Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
To my knowledge (I haven't checked though and I'm not a frequent visitor of the OS forums), the only thing there she's said is "talifan" (which came as somewhat as a shock to me the first time I saw it). Otherwise she's posting that sort of thing in her LiveJournal. She also deflects criticism against her as "attempts to gain status online", i.e. the same tactics as used elsewhere. See here for example:Tiriol wrote:Has anyone challenged Traviss's insults against the non-VIP members whom she labels "Talifans"? It appears if it is only she who insults anyone around there, especially now as of late, so pointing that out could result in hilariousness.
On another note, what kind of insults is she hurling? There has been several of them noted on this thread, but I don't remember even half of them. I mean, there just might be some insults and mockings that cross the line from arrogant into the world of slander. It would be priceless to see her face when someone with a thin skin raises charges against her on the grounds of slander. I'm not advocating that, but the idea does bring a smile to my face.
Really? Where did she say this? That's the same BS I got from fucktards like Ender_Sai at TFN. Great minds really do think alike.Stark wrote:That's so pathetic. She's obsessed with her little cult of personality, and she honestly thinks you need 'credentials' to determine that three million clones isn't worth shit in a whole galaxy. Clearly, she likes the mental rimjobs she gets from McEwok et al.
Jim, I posted an excerpt on the previous page.Jim Raynor wrote:Really? Where did she say this? That's the same BS I got from fucktards like Ender_Sai at TFN. Great minds really do think alike.Stark wrote:That's so pathetic. She's obsessed with her little cult of personality, and she honestly thinks you need 'credentials' to determine that three million clones isn't worth shit in a whole galaxy. Clearly, she likes the mental rimjobs she gets from McEwok et al.
She also dug up one of my old posts at TFN and accused me of "impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications." Alright, can anyone tell me what this bitch is accusing me of?Karen Traviss wrote:Oh, and in case anyone wants to know what Jim Raynor here thinks of me, here's one of his TF.N posts:
"THIS is your idea of a valid argument? Please, any 12 year old who isn't an EU fanboy can tell you that 3 million is a stupid number. And what makes Traviss so qualified? She was a "defense correspondent" before becoming a writer, which is a fancy term for a journalist who interviews the troops. I can guarantee you that none of the troops she talked to would agree that
they could take on forces that outnumber them billions to one."
Lovely. It's known as "impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications" in the legal world.
She's trying to say you were commiting libel to dismiss your argument.Jim Raynor wrote:I decided to take Traviss on myself. I made a post explaining yet again why 3 million makes no sense, bringing up many sources and refuting the usual retarded excuses. I maintained a polite tone throughout, so that she and her asskisser brigade wouldn't have any excuse for dismissing me as a troll. She basically sidestepped all my points, and accused me of being "passive aggressive."
Alright, can anyone tell me what this bitch is accusing me of?Karen Traviss wrote:Oh, and in case anyone wants to know what Jim Raynor here thinks of me, here's one of his TF.N posts:
"THIS is your idea of a valid argument? Please, any 12 year old who isn't an EU fanboy can tell you that 3 million is a stupid number. And what makes Traviss so qualified? She was a "defense correspondent" before becoming a writer, which is a fancy term for a journalist who interviews the troops. I can guarantee you that none of the troops she talked to would agree that
they could take on forces that outnumber them billions to one."
Lovely. It's known as "impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications" in the legal world.
This is the same bullshit that she pulled on icehawk:Karen Traviss wrote:Just so we’re clear on Jim Raynor’s stance, folks, and how he approaches source material: my bold type on his words.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:JimRaynor55
I still haven't gotten around to reading many EU novels, although I plan to change that in the near future. Not completely satisfied with the Essential Guides, and thirsting for more SW knowledge, I searched the internet, eventually discovering Curtis Saxton's Star Wars Technical Commentaries. From Saxton's link page, I later found Michael Wong's Stardestroyer.net site.
Although I am no where near as scientifically knowledgable as the two of them, I was amazed by their thorough analyis of SW, and the way they were able to analyze it into a self-consistent universe that "made sense." I also developed a dislike for many EU sources which displayed shoddy research of the canon films (8 km Executor), failed to take into account the sheer scale and technological advancement of the SW galaxy (ridiculously low numbers of troops and ships, starfighters with top speeds below Mach 1).</i>
Shame you don't actually read the material you hate, but there you go.
Does anyone else smell a red herring? So I haven't read some EU novels. I still know about what SHE has written in SW Insider, and I seem to have a better understanding of the way the Clone Wars have been portrayed in other sources than she does.Karen Traviss wrote:Oh, bless! He doesn't even read them!jamescocksucker wrote:Let us be fair, he has done some research based on SOLID SOURCES:
"If we had greater source material we could go through each of the major battles during the Clone Wars and place some estimates on field armies and casualty rates. Unfortunately I lack the Clone Wars novels, so I am limited to the NEC, Cartoons, and the Wiki articles"
Let's not be too harsh.
This is too easy. Get me another barrel, someone. I've splintered this one and soaked my carpet.
No, she's one of three authors in the nine-book Legacy era (the last one of her scheduled SW novels is due for release in May 2008).Meest wrote:She's laughing all the way to the bank, even when the debates cool down she starts it all up again. She only has one more book coming out right? I wonder if she'll continue to even post about Star Wars stuff after that.
And yet she writes... why?000 wrote:she hates reading
I doubt it.NecronLord wrote:I'm sure she'd use this impending comment as proof of sexism. So, for the record, Karen, if you read this, I'd be saying the same if you were a man. GALE member 'n all:
Perhaps she sucked off the person in charge.
It's the only possible reason.
Ask her if she has read all the Clone Wars novels (and related books such as the ItW and ICS series) herself. What she's doing is outright baiting IMHO. Also, it seems as a new tactic: discredit the opponents and thus ignoring the pesky arguments instead of not just posting challenges and then ignoring the answers to those challenges.Jim Raynor wrote:Wow, Traviss actually dug up my SW Wiki profile:
This is the same bullshit that she pulled on icehawk:Karen Traviss wrote:Just so we’re clear on Jim Raynor’s stance, folks, and how he approaches source material: my bold type on his words.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:JimRaynor55
I still haven't gotten around to reading many EU novels, although I plan to change that in the near future. Not completely satisfied with the Essential Guides, and thirsting for more SW knowledge, I searched the internet, eventually discovering Curtis Saxton's Star Wars Technical Commentaries. From Saxton's link page, I later found Michael Wong's Stardestroyer.net site.
Although I am no where near as scientifically knowledgable as the two of them, I was amazed by their thorough analyis of SW, and the way they were able to analyze it into a self-consistent universe that "made sense." I also developed a dislike for many EU sources which displayed shoddy research of the canon films (8 km Executor), failed to take into account the sheer scale and technological advancement of the SW galaxy (ridiculously low numbers of troops and ships, starfighters with top speeds below Mach 1).</i>
Shame you don't actually read the material you hate, but there you go.
Does anyone else smell a red herring? So I haven't read some EU novels. I still know about what SHE has written in SW Insider, and I seem to have a better understanding of the way the Clone Wars have been portrayed in other sources than she does.Karen Traviss wrote:Oh, bless! He doesn't even read them!jamescocksucker wrote:Let us be fair, he has done some research based on SOLID SOURCES:
"If we had greater source material we could go through each of the major battles during the Clone Wars and place some estimates on field armies and casualty rates. Unfortunately I lack the Clone Wars novels, so I am limited to the NEC, Cartoons, and the Wiki articles"
Let's not be too harsh.
This is too easy. Get me another barrel, someone. I've splintered this one and soaked my carpet.
I just tried to post again, and bring up what you said. Guess what? The fucking skank whore already banned me! What a fucking chickenshit.Mange the Swede wrote:Ask her if she has read all the Clone Wars novels (and related books such as the ItW and ICS series) herself. What she's doing is outright baiting IMHO. Also, it seems as a new tactic: discredit the opponents and thus ignoring the pesky arguments instead of not just posting challenges and then ignoring the answers to those challenges.