[Jason_T]: Saxton rigged the debate wah wah!

[Darth Wong]

No, the thread is called "Why do a lot of people think the federation can win," not "Why does Jason_T think the federation can win." As, indeed, I never contended.

But you DID content that Saxton is dishonest, asshole.

I already did; his acnkowlegement of ASVS personalities, and his inclusion of the fruits of their debate. You might also want to consult the referee analogy I made; you do, after all, accept motive as a sensible consideration when debunking Bounty's link.

That is NOT evidence, dipshit. This is like saying that a textbook on evolution can be assumed to be dishonest because it includes reference to noted evolution debaters.

As I mentioned, my own contention is that neither universe is sufficiently real for conclusive comparisons. Either side could, in case of absolute need, claim that the two universes operate with different physical properties.

So if someone says that a Death Star superlaser blast should be able to kill Lt Cmdr Data with a direct hit, you would say that you cannot make a conclusive comparison? Bullshit. There's more than enough there for conclusive comparisons; you just don't know how to do it beyond the grotesquely obvious.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

It's delicious.

You seem to think you're funny but you're not. We have rules against this kind of dishonest bullfuckery.

Partisan doesn't mean dishonest; it means interested. I see no evidence that you're dishonest.

Then why do you claim that you can prove Curtis Saxton is engaging in "dirty pool" merely by virtue of associating with me, asshole?

No, I'm saying that his acknowlegements make it unlikely that he is unfamiliar with the debate - and further, even if he were somehow unfamiliar with it, the fact that the quantification efforts were tied up with ASVS discussions means that they are inherently linked to the debate.

Bullshit. This is like saying that a scientist must be unfamiliar with the evolution vs creation debate in order to make an unbiased statement about it.

It would be equally impossible to prove that the above referee were being unfair, wouldn't it?

The burden of proof is on the accuser, fool. This is like saying that you shouldn't have to prove that someone is a murderer before accusing him, because you cannot absolutely prove that any person on this planet has never killed anyone.

He could be utterly non-partisan; the question is the appearance of partisanship. Connection to those who are partisan, and their work. People with a clear point of view, whose "objective and logical" research is designed to demonstrate that their pew pews are bigger and badder than Star Trek's pew pews.

You honestly don't understand that the Appeal to Motive is a fucking fallacy?

The Appeal to Motive is a fallacy regardless of whether you choose to concede that it is, asshole. You can look it up in any source about logic fallacies. And you may choose to tell people that you were banned for disagreeing with me, but that would only be spin-doctoring the truth, which is that we have policies against unrepentantly using logic fallacies, and you're doing that. Once more, you have accused Dr. Saxton of "dirty pool" with nothing more than vague accusations of motive to back you up. This is a textbook Appeal to Motive fallacy, and if you refuse to concede that it is, you're history. Go debate on a forum where they don't have rules against using fallacies of that nature.

[Lord Zentei]

That's not precisely what I asked for; nor does it delve into Curt Saxon's familiarity (which appears to exist) with the debate, or his feelings on the fact that a fringe benefit of his work was to 'end' the debate from a certain point of view.

As for "trolling," good lord, that's something I've never been accused of in my life; your soi-dissant 'demolition' of my arguments is very much a work in progress. If you demand that I stop posting, or define my posting as it exists now as abusive, I'll stop to avoid a ban; but I certainly do not concede the points I'm arguing.

You know, when you make allegations against someone, you really should back them up with evidence. Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air. The burden of proof is on you to show that Dr Saxton was being dishonest, not upon us to exonerate him - innocent until proven guilty, after all.

And no, the ravings of Darkstar don't count.

Incidentally, if you were to check out the main site, you would see calculations that back up Dr Saxton's case, all based upon material from the show.

[Stark]

I request a stay of execution on the dumbass. Nobody has pointed out that his whole fallacy-ridden argument is moot - that ICS2 and Dr Saxton's work simply codified what was already known. ICS2 didn't end the debate: the debate had been over for years. Firepower and speed estimates were already very similar to the ICS2 numbers. Regardless of Dr Saxton's possible agenda (personally, I think personal attacks on the good Doctor are somewhat odious) it doesn't change shit. You could throw out the ICS2 and nothing would change.

[Noble Ire]

Link for the moron.

There, in Curtis Saxton's own words, how much his work has to do with the STvsSW debate.

You don't have a fucking case and you're deep into troll territory with your repetition of the same fallacy over and over when your claim has been demolished.

That's not precisely what I asked for; nor does it delve into Curt Saxon's familiarity (which appears to exist) with the debate, or his feelings on the fact that a fringe benefit of his work was to 'end' the debate from a certain point of view.

You asked this:

In the case of debating Curtis Saxtons's work, it is impossible to know. If, for example, he were to say very earnestly that he knew little to nothing of the debate and didn't realize that his work would have a bearing on it, I'd take him at his word.

True, the passage of his FAQ shows that he is aware of the debate (and how could he not be, with the hate mail he recieved after the publishing of the ICS), but it also demonstrates, in his own words, that he both doesn't wish to be invovled in the debate, and expressely states that his site (from which much of the ICS's information arises) is not meant to be part of said dispute.

You said that you would believe him if he made such a statement. When given what you asked for, you did not concede the point. Your declaration, and with it any pretense of objectivity to which you still cling, is fallacious.

[RedImperator]

I request a stay of execution on the dumbass. Nobody has pointed out that his whole fallacy-ridden argument is moot - that ICS2 and Dr Saxton's work simply codified what was already known. ICS2 didn't end the debate: the debate had been over for years. Firepower and speed estimates were already very similar to the ICS2 numbers. Regardless of Dr Saxton's possible agenda (personally, I think personal attacks on the good Doctor are somewhat odious) it doesn't change shit. You could throw out the ICS2 and nothing would change.

Ahem:

[The ICS is] only considered that by sore losers who had been hoping against hope the calculations worked out by the Wars side in the debate long before that book hit the shelves were wrong. The Empire's speed, logistical, and firepower advantages can be worked out entirely from the films, without any help from any companion book or the EU. The ICS just sucked the life out of whatever resistance was left. Except for the kiddies and the raving lunatic fanatics, one of whom I note you cite elsewhere in this thread.

[Stark]

How did I miss that? If anyone replied to it and I still missed it, I'll be even more embarrassed.

[Jason_T]

Once more, you have accused Dr. Saxton of "dirty pool" with nothing more than vague accusations of motive to back you up. This is a textbook Appeal to Motive fallacy, and if you refuse to concede that it is, you're history. Go debate on a forum where they don't have rules against using fallacies of that nature.

I hadn't posted here until DJ mentioned there was a ban threat.

What is it that you want me to concede?

If this is a straightforward case of "crawl on your belly or I'll ban you," then, whatever works for you. If you genuinely think I've accused him of something, then you're mistaken. I will not say I accused him of something when I didn't - but I'll repudiate the idea that there's any evidence Saxton did wrong, if that's satisfactory.

If, as I said, the point is humiliation, than fuck it. I'd stay for the political fora otherwise, but I'm not interested in forum drama.

Noble Ire: It is close to what I mentioned, although not exactly. I don't see what the big deal is; I've repeatedly (before and after this turned into some dramatic ban trial) said that there's nothing wrong with Saxton.

[SirNitram]

Forum drama. Accuse a friend of the site's creator of being a liar for some pathetic, pointless motive, and expect no retribution? Call it drama when people demand you substantiate your slander instead of repeating it?

Wow. What a pathetic worm. Sad thing is we get these things every couple of weeks.

[Phillip Hone]

f you genuinely think I've accused him of something, then you're mistaken.

2. They feel that their side deserves to win the canon-war, becuase they think SW is a disorganized canon-mess, encompassing pulp literature and a sourcebook specifically written to 'cheat' in the SW vs. ST argument.

Are you not accusing him of some how trying to cheat? You're just being dishonest.

[Stark]

It's pretty clear - you allege Dr Saxton intentionally loaded ICS2 with figures to assist the Wars side of the STvsSW debate. You've offered absolutely no proof of this: surely you see you must retreat from your untenable position. It's based on Appeals to Motive and not evidence. If you honestly don't see that making such claims without evidence beyond handwaving and wishful thinking is against the board rules, you're a fucking retard.

Styling this as some kind of 'drama' when the rules are being enforced as written and intended is just ridiculous. You made the claim, you couldn't back it up. You made this situation a rules violation.

[Axis Kast]

Jason clearly intended to lay out points of objection as they migth arise from fans of the Star Trek series intent on arguing its scientific supremacy, just as the title and intent of this thread invited him to do.

His reference to Saxon was quite clear: he considered it significant that so esteemed and influential an author referenced prominent figures in the SW vs. ST debate in his book because Star Trek fans might be led to conclude that Saxon was biased as a result of the nod. It's akin to acknowledging that some Bears fans might gripe over the supposed impartiality of a referee who was known for making some very damaging calls against their team in the past, and who happened to leave the field on that occassion and then make very positive statements about the opposing team's coaching staff. There may be no ground at all for Bears fans to contend that the referee isn't going to treat them fairly. On the other hand, one has to admit that their reasoning isn't utterly incomprehensible. That was clearly the argument that Jason was trying to set forth.

[Darth Wong]

Except that he phrased his bullshit accusations (eg- Saxton playing "dirty pool") as his own opinions. He accused both Saxton and myself of dishonesty, and when asked to provide evidence, he repeatedly cited Appeal to Motive fallacies. Fallacies which he refuses to concede are fallacies, and he calls all of this mere "forum drama", as if it's some kind of political game to demand that someone concede he can't use fallacies.

He's not just saying that a bunch of idiot Trekkies might think that; he's saying that it's indeed perfectly reasonable to assume that Saxton conducted a dishonest analysis in an attempt to win the "SW v ST" debate simply because he knows people who participate in it. He even makes various analogies (like the "unfair referee") which are based upon this same accusation of dishonesty.

I'll give him till tomorrow to concede that you can't accuse someone of dishonesty based on an Appeal to Motive fallacy, then he's gone. His smarmy attitude and transparent passive/aggressive manipulation attempts won't cut him any fucking slack with me, I assure you. On this forum, you don't accuse someone of dishonesty without some damned good evidence, and he hasn't provided jack shit.

[RedImperator]

On the other hand, one has to admit that their reasoning isn't utterly incomprehensible. That was clearly the argument that Jason was trying to set forth.

It becomes incomprehensible once you realize--or are told--that Dr. Saxton's methods and assumptions are freely available for anyone in the world with an Internet connection to examine--and contest--for himself. After that, it's the same brand of bitching you hear from the minimalist shitheads over at StarWars.com's forum. Mean old Curtis Saxton just made a bunch of shit up because he's asshole buddies with Mike Wong. What? Prove his numbers wrong? Fuck you, he's biased, can't you see that? I don't have to do shit.

While we're on the subject of bullshit, for someone who allegedly was only suggesting an argument Trekkies might make, he went out of his way to defend them and his statements were awful short on the qualifiers which would suggest these were some hypothetical Trektard's opinions and not his personally.

[Darth Wong]

If Jason_Tard was only intending to show how a deluded Trekkie might think, and not how Jason_Tard himself thinks, then why does he refuse to concede that this reasoning is, in fact, fallacious?

[Lord Poe]

Jason clearly intended to lay out points of objection as they migth arise from fans of the Star Trek series intent on arguing its scientific supremacy, just as the title and intent of this thread invited him to do.

Points that he clearly agrees with. Thus, he'd better come up with some fucking proof.

His reference to Saxon

It's SaxTon BTW.

was quite clear: he considered it significant that so esteemed and influential an author referenced prominent figures in the SW vs. ST debate in his book because Star Trek fans might be led to conclude that Saxon was biased as a result of the nod.

He's parroting the exact same bleating the retard Trekkies did when the book came out. He's not some impartial objective bystander that he attempts to portray.

Secondly, the acknowledgements page is a thank you to friends that supported him and his work over the years. That "VS" debaters used Saxton's calculations years before the AOTC:ICS seems to be lost on you and this fuckstain. Pete Briggs, Robert Brown, Michael Horne, and Curtis' brother Tyler have never participated in any Star Wars vs Star Trek debates either. And neither has Curtis. I've invited Trektards numerous times to provide evidence to the contrary, and not ONE of them have ever anted up.

Similarly, not ONE of these cock suckers has EVER showed any evidence in any cross-section book Dr. Saxton has written that anything was "made up" to support a "VS" argument, OR that didn't have a direct connection to anything we've seen in the movies. Not ONE.

So this motherfucker had better come up with the evidence for the accusations he IS supporting. No amount of smarmy doublespeak will pull his ass out of this.

Be a man and ball-up to the argument, Jason.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

In fact, he's been told by reps of both Paramount and Lucasfilm that he's interpreting their respective continuities wrongly.

To go off-topic for a moment: I missed this one. Could you elaborate?

[Imperial Overlord]

To go off-topic for a moment: I missed this one. Could you elaborate?

See this thread: Click me

[Surlethe]

I hadn't posted here until DJ mentioned there was a ban threat.

What is it that you want me to concede?

Hey, buddy, the idea is to concede that you were wrong.

If this is a straightforward case of "crawl on your belly or I'll ban you," then, whatever works for you. If you genuinely think I've accused him of something, then you're mistaken. I will not say I accused him of something when I didn't - but I'll repudiate the idea that there's any evidence Saxton did wrong, if that's satisfactory.

There's no groveling necessary; just a concession, an apology, and moving on like a real man, instead of whining like a bitch. A few words of advice, because I'm in a pretty good mood: when you get called out, you either put up the evidence or shut up. You haven't provided any evidence; therefore, you apologize for spouting off, concede that you were wrong in your accusations (or "the idea that ... Saxton did wrong", as it may be), and go on with life.

[Ghost Rider]

Because his last post was literally "You want me to beg?". No Mike Wong wants you to

I'll give him till tomorrow to concede that you can't accuse someone of dishonesty based on an Appeal to Motive fallacy, then he's gone.

And you claimed to Noble Ire that you:

Noble Ire: It is close to what I mentioned, although not exactly. I don't see what the big deal is; I've repeatedly (before and after this turned into some dramatic ban trial) said that there's nothing wrong with Saxton.

Your words:

And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool;

And so you said you have repeatedly said that there is nothing wrong with Saxton and you will provide the exact quote right?

So literally as he stated concede that you were wrong in accusing someone having motive to do what you claim.

[Axis Kast]

He considers it “dirty pool” inasmuch as he apparently feels that Saxon, as a fairly recent writer, is inevitably open to accusations from Star Trek fans that he was able to insert what he saw fit to give Star Wars the proverbial “edge.” It goes with the territory, but nonetheless tarnishes Saxon as a partisan – even if there is no truth to the accusation. (A lot like the fact that some people might claim that if you are sent to jail for a crime you didn’t commit, you must have been doing something to warrant suspicion in the first place, even if that assumption has no basis in verifiable fact.) The thread invited Jason to analyze Star Trek fans, not defend their logic as valid. He was clearly voicing the opinion that, in that case, Star Trek fans had a valid complaint because of the environment in which Saxon published. In fact, it seems to me that the “dirty pool” reference reflects most badly on whoever engaged him to do writing in the first place – assuming, of course, that you look at it from the point of view that license-holders should be aware of the debates that rage over their products among fans. It’s, again, as if somebody wrote a piece, “Ten Reasons Why the Bears Are Best,” when a debate rages over whether or not the Greenbay Packers are, in fact, the finest team in football. This is effectively compounded by the fact that Saxon (perhaps unintentionally) did his reputation as an unbiased contributor a bad turn (on top of the automatic suspicion somebody in his position would receive merely from writing on the topic while debates still raged – a problem that will be faced by each new author in turn) by referencing certain persons who clearly had invested something in trying to prove one side correct.

It becomes incomprehensible once you realize--or are told--that Dr. Saxton's methods and assumptions are freely available for anyone in the world with an Internet connection to examine--and contest--for himself.

But Jason made very clear from the outset that, as he sees it, people can take extensive liberties with the physical properties of each universe if they so desire. Therefore, it would not be a leap of faith for him at all if he were to evince sympathy with those who feel that Saxon’s findings were colored by a personal commitment to a decisive “victory” over Star Trek technology. It isn’t a declaration of Saxon’s guilt. It’s merely an expression of his sentiment that Star Trek fans have some reason to be wary.

While we're on the subject of bullshit, for someone who allegedly was only suggesting an argument Trekkies might make, he went out of his way to defend them and his statements were awful short on the qualifiers which would suggest these were some hypothetical Trektard's opinions and not his personally.

Logically, if somebody tries to post reasonable rationales that Star Trek fans may have for thinking their universe the superior, they are probably going to be able to give them substantial explication even without actually believing it. Secondly, this is a thread that invites him to suggest arguments that Star Trek fans might make. It’s not incumbent upon him to provide specific qualifiers. It’s a foregone conclusion – or seemed to be.

If Jason_Tard was only intending to show how a deluded Trekkie might think, and not how Jason_Tard himself thinks, then why does he refuse to concede that this reasoning is, in fact, fallacious?

Jason_T acknowledged frankly and readily that there is no evidence that Dr. Curtis Saxon published his works with the objective of proving Star Trek the superior universe for argument’s sake. He simply acknowledged that Star Trek fans would have good reason to be suspicious of the guy. The reason why this works even if you consider Saxon’s work scientifically unimpeachable is that Jason sees a lot of grey in the capacity of individuals to fairly equate the two universes.

Points that he clearly agrees with. Thus, he'd better come up with some fucking proof.

The rules of debate do not require Jason to substantiate Saxton’s guilt in order to back up his position that Star Trek fans might have a reason to be wary, look back to the example of the referee.

He's parroting the exact same bleating the retard Trekkies did when the book came out. He's not some impartial objective bystander that he attempts to portray.

Are you saying that two people cannot make the same argument independently? I can see the point Jason thinks Star Trek fans would have a valid reason to make. Does that make me a Trekkie?

Secondly, the acknowledgements page is a thank you to friends that supported him and his work over the years. That "VS" debaters used Saxton's calculations years before the AOTC:ICS seems to be lost on you and this fuckstain. Pete Briggs, Robert Brown, Michael Horne, and Curtis' brother Tyler have never participated in any Star Wars vs Star Trek debates either. And neither has Curtis. I've invited Trektards numerous times to provide evidence to the contrary, and not ONE of them have ever anted up.

I think at some point you need to step back and admit that any reference to people invested on one side or another of the debate was bound to be controversial. Perhaps Saxon did not think it through. Perhaps he did and felt that the people he wished to acknowledge were worth the trouble.

As for the question of whether Trekkies have provided “evidence to the contrary,” I point you back to Jason’s original conviction that there’s so much grey the debate might as well be described as having the characteristic of “unanswerability.” If there’s grey area, that makes suspicion that Saxton might be wrong – or at least his calculations inapplicable from a certain point of view – quite possible. Clearly, you disagree on whether or not there is grey area – which is another matter for debate that Wong alluded to earlier.

[Ghost Rider]

As much long winded clap trap you want to yabber Axi...the fact remains, he either concedes what he did or he provides proof. He claims Saxton did something...it's his onus to provide proof or concede if he has none.

Your yabbering that he has different ideas is irrevelant to what Wong is demanding.

[SirNitram]

He considers it “dirty pool” inasmuch as he apparently feels that Saxon, as a fairly recent writer, is inevitably open to accusations from Star Trek fans that he was able to insert what he saw fit to give Star Wars the proverbial “edge.”

And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

What he considers. Not what he thinks others do. He made an open accusation. You don't like this? Of course not, it's an absolute statement, one you can't run away from. I don't know why you're fanatically defending him, but he's made his bed, now he gets to lie in it.

[Axis Kast]

As much long winded clap trap you want to yabber Axi...the fact remains, he either concedes what he did or he provides proof. He claims Saxton did something...it's his onus to provide proof or concede if he has none

Did you read my argument, or did you just try and side-line me in your blind effort to exterminate all who would ever imply that somebody may not think that Dr. Curtis Saxon is the closest to God among mortal men?

Frankly, if you read his posts clearly, from start to finish – since the earliest have bearings on the latest (a point many have apparently overlooked as they claim Saxon is beyond suspicion if only one accepts that his calculations are definitive) – he says that he considers Saxon’s actions questionable inasmuch as he published a book with figures that proved Star Wars the stronger. Star Trek fans who know nothing about how to check those figures – or don’t care – would consider that “cheating” on the part of the Star Wars “side.” As they would ask, “How can they have the temerity to try and end debate by publishing a definitive set of facts and figures?” That sentiment is only questionable if you think that Saxon’s figures speak for themselves. But Jason does not agree – he feels the universes may not even be comparable. If he feels that some Star Trek fans may have the same outlook, that explains how he can see people doubting Saxton with anything more than dishonesty in their little Trekkie hearts.

What he considers. Not what he thinks others do. He made an open accusation. You don't like this? Of course not, it's an absolute statement, one you can't run away from. I don't know why you're fanatically defending him, but he's made his bed, now he gets to lie in it.

I’m defending him because he’s made a point that’s clear for all to see and is being railroaded by people who haven’t even tried to appreciate his argument. As far as I can tell, you’re now talking past each other.

Jason made the statement that he feels Saxon’s actions were “dirty pool.” He specifies what he means by pointing out that he feels that Saxon’s work brings the debate to the point at which different authors can simply publish “updated” calculations designed to prove one side the victor. He later specified that such a situation could have been brought about even if Saxton were an upstanding guy: his work just happened to be very controversial. In Jason’s eyes, it invited fans of Star Trek to offer a “response” that could be little more than a refutation of Saxton (the latest author). And so a circle would begin.

Now the problem seems to be that nobody here admits that anybody could ever legitimately think like that once they read Saxton and see that his calculations are perfectly valid from a scientific standpoint (at which point Saxton becomes irrelevant; he merely found the proof and laid it forth, no sentiment necessary). Jason has specified that he feels the supporters of one side or the other may be operating at different wavelengths. That means that it’s possible for some Trekkies, in his opinion, to regard Saxton was little more than a mercenary for Star Wars. Saxton’s book is thus a slap in the face whether it was meant or not.

[SirNitram]

What he considers. Not what he thinks others do. He made an open accusation. You don't like this? Of course not, it's an absolute statement, one you can't run away from. I don't know why you're fanatically defending him, but he's made his bed, now he gets to lie in it.

I’m defending him because he’s made a point that’s clear for all to see and is being railroaded by people who haven’t even tried to appreciate his argument. As far as I can tell, you’re now talking past each other.

Nice try. He made open accusation, right in the part I quoted. Would you like to see it again?

And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

'I do consider...'

Not what Trekkies consider. Not some nebulous statement you'd love to warp into vague. It's very clear it's him.

Jason made the statement that he feels Saxon’s actions were “dirty pool.” He specifies what he means by pointing out that he feels that Saxon’s work brings the debate to the point at which different authors can simply publish “updated” calculations designed to prove one side the victor. He later specified that such a situation could have been brought about even if Saxton were an upstanding guy: his work just happened to be very controversial. In Jason’s eyes, it invited fans of Star Trek to offer a “response” that could be little more than a refutation of Saxton (the latest author). And so a circle would begin.

Yes. Let's enter your mythical world where words don't mean what they do. Let's pretend that Darkstar is a credible source(As Jason tries to use him), that Ad Hominems are not fallacies, and where Jason never confirmed his partisanship.

I don't see why his motives have to be entirely abstracted without any reference to a long-standing dispute he certainly was familiar with. I find it highly far fetched that it played no role.

Whoops. There I go again, quoting reality.

Someone's state of mind doesn't generally produce 'scraps of evidence." It might, but that's just dumb luck. It seems unlikely to me that the SWvs.ST fandom's overlap with technical SW fandom is something that was unknown to CS, or that it failed to have an influence on the direction of the numbers.

Damn my fingers, they won't stop reproducing evidence against you!

He's committed multiple fallacies, and he's declared the opinions his own. You can throw up wads of text all day, it will not change his own statements.

Now the problem seems to be that nobody here admits that anybody could ever legitimately think like that once they read Saxton and see that his calculations are perfectly valid from a scientific standpoint (at which point Saxton becomes irrelevant; he merely found the proof and laid it forth, no sentiment necessary). Jason has specified that he feels the supporters of one side or the other may be operating at different wavelengths. That means that it’s possible for some Trekkies, in his opinion, to regard Saxton was little more than a mercenary for Star Wars. Saxton’s book is thus a slap in the face whether it was meant or not.

Liar. He uses the personal pronoun quite clearly. You may be illiterate, but none of us are.

So. Go fuck off to N&P, where you can pretend a humour thread is a serious discussion of whether the President supports terrorism. Go play in the sand of pretending that Iraq wasn't a mistake. Go the fuck away and do not sully this with your blatant, obvious lies further.

[CDiehl]

he says that he considers Saxon’s actions questionable inasmuch as he published a book with figures that proved Star Wars the stronger. Star Trek fans who know nothing about how to check those figures – or don’t care – would consider that “cheating” on the part of the Star Wars “side.”

Care to explain why that's a bad thing? Is Saxton supposed to make up a bunch of bullshit proving the Trekkies' side of the argument in the name of looking unbiased to idiots who don't understand what bias is? As has been stated many times before, Jason T's "considerations" about Saxton's motives don't matter, since he has to present evidence to prove his accusations. He personally suggested that Saxton's work was "dirty pool," then spent the next several posts trying to cast aspersions on Saxton's motives, without evidence, solely due to an association with Wong, suggesting that both men's calculations are inaccurate and motivated by partisanship. It doesn't matter if Saxton is Wong's friend or his blood enemy, that sort of accusation isn't going to fly around here.

That sentiment is only questionable if you think that Saxon’s figures speak for themselves. But Jason does not agree – he feels the universes may not even be comparable. If he feels that some Star Trek fans may have the same outlook, that explains how he can see people doubting Saxton with anything more than dishonesty in their little Trekkie hearts.

So what? Do people have to stop presenting objective, credible evidence because dumbasses might accuse them of dishonesty when the numbers don't support the dumbasses' side? Also, who gives a damn how Jason T "feels" or if he "does not agree" with Saxton based on nothing at all, since his feelings have nothing to do with whether Saxton's, Wong's or anyone else's numbers are accurate? OK, it may not be simple dishonesty motivating Trekkies to disagree, but ignorance and inability to understand, let alone dispute, Saxton's work when arguing against it is no real improvement.