!

Oh, and a cookie for anyone on Starfleetjedi.Net who figures out the mechanism behind the colors i use here.
You already missed to opportunity to guess the pun Wyrm made, a rather pathetic conduct.

[Serafina]

Ah, JediMasterSpock attempts another advance

It's not as if the SDN crowd does anything but try to convince themselves that said credentials are, in fact, meaningless. That has been discussed before on these boards. I will, of course, again bring up ancient history and point out the case of Graham Kennedy, who participated in the debate for a while. He teaches physics to teenagers. He had his bachelor's degree focused in physics education; he had his HND specifically in physics itself.

In terms of his actual real-life credentials, as far as I know, they're roughly on the same level as Wong's. Bachelor's degree with more physics than average involved, but no graduate education, and a job that keeps basic physics skills sharp. However, most SDN residents will try to tell you that Wong's education is terribly impressive and Kennedy's meaningless.

Appealing to anyones authority is a fallacy.
Anyone with a basic education can check these calculations and determine which are better.
Graham Kennedy fails at several basic science concepts, such as thermodynamics, nuclear fusion (granted, that is not basic), claiming that altitude is measured from the center of a star (rather than it's surface), not getting melting/boiling processes and much more.
Everyone can see that. Someone who makes such mistakes is either willingly or unwillingly ignorant.

While doing so, the topic is no longer about Wong's claims or Kennedy's claims. I agree with Roondar here; even though I would be surprised if an objective comparison of credentials between W.I.L.G.A. and Serafina would fail to favor W.I.L.G.A. by a large margin (simply having gotten an Abitur would put W.I.L.G.A. on par with the average SDN resident, and W.I.L.G.A. has rather more than that), it's generally not a productive line of discussion.

An Abitur is pretty basic in Germany.
Besides, i never used to appeal to my authority (since i do not have anything i would call authority - nor would i call having an Abitur authority). I merely mocked AVOCADO for his ignorance of things he should have learned back in school.

Although I will comment on the solidity of the mantle. The mantle is mostly solid, but also at temperatures above the "normal" (1 atm) melting point of its rock. We would expect under normal circumstances that anywhere in the mantle would be a very hostile environment.

Of course, these are anything but normal circumstances in the episode. W.I.L.G.A.'s interpretation of the episode is the "correct" interpretation under a documentarian approach to producing fan analysis (as is hypothetically favored on SDN). I don't favor it because of the amazingly large quantity of rock that becomes involved, thanks to the visible disc of sky. The documentarian approach is IMO flawed.

Ah, yes, of course, because objective analysis must be flawed if it doesn't produce the results you like

Claiming mysterious "anomalous circumstances" explains nothing - you have to provide and explanation, and so far everyone on your board has failed to do so, other than claiming that it doesn't need one/is already provided.

[Serafina]

Oh, looks like they split up the topic - and Avocado has just agreed that he chickened out, due to my "dishonsest and unreasonable behaviour). I will adress his last post now, and good riddance to that Trekkie-creationist.

That’s my last post. Further debate with someone so dishonest and unreasonable does not makes sense anymore.

Ah, the standard StarFleetJediwanker cutoff clause.

The adapting of one’s theory is not dishonest. But to act as if the opponent should know the adaption of your theory before you have written down your new thoughts is dishonest. Simply look at the progress of this debate. You wrote A. I showed that A is impossible. You wrote A+ and claimed that I had made a strawman out of A. I showed that A+ is impossible. You wrote A++ and continued to pretend that I should have known that if you write A, you mean A++. You write that I am dishonest, stupid, not educated and not able to use lexica because I have not known that in your book A = A++.

Provide evidence of that assertion.
Oh, wait, you just ran away, my bad.
I clearly showed where you used strawman attacks. If you reading comprehension is so low that you can not understand that if a statement includes incompetence, linguistic evolution and simply misspeaking as three possible cause, then i'm sorry for you. You clearly focussed on rebutting the argument based of the first of three possible causes, which naturally did nothing to adress the latter two.

You link to a Wikipedia article and I show that even in there is something written in the very first paragraph that outright contradicts your assumptions. But suddenly you accuse me rely on a bloody Wikipedia article. I have never said that this Wikipedia article is the only source I have used. I have used them only because you have linked to them.

A single sentence without explanation is worthless. Since neither the article nor you offered a definition for "shallow depths" nor for the condition of the rest of the plume, your statement was simply useless.

And if you link to them, you are using them as source. It’s your job to make it clear, where you do not agree with what is written in the article you have linked to. If you would know how a scientifically essay is written, you would know that your method is totally unacceptable.

This is not a scientific essay - i never claimed it was.
Not only does an essay not normally contain a discussion - but it would hardly look anything of my posts.
Nevertheless, i tried to back myself up with better sources. Unfortunately, i can hardly use scans of my hardcover books as online sources (if only because they are in german).

And if you refer to the definition of magma, you should do it correctly:
magma is hot fluid or semi-fluid material within the earth’s crust from which lava and other igneous rock is formed by cooling or, with other words, the hot liquid rock found just below the surface of the Earth. But the people who are writing the Oxford dictionary or the Cambridge dictionary are probably stupid too. Either they are confusing the term crust with the term mantle or they do not know what magma is at all.

Oh, look at that, you've got something right. Congratulations.

The same goes for your reference to the article in Nature. It is not a sign of honesty to ignore what is written in that article only because you do not like it. »Except for the first 50–100 million years or so of the Earth’s history, when most of the mantle may have been subjected to melting, the differentiation of Earth’s silicate mantle has been controlled by solid-state convection. As the mantle upwells and decompresses across its solidus, it partially melts. These low-density melts rise to the surface and form the continental and oceanic crusts, driving the differentiation of the silicate part of the Earth. […]«

In the very same article you have linked to, they are saying that the mantly is almost exclusively solid and begins to melt only after crossing the solidus.

Will wonders never cease - that is exactly what I wrote.

But nevertheless, you are – ignoring the article you yourself have brought into play - still claiming that the whole mantle is liquid.

Maybe you have the same problem you think Data and Geordi and Picard and Pran and Julianna are having – you are confusing terms - in your case - the meaning of honest with the meaning of dishonest.

If something is ALMOST exclusively solid - what about the rest?
I never claimed that the whole mantle is liquid - another one of your lies. I claimed that parts of it where, particularly near the yet-not-totally explained high-convection hotspots. Once of the theories (that is still in the run, tough it has more participants nowadays) is that this is simply caused by partially-liquid shafts inside the mantle.
Naturally, the team on the Enterprise would rather use one of those than do something that is impossible for them.
You always try to make statements about the state of the whole mantle, rather than addressing that.

The same dishonesty is demonstrated by your quotation of a sentence of the Wikipedia article of hotspots. This sentence says nothing more than that hotspots are caused by plumes of hot magma in the mantle. There is nothing about a contact (shaft or suchlike) between such hotspots and these plumes of hot magma and it does not contradict my description that plumes are merely created by the slow creeping motion of Earth's rocky mantle caused by convection currents carrying heat from the interior of the earth to the surface. The hotspots are created by the through the plumes rising heat.

You can not rely on Wikipedia on a topic that is still in scientific debate.
Numerous other websites address both mantle plumes as a potential cause for hotspots and the ongoing scientific debate.
Wikipedia can hardly compare to that.

Then you are totally ignoring the explicit addressed problem of current. In a plume, Earth's rocky mantle goes in a slow creeping motion from the core to the surface of Earth. But you insist on sending plasma against such a current to the core because there is already a transport mechanism. Only that it seems to be irrelevant to you that this transport mechanism goes the other way and is very very slow.

You continue to fail to address that the plasma must necessarily be capable of penetrating the inner core. While we do not know it's exact properties, this can lead to the conclusion that it could also do so with regions of similar plasticity, such as over-heated mantle plumes.
Not addressing an essential point of mine is neither honest nor a good way to debate, Avocado.

All what follows is due to your inability to accept that the mantle is solid and your inability to conduct a scientifically discussion.

Spoken from someone who never posted evidence for his own theory.

I write a statement in one sentence and give in the following sentences an elaborated explanation – but you are demanding, after you have quoted the first sentence, such an explanation instead of writing where you have problems with my explanation.

I demanded evidence. You never presented any.

You distort what I have written. I wrote that I have not studied geology and nevertheless I am able to differentiate between the terms core, mantle and crust just fine and you pretend that I claim livelong expertise that prevents me from making a simple mistake.

Nonsense.
I claimed that the crew of the Enterprise are obviously not experts in geology. Curious how you can not differentiate between yourself and them.

You ignore in what context what was written. Wyrm was it who has said »Oh the irony! First off, if the mantle were solid, it could not convect and generate tectonics — including earthquakes. It is plastic, able to conduct S-waves, but not fully solid in that it will deform under any continuous pressure, slowly.«. I responded to his claim that the mantle is not solid but plastic. Then it is not wrong to show that a plastic property does not exclude (but demands) a solid state.

Guess what - soldid materials HAVE plasticity.
As i said earlier, it is not a state but a property of matter.
Failure to understand another basic principle - not surprising, given that you once claimed that a melting snowflake releases energy

And do not think that I have not noticed that you ignored my complaint that it seems as you haven’t seen the episode at all. That alone is reason enough to stop this debate. You pretend to know something although you know next to nothing about it. If that is not dishonest I do not know what is.

I have watched it (tough i admittedly skipped over the actual plot of it - Data's usual emotional struggle) recently, thanks to an link provided by Kor.

But even if you had seen the episode, your conduct in this debate gets worse and worse.

Uh noes, i am mean!
Note that i was mostly insulting your incredible failure in taxonomy.

A good example for this is not only your recourse to a favourite SDN tactic: If someone argues something you do not like, accuse him to be a creationist or at least to argue like a creationist. Instead of answering my honest question, you have done the first. Such a tactic is always good at SDN because then you do not have to provide any further arguments to refute your opponents arguments nor to substantiate your claim that he is a creationist or argues like a creationist. And of course, although it does not bring the debate forward, it distracts from the actual topic.

As a passing comment: I’m an atheist. I have grown up in a region of Germany where Religion didn’t have much influence. I do not know many religious people and I have never heard something that would let me believe that one of them is a creationist. I have heard of evolution long before I heard of creationism and that there are indeed stupid people who believe that an almighty beast has created Earth and all live on it in six days and has recuperated the seventh day. And because in the region of Germany, where I went to school, there was not even such thing as religious education in school, I'm not even familiar with most of religious teachings.

But that is hardly relevant. After all you are not really interested in the truth about my beliefs. You have not accused me to be a creationist because you really believe it. Not even you could be so stupid. I mean, even if I were mistaken with what I said about taxonomy, does it not mean that I am a creationist. It is not black and white. Either you know all there is to know about biology or you are a creationist.

And yet, you debate EXACTLY like a creationist - plus, you do not understand evolutionary biology.
I hardly dismissed your arguments due to that - but i will show how you and your fellow trekkies use the exact same debate techniques in a later post.



And that brings us to your failure at taxonomy:

And now a little excerpt out of my good old and trusted biology textbook:

Ordovizium (500 – 440 Millionen Jahre). Hier treten die ersten Wirbeltiere auf: gepanzerte Fische mit knorpeliger Wirbelsäule und unpaarigen Flossen.

[…]

Devon (400-345 Millionen Jahre). Erstmals treten Ammoniten und Knochenfische auf, darunter auch Quastenflosser (Crossoterygier) (s. Abb. 461.1). Die Quastenflosser sind die Ausgangsgruppe der Landwirbeltiere. Sie haben vier, durch Knochen gestützte, gequastete Flossen, die eine Fortbewegung auch auf festem Grund ermöglichen. Sie besitzen ein knöchernes Kopfskelett, Zähne, Schultergürtel und eine zur Luftatmung befähigte Schwimmblase. Gegen Ende dieses Zeitalters traten die Amphibien auf. Zu den ersten Vertretern gehört die in Grönland gefundene salamanderähnliche Ichthyostega (s. Abb. 461.2). Sie zeigt mit einer Rücken- und einer Schwanzflosse und einem fischähnlichen Gebiß einerseits noch Fischmerkmale, andererseits aber mit dem Besitz von vier fünfzehigen Extremitäten sowie einem Schulter- und Beckengürtel bereits Landwirbeltiermerkmale.



(Seite 460 f. aus Linder Biologie - Lehrbuch für die Oberstufe - von Bayrhuber und Kull - 20. Auflage - Schroedel Schulbuchverlag - ISBN 3-507-02347-4).

And another image I have found:




What was it what you have said? I can repeat it for you: » Have you ever seen a fish or amphibian? They look nothing alike, and are completely different taxonomic groups.« and »Amphibians are organisms that have an early aquatic stage in their livecycle, require a humid environment and can breath air. That directly contradicts some of the logical criteria for a categorization as a fish« and »There are no fish which would be classified as amphibia. It is remotely possible to construct a taxonomy that has a wide classification "fish" which has a subgroup that includes "amphibia" - but such a taxonomy would be bad.« and » Implying that the ancestors of Tetrapods could be classified as fish is bad enough«

Guess what - at best, you can claim that amphibians are fish, based on that.
However, that's still a failure at modern taxonomy.
The word "fish" is readily used in science - but not always taxonomically correct. What you are seeing above are classified taxonomically as fish-like organisms. They are not yet modern fish.

But more drastically, no biologist would call an fish an amphibian. That's my bloody point - by modern taxonomy, Data was WRONG.
You claimed that he used another taxonomy - such as linnean classifications. That's actually reasonable, given that they are unlikely to have evolutionary histories for every planet.
However, i showed that even by such outdated taxonomic standards, he is STILL wrong to call a fish an amphibia. They share neither the same characteristics nor do they fill the same biological niche. Your argument actually get's weaker when you try to rely on more simplistic taxonomy, since you can no longer use evolutionary ancestors.

No matter by what taxonomy, Data was WRONG. You failed to present a taxonomy where he was right, despite being challenged.

Curios that, after reading my biology textbook and other sources, I’m still convinced that it is not totally wrong and absolutely indefensible to say that fishes are underdeveloped or retarded amphibians, especially if fish-like-species would be an exception and amphibians the rule on the majority of all planets.

And it is no sound argument to say »on any planet with liquid water, life will fill that niche« when I already had written in an earlier post, that »I do not want to imply that on such planets are no animals which are living only in their oceans - but even on Earth we have many different kinds of animals living in our oceans that are no fishes « Even on planets who have oceans as Earth – and most Planets seen in Star Trek were not blue – don’t have to be fishes. There can be other species who are in their oceans that are no fishes as our oceans were filled a long time ago with many species but not one single fish, which have developed not before the Ordovizium. And even today there are other sea dwellers than fishes on Earth.

Are you sure that you are not a Creationist, assuming that evolution on each planet has to be the same because there is a greater plan behind it?

"Underdeveloped"?
There is no such thing. An organism is always adapted to it's environment (unless that changed very rapidly). At most, you can measure the grade of adaptation - but since fish are MORE adapted to living in the water all the time than amphibians, you fail again.
If you claim that the planet is in a state like the earth was when fish and amphibia separated - you are still wrong. What i said above is still true.
Typical Trek-Creationism - animals/organisms are more or less "developed" and evolved, and you can somehow rank them due to that.

Oh, and using a tactic that you just called cheap - hilarious

The only time you have more or less admitted, that you have lied, was when I caught you with your lie about your textbooks. But instead of really admitting that you have lied, you lie again by claiming that your teacher has given you notes/handouts, which must have been more detailed than not only your textbooks but also my 13th year textbooks.

Nonsense. Explaining how taxonomy works in principle took two lessons. Teachers are free to add short extracurricular lessons whenever they want.

In that context it is interesting how you write that you have misused the word textbook and that you did not want to imply that it was the textbook from your 10th class you used when writing your drivel. But when I made the argument, that if you claim me stupid and uneducated because I – according to you – didn’t even know mantle plumes or hotspots or what taxonomy is, you have, if you are consequent, to think that Data and Geordi and Picard and Julianna and Pran are stupid too, using the terms core and mantle wrong, you objected that »Making a mistake while speaking and making the same mistake while writing are two different things. In case of the former, you do not have time for research and corrections. In the case of the latter, you do.« If I take you by your word, you had enough time to research if you had used your textbooks or your notes/handouts and you had enough time to research the meaning of both terms and to correct yourself. It is after all your own benchmark I apply to what you have said.

Somehow I even doubt that taxonomy is part of the curriculum of 10th grade at all and if it is, it is only in a most simplified form (like here). Neither in Bavaria is taxonomy part of the curriculum of biology in the 10th grade [O] nor is it in Baden-Württemberg [O] or Saxony [O]. And these states are regarded as those with the most ambitious curriculum. I say it as it is: I do not believe you that you learned in your biology lessons in 10th grade such a sophisticated taxonomy.

It isn't part of the normal curriculum. So what? The standard curricula are hardly complete and are often added on by good teachers.
Given that i have only Mittlere Reife, i honestly assumed that if you take Biology in K12+13, you will learn at least some taxonomy.

I do not even believe that you are really interested in this debate. You needed less than two hours (one hour and fourteen minutes to be precise) to find out that I made a response to your last post, to read it, to think about it and to write your drivel.

Yeah, because i totally have nothing better to do

If you were really interested in a real debate, you had taken more time and thought about the imbecility you have written down before you wrote it. You would have been careful to formulate arguments instead of insults.

Hey, let's abandon important real-life issues for a online debate!

Above all, you would have done your own research to verify that your claim that the whole mantle is liquid. If you had done that, we could have saved us a lot of trouble. But that would require that you are really interested in this debate and in finding the truth (as far as the truth can be find).

I HAVE. Evidently, you do not understand that i might have a real life which makes doing so difficult.

As I have said, this is my last post. I do not continue this debate with you – if you can call it that at all. Unlike others I have not the time to sit the whole day in front of my computer and wait for a response to my posts. And when I use some of my spare time to debate for fun, I expect it to have a minimum of intellectual power and honesty.

And right after accusing me of not being interested due to simply having time restraints - you go on and say that YOU have time contraints.
Can it get any more transparent that you are chickening out?

A fortiori I will not debate with Wyrm who seems to be too lazy to go and read for himself what I have written. To participate in this debate but to read only what Serafina has quoted from me is without doubt not a method any serious scientist or even any intelligent person would apply.

Provide evi....oh, wait, you never did that, and you are a member of the Starfleetjedichickenfarm anyway.

He doesn’t even seem to be able to look for the simple term solidus curve himself and demands from me to produce this curve, with its legend. If he would be so clever as he likes to pretend, he could as easily as I have found this page from the Center for Isotope Geochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley. There it is explained that even a kindergarten child could understand it.

If challenged to provide evidence for your own argument, you have to do so. Do not demand that others do your homework for you.

But probably the experts from the Center for Isotope Geochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley are wrong too. After all, according to their solidus curve, at the depth of 200 km not even a temperature of 1.700 °C would be enough to melt the mantle rock. But that can’t be right, when it is contradicting the substantiated and well developed opinion of Serafina and Wyrm that the mantle is not solid but liquid.

Again with that assumption that the whole mantle is an uniform object, despite me specifically adressing non-uniform parts of it

I’m sure that you now will claim to be the better debater or that I have conceded or that you will continue to attack me instead of my arguments. But that’s not important. It is only important, that everyone can see how debates are conducted at SDN and this debate is a very fine example.

Hardly.
You simply are chickenshit and on the wrong side. Like in court, it is vastly easier to debate for the side with the stronger evidence. If the difference is big enough, you actually do not need very good debate skills.
I'm hardly a very good debater.

And yes, this debate is indeed a fine example - for the behavior on the chickenfarm on Starfleetjediwankers.net.

Now everyone can see what happened here and everyone can decide for oneself.

The time difference between SFJ and SDN is 4 hours. When it is 10:00 o’clock at SFJ, it is only 06:00 o’clock at SDN.

That depends on your location, unless you are not logged in.

If the links to SDN don’t work anymore, than it is further evidence for their dishonesty. If they were really interested in the truth, they wouldn’t move that thread and let it stay where everyone can read it.

Won't happen. Threads do not get deleted - at most, they are moved somewhere else, which is hardly a sign of dishonesty.


Oh, and the Cock of the Chickenfarm is saying something, too - aside from helping someone to get out of a debate he is loosing, of course.

Serafina offered an ad hominem attack to try to distract from the discussion at hand, and it worked - you responded to the attack with details about yourself. Calling someone uneducated is both a good distraction and a good way to fish for more information.

Ah, the good, old "insult=ad hominem" drivel.
And i would gather that not adressign something is vastly superior to some insults, don't you agree? Oh, wait, you are a miss-manners chicken.

[Serafina]

The moron here is YOU, and not only are you the moron but you are a arrogant moron who it too stupid to understand how moronic you are.

EVERY calculation you have done you havev screwed up, every bit of material you have posted is from another person OR shows the opposite of what you actually ibntended.

Ah, so my calculations were wrong? Then why did you never debunk them?
My original calculation used a wrong assumption to determine the release of light. That was subsequently corrected by a member of SD.Net, and later refined by another member of SD.Net.
If the calculations are wrong, debunk them

But like the raving obsessed idiot you are you continue to berate me and others claiming we are the very thing you are.

You are quite simply a living breathing text book example of the Dunning–Kruger effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

READ THOSE LINKS CAREFULLY AND TAKE A DEEP BREATH BECAUSE IT DESCRIBES YOU PERFECTLY.

Oh no! Internet psychology! Performed by a 40-year old gardener!!
Guess what - psychology is difficult. No one who knows anything about it would diagnose someone based on some internet posts.
Furthermore, i readily admit when i am wrong, do not claim to have extraordinary skill and respect those who have it.
You evidently do not, but that hardly makes me arrogant.

You lies about being in transition are pitiful and just a excuse to spit venom at those it baits into making a negative or sarcastic comment....see above for the level of sophistication your ploy has.

Ah, yes, of course i must be lying if something is inconvenient for you!
Here are some posts that show that you are wrong (all publicly accessible).
I did not made this up, and i never would.

Evidently, you are grasping at straws to show how i am lying about myself, even when i am clearly not.

YET AGAIN, il mention that il discuss anything i damn well please when i please and do not require the permission of a arrogant liar who cannot even get his own math right while berating others about how SIMPLE it is.

Please refer back to the top of the post for a explanation why.....

The math itself is simple. I did not know how to correctly perform black-body-radiation calculations, but that hardly means they use complicated math.
And your insistence that you can discuss something without a theory to defend get more and more hilarious.

What part of "they STOP, they move sideways and take cover, then THEY RETREAT/MOVE BACKWARDS".....was too difficult for you to understand??????????.

But then you know i said that and it has liklely filtered through even your skull that the video shows exactly that so instead of trying to defend it you attack me.......pitiful, obvious and lets face it TOTALLY predictable from a warsie SDN member.

Please refer back to the top of the post for a explanation why.....

Clearly you do not understand how to use evidence.

1: Mr X speaks 15,000 times in the Trek verse.
2: Mr X got something extremely simple very wrong on numerous occasions.
3: Therefore, we do not know whether he is correct on more complex things.

Where does it presume that Mr X is wrong on every occasion?
NOWHERE!

Concession accepted.

But my theory doesn't rely on him being wrong all the time. It merely states that he is fallible (and doesn't rely on it). He clearly is.

From what i can see adding rules making demands and claiming that a debate was agreed to or in progress, then acting like the rules ect have been broken and calling it a win is the new warsie tqactic?

I have heard of moving the goal posts but creating the game, setting the rules and building the goal posts and demanding that a player is already half way through a game is a all new level of arrogance for thinking it would not be noticed and stupidity for thinking it would be tolerated.

But then the Dunning–Kruger effect pretty much explains why you do all that.

Adding rules? So demanding evidence and the duty to do so is a rule i added now?
In any debate, you are supposed to present evidence. You do not, ever - well, at the beginning you tried, but that got debunked quickly.

All those rules you bleat on about for starters.

You have done nothing but make yourself look like a arrogant idiot with the emotional control of a child.

So you don't actually know the difference. How about using Wikipedia to find it out?

Now he's adressing JediMasterSpock:

While doing so, the topic is no longer about Wong's claims or Kennedy's claims. I agree with Roondar here; even though I would be surprised if an objective comparison of credentials between W.I.L.G.A. and Serafina would fail to favor W.I.L.G.A. by a large margin (simply having gotten an Abitur would put W.I.L.G.A. on par with the average SDN resident, and W.I.L.G.A. has rather more than that), it's generally not a productive line of discussion.

The math and science sefrina preaches about being "so easy" and calls others idiots for not showing are not supprisingly BEYOND HIS abilities even when referancing text books because both times HE has done what HE calls "SIMPLISTIC" calculations with them HE has screwed them up and come to faulty conclusions (in favour of the wongite view obviously)...

A calculation can be very simplistic, but one can fail to use the correct formula or make false assumptions.
Not to mention that you never corrected anything, and that other "warsies" did so - another creationist tactic, as i will explain later on.

Now, back to me apparently.

I merely mocked AVOCADO for his ignorance of things he should have learned back in school.

Hippocracy of the highest level considering your screwups on what you refer too as "basic math".

I didn't screw up the math. Apparently, you do not understand what math even is.

Closer examination of the light clearly shows that it is not blue sky.

Huh?
Where does that tanget come from again? Oh, right, you are grasping at straws.

TRANSLATION:

You have to provide a explanation that i will accept and il never accept anything that does not serve my bias, do not forget that i am so arrogant i think my opinion can over ride canon and so stuid i fail at the basic math i berate and insult others about......

If i do not except something you say, i show why i think it's wrong.


Now he's starting to repeat himself for some reason:

Here you are sefrina a perfect description of you:

Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;

Already addressed that - internet psychology doesn't work.

Still its not all doom and gloom:

4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve.

So i would suggest you leave your comfort zone in SDN as they are stunting your growth intellectually, emotionally and socially.

Get out a little on other boards where you cannot hide behind arrogance, ignorance and abuse i promise you that you will be better off for it in the long run although i doubt you will accept the fact you need it BADLY.

Perhaps even avoiding forums all together and going out socialising in person would help, it would at least show you how your behaviour and attitude towards ppl who do not agree with you will cause them to react when you speak to them in person the way you do on a forum.

What makes you think SD.Net is the only board where i am? Or that i am not socializing with anybody? Or that i employ the same attitude towards people in real life?
Oh, right, grasping at straws again.


Note that his whole post (well, actually two) was a giant ad-hominem attack - dismissing my arguments because of who i am.

And because he still seems to be to blind to get a challenge:
Come out, Kor - come out and debate, you coward!

[Serafina]

I pointed out they were wrong every time you posted them.

Claiming that they are wrong and showing that and how they are wrong are two different things.

Anybody can post images to reinforce a lie.

But regardless it is not inconvienient for me that i just do not believe you, but HE/SHE or liar the fact is that i had you pegged when i said you posted like a juvinille male.

Ah, so not you claim that my evidence must be a lie?

Here, how about that?
http://images.lokalisten.de/photos/a-ga ... 69299l.jpg
There we go. And now i had to make a terrible photo of myself due to some idiotic bigot.
An idiot who was too stupid to think about the possible outcomes
-either i am lying - but what could you possible gain by showing that, except an ad hominem attack?
-or i am not - and then it's trivially easy to show that i am not lying, and you are shown to be the bigot you are.

Are you STILL going to claim that i am lying? If not, how about an appology?

See above about my comment on your posting style.......

This 40 year old gardener had you personality type nailed early in this discussion.

Personality type?
Ah, the typical bigot way of thinking - everyone can be put into a nice little box, right?

And yet i nailed your personality type and maturity easily enough.

Here we go about the "personality type" again
And maturity? Puh-lease, why should i be mature about an inherently immature subject?
And for what possible reason should i hold back with insults on someone who claims that i am a biased fraud? Those are also insults - and so is not adressing points, altering your opponents post and making strawman attacks out of them.

Actually i said you were wrong and you unleashed a torrent of foul abuse, a warsie said you were wrong and you pretty much bent over and started looking for a new excuse.........like trying to find other scenes that could be used to make the roids larger and faster......

Yes, that's what intelligent people do when they are shown that they are wrong - they change their position accordingly.
And no calculation showed that the asteroid impacts effects were not the result of KE. Another blatant lie.

And yet you screwed it up, by YOUR OWN MEASURE you qualify as a idiot

Do i REALLY have to explain this?
Suppose you make a measurement and then some calculations. The calculations can be perfectly correct, but the result can still be wrong due to measurement errors.
Suppose you take a premise (such as: light output is roughly comparable to a very inefficient light source) and then do a calculation - same thing, isn't it?

Your theory does not just rely on him being fallable, it relies on him being worng, geordie being wrong, the scientists on the planet being wrong and them continuing to be wrong while the phasers are being adjusted and while they are being fired. Also it relies on the computer readings from the E-D to be wrong and or misread by several ppl several times during the episode.

Quite simply your entire theory relies on all that and the fact it is all a main plot.

Wrong in one instance, yes. So what? If the laws of nature say that something is impossible, do you believe it just because a bunch of people say so?
I suppose you believe in miracle healing, too

And yet again i remind you this is not a debate and i was discussing evidence before you butted in..

Hey, shithead - if you do not want to debate with me, quit it. No one forces you to respond to me.
But if you actually want to defend something, you need a theory to defend. That's incredibly obvious.

But thanks for admitting that you do not want to debate and thus concede all your arguments for now.

Well i suppose you are on the perfect website to show a example of how making false assumptions can lead to worthless results.

Except that the assumptions are not wrong. But of course, you are on a Scotter Cocksucker website, where you believe in the insane ramblings of a guy who actually has the audacity to tell LucasArts AND Paramount that he knows their canon policies better than they do

It is the thing you failed at.

Nope, the math itself is correct, as i explained - oh, about three or four times now.

And yet i was totally correct when i said you posted like a petulant juvinille male if we are to assume your images are not just their to reinforce a long term lie but either way i had you pegged.

HE/SHE or just a lying juvinille fool your posting style is easy to figure a personality type from.

Ah, so you think gender can be purely determined by a single piece of behaviour such as posting style?
And ever woman who "posts like a male" must be lying about her gender? And you say that you are not a sexist bigot?

But please, explain to me what a "male posting style" is. I'm sure we'll all have a good laugh.

1. SDN is setup perfectly for personality types like you, its rules actually promote the unleasing of abuse and i recall a part that actually tries to justify it by using a absurd story regarding saving a baby of all things (a result that could have been achieved without a single bit of foul abuse). If anything the individual in the story would have become more aggressive and stubborn after being spoken to that way instead of being reasoned with or even been told that the authorities would be informed.

Personalty types again.
And what's wrong with verbal some abuse of stupid people? Do you actually think we behave like that all the time, or towards everyone?

2. Anybody is a over simplification, you need to broaden your social interaction to include those whpo do not share or support your beliefs or your rather obvious issues will just increase.

Ah, so you think i interact only with people who think exactly like i do?
I guess you must be psychic or something - how else could you know the people i interact with?

3. If you did you would not have a social life because nobody would want to spend time wil a person who spews out a torrent of foul abuse towards those who will not obey them, calls ppl idiots while at the same time qualifying as a idiot by the very rules you apply to do so.

Ah, so you admit that you were lying when you were implying that i behave like that all the time?

Quite simply you are showing classic signs of personal frustration and anger on a unimportant issue by spewing out your abuse in a consequense free environment, your attitude and behaviour would not be tolerated for any amount of time in a public social environment. You could get lucky and find those who would be willing to try and help you for a time but if you did not show signs of change you would be shunned or get the occasional ass kicking for being a general dick in regards to your attitude towards others..

Hey, retard - you can not judge a person by observing her in a single event. No one who knows anything about psychology would do that. Else i could easily conclude that all sport fans are raving lunatics when they scream at every goal and spew foul language when their team makes a mistake.

Oh, and you have clearly never met a kind, caring person. Have you ever dealt with someone with borderline (BPD)?
I have, i deal with them regulary (i do not have it myself) - and guess what, they can be much worse than what we have here. And people are willing to deal with them regardless.



Conclusion:
Kor has to claim that i am lying about my gender, since he can not admit that he is wrong. I don't know why he did that in the first place, he either had to find some cheap personal attack, is a raving bigot or just plain stupid.
I guess he won't apologize, in which case he IS a bigot.
He thinks he can psychoanalyze people due to a single thread, and thinks he can safely determine a persons gender by her posting behaviour in a single thread. The latter is pretty much proof that he thinks pretty stereotypically of genders - in other words, he behaves like a sexist.

In four words: A failed ad hominem.


Come out, Kor - come out and debate, you coward!



Semi-edit: Photo linked, because it looks really terrible.

[Serafina]

Ah, so no apology. What a shocking surprise

i did not say MUST be a lie ..., i said COULD be a lie....

Yeah, pretty much everything anyone on the internet says could be a lie.
Your point being? Oh, right, you try to weasel out of this, bigot. You are still treating me as male, you are still assuming that i am lying.

Bigot?, now theres a burden of proof id like to see just cos i called you a liar on several subjects including this one....chip on shoulder much?.

Evidence?
Pretty damn simple - you assumed that i am not female based on nothing but my behavior in a single thread.
I would call that pretty bigoted.

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Fit's pretty damn well. You are pretty devoted to your prejudice, since you continue to uphold it even in the face of strong evidence.

Oh dear here we go again with a no limit fallacy....look pal i was right about your posting style being distinctly like a adolescent male, but that does not mean i am interested or care past the fact i was correct at least in terms of your emotional state.

Given that you provided no evidence, and that posting style doesn't determine gender, you are not correct at all.
"Because i say so" is no evidence.

My opinion of your honesty has been a issue on several subjects including this one, but again you choose to focus on the rather large sexual orentation chip on your shoulder?.

Ah, ignorance. Transsexuality has nothing to do with sexual orientation, bigot.
And YOU chose to bring it back up again. I dropped it because it was becoming quite silly last time. I'm just showing that you are wrong.

If you do i suggest you check with a non-idiot warsie first to correct any errors...

I'm pretty sure someone would have corrected me on any critical errors, given that it has been done so twice before.

Well considering i did id say yes.

Ah, so you admit that you are a sexist bigot who thinks that anyone should conform to your personal stereotypes?

I never said every nor would i, but in your case i was bang on correct.

Ah, so you conveniently forgot about the evidence i posted earlier?
Listen, bigot - i AM a woman. That that doesn't fit in your little wank-filled brain is not my damn problem.

It is not just about a "male" posting style it is about attitude and what you focused on and how you did things over all....id say more of a angry or frustrated adolescent male posting style.

It is a over all impression i got from your posts, i cannot really select a sentance or a few words that gave me the indication as it was a overall impression i got...and it turned out correct.

Ah, so...because you say so.
Yes, that's very astute evidence indeed.
Of course, given that you are a self-admitted sexist bigot, your personal impression isn't worth a damn.

You tell me as you are the one howling bigotry over me calling you a liar on several subjects when only one has anything to do with any particular trait.

You seem to have a prejudice against those with a low IQ, the use of the words idiot, stupid, moron even retard and the fact you verbally abuse them and find it ok to do so is quite disgusting and repulsive considering the mental age and abilities of those who fall into that bracket.

Do you verbally abuse the physically disabled as well as the mentally disabled or does your bigotry only extend to slurs of the mentally disabled nature?.

Hippocrite.

I would never condem someone for being who he/she is. That does include a low IQ.
Stupidity has nothing to do with a high or low IQ - it is about behavior. A person with a low IQ can pretty damn well learn not to make stupid comments.
Of course, you can not provide any evidence where i ever attacked someone with an actual mental handicap. I mock you because you BEHAVE stupid, while you try to mock me for who i am.
But you have propably never dealt with, say, a child who is handicapped enough that he will never learn to read, write or proceed beyond a mental age of five. You have never dealt with a 92 year old woman whose mind has regressed do far that she is about nine years old again, and who has such severe dementia that she will forget the plate in front of her, or to eat while her spoon is right in front of her mouth.
I have, even tough it was limited to school practicals. I am not scared by this, i am not saddened by this - then despite their handicaps, these people can still be pretty damn happy, polite, nice and joyful. I prefer their company to any damn bigot like you, thank you very much.

Oh i am sure those who agree with you are spared your disgusting slurs about mental disability.

Of course, given that i never made them. I mock behavior of people who could do better, but choose not to do so.

I doubt you subject others in direct social environments to the abuse you do on here just because they disagree with you....i do not need to be pstcic to know that.

Oh, you would actually be wrong. If someone makes a serious scientific blunder, i insist on correcting them.
Of course, i am very well capable to do this in a polite and inoffensive manner - but why should i invest that into a bigot like you?

If you are lying or not does not matter, if you are in transition i was right as you are a girl posting like a guy and if you are not in transition you are lying and i saw right.....

Evidence. I posted it.
You posted none for the former and ignored mine for the latter of your statements.

1. You are a guy lying about being in transition = i right about your posting style.

2. You are a guy in transition = i am still right about your posting style.

Result = im right and you are either a liar or you have a chip on your shoulder.............get over it.

You did not get over it.
The first case has been soundly disproven. You continue to use it, making you even more of a bigot.
The second case shows extreme intolerance. You can not judge someones gender by her behavior in a single thread, and even if you could it would be pretty much the lowest of all possible personal attacks i can think about.

I have made NO sexual slurs regarding your claimed transition i mearly said i think you are a liar....that does not make me a bigot.

YOU however feel it is ok to make direct and personal slurs against the mentally disabled or impared.

You claimed i was lying solely because you think you can determine someones gender on posting behavior alone!
That's pretty damn stereotypical thinking if you ask me. And stereotypical, prejudiced people who defend those POVs are generally called bigots.

And i challenge you to provide evidence where i EVER attacked someone for a genuine mental handicap. Note that attacking stupid posting doesn't count - that's a behavior. Heck, i would actually stop if someone told me that he has such a handicap (say, Dyslexia, BPS or pretty much anything else).

Proven at least as far as you are concerned as i figured you out within a few posts.

You did NOT determine my gender, bigot.
You falsely figured that i am male, even tough i am not.
Stop lying.

Q: Kor do you think steryotypes exist within social groups, genders, ect ect.

A: Yes, steryotypes exist for a reason and that reason is becase in any of and kind of group be is social or any other there will exista percentage of ppl who behave in a uniform way.

Defending stereotypes. Strike one.
Pretty much everyone has stereotypes. Some people are not capable of looking beyond them. I call those people intolerant bigots.

Q: So does this mean you think that ALL the members of said group what ever it is ALL behave that way.

A: Of course not although it is a popular tactic of those with a chip on their shoulder about perhaps having certain steryotypical attrbutes to claim that somebody noticing them and pointing them out is a howling bigot ect ect.

And you see nothing wrong with continuing regardless? Strike Two.
Any decent person would not have used that as a constant insult. Noticing it and pointing it out, explaining why you observed it etc. is something else entirely.

For example if i saw a guy dressed up in a drag queen costume walking a pink poodle and talking and behaving in a over the top camp style i do not feel that thinking he may be homosexual or of a cross gender orentaiton would make me a bigot. I certainly would not hate him or feel any thing negative towards his lifestyle choice and i would find it very odd if he was offended for me assuming such.

I was not offended because you tought i posted in a "masculine style" here. I was offended because you tried to use it as an insult! Strike three.
In your example, you are constantly throwing your perceived stereotype at that persons head, trying to aggravate him/her. And then you would point out that that person obviously has a "chip on his/her shoulder", so you are right to do it!

But then that person would obviously be comfortable with his lifestyle choice and confidant enough to likely not care if i was correct or not. I can verify this as i am describing a very good friend of mine who i knew years ago when i lived in Bath, he took great pleasure in taking me into the gayest bars in Bath...the "Bath Tap" being his favorite.

I see you have never been a member of any kind of minority.
You are essentially saying "if you are offended, it's your own damn fault".
Besides, stop comparing homosexuality and Transsexuality. They are two different things. Not knowing that (or even bothering to inform yourself) is further indication of your prejudice.

However those like Serafina MUST call out anybody who notices these things and openly and honestly asks the question. Then even though they turn out to be correct and make no judgments either way regarding their choice of life style she accuses them of bigotry...sickening considering his ttitude regarding the mentally impaired.

They did NOT turn out to be correct. I am not male, you never provided any explanation why you said that. For all i know, you did it because you are an intolerant, sexist bigot who likes to seriously hurt people.


Let's summarize:
-You think that it is ok to address a woman as male, even if she insists otherwise, based solely on her posting behavior.
-You think that you can determine something as complex as gender solely from observing behavior in a single instance.
-You think that stereotypes are ok.
-You think that you do not have to think outside of your stereotypes.
-Even tough i provided evidence that i am female, you still insist that i am male.
-You think that it is ok to rub something in someones face if that person is sensitive about it.
-You think that a transwoman is still male.

Looks like i was right about not joining StarFleetJedi.Net. For a forum that thinks it is polite, you have awfully bigoted people here. And that no one tells him to stop is strong evidence that you do not even care about this, most likely because i am a "Warsie".
No thanks. I will stay on Stardestroyer.Net, which is civilized enough to be tolerant.

Oh, and Kor - don't think this will scare me away, you bigoted sexist piece of lowlife excrements.

[Serafina]

Oh, in case someone notices: I am pretty agitated here. Insults WILL fly, but that hatfucker is way beyond stupidity now. He wandered straight into the territory of being a bigot who tries to claim moral superiority. Any insult i could possibly come up with is IMO far to good for him.

Considering your admitted/claimed circumstances..

I would call that pretty accurate...

Ah.
So you are an intolerant retarded bigot who thinks that a transwoman is not female.

Show how a correct observation without a negative judgement either way is intolerant or prejudiced?.

Given that you just admited that you think that i am male - yeah, fuck off, asshole.

Show ANY hatred or intolerance for your admitted/claimed circumstances i have shown?....
Unable to do either...i guess you are wrong then...

How about shoving it down my throat that you think that i am male all the bloody time?

You provided that by claiming you are in transition.....so "because YOU said so" is from the hourses mouth.

Yeah, and you still claim that you are tolerant?

NO LIMIT FALLACY ALERT!!!!.

Nope, i was just pointing out that i was correct in regards to yours.

You don't even know what a no limit fallacy is, you little twerp.
You were NOT correct.

Heck, even if you were correct - i have no bloody problem with someone pointing someone like that out (your claimed male posting style).
But that's not what you are doing. No, you try to use it as a weapon in a debate about something that is damn bloody unimportant. That's like taking someones disability and doing the same thing, you arrogant little bigot.

Perhaps but you post like a adolescent male.

No, not perhaps. And now shut the fuck up, you clueless imbecile.

And yet it was accurate in your case.

You are really desperate, are you? You are so incapable to find anything where i am actually wrong, that you had to seize the one thing were you think your were right and other would agree, didn't you?
Well, guess what, you little nazi - you ain't gonna be so lucky. Not only won't this win you any bloody actual arguments, but if there are any persons with even a hint of morality on your forum you just destroyed your own damn reputation.

Rght so you accept disgusting predjudicial intelectual slurs like MORON or RETARD being used against those who are not and consider it fine and dandy.

But you lose it when somebody who is not gay ect is called a faggot or another homosexual slur?..

BIGOTTED HIPPOCRITE!!!!!!!.

Guess what - there is a bloody difference, and you are to much of an self-centered shielded aging bigot to realize it.
You can change what you say. Everyone can work on his intelligence and knowledge.
I can NOT change who i am.
There is a damn bloody fucking reason why one does not mock people for something they can not change. It's called tolerance. I hope no one has any left for you, because you clearly fall in the former category - you could change yourself, but you don't want to.

RIIIGHT, so all the slurs you used BEFORE you decided to pull this crap about being a bigot will require editing bud.

Still not getting the damn difference, don't you?
No, you even think that pointing out something that seems obvious (at least to a little bigot like you) is not even an insult. Fuck off.

I have mode no predjudicial remarks regarding you.

Oh, really? Well, let's summarize:
-You thought that i was a biological female originally, and hence used the proper terms.
-Then you thought that you could judge ones gender based on her posting behavior. That's already prejudicial, since your are judging while lacking proper knowledge. And guess what a prejudice is - it's premature judging.
-When i gave you a good reason to stop (me being transsexual), you seized upon that opportunity - because you think that a transwoman is male! Thats one more prejudice.
-You are still holding onto that prejudice - and you can no longer blame it on thinking that i am just pretending.

So go fuck off, hatemonger.

How would you know you had not over the years you have posted such disgusting comments?, and how does not doing so make the use of such disgusting slurs OK?. You know by doing so you are supporting the attitudes and actions of those who do right?.

How do you feel the mentally ill feel when they read your foul and bigotted posts?..

Is it ok for me to use homosexual slurs against non-homosexuals or would i be perpetuating a outdated, intolerant and disgracful type of attitude?.

BIGGOTED HIPPOCRITE!!!!!.

Hey, guess what you bigoted Trektard.
If i KNOW someone has a mental handicap, i act accordingly - by treating him with the respect he deserves.
You KNOW that i am a woman - and you do not do the same. On the contrary, that even reinforced your attacks!

So don't you dare to claim that this is comparable. If i would EVER accidentally insult someone with a mental handicap (the insult being related to it), i would APOLOGIZE.
I already offered you an opportunity to apologize, and you spat at it, you imbecilic retarded hatmonging bigot.

You did NOT determine my gender, bigot.
You falsely figured that i am male, even tough i am not.
Stop lying

You admit to being in transition, my comment regarding you post a bit like a adolesant guy under the circumstances was quite insightful.

Oh, fuck off. I am NOT male, as everyone who as even the slightest clue about Transsexuality knows. Calling me male is the damn worst bloody insult you can throw at me. Actually, i would forgive you if it happened accidentally, i would probably not even point it out when it happens due to adressing people as male by default (due to not knowing better).
But you are an unapologetic bigot - you are even PROUD of it!

1. Pretty much everyone has stereotypes.

2. Some people are not capable of looking beyond them.

3. I call those people intolerant bigots.

1. Exactly what i said.
2. True.
3. So do i.

Really?
Then why are you 1: seeing transwoman as males by default (which is a stereotype, and a bad one).
2: incapable of looking beyond that stereotype
3: and are even PROUD of it!?

A person without a chip on HIS shpoulder would brush it off....no woman i know would do anything but laugh off being told she posted a little like a bloke....in fact t is your EMORAGE regarding it that was one of the indicators i mentioned .

Yeah, because most woman have at most to deal with sexist bigots like you.
They do not have to defend their bloody identity against brainrotted bigots like you. Do you have ANY idea what this is like?

And decent person would not use constant slurs that insult every mentally ill or impared person reading your posts as well as any family members i or others may have suffering from such.

You are not mentally ill - you are merely a bigot of the worst sort.
That deserves far more ridicule than my limited knowledge of the english language is capable of. Heck, i doubt one language would suffice.

In your example, you are constantly throwing your perceived stereotype at that persons head, trying to aggravate him/her. And then you would point out that that person obviously has a "chip on his/her shoulder", so you are right to do it!

Take what you wrote above and insert the relavant parts with mentally ill/handicapped comments....recognise a style?...

Yeah, except that i do not DO that.
I insult voluntarily stupid people. You are not only that, but a proud bigot too!

If i was id not tell you or use it like a weapon like you do.

More like YOU do, since you do it all the bloody time.

No im not, in fact if YOU are offended at me calling you a HE then im glad because im doing it deliberatly and in equal amounts to your mentally impaired insults...did you not notice the correlation?.

Fuck off. Just fuck off.
You do not understand anything - or even worse, you do not want to. Any decent person would not do what you are doing right now. Any intelligent person would recognize that calling someone stupid has nothing to do with mistreating mentally handicapped people.

Perhaps you are not male but from what you say you spent a reasonable percentage of your life as one or at least being treated as one, that sort of input is going to leave residual emotional and or attitudes more associated with males at younger ages.

Wow, a halfway decent sentence. Could it be that you are not as bigoted as i tought?

Well i can honestly say i do not care about your history, gender or sexual preferance, but because of your constant use of slurs regarding the mentally inpaired or ill and the fact it is a touchy subject i will continue to call you a HE while you use them.

Oh, wait - you are still as stupid as ever.

In most cases i would not bother but i know how much it pisses you off due to your circumstances so its the perfect counter point to your disgusting mentally handicapped slurs...

Own medicine not taste so good huh?..

Still bloody stupid.

Nope not a single instance but i do get a distinct "adolesant male" vibe from your attutude...explained perhaps by you being raised as a male if your "transition" claiom is true.

Ah, still claiming that my claims are not true. Damn, i sure hope for you that ignorance is actually bliss - then again, not.

I think they exist and i do not care how a person acts if it makes them happy and does not hurt anybody.

Yeah, YOU are hurting me right now. So go fuck off, asshole.

Now that is a big leap and not true at all.

Yeah, right, that explains you calling me male all the time - not.

I said your posts had a male vibe about them....easily explained by your claimed history as i mentioned above.

Yeah - and pretty damn hurtful, too.

Remember all those times i pointed out my dislike of foul language and insults?....how does a taste of your own medicine feel?......id suggest not bleeding in public in future.

Oh, stop trying to use that as an apology. Every decent person on this goddamn planet knows the difference.

Now that is a interesting question.

Do i think a fully transitioned woman is still a male?.......id have to say NO a fully transitioned woman is as much a woman as any other woman.

But then are you fully transitioned emotionally.......i do not think so, your attitude in regards to the subject is still very raw and you lack the sort of acceptance that comes with contentment of ones self and place.

Yeah, so you actually think that you have to fully transition - and then you might be merciful and perceive me as female. Oh thank you, how generous. Except that people like you are still bloody bigots.
Oh, and nice stereotype about how every part of my emotional behaviour MUST BE female in order to be accepted as female. Do you apply that to biological woman to, you sexist bigot?

You do not just think they can read and see that you are a emotionally unstable individual who is getting a small taste of the toxic medicine you have spewed from the begining of this little discussion.

Tell you what. When you are ever harrased for being a white christian male - come back and tell me how easy it is it to remain completely emotionally stable.
Tell me after you have been poked into the biggest wound in your whole life for fun. What you are doing is worse than mocking me for my dead mother. It's as bad as mocking someone for being sexually abused.

Fuck off. You have NO IDEA how much your insults hurt. Compared to that, calling someone stupid is nothing. Especially if the shoe does not fit - but your insults do.

Unless you have a mental illness/disability or a friend/family member with one then it is a very upsetting place to even visit.

Oh, bullshit. You know nothing about me or SD.Net. You don't even know what tolerance is.

YOU GO GIR..opps i mean GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!.

You seriously think that's funny, do you?
God, i can't imagine how someone can be so damn tasteless.

Fuck off, Kor. I had to restrain myself just to type it, lest i might not even see the damn keyboard. You are an unapologetic bigot who likes to use that as weapon. You are THE WORST person i have ever met on the internet, and i have met people who would love to see me rot in prison or to kill me outright.
At least these people admitted what they thought. They were honest. You are a dirty little piece of goatshit who thinks that he is tolerant.




Damn, i really had to vent that. It doesn't feel any better tough

[Srelex]

I can't help but admire your persistence with these fuckbrains. It's like sceaming at a boulder.

[Serafina]

Ah, Avocado is back.
And Avocado, i apologize in advance - you might get some flak that i do not deserve, i am still pretty upset.

As far as I know, the legal situation regarding transsexuality is clearly regulated in the Transsexuellengesetz (transsexual-law) in Germany.

Neither a transman nor a transwoman can demand to be addressed as if they have the by their transsexuality imprinted gender.

No, i can't demand it legally yet. I can not even demant it from anyone but from goverment officials (Beamte, andere öffentliche angestellte). Little bigots like Kor can call me whatever they like - and i can't even sue them for bloody insults reliably, depending on the judge.
But what about basic decency? Does that have to be dictated by the law now?

For the first, according to § 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 and 2 TSG, two medical estimates are necessary which have to confirm that

the transsexual imprinting of the person in question causes the person to feel to belong to the other gender than the gender that was registered at the birth of this person and that the person acts under duress to live accordingly to this conception for at least the three last years and

that the sentiment to belong to the other gender than the gender that was registered at the birth will probably not change any more.

Sorry, you are wrong. That's about changing my first name legally, and thanks to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (supreme court) that also changes how you have to address me. The gender is also changed in all papers but the birth certificate.

To get a declaration about the gender, the person in question, according to § 8 Abs. 1 TSG has,

in addition to the above listed requirements,

to be incapable of reproduction and

has to have undergone a surgery that adapts the appearance to the by their transsexuality imprinted gender considerable.

Unlike for transman, for a transwoman that means also the adaption of the genitals according to several court decisions because these are regarded as reasonable for transwoman.

Yeah. But that only affects the birth certificate nowadays, and is only relevant for marriage and a few other things.
It means that i can't have children, ever. Lovely, isn't it?
And yes, i COULD have children - i have frozen sperm in advance. But if the child is born within 300 days of any of those two steps, it will be revoked.

According to the insofar unambiguous law, a transsexual has no right to demand to be addressed as if the transsexual has the by their transsexuality imprinted gender but has to be addressed as if the transsexual has the gender that was registered at the birth.

Cut the fucking legalism. Not only did you fail to read important court rules on that law, but it has NOTHING to do with decency and how a decent person should address me. Are you honestly trying to defend that bigot?

There seems to be a few court decisions who are saying that the change of the name is enough to be addressed accordingly to the name (e.g. Miss Erika Mustermann instead of Mister Erika Mustermann). But these decisions have no precedence. In Germany a court decision is effective only in the decided case. And considering that these decisions are not reconcilable with the law, I wouldn’t attach importance to them.

Bullshit. And you claim that you have studied law?
These decisions were made by the bloody BVerfG (supreme court again). You claim to be a lawyer and do not understand legal precedence? Or the significance of a Grundsatzentscheidung?

The bottom line is that the person who is called Serafina can only demand to be addressed as if he or she is female, when a court has decided so (or if a female gender was registered at the birth).

What the person who is called Serafina wishes is irrelevant.

That means that if the person who is called Serafina can produce a court decision or a birth certificate which declares that this person is female, then you should respect it.

Otherwise you are more than entitled to address this person, who has admitted to be a transwoman, as male.

Spare me your legalism.

And let me take back the apology i gave above. You do not only not understand legal precendence (called Präzedenzfall - rings a bell?), but you are defending a bigot who has absolutely no respect for transgendered people and is even proud of it.
You might not use insults, but this is FAR worse.


Kor_Bigot_Master again:

Careful dude he has a tendancy to take photos and link em as proof :O.....lol.

Your wish is my command. NSFW, not mine obviously.
Fuck you, Bigot Master.

[Serafina]

I can't help but admire your persistence with these fuckbrains. It's like sceaming at a boulder.

It's personal now. I don't really care about STvsSW, but i DO care about bigots like that.


AVOCADO:

I didn't say that he has to prove to you that he has been neutered and had a penectomy. That's the proof a court has to demand before it can decide.

For you it should be enough if he produces the court decision or the birth certificate.

Even a copy of his Personalausweis (identity card) should be enough.

Please don't ask for more.

You actually think that is is a reasonable demand to hand out a copy of my bloody identity card online?

Oh, and gender reassignment surgery is not a damn penectomy. It creates a virtually indistinguishable vagina (even gynaecologist often can't tell the difference).

Kor_Bigot_Master:

Im not asking for anything and in fact could not care less about gender, sexual orientation or any other aspect of his or her personal life.

I do however consider insults that are about mental illness or mental disabilities are just as bad as homophobic or other simular slurs regarding gender or choices regarding personal behaviour.

As such giving this unpleasant individual a taste of his/her own medicine seemed appropriate after several warnings and requests to stop doing so were given and ignored....she/he even had the nerve to defend such disgusting slurs such as "retard" and "moron" ect.

I already adressed that several times, but let me reiterate it:

There is a bloody difference. I am insulting people who are NOT mentally handicapped. My insults do therefore NOT strike true. These people might feel insulted, but they are stupid by choice.
YOU are insulting a person who struggles to be accepted in her true gender. You insults DO strike true. The only thing i could do about that is growing a very thick skin - and even that is not perfect. The insults would still hurt.

That's a difference. It's huge.
Fuck off, bigot.

[Wyrm]

You ignore in what context what was written. Wyrm was it who has said »Oh the irony! First off, if the mantle were solid, it could not convect and generate tectonics — including earthquakes. It is plastic, able to conduct S-waves, but not fully solid in that it will deform under any continuous pressure, slowly.«. I responded to his claim that the mantle is not solid but plastic. Then it is not wrong to show that a plastic property does not exclude (but demands) a solid state.

And then I demanded you produce the solidus curve that you claim shows that the mantle is fully solid, and not some in-between state that materials exhibit under extreme conditions like the lower mantle. Your answer to that was a resounding silence. That silence screams much louder than any argument could have made.

There is more to condensed matter physics than your simple-minded solid/liquid/gas/plasma partitions. The mantle is one of them. If you want another, look up "supercritical fluid."

[Serafina]

AVOCADO again. Why isn't there a barfing smiley?

I just read Serafina's last post.

I do not understand why he is so angry. I mean the saying »We reap what we sow« has much truth in it.

If insults are exchanged, one has no reason to be surprised if the situation escalates. That's only to be expected.

Fuck you.
There is a bloody difference between insulting me for who i am, and me insulting someone for acting stupid.

Do you honestly find it ok to attack minorities for who they are? Seriously?

And to complain that the one insult is worse than the other insult is ludicrous because it is always a question how an insult is received.

Yeah, fuck you. If you honestly can't see the difference here, then you are no better than Kor_Bigot_Master.

An insult about the intelligence or education can be worse for some people than an insult about their gender or sexual orientation, while it may be the other way for other people.

Yeah, if someone calls you a woman you'll be hardly offended. Because it happens once and has no further consequence. For me, it has.
Guess what - i have to worry about getting called a man every damn bloody fucking day of my life. It happened for most of my damn life. It HURTS. Imagine everyone at work calls you a woman every fucking day. Imagine your family does it. Your friends. Do you would get agitated if some random hatfucker on the internet did it too under those circumstances?
Luckily, my life doesn't suck as much as implied above. Not anymore. Because i fought for it. Did you ever have to fight for anything like that in your life? And with "fight" i do not mean "work hard" but "risk getting shunned by people you love" and "suffer emotional mistreatment".

Fuck off, AVOCADO. If you actually are a lawyer, i hope someone fires your damn emotionless ass and revokes your license. You deserve it for not understanding legal precedence alone.

And usually, if one tries to insult someone, one tries to hurt by saying something which is assumed to be able to hurt. It's not necessary to believe the things one says to insult someone. Only a very stupid person would conclude that the one who tries to insult someone has to believe what was said in the attempt of an insult. A clever person, who wants to insult someone, does not wonder what would insult oneself but what would insult the one who is supposed to get insulted. And these can even be things which oneself does not really believe in.

Yeah, there are borders for everything. Mocking someone and hurting someone are two different things. I would NEVER attack someone with something that has any chance of hurting even remotely like this.
It's a fucking difference for attacking someone what he did in his posts, or to attack someone for being who she is.

Maybe Serafina learns now why in civilised circles the exchange of insults are frowned upon and that such conduct is not suitable to further a debate.

Oh, fuck off. Fuck off with your golden mean fallacy. And spare me your holier than thou attitude.
Calling me male under the current circumstances crosses every fucking border. It's more of an insult than idiot could ever be.


I'm disgusted by you and by Kor. You literary make my physically sick. You are two emotionless trolls who apparently love to batter minorities for disagreeing with them. And apparently, your oh-so-holy board has no problem with attacks on minorities. Really impressive, fucktards. You claim to be polite, but you are not better than SD.Net. You are WORSE, because what the two fucktards are pulling off here would get them banned there and pretty much everywhere else.

But go on. Continue your reckless assault. Continue to parade your intolerance. Continue to be bigots. Be proud of it. Claim that you are justified. Claim that you are superior. Claim that i am inferior.
Be the bigots that you are.
You can hurt me, but you can't break me. And with a little bit of luck, someone will kick your asses for this.
You lost your arguments, and you damn well know it. Resorting to verbal violence and abuse won't safe you.

Fuck off, inbred intolerant goatfucking retards.

[Serafina]

AVOCADO again.

Annotation to what I have written here:

If the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany had decided, that the change of the name is enough to be addressed accordingly to the name (e.g. Miss Erika Mustermann instead of Mister Erika Mustermann), it would be binding.

But the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany decides in more than thousand of cases each year. No lawyer can know each decision of each court. That's not possible.

Insofar, if someone claims that there is indeed such a decision, that someone should provide evidence, preferable a link to the decision and the relevant quotes.

Fuck off. It's one bloody Google search.
And you outright claimed that legal precendence has no effect in Germany here:

There seems to be a few court decisions who are saying that the change of the name is enough to be addressed accordingly to the name (e.g. Miss Erika Mustermann instead of Mister Erika Mustermann). But these decisions have no precedence. In Germany a court decision is effective only in the decided case. And considering that these decisions are not reconcilable with the law, I wouldn’t attach importance to them.

And the Bundesverfassungsgericht can decide whenever something touches basic human rights and constitutional rights, which is the case here.
Full decision. Note specifically this:

Paragraph 1 TSG in vollem Umfang dem grundrechtlichen Schutz der Intimsphäre nach Art. 2 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG unterfällt. Für das Auftreten in einer bestimmten Geschlechtsrolle ist nach allgemeinem Verständnis die Anredeform ("Herr ..."/"Frau ...") von zentraler Bedeutung. Deshalb fordert es die Achtung vor der in Paragraph 1 TSG vorgesehenen Rollenentscheidung, eine Person nach Änderung ihres Namens ihrem neuen Rollenverständnis entsprechend anzureden und anzuschreiben. Nur dieses Verhalten wird der geschilderten gesetzgeberischen Absicht des Paragraph 1 TSG gerecht; nur diese Auslegung des Paragraph 1 TSG erscheint auch mit der Wertentscheidung der Art. 2 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG vereinbar.

Paraphrased translation:
"For living in a certain gender role, the right to be adressed with the correct address (male/female) is essential. Due to this, the court deciced that a person who falls under §1 TSG is to be adressed with the gender pronouns for his/her new role".
So fuck off. You claim to be a lawyer, but you understand neither legal precedence nor how to use Google.

Insofar, if someone claims that there is indeed such a decision, that someone should provide evidence, preferable a link to the decision and the relevant quotes.

You claim to be a laywer but can't even use the search engine of the highest court in Germany?

I know only of one decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, in which the court has merely decided, that transsexuals can have homosexual relationships and that this is no evidence for a changed sentiment [O].

Apparently you can, but you ignore evidence to the contrary of your bigotry.

It has decided, that § 7 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 TSG is not compatible with the German constitution and therefore null and void.

According to § 7 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 TSG, the decision trough which someone has changed the forename, becomes null and void, if that someone marries someone of the same gender as the by the transsexuality imprinted gender. The purpose of that law was to prevent the impression that same sex marriage is possible (eg. transwoman and woman or transman and man).

Insofar, the tenor of this decision says nothing about the question, how someone, who has changed the forename, has to be addressed. It may be that there is something in the holdings of this decision.

But I'm not really interested in going through them.

I'm not the one who claims that there is such a decision.

So you are a lawyer, but not interested in looking into important decisions of a topic that you are currently "discussing"?

Fuck off, bigot.

[Batman]

You know, Avocado trying to use legalese (completely inapplicable legalese) to wiggle out of having to admit he was getting his ass handed to him in a meaningless Vs debate was kinda funny. This is just disgusting.
Congratulations, Avocado. You just told us that ON TOP of being a stupid trektard that would do anything rather than admit he simply has no case in a meaningless Vs debate, you are also a despicable example of what biology unfortunately still requires me to call a human being.
I guess I gave SFJ too much credit by simply considering them mindless Scooter cockgobblers. Apparently they also are, or are at the very least perfectly happy to tolerate, hateful bigoted vermin too.

[Serafina]

You know, Avocado trying to use legalese (completely inapplicable legalese) to wiggle out of having to admit he was getting his ass handed to him in a meaningless Vs debate was kinda funny. This is just disgusting.
Congratulations, Avocado. You just told us that ON TOP of being a stupid trektard that would do anything rather than admit he simply has no case in a meaningless Vs debate, you are also a despicable example of what biology unfortunately still requires me to call a human being.
I guess I gave SFJ too much credit by simply considering them mindless Scooter cockgobblers. Apparently they also are, or are at the very least perfectly happy to tolerate, hateful bigoted vermin too.

Actually, it becomes a little bit funny again - he tries to use the law, but fails at it despite his claims of being a lawyer.
Honestly, claiming that there is no legal precedent in germany

[Wyrm]

I do not understand why he is so angry. I mean the saying »We reap what we sow« has much truth in it.

If insults are exchanged, one has no reason to be surprised if the situation escalates. That's only to be expected.

And to complain that the one insult is worse than the other insult is ludicrous because it is always a question how an insult is received.

Then why don't you take the first step? Why do you not address Serafina as a woman even though by your common country's law (you believe) she has no right to demand it of you, because of... you know... politeness? The politeness that you always claim is part and parcel with logical discourse? "We do try to make sure SFJ is open, friendly, and polite." Anyone over there remember that board creed? Whatever happened to humoring someone's request to be regarded as a woman, even though the law says that they're a man? Isn't that the polite thing to do? Isn't that the friendly thing to do? Isn't that the open thing to do? I never inquired to Sarafina's sexual identity, because I have neither stake nor say in it — her arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on who she is or how she wants to be regarded.

That’s my last post. Further debate with someone so dishonest and unreasonable does not makes sense anymore.

Yet you keep coming back for more.

Why is that? This whole back-and-forth sniping has been going on in one form or another for years, I dare say decades. It should be clear to both sides that no progress shall be made hereon, and we both agree that it's due to one side's pigheaded stubornness (though which side is a horse of a different color). But mockery of people we see as stupid is right there in the board motto, whereas you want hold the opposite attitude. This is a place where you can let down your hair and just be an asshole and mock others for their stupidity.

It should be as obvious as Washington's Erection that we feed off of your kind of twattle. So if you find that stupid, idiotic, dishonest, repulsive (insert negative adjective here), why do you keep feeding us?

I'll tell you why — because it kills you that a group of people out there does not submit to the Holy Order of Trek, and is in fact vocally telling them they are crazy and wrong. When you rant to your average adult, they'll smile and nod their head, but inside that head they are thinking, "Exploding asteroids? This guy is fucking nuts!" Over here, you get to have fun talking as if serious about sci-fi, and sharpening your debate and analytic skills while doing it, so it's not a complete waste of time. Over there, all you ever accomplish is exercising lefty.

And I'm still waiting for that solidus curve.