StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hehehe... Al Swearingen telling Dark Moose to go get fucked... welcome to motherfucking Deadwood.

Holy crap! We woke up Sean!

*feels the earthquake*

Darth Culator wrote:Dark Moose hates me!

YAY!

What a bunch of crap. And posting the various admins profile? For what purpose? And Dork Moose wrote that he hates the 'ugly opinion'. Yes, Wookieepedia is an encyclopedia, but why wouldn't it contain the absolutely despicable things a certain author has said in a neutral fashion?

Mange wrote:What a bunch of crap. And posting the various admins profile? For what purpose?

KT Jelly wrote:Wikis, as I've rant-observed before, are unaccountable and very often unattributed. He (or she) who shouts loudest or deletes and edits the most gets to write history. The fact that he or she might be right is irrelevant: there's no process to test it or ensure it.

Of course, we know that "Dark Moose" doesn't hide behind a fake internet name, and is completely accountable for his actions. Oh wait...

And hey Mike? Did you see this?:

KT Jelly wrote:Apparent facts are often not absolute, of course, which is why I cut Creationists and the ID bunch some slack because some Darwinists have often overstated the watertight nature of evolution theory to the point where they're indistinguishable from religious dogmatists themselves.

Darwinists????

Wow, that's... wow. The comedy writes itself.

Wait wait wait... she's a creationist? And she's intellectually dishonest?

That really takes the cake. Not only is she an EU author who's proud of the fact she doesn't read any EU, she's a stupid twit who cuts creationists slack and thinks the case for evolution is less than water tight.

What a dumb fucking idiot.

It figures. Anyone who thinks 3 million is a sufficent number and rewrites the Clone Wars because she's so arrogant to not admit truth is stupid enough to give slack to both ID or Creationism. Birds of a feather and all that jazz.

Stark wrote:Wait wait wait... she's a creationist? And she's intellectually dishonest?

Based on what she said, Traviss is a fence sitter. Her statement that "some Darwinists have often overstated the watertight nature of evolution theory" would indicate that she is a stupid/gullible fence sitter rather than one that is ignorant of, or ill-informed on, the facts.

KT Jelly wrote:Apparent facts are often not absolute, of course, which is why I cut Creationists and the ID bunch some slack because some Darwinists have often overstated the watertight nature of evolution theory to the point where they're indistinguishable from religious dogmatists themselves.

Post-modernist bullshit. No wonder Arkady Hodge (McEwok) loves her so much.

Lord Poe wrote: And hey Mike? Did you see this?:

KT Jelly wrote:Apparent facts are often not absolute, of course, which is why I cut Creationists and the ID bunch some slack because some Darwinists have often overstated the watertight nature of evolution theory to the point where they're indistinguishable from religious dogmatists themselves.

Darwinists????

That is pure gold!

That only means Ms Traviss is a member of the majority of Americans who neither understand nor care to learn about evolution; it's sad, but unsurprising. Of course, it's also funny as hell, given the context of her behavior.

Surlethe wrote:That only means Ms Traviss is a member of the majority of Americans who neither understand nor care to learn about evolution; it's sad, but unsurprising. Of course, it's also funny as hell, given the context of her behavior.

She's actually British. In most of Europe there isn't even that kind of debate (ID vs evolution).

Mange wrote:

Surlethe wrote:That only means Ms Traviss is a member of the majority of Americans who neither understand nor care to learn about evolution; it's sad, but unsurprising. Of course, it's also funny as hell, given the context of her behavior.

She's actually British. In most of Europe there isn't even that kind of debate (ID vs evolution).

Well, I stand corrected. I didn't realize she was British. That puts everything in a whole new light. ... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

Mange wrote:

Surlethe wrote:That only means Ms Traviss is a member of the majority of Americans who neither understand nor care to learn about evolution; it's sad, but unsurprising. Of course, it's also funny as hell, given the context of her behavior.

She's actually British. In most of Europe there isn't even that kind of debate (ID vs evolution).

Holy... fucking... shit. This puts the situation in a new light.

Just how immensely credulous can a person be before her acceptance of stupidity kills her? Sarcasm would be a lethal weapon against Ms Traviss, to be sure. "Hey Karen, you know licking high voltage cables makes you high?" *crackle*

Suddenly, the pieces of the Travissty puzzle start falling into place

Just when you thought she couldn't make herself out to be any more idiotic....

Will she start calling us immoral atheists now?

I reacted strongly to this:

As the victim of this stalking-by-Wookieepedia

She's always the victim, but besides that, how did this alleged 'stalking' manifest itself?

Mange wrote:I reacted strongly to this:

As the victim of this stalking-by-Wookieepedia

She's always the victim, but besides that, how did this alleged 'stalking' manifest itself?

She's probably talking about the up for deletion quotes articles.

It had a bunch of quotes she removed form her LJ or had her mod freinds delete for her, like the stuff about garroting us and ripping out our tracheas.

Although I don't know how the hell it's stalking, since, IIRC wookiepedia is one of the few mediums of this debate she hasn't contributed to directly.
Or at least hasn't openly admitted to contributing to.

Abel G. Peña's latest blog entry was quite interesting:
+http://blogs.starwars.com/abelgpena/64

Of course, there are some question marks. The most prominent ones IMO are related to this claim:

With Lucasfilm adamant about retaining a clone army figure close to the low millions mark (a reference to a potentially much larger figure from Inside the Worlds of Episode II was rejected), some out-of-the-box thinking seemed in order.

Who 'rejected' the passage in the ItW? Particulary since LFL (or rather Licensing) didn't want to assign a number to the GAR (as per Kaufman).
Otherwise the blog was pretty good and Peña seems to reject the droid numbers as stated in Odds (I wonder if that makes him one of them 'talifans' ).

Unless this rejection is stated outright in a source, and since SW:CL came out after Insider 84, retaining the same reference, this is irrelevant. I really can't imagine what goes on inside the head of any LFL representative who thought 3 million troops for a galactic army was a good idea. Talk about a lack of perspective.

VT-16 wrote:Unless this rejection is stated outright in a source, and since SW:CL came out after Insider 84, retaining the same reference, this is irrelevant. I really can't imagine what goes on inside the head of any LFL representative who thought 3 million troops for a galactic army was a good idea. Talk about a lack of perspective.

I totally agree. Please don't flame me, but I must say that because of this debacle and how the SW EU seems to be treated by the continuity people, I've become hesitant to call the EU, with the exception of the ICS and ItW, 'canon'. The only way to have my faith restored in the EU would be if this travissty was to be corrected in a short period of time. Until then, I won't be buying any EU products. Of course, my money doesn't mean anything, but it's more a way of marking my position.

VT-16 wrote:Unless this rejection is stated outright in a source, and since SW:CL came out after Insider 84, retaining the same reference, this is irrelevant. I really can't imagine what goes on inside the head of any LFL representative who thought 3 million troops for a galactic army was a good idea. Talk about a lack of perspective.

They proaby mean a more explicit reference.

They proaby mean a more explicit reference.

To come or the one that already was described? I'm not sure what you're saying. :P

VT-16 wrote:

They proaby mean a more explicit reference.

To come or the one that already was described? I'm not sure what you're saying.

THere was probably an explicit statement of "quadrillions" or "quintillions" in the early drafts that they said no, so we go the "millions of regiments" instead. Just a guess