• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Buried Age

While Picard is an eloquent, persuasive speaker he cannot, unless he has mind control powers, make anyone do anything they don't want to do.

The Manraloth, based on my reading of The Buried Age ascended because they finally understood why they were being resisted, and that they couldn't do anything further to help the inhabitants of the galaxy at that time.

Picard never said that humanity was grown up, but rather that it was still going through growing pains and experiencing its independence.

It only sounds hollow because you're reading more into it than there is, and by twisting word definitions to conform to your preconceived viewpoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
"fanatical"? Hardly. My position is supported by arguments - which you are, apparently, unable to convincingly counter.

ProtoAvatar - it is completely possible for two people to look at exactly the same circumstances and draw different conclusions. When that happens, repeating those same circumstances over and over again with bold and italic lettering is not going to change their mind.

I happen to 100% agree with Christopher on this. I find him completely convincing.

The definition of "fanatic" is someone who refuses to be dissuaded or consider alternatives. I think that fits just about every post you've ever made; I've never seen you change your mind on anything. You get attached to one particular interpretation and then repeat it over and over and over and over and over, with increasing amounts of formatting, and then call everyone stupid or unconvincing or whatever when they disagree.

Not much of a conversation.
 
[...]And if she hadn't been driven to explore[...]

"No matter how much you try to retcon human involvment into the events that led to the demise of the borg, the simple fact is, humans were unable to contribute anything meaningful."

Restating your claims doesn't make them any more true. It just makes you look inflexible and closed-minded.

After 'Destiny', one can say with certainty that humanity is not able to handle many of the things that are to be found in the galaxy - and beyond.

Only if you treat Destiny in isolation. Think of all the other galactic-level threats the Federation has handled without godlike intervention. They thrived for 220 years before encountering something too big for them to handle on their own.

O, the federation doesn't need help on an ongoing basis. But it DOES need help.

Which is true of any responsible, mature adult individual or civilization. Needing occasional help is not evidence of immaturity, irresponsibility, or suicidal tendencies.

Tell me, is a 7 year old ready to be 'independent'? That's what the federation proved it is in 'Destiny'.
A 7 year old trying to be independed IS foolhardy and immature. It can handle games with the other kids nearby - not adult stuff.

See above. This would only be valid if Destiny were the first major threat the UFP had ever faced. It isn't. A better analogy would be an adult who moved out on her own over 20 years ago, helped convince her neighbors to get along and work together, led them in organizing a prosperous, inclusive, fair community that's thrived in the interim, and now had that community devastated by a hurricane and in need of federal assistance to evacuate, feed, and protect the displaced citizens. That's not a helpless child who was wrong to assert her independence. On the contrary, that's a proven leader who can be trusted to be an asset in the wake of the disaster as she helps her community to rebuild, as the strength and cooperative spirit she imbued in that community enables it to rebound from the disaster and help other communities that were also devastated by it.


Only if they're objectively not ready to face life on their own.

But your standards for "not ready" are impossibly high. Nobody's ready for everything. You can be ready for any challenge that a human being can be reasonably expected to face, but that won't help you if your city is washed away by a tsunami or an asteroid falls from space.


Having the population decimated after only 300 years is not 'we generally manage'. It's 'we don't manage'.

Okay, you really need to invest in a dictionary.


After 'Destiny', when one knows with certainty that one can't handle everything out there, declining help from someone who could help you IS suicidal aka immature.

And if the Manraloth had been around during Destiny, Picard wouldn't have declined their help. However, it might've been a devil's bargain to accept their help.

Again, you keep failing to recognize that seeking independence is not a guarantee that you will never face a danger beyond you. Yes, if you move out from your parents, there's always the chance your life may get screwed up so badly that you have to turn to them for financial aid or a place to live. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to try to live on your own. No one can predict the future. No one can say with absolute certainty that they'll never face a crisis they can't handle without help. But that doesn't make it wrong or "suicidal" or "immature" to want to live on your own and make your own choices.

But screw it. I've said the same things to you a dozen times by now and you're not willing to listen. You think the way to win an argument is to be absolutely inflexible, restate the same dogma over and over, and refuse to give even a millisecond's thought to anyone else's points. And that's what's truly immature.
 
"fanatical"? Hardly. My position is supported by arguments - which you are, apparently, unable to convincingly counter.

ProtoAvatar - it is completely possible for two people to look at exactly the same circumstances and draw different conclusions. When that happens, repeating those same circumstances over and over again with bold and italic lettering is not going to change their mind.

I happen to 100% agree with Christopher on this. I find him completely convincing.

The definition of "fanatic" is someone who refuses to be dissuaded or consider alternatives.

Then 'fanatic' applies to Christopher and yourself, too, Thrawn.


The definition of "fanatic" is someone who refuses to be dissuaded or consider alternatives. I think that fits just about every post you've ever made; I've never seen you change your mind on anything. You get attached to one particular interpretation and then repeat it over and over and over and over and over, with increasing amounts of formatting

You are describing your own posts, Thrawn.
 
When I first finished Destiny, I was really disappointed by the lack of impact that the main characters had on the climax. After reading posts by Christopher, David Mack, Sci, and many others in the Lost Souls discussion thread over the course of about three hours, I totally changed my perspective on the ending and realized how challenging, complex, and ultimately beautiful it really was. I had to think about it for a while, and read some other analysis, before I let it sink in.

That's my favorite kind of work, be it album or comic or movie or novel or whatever - the kind where an initial "huh?" becomes, over time, a deeper understanding of something challenging and new. The fact that, a year and a half later, I defend the trilogy so strongly does not mean that my opinion was never flexible.

There's nothing I love more than being completely convinced that I was wrong about something. It means I've learned something new.

You just haven't been able to convince me of anything yet, because your arguments are by and large circular, inflexible, and remarkably lacking in any kind of nuance or subtlety.
 
Restating your claims doesn't make them any more true. It just makes you look inflexible and closed-minded.
[...]
But screw it. I've said the same things to you a dozen times by now and you're not willing to listen. You think the way to win an argument is to be absolutely inflexible, restate the same dogma over and over, and refuse to give even a millisecond's thought to anyone else's points. And that's what's truly immature.

Same back to you, Christopher.

Thrawn is right on one point - this discussion is obviously going nowhere.
Except exacerbating your condescension.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

When I first finished Destiny, I was really disappointed by the lack of impact that the main characters had on the climax. After reading posts by Christopher, David Mack, Sci, and many others in the Lost Souls discussion thread over the course of about three hours, I totally changed my perspective on the ending and realized how challenging, complex, and ultimately beautiful it really was. I had to think about it for a while, and read some other analysis, before I let it sink in.

Very well, Thrawn.
In all discussions regarding 'Destiny' that I witnessed, you were laudatory about the book.
Produce the posts in which you were "disappointed by the lack of impact that the main characters had on the climax" and I will concede that you changed your mind regarding 'Destiny'.

You just haven't been able to convince me of anything yet, because your arguments are by and large circular, inflexible, and kind of asinine.

At least I'm not insulting - which can't be said about you, Thrawn.
Apropos this - when did I call anyone stupid?
 
Well, I think you just called me a liar.

No, Thrawn.
I asked you to provide arguments in support of your statement, given that, according to all the information I have, your affirmation is not supported by facts.
If you wish me to completely trust your word, I suggest you start by NOT continuously insulting me.

I still await the links for your 'disappointed' posts regarding 'Destiny'.
 

Your first post from the thread you linked to begins with:
"David Mack: I salute you. This is an incredible achievement, and a phenomenal trilogy. Since much of the general praise has been said, here are a few specific observations/questions:"
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=2526822&highlight=thrawn#post2526822

As far as your posts go, you WERE laudatory of 'Destiny', Thrawn - in the extreme.
Yes, you had that complaint about the starfleet captains being passive, but it was literally drowned in praises. This is the most I can say about your "disappointment" with 'Destiny' - the most you said yourself in that thread.
 
And here's where I have a problem with your posting. You think that in order for me to be disappointed with one ASPECT of the trilogy, I had to be disappointed with ALL of it. In this thread, my exact post was "I was really disappointed by the lack of impact that the main characters had on the climax", which is exactly what you see in the thread I linked you to. I enjoyed all the rest of the trilogy, but not that one thing.

And, again, as you see in the thread I linked you to, I had my mind changed on even that. I point you to my third post in the thread, which begins "Huh, I hadn't actually thought of it quite that way before."

You asked for evidence that I changed my mind. I did.
 
Thrawn, you said: "When I first finished Destiny, I was really disappointed by the lack of impact that the main characters had on the climax."

I read your posts from the thread you linked to, and one thing is for certain - they do NOT belong to a 'really disappointed' person aka a person really "saddened by the failure of an expectation".

You read - and wrote - those posts yourself. From the first post, you're highly laudatory, satisfied with the trilogy - you can't deny that. This is NOT how a 'really disappointed' person sounds. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The only negative observation you made could be charitably described as a 'minor complaint' that did nothing to diminish the beauty of the overall story.
 
This is now the second time that you've tried to tell me that your interpretation of my postings is more accurate than mine, despite the fact that I WAS THE PERSON THAT POSTED THEM.

So either you're calling me a liar, or you're so pathologically refusing to accept any interpretation of reality other than your own that you're pretty much proving my initial point anyway.

Either way - we're done here.
 
I don't even know what you are argueing about anymore.

What's the problem, ProtoAvatar? That something Picard said 25 years before Destiny was proven wrong by the events in Destiny? Big deal. Yeah, maybe Picard wouldn't say the same thing again. Have you still the same opinions on life that you had 25 years ago?
 
And you call me inflexible.
I call you pathologically unable to admit you made an erroneous statement.

Have you even read your posts? You sounded like a person who just won the lottery! And you call this "REALLY DISSAPOINTED"?
And you have the nerve to call ME a liar?

And, Thrawn - there's not much to interpret in the posts you linked to. Posts that continuously go like "David Mack: I salute you. This is an incredible achievement, and a phenomenal trilogy. Since much of the general praise has been said, here are a few specific observations/questions:" don't leave any room for ambiguity.

On one point you're right - we're done here.
If you can't even admit that your posts were sugary laudatory, conversation with you in general is a waste of time.
 
That something Picard said 25 years before Destiny was proven wrong by the events in Destiny? Big deal. Yeah, maybe Picard wouldn't say the same thing again. Have you still the same opinions on life that you had 25 years ago?

So, you agree with my point. Many others do not - and they are quite adamant about it.

Your 'What's the problem' question is more aptly adressed to them.
 
As I recall, the group of manlaroth featured in the book agreed to 'ascend' in the end because Picard made his speech about how humanity is 'grown up' and can handle whatever awaits in the future.

After 'Destiny' (and the Caeliar saving a helpless federation), such a speech sounds hollow.
I doubt anyone can be convinced by it anymore (the manlaroth would most likely find the speech cute, coming from overconfident children). It's even doubtful Picard - or anyone in the federation- would make this speech after 'Destiny'.

It is JUST A SPEECH. Picard is no omnipotent being, how should he know what happens next? All he can do is saying what he THINKS is true. And since humanity survived the Destiny events, they will be able to live through the aftermath.

It's like someone 1918 said there's hope for humanity after all, but then World War II came along. Sure thing, very bad time, but after that was over, there's again hope for humanity.
 
Jarod Russel, behold my post which started this debate:
"As I recall, the group of manlaroth featured in the book agreed to 'ascend' in the end because Picard made his speech about how humanity is 'grown up' and can handle whatever awaits in the future.

After 'Destiny' (and the Caeliar saving a helpless federation), such a speech sounds hollow.
I doubt anyone can be convinced by it anymore (the manlaroth would most likely find the speech cute, coming from overconfident children). It's even doubtful Picard - or anyone in the federation- would make this speech after 'Destiny'."
As you can see, I repeatedly specified "after 'Destiny'".

In your previous post, you already agreed with the ideeas expressed here:
"That something Picard said 25 years before Destiny was proven wrong by the events in Destiny? Big deal. Yeah, maybe Picard wouldn't say the same thing again. Have you still the same opinions on life that you had 25 years ago?"
 
And you call me inflexible.
I call you pathologically unable to admit you made an erroneous statement.

Have you even read your posts? You sounded like a person who just won the lottery! And you call this "REALLY DISSAPOINTED"?
And you have the nerve to call ME a liar?

And, Thrawn - there's not much to interpret in the posts you linked to. Posts that continuously go like "David Mack: I salute you. This is an incredible achievement, and a phenomenal trilogy. Since much of the general praise has been said, here are a few specific observations/questions:" don't leave any room for ambiguity.

On one point you're right - we're done here.
If you can't even admit that your posts were sugary laudatory, conversation with you in general is a waste of time.

As a person, I make a large amount of effort to be as honest, consistent, and open as I can. It's important enough to me that I take very seriously the kind of comments you're making about me, even though this is completely anonymous on an internet forum. This is perhaps to my detriment, but either way, I'm going to make one more try to clear this up, point by point.

1) The disagreement was this - I said I'd never seen you change your mind, then you said that you'd never seen me change my mind, and so didn't see a difference. Yes?

2) Do you disagree that, in the thread I linked you to, there is specific evidence that I held one perspective ("a weakness of the trilogy is that Picard and Riker don't participate in the climax") and then visibly changed my mind?

3) Do you disagree that it is possible to love something, but still be disappointed in one particular aspect?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top