2160s or 2390s or?

[martok2112]

So you're a self-proclaimed expert of all things Star Trek, are you?

Never said I was. That's a cute strawman you've built up. But that's not the conversation that's happening. You're tilting at windmills here.

There are experts, you said. The implication was that you were portraying yourself as an "expert" on Star Trek. And now you pull this.

You really need to try better, Overgeeked. You M.O. is becoming all too amusing.

-I mention that I tire of the elitist bullshit.

-Defensively, you say that there are experts. The not so subtle implication being that you, somehow, are an expert on Star Trek, and that I should trust you. (As an aside, given your attitudes and your posting habits on this board, I have about as much reason to trust you as I do a car with four tires that have lost their tread, and have thread showing in each one.)

-I call you out on your defensive posture.

-You amusingly say that I pulled an argument fallacy, and do so in a manner to try and somehow, pathetically, impotently discredit me in some imagined argument. Heh, who says I'm arguing with you? I simply said I got tired of elitist bullshit. You're the one who replied in the defensive.

That's part of your M.O., Overgeeked. And sooner or later, the wrong people are going to find it less amusing than I do. But we'll leave that to their own devices. In the meantime, please, enjoy the air up there on your high-horse (which is in much need of water and food).

 

[Overgeeked]

So you're a self-proclaimed expert of all things Star Trek, are you?

Never said I was. That's a cute strawman you've built up. But that's not the conversation that's happening. You're tilting at windmills here.

There are experts, you said. The implication was that you were portraying yourself as an "expert" on Star Trek. And now you pull this.

You really need to try better, Overgeeked. You M.O. is becoming all too amusing.

-I mention that I tire of the elitist bullshit.

-Defensively, you say that there are experts. The not so subtle implication being that you, somehow, are an expert on Star Trek, and that I should trust you. (As an aside, given your attitudes and your posting habits on this board, I have about as much reason to trust you as I do a car with four tires that have lost their tread, and have thread showing in each one.)

-I call you out on your defensive posture.

-You amusingly say that I pulled an argument fallacy, and do so in a manner to try and somehow, pathetically, impotently discredit me. Heh, who says I'm arguing with you? I simply said I got tired of elitist bullshit. You're the one who replied in the defensive.

That's part of your M.O., Overgeeked. And sooner or later, the wrong people are going to find it less amusing than I do. But we'll leave that to their own devices. In the meantime, please, enjoy the air up there on your high-horse (which is in much need of water and food).

Repeat the strawman all you want, it's still a strawman.

 

[martok2112]

Never said I was. That's a cute strawman you've built up. But that's not the conversation that's happening. You're tilting at windmills here.

There are experts, you said. The implication was that you were portraying yourself as an "expert" on Star Trek. And now you pull this.

You really need to try better, Overgeeked. You M.O. is becoming all too amusing.

-I mention that I tire of the elitist bullshit.

-Defensively, you say that there are experts. The not so subtle implication being that you, somehow, are an expert on Star Trek, and that I should trust you. (As an aside, given your attitudes and your posting habits on this board, I have about as much reason to trust you as I do a car with four tires that have lost their tread, and have thread showing in each one.)

-I call you out on your defensive posture.

-You amusingly say that I pulled an argument fallacy, and do so in a manner to try and somehow, pathetically, impotently discredit me. Heh, who says I'm arguing with you? I simply said I got tired of elitist bullshit. You're the one who replied in the defensive.

That's part of your M.O., Overgeeked. And sooner or later, the wrong people are going to find it less amusing than I do. But we'll leave that to their own devices. In the meantime, please, enjoy the air up there on your high-horse (which is in much need of water and food).

Repeat the strawman all you want, it's still a strawman.

Truly, you amuse me.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Is he really comparing Star Trek to physics or car repair?

 

[martok2112]

Is he really comparing Star Trek to physics or car repair?

 

[Mudd]

Regardless, "expertise" has nothing to do with preferring one Trek movie or series over another.

 

[martok2112]

Regardless, "expertise" has nothing to do with preferring one Trek movie or series over another.

Agreed. But try as they may, over and over again, such self-appointed "Star Trek Experts" would be trying to convince the "unwashed masses" that the Trek that they like, which for whatever reason runs counter to the Trek that the "Experts" think is the "True Trek", is the "wrong Trek."

There is a word for that..... Insanity.

Trek is what you make of it. As I've always said, Trek appeals to different people for different, or multiple reasons. No one reason is right or wrong (contrary to what the "Experts" think.)

 

[Overgeeked]

Regardless, "expertise" has nothing to do with preferring one Trek movie or series over another.

Regardless, "expertise" has nothing to do with preferring one Trek movie or series over another.

Agreed. But try as they may, over and over again, such self-appointed "Star Trek Experts" would be trying to convince the "unwashed masses" that the Trek that they like, which for whatever reason runs counter to the Trek that the "Experts" think is the "True Trek", is the "wrong Trek."

There is a word for that..... Insanity.

Trek is what you make of it. As I've always said, Trek appeals to different people for different, or multiple reasons. No one reason is right or wrong (contrary to what the "Experts" think.)

I think you've just shown how Faux News works so well. You repeat a lie often enough and people actually believe it.

 

[HIjol]

Overgeeked, HIjol here with a friendly, well-meaning paragraph, if you will allow. You strike me as a person who has interest in Star Trek, and opinions and preferences to go with it. This is a PERFECT place for you. The people here are knowledgeable, opinionated, FUNNY as hell, friendly (on the whole) and great to interact with. May I suggest that you read, ponder, and Post, as topics interest you. Agree, disagree, support, add to or just learn from. Make your "voice" about the things you are interested in. Not about negatives! If you took the time to read this, I thank you!

 

[Mudd]

Regardless, "expertise" has nothing to do with preferring one Trek movie or series over another.

Regardless, "expertise" has nothing to do with preferring one Trek movie or series over another.

Agreed. But try as they may, over and over again, such self-appointed "Star Trek Experts" would be trying to convince the "unwashed masses" that the Trek that they like, which for whatever reason runs counter to the Trek that the "Experts" think is the "True Trek", is the "wrong Trek."

There is a word for that..... Insanity.

Trek is what you make of it. As I've always said, Trek appeals to different people for different, or multiple reasons. No one reason is right or wrong (contrary to what the "Experts" think.)

I think you've just shown how Faux News works so well. You repeat a lie often enough and people actually believe it.

That doesn't actually address what's being said, of course.

Waiting to hear how "expertise" figures into any of this.

 

[martok2112]

Regardless, "expertise" has nothing to do with preferring one Trek movie or series over another.

Agreed. But try as they may, over and over again, such self-appointed "Star Trek Experts" would be trying to convince the "unwashed masses" that the Trek that they like, which for whatever reason runs counter to the Trek that the "Experts" think is the "True Trek", is the "wrong Trek."

There is a word for that..... Insanity.

Trek is what you make of it. As I've always said, Trek appeals to different people for different, or multiple reasons. No one reason is right or wrong (contrary to what the "Experts" think.)

I think you've just shown how Faux News works so well. You repeat a lie often enough and people actually believe it.

That doesn't actually address what's being said, of course.

Waiting to hear how "expertise" figures into any of this.

Me too. It is most amusing.

 

[Dukhat]

^When one finds oneself on the losing side of an argument but doesn't have the sense to stop arguing, one tends to resort to both personal insults and meaningless nonsequitors in a vain attempt to create the illusion that that argument is in fact still happening.

 

[martok2112]

^When one finds oneself on the losing side of an argument but doesn't have the sense to stop arguing, one tends to use both personal insults and meaningless nonsequitors in a vain attempt to create the illusion that that argument is in fact still happening.

Agreed.

 

[T'Girl]

I think you've just shown how Faux News works so well. You repeat a lie often enough and people actually believe it.

If that is true, then how do you explain MSNBC, and the fact no one is buying their propaganda?

 

[Trekkin]

MSNBC. So influential that people outside of the U.S. have to Google what it is.

Take it from the PR major, repetition is just part of the process. You've got to give the audience a reason to not just treat it as white noise first. Shape a message that works, then repeat it.

Propaganda usually gets by fitting exactly what their target expects to hear. Hence why some of our more...fun fellow Trekkies on Facebook still have followers hanging on to their every bullshit prediction, in spite of correctly guessing Paramounts actions once(?) in six years.

If repetitiveness cut it, quiet a few of us would have been lamenting our horrible taste and lack of intelligence at least 3 pages ago. Oh, and everyone here would believe that Gene really had wings and a beak.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So it's your position Gene didn't? I'll need some proof of that.

 

[Trekkin]

What is it with people on this board? Every other person asking for proof of a negative. Such a demanding bunch