[Jason_T]: Saxton rigged the debate wah wah!

[Axis Kast]

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

He called Saxton’s publication unfair because it constituted (at the time) an attempt to get “the last word” on a sanctioned level by somebody whom Jason had trouble believing didn’t set out to prove Star Wars the superior universe in the first place (and do observe that it’s quite possible that he could have done so with full scientific credibility – and that Jason acknowledged that). He then noted that even the individual who considered Saxton unimpeachable should have no trouble understanding why others might be suspicious or unhappy about it. He later on stated in no uncertain terms that Saxton’s deriving a victory through his work was not necessarily wrong; it merely had unsalutory effects from the point of view of Star Trek fans.

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

Jason’s arguments went beyond his reference to Saxton – something that is essentially if you want to understand why your demand for “evidence” of actual wrongdoing on Saxton’s part to back up Jason’s point that he and others regard Saxton with suspicion or as somebody who opened up a can of worms isn’t going to get us anywhere.

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.

Concession accepted. If you aren’t going to even try to pick apart my defense, you might as well say so in fewer words.

Whoops. There I go again, quoting reality.

A reality in which Jason was pointing out that he has difficulty believing that Saxton’s efforts bore no relation to the SW vs. ST argument, and that he feels that is one reason why Star Trek fans might doubt Star Wars’ preeminence. You and others then make the ridiculous retort that Jason must prove that Saxton is somehow evil in order for his suspicion to be valid. It’s not something anybody can do. Wong went so far as to ask for evidence that can’t be obtained: the truthfulness of the referee in the pick-up game. Since nobody can make a conclusive determination, the suspicion – however possibly invalid – is understandable, if not verifiable.

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

Jason said that he favored Star Trek with his first post, moron. He is a fan of Star Trek, a group I refered to in my post. It is you who cannot read. He would be among the people who’s viewpoint he’s explicating in this particular case.

[Axis Kast]

Care to explain why that's a bad thing?

Jason felt that Saxton opened himself to controversy and threw a wasp into a room filled with Star Trek fans. Jason pointed out, however, that there were two sides to the dispute: from Star Wars fans’ point of view, Saxton rendered a “service.”

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?

He’s talking about the perils of authorship. Saxton couldn’t help but leave the arena looking like a mercenary in the eyes of Star Trek fans who didn’t find the universes comparable or had some of the other particular grievances that precluded a reliable match-up that Jason posted in his first statement. Jason apparently believes that Saxon exhibited bad form by doing what he did – perhaps unavoidably so.

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.

And if you think that the universes aren’t comparable – which he clearly does – then the question is really one of, “My dad can beat up your dad.” In that case, Star Trek fans have reason to suspect Saxton of merely choosing to weigh in on a particular manner for the sake of his own self-interest. This would lead them to look for possible evidence of Saxton’s affiliations – resulting in the fact that the acknowledgements section would cast a bad light on him. (And, once again, Jason has acknowledged that it’s mere suspicion; it can’t be proven since nobody can read Saxon’s mind.)

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.

It’s an accusation that forthrightly admitted its own limits. It’s like saying, “We can’t really know what that referee thinks, but don’t you agree that making an awful lot of calls in favor of one team would be a manifestation of bias? Yes? Well, then, I guess this referee looks biased. A pity we can’t determine whether or not that suspicion holds water.”

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?

Hello? This is reality. Things don’t always work out well. Jason admitted that one side might end up being unhappy. He still pointed out why that side – him included – would feel that way.

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.

When I said before that some Star Trek fans may not know how to check – or may be ignorant of – Saxton’s calculations, let me also add that they may not think the universes equivocal, as Jason has said he doesn’t. That means that one can dispute Saxton’s work without being a moron. Of course, this seems like another debate in and of itself.

[Darth Wong]

Kast, do you really think I'm going to be convinced by your long-winded excuses and alternate interpretations? The fact is that Jason could clear this up in about one minute by posting to concede that he has no evidence whatsoever that Saxton was anything less than honest and forthright in his depiction of what he believes to be accurate Star Wars data in the ICS. There, done.

But he won't say that, will he? So the question becomes: why not? And the answer is simple: he does think that Saxton's association with me taints the integrity of his work, and he doesn't think it's fallacious to call that "evidence". He honestly thinks there's nothing wrong with these accusations, and that he has met his burden of evidence with his Appeal to Motive fallacies. If this interpretation of events is wrong, let him speak up to say so. Otherwise, I will act on it.

[Axis Kast]

The fact is that Jason could clear this up in about one minute by posting to concede that he has no evidence whatsoever that Saxton was anything less than honest and forthright in his depiction of what he believes to be accurate Star Wars data in the ICS.

Evidence that cannot exist unless Saxton has made self-incriminating remarks. This brings us back to the example of the referee wherein suspicion can linger despite the absence of conclusive evidence proving the charge.

he does think that Saxton's association with me taints the integrity of his work, and he doesn't think it's fallacious to call that "evidence".

No. He said that he thinks it quite plausible that Saxton’s interest in the debate played a role in his decision to publish – and then specifically acknowledged that it was possible for Saxton to make both impeccable calculations and yet still have a personal investment in the outcome, just as a man writing about the best team in football could conceivably evaluate good plays on an even-handed basis despite believing in the primacy of his chosen franchise – or being interested in proving it – from the outset.

His own words:

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.

Given that Jason also feels that comparing the two universes is impossible, this casts Saxton in the light of one who is effectively shouting into a void where Star Trek fans are concerned – and doing so in a manner that can be understood as essentially throwing down the gauntlet using official tools.

[SirNitram]

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

He called Saxton’s publication unfair because it constituted (at the time) an attempt to get “the last word” on a sanctioned level by somebody whom Jason had trouble believing didn’t set out to prove Star Wars the superior universe in the first place (and do observe that it’s quite possible that he could have done so with full scientific credibility – and that Jason acknowledged that). He then noted that even the individual who considered Saxton unimpeachable should have no trouble understanding why others might be suspicious or unhappy about it. He later on stated in no uncertain terms that Saxton’s deriving a victory through his work was not necessarily wrong; it merely had unsalutory effects from the point of view of Star Trek fans.

No victory was derived through it, you insipid little dolt. As has been laid out repeatedly, and which your dear moron friend ignored, nothing new came from Saxton's work, save the 'Tor' naming classification and an attempt to clear up the physics of Hyperdrive. Every powerful calculation.. Which is what Jason and every idiot Trekkie whines about.. Is backed up already.

But no. You'll pretend it's something other than what it said.

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

Jason’s arguments went beyond his reference to Saxton – something that is essentially if you want to understand why your demand for “evidence” of actual wrongdoing on Saxton’s part to back up Jason’s point that he and others regard Saxton with suspicion or as somebody who opened up a can of worms isn’t going to get us anywhere.

Of course they did; but slander when you yourself are part of it(As opposed to his other points, which DO reference other people's opinions) tend to gain attention.

And yes, this isn't getting us anywhere. Because Jason is a little fucker who won't simply admit he's using fallacious logic and making his own statements, and you attempt to save him from it by long-winded piles of bullshit.

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.

Concession accepted. If you aren’t going to even try to pick apart my defense, you might as well say so in fewer words.

Excuse me? No concession was offered, you dolt. I realize you think you're cool or hot shit or something for borrowing from the ASVS regulars, but seriously, there was no concession to accept. You're trying to paint a fantasy land over the blatant and undeniable statements made by Jason.

That you won't respond to this fact is rather telling.

Whoops. There I go again, quoting reality.

A reality in which Jason was pointing out that he has difficulty believing that Saxton’s efforts bore no relation to the SW vs. ST argument, and that he feels that is one reason why Star Trek fans might doubt Star Wars’ preeminence. You and others then make the ridiculous retort that Jason must prove that Saxton is somehow evil in order for his suspicion to be valid. It’s not something anybody can do. Wong went so far as to ask for evidence that can’t be obtained: the truthfulness of the referee in the pick-up game. Since nobody can make a conclusive determination, the suspicion – however possibly invalid – is understandable, if not verifiable.

Yes. An Appeal To Motive fallacy is his reason for doubting. A FALLACY. Which he will not admit is such. And which he stands by. Gee, wonder why that might get him in trouble, on a site that discourages such bullshit.

And no, the suspicion is not understandable unless he's a paranoid little fucktard who thinks unsubstantiated slander based on fallacies is 'acceptable'. It is not here. The idea that he might be.. SHOCK.. Asked to substantiate his claims that Saxton was playing 'dirty pool' should be obvious to anyone who read the rules of the site.

'Cept you, of course. Rules must be for other people.

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

Jason said that he favored Star Trek with his first post, moron. He is a fan of Star Trek, a group I refered to in my post. It is you who cannot read. He would be among the people who’s viewpoint he’s explicating in this particular case.

Liiiiiiar.

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.

Not 'we'. 'I'. Deal with it, liar.

[CDiehl]

Jason felt that Saxton opened himself to controversy and threw a wasp into a room filled with Star Trek fans.

This does explain how Saxton's numbers are inaccurate, so who cares how he or anyone else feels? Feelings don't enter into it.

Saxton couldn’t help but leave the arena looking like a mercenary in the eyes of Star Trek fans who didn’t find the universes comparable or had some of the other particular grievances that precluded a reliable match-up that Jason posted in his first statement.

Who cares how he looks to a bunch of people who are appealing to motive without doing shit to disprove Saxton's claims? Also, who cares if Trekkies "didn't find the universes comparable"? They are clearly comparable since someone actually compared them, found that the Empire would win, and presented lots of proof of that contention.

In that case, Star Trek fans have reason to suspect Saxton of merely choosing to weigh in on a particular manner for the sake of his own self-interest.

What evidence do they present of Saxton's self-interest, or even concern, regarding the vs. debate? He has apparently expressed no interest in that debate for either side, so claims of such interest also question Saxton's honesty. Please note, once again, that nobody has presented any concrete evidence that Saxton either takes an interest in vs. debates or that he has intentionally provided false information in support of one side. If such evidence exists, present it.

It’s an accusation that forthrightly admitted its own limits.

That doesn't make the accusation any more legitimate, nor does it absolve the accuser of the requirement to present evidence of his accusation being accurate.

It’s like saying, “We can’t really know what that referee thinks, but don’t you agree that making an awful lot of calls in favor of one team would be a manifestation of bias? Yes? Well, then, I guess this referee looks biased. A pity we can’t determine whether or not that suspicion holds water.”

You completely discount the possibility, from your analogy, that one team really is breaking the rules more often. Just because there is no way of knowing for sure, it doesn't make leaping to the conclusion that the referee must be biased any more reasonable, unless you can prove that's the case.

Jason admitted that one side might end up being unhappy. He still pointed out why that side – him included – would feel that way.

Want to explain why people's feelings matter at all in a discussion of Saxton's calculations or his motives in presenting them? Just because they make some people unhappy doesn't make them wrong or him biased.

When I said before that some Star Trek fans may not know how to check – or may be ignorant of – Saxton’s calculations, let me also add that they may not think the universes equivocal, as Jason has said he doesn’t.

Again, so what? Maybe they should learn how to do the math and look it over themselves, instead of throwing fallacious bullshit at Saxton. Also, once again, it doesn't matter if people don't think the universes are equivocal, since they clearly are. Just because the comparison produced a result Trekkies don't like doesn't make the comaprison wrong, let alone impossible.

That means that one can dispute Saxton’s work without being a moron.

True though this is, Jason's not doing that. Disputing Saxton's work would entail showing how his analysis is wrong or inaccurate. What Jason did was make unfounded accusations concerning Saxton's motives and integrity, which does nothing to disprove his work. You understand the difference between the two, right?

[CDiehl]

My first sentence should actually read:

This doesn't explain how Saxton's numbers are inaccurate, so who cares how he or anyone else feels? Feelings don't enter into it.

I am so embarrassed I let that get by me.

[Darth Wong]

Evidence that cannot exist unless Saxton has made self-incriminating remarks. This brings us back to the example of the referee wherein suspicion can linger despite the absence of conclusive evidence proving the charge.

Suspicion is not grounds for an accusation, fucktard. And there are other ways to prove that someone was dishonest, such as finding someone who is reasonably qualified to show that he did something very obviously wrong. That's what we do with the infamous 9/11 conspiracy theory document put out by a BYU astronomy professor.

No. He said that he thinks it quite plausible that Saxton’s interest in the debate played a role in his decision to publish

You're an idiot; are you saying that if Lucasfilm Licensing offers you a job, you would only take it if you thought you had something to gain in terms of an Internet debate? You wouldn't take it because it's a job, and because it's Lucasfilm?

– and then specifically acknowledged that it was possible for Saxton to make both impeccable calculations and yet still have a personal investment in the outcome, just as a man writing about the best team in football could conceivably evaluate good plays on an even-handed basis despite believing in the primacy of his chosen franchise – or being interested in proving it – from the outset.

Yet he refuses to retract his "dirty pool" statement.

His own words:

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.

In other words, you quote a paragraph in which he accuses me of dishonesty, also without evidence, in order to exonerate him? You have obviously not thought this through.

Given that Jason also feels that comparing the two universes is impossible, this casts Saxton in the light of one who is effectively shouting into a void where Star Trek fans are concerned – and doing so in a manner that can be understood as essentially throwing down the gauntlet using official tools.

Make up all the excuses you like; I don't give a damn. He's toast by the end of the day unless I hear something from him to indicate that he either concedes his "dirty pool" and "partisan" accusations or provides real evidence for them, as per the clearly posted rules of this forum. No more mealy-mouthed bullshit, carefully worded evasions, and not you, his official legal counsel, defending him.

On this forum, if you make an accusation, you either back it up with evidence or you concede that you can't. It's that simple. A million carefully worded statements from you would not change the fact that he is ignoring this rule. I've posted a very clear, simple demand, and if he doesn't answer, I will act as per the rules of this forum.

[AdmiralKanos]

Well, it appears that Jason_T has decided that he's too good for a forum with a "put up or shut up" rule. He refused to put up evidence, and he refused to back down on his persistent accusations of dishonesty despite the lack of such evidence (and no, appeals to motive are not evidence; if they were, then every wife of any man who ever died with life insurance would automatically be convicted of his murder).

Moreover, if he was in fact being misinterpreted as Axis Kast insists, he couldn't even bother posting to say so, despite me stating very clearly that one simple statement from him would clear everything right up. It's quite clear that he either refuses to admit that the Appeal to Motive is a fallacy, he wants to get banned, or he thinks I'm not serious, even though I am always serious when I hand out a warning.

Ergo ...



Buh-bye. If you think appeals to motive constitute "evidence", we have no fucking use for you. Go haunt some politics forum where that's considered a valid argument.

[Ghost Rider]

Off to Parting Shots.