OMFG, TrekBBS + RSA = Comedy Gold

Darth Wong

This is fucking hilarious. This is an E-mail I got recently:

Quote:

Mr. Wong--

I know your site is devoted to Star Wars, but your readers may get a kick
out of this thread. (I sent you the url in the first letter.)

_The Trek BBS: For Paula Block_
( http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat ... =7&fpart=1 )

Having learned earlier that Paula Block is the final authority on all things
canon in Trek publications -- after denying Trek writers and editors had the
authority to make pronouncements on the topic -- he started out with what
looked like a reasonable question about how canon in Trek worked. By the end he
was accusing a Pentecostal minister of trying to learn his identity for the
purpose of conveying death threats.

Along the way he told several Trek novelists, including Keith DeCandido,
Christopher Bennett, and Dayton Ward; former DS9 scriptwriter David Mack; Pocket
Books Executive Editor, Star Trek Division, Marco Palmieri; and Paula Block,
head honcho over protecting the Star Trek license at VIACOM that they not
only did not understand their own jobs but were incapable of constructing a
reasonable response to his posts.

Enjoy!

--Kevin

It's all true. I looked through the thread and it's pretty long, but it's fucking hilarious the way RSA tries to start out by seeming quite reasonable but swiftly degenerates into his true self, because, well, he just can't help it.

One of the writers actually said this to him:

KevinK, Writer wrote:

Your "rigorous analysis" is demonstrably predicated on the assumption that the statements of fact provided to you by the people in a position to know are false, either through their ignorance or deliberate misdirection. Your prejudice against facts with which you do not agree reduces your logic (reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity) to sophistry (deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning). It's my belief your persistence in this practice indicates deliberate behavior. That is not an accusation, that is an assessment based on your public actions.

And Paula Block said this:

pmblock wrote:

Gene R. himself had a habit of decanonizing things. He didn't like the way the animated series turned out, so he proclaimed that it was NOT CANON. He also didn't like a lot of the movies. So he didn't much consider them canon either. And--okay, I'm really going to scare you with this one--after he got TNG going, he...well...he sort of decided that some of the Original Series wasn't canon either. I had a discussion with him once, where I cited a couple things that were very clearly canon in the Original Series, and he told me he didn't think that way anymore, and that he now thought of TNG as canon wherever there was conflict between the two. He admitted it was revisionist thinking, but so be it.

And finally, all of the writers made a point of schooling RSA in the fact that they consider "continuity" and "canon" to be two different things. Canon is simply the films and TV shows, but the accepted Trek continuity is a different thing entirely, and may exclude parts of the canon, which is how they deal with contradictions in canon.

So, not only has he tried to argue with Lucasfilm employees about Lucasfilm policy, but he has basically tried the same thing with Paramount and Trek writers! Yessiree, boys and girls, RSA has gone into complete meltdown :lol:

Noble Ire · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:02pm

Holy Crap. What's next? RSA getting into a fist fight with Lucas over the canonocity of the special editions?

He really strikes me as the sort of person who will eventually snap completely and go try to kill some of these people

Spanky The Dolphin · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:19pm

DarkStar wrote:

LightningStorm wrote:

Continuity and Canon are NOT the same thing.

A great many people use the terms either interchangeably or in their own predetermined set way that overlaps with other people's use of other terms for the same meaning.

I love it when people say shit like this in an attempt to dodge around the fact that they're a fucking idiot, or at the least, fucked something up and refuse to admit it.

Master of Ossus · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:34pm

KevinK, Writer wrote:

Your "rigorous analysis" is demonstrably predicated on the assumption that the statements of fact provided to you by the people in a position to know are false, either through their ignorance or deliberate misdirection. Your prejudice against facts with which you do not agree reduces your logic (reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity) to sophistry (deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning). It's my belief your persistence in this practice indicates deliberate behavior. That is not an accusation, that is an assessment based on your public actions.

Dude, he just got OWNED. This is hilarious, Mike. I'd like to see how his cronies react to things like this.

BTW, is the "Kevin" person who sent this e-mail someone we should know, already, or is he simply an anonymous hero of the hour?

Mange · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:39pm

KevinK also told him in another thread that:

KevinK wrote:

As a service to those who visit your site, you should either post the truth or clearly state that the site reflects only your opinion and is a work of fiction.

Source: +http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3612780&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=2&vc=1

Spanky The Dolphin · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:40pm

Jesus, I'm not even halfway through the second page, and DarkStar is already getting called and starting to unravel...

This stuff with him is starting to develop into some surreal level of sick humour...

Mange: OUCH, that's gotta sting... :!:

Darth Wong · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:41pm

Master of Ossus wrote:

KevinK, Writer wrote:

Your "rigorous analysis" is demonstrably predicated on the assumption that the statements of fact provided to you by the people in a position to know are false, either through their ignorance or deliberate misdirection. Your prejudice against facts with which you do not agree reduces your logic (reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity) to sophistry (deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning). It's my belief your persistence in this practice indicates deliberate behavior. That is not an accusation, that is an assessment based on your public actions.

Dude, he just got OWNED. This is hilarious, Mike. I'd like to see how his cronies react to things like this.

BTW, is the "Kevin" person who sent this e-mail someone we should know, already, or is he simply an anonymous hero of the hour?

I can't be 100% sure, but I think it's Kevin K himself. And yes, he is the hero of the hour

Spanky The Dolphin · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:45pm

DarkStar wrote:

The consistent claim that PDE is a licensee is, at best, a case of "terminological inexactitude".

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

Is he trying to sound smart? That's not smart, that's not knowing how to use a God damned thesaurus properly.

NecronLord · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:49pm

Quote:

Another thing that makes canon a little confusing. Gene R. himself had a habit of decanonizing things. He didn't like the way the animated series turned out, so he proclaimed that it was NOT CANON. He also didn't like a lot of the movies. So he didn't much consider them canon either. And--okay, I'm really going to scare you with this one--after he got TNG going, he...well...he sort of decided that some of the Original Series wasn't canon either. I had a discussion with him once, where I cited a couple things that were very clearly canon in the Original Series, and he told me he didn't think that way anymore, and that he now thought of TNG as canon wherever there was conflict between the two. He admitted it was revisionist thinking, but so be it.

Damnit. I always thought he was just being revisionist. But now, this is far worse. Urgh. My respect for the man is once again lowered by his treatment of the earlier series.

Spanky The Dolphin · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:51pm

My respect for Roddenberry completely evaporated once I found out how much of a complete and total sadistic asshole the man was.

Darth Wong · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:53pm

It's not news; Roddenberry thumped TOS' importance in the continuity way back in the preface to the TMP novelization, as Lord Poe is fond of pointing out.

Sir Sirius · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:53pm

Oh man, Kevin Killiany asked who DSG2k is and someone named zhu provided a link to stardestroyer.net (see below). Can you imagine how that made RSA feel? :mrgreen:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Hat ... neral.html

NecronLord · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 03:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:

It's not news; Roddenberry thumped TOS' importance in the continuity way back in the preface to the TMP novelization, as Lord Poe is fond of pointing out.

Quite. There's a certainly level of it that I can manage (disowning, say, the episode with the hippies in space, I can sympathise with. Same with disowning the cardboard sets) as with Lucas. At least the TMP novel, which I rather like, preface preserves the idea that these things happened, in general terms. But just riding roughshod over the old series with the pseudo-communistic bullshit and ineptitude sqared he seemed to preffer. Urgh.

SirNitram · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 04:00pm

Noble Ire wrote:

:wtf:

Holy Crap. What's next? RSA getting into a fist fight with Lucas over the canonocity of the special editions?

He really strikes me as the sort of person who will eventually snap completely and go try to kill some of these people

Not quite, but... He does go to yell at Lucasfilm employees telling them they don't know what's going on.

Dalton · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 04:06pm

Happy Holidays, everyone! *raises a cup of eggnog*

Patrick Degan · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 04:08pm

So far as Roddenberry's attitude goes, I'm at the point now where if it's not TOS, it's not real Star Trek, and so I suspect are many of the fans. But of course that is personal preference.

As for RSA, I think the only thing we're waiting for now is final news that he's been certified and dragged off for a nice long rest by members of the Jackson, MS police anti-lunatic squad.

Master of Ossus · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 04:26pm

Dalton wrote:

Happy Holidays, everyone! *raises a cup of eggnog*

*Raises toast with Dalton*

And what a stocking stuffer this makes!

NecronLord · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 04:35pm

Master of Ossus wrote:

*Raises toast with Dalton* And what a stocking stuffer this makes!

"Q bless us, everyone!"

Gil Hamilton · **Joined:** 2002-07-04 05:47pm **Posts:** 12547

Holy Mother of Beavis and Butthead, that is hilarity? How is it that DarkStar is fucking arguing with people who actually freaking work for the franchise as professional writers, some of which who have actually written for the show, and the woman who actually reads all Trek literature as quality control?

Actually, my bigger question is why he warranted those people's time and effort to brutally cockslap him in a hilarious way not often seen outside of Tekken? He should be on his belly like a fucking worm in gratitude that they people with actual jobs in the industry are good enough to give him their time and he insults them and says he knows better.

I want to yell "Oh SNAP!" like Ling Ling confronted with soiled panties at the beating he received, but I also want to kick his ass in a dark alley for the shame of knowing who he is.

Mange · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 05:08pm

Of course, how could the ST authors and Paula Block, Senior Director of Licensed Publishing at Viacom Consumer Products, be correct on the Star Trek canon when Leland Chee (as well as LFL) is wrong on the Star Wars canon and only Darkstar himself knows the true canon of the two franchises?

+http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa?threadID=408&start=1950

Oh, and it seems as if KevinK has joined the boards...
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=82036

Grand Moff Yenchin · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 05:15pm

I actually stood up and applauded to RSA after reading this.

By schooling the LFL officials he showed how dishonest he could be.

By this fiasco he showed us how shameless he could be.

The next 2 steps in the RSA Agenda: Lucas, and an Ouija Board for Roddenberry.

NoXion · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 05:36pm

Forgive me, but might I ask what Darkstar hopes to achieve by debating the canonicity of "Mosaic" and "Pathways"? I mean is there really anything in those two novels (or any other Star Trek novel for that matter) that would allow the Federation to defeat the Galactic Empire? I sincerely doubt it.

It's also interesting to note that the two novels mentioned above were only considered "quasi-canon" in the first place, and had no further bearing on Voyager as soon as the author left the Voyager production team, effectively rendering them non-canon. Does this mean that they might be removed from SD.net's canon database in the future?

But aside from my observations, my main question is "why?"

Darth Wong · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 05:42pm

NoXion wrote:

Forgive me, but might I ask what Darkstar hopes to achieve by debating the canonicity of "Mosaic" and "Pathways"? I mean is there really anything in those two novels (or any other Star Trek novel for that matter) that would allow the Federation to defeat the Galactic Empire? I sincerely doubt it.

It's also interesting to note that the two novels mentioned above were only considered "quasi-canon" in the first place, and had no further bearing on Voyager as soon as the author left the Voyager production team, effectively rendering them non-canon. Does this mean that they might be removed from SD.net's canon database in the future?

But aside from my observations, my main question is "why?"

Perhaps he found something in those novels which he really wants to include as evidence. It's interesting how the debate over what is canon has become such a wild-eyed obsession with him. My own site lists numerous different approaches, stipulates that it's a matter of personal choice, and only demands that you be consistent in your approach. He, on the other hand, rants and raves endlessly about the "correct" canon policy (oops, I forgot: he always capitalizes Canon Policy).

apocolypse · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 05:46pm

I thought Kevin's post was brilliant, and spot on as far as RSA is concerned. And Paula brought up some interesting info, I didn't know Gene felt the way he did in regards to Trek canon and such.

NoXion · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2005-12-16 05:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:

Perhaps he found something in those novels which he really wants to include as evidence. It's interesting how the debate over what is canon has become such a wild-eyed obsession with him. My own site lists numerous different approaches, stipulates that it's a matter of personal choice, and only demands that you be consistent in your approach. He, on the other hand, rants and raves endlessly about the "correct" canon policy (oops, I forgot: he always capitalizes Canon Policy).

About the canon thing; I would take it as a sign of true desperation when one takes a debate (In this case, could the Empire kick the Fed's arse) from focusing on analysing on-screen evidence, which is fair enough, to the most obscure depths of the canon policies of LFL and Paramount respectively.

This is probably an extraneous observation, but I cannot imagine a single day in which Darkstar does not think of his endless Jihad against Star Wars.

OMFG, TrekBBS + RSA = Comedy Gold

Who is online