The Buried Age

[ProtoAvatar]

CaseyF

Did you bother to read my response to Thrawn's post:
"Well, I think you just called me a liar?"
Here it is:
"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'."

As long as the person I'm conversing to is civil, I will be civil. Sometimes, even beyond this point. You will NEVER find in my posts on this forum a direct insult.

Thrawn

There's a rather large difference between claiming the trekverse has become battlestar galactica verse and saying this depends on future developments.

But, if you insist on continuing this 'how many times did you change your mind' game - well, it's your turn. Give another example where you changed your mind.

 

[CaseyF]

CaseyF

Did you bother to read my response to Thrawn's post:
"Well, I think you just called me a liar?"
Here it is:
"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'."

I did bother to read it. Seems to me you were saying that in order to "completely trust his word" that he had misgivings with Destiny, you needed to see a link to a post where he initially said as much. Why not just accept that he had problems with the trilogy initially like he was telling you he did? What if he'd never posted about his problems with Destiny? You just wouldn't believe him? Seems to me that's an insinuation that you think he's lying and you need to see something concrete before you'll believe otherwise.

But I'm sorry I barged in on your conversation with him. He's being very patient and trying to walk you step by step through an actual, reasonable discourse. More power to him. I'll stay out of it and mind my beeswax now until I actually have something to contribute to the discussion.

 

[Thrawn]

But, if you insist on continuing this 'how many times did you change your mind' game - well, it's your turn. Give another example where you changed your mind.

You're right; this is kind of silly. I mean, I can think of a bunch of examples off the top of my head; I even started a whole thread just to talk about how excited I was that I changed my mind completely about Mission: Gamma: Twilight, but that's not really the point right now.

What I was trying to do here was explain how my thinking worked, and why I felt your posts describing me as inflexible and fanatical were wrong. I think I've done that, and I believe you begrudgingly agreed, so there's no need to keep going that way.

All I'd ask is that, in the future, you make more of an effort to understand the perspectives of people arguing against you. It happens a lot (I mean, like REALLY a lot) that I read a thread where you're arguing with someone and it seems like you're just completely refusing to even consider the completely logical points they're making. I'm potentially willing to chalk that up to continued misunderstandings, based on this conversation here, but I think that I'm not off base here. Lots of people have commented on your intractability.

If nothing else, I've demonstrated that you can be wrong about something just because you disagreed with a person's word choice, not because their point is actually invalid. I think if you try and think that way in the future, you might end up in fewer knock-down, drag-out pointless arguments with Christopher

 

[ProtoAvatar]

CaseyF
"Why not just accept that he had problems with the trilogy initially like he was telling you he did?"

Because I was well aware of his extremely laudatory attitude towards the trilogy from previous threads. And the fact that his previous posts were condescending/insulting didn't help.

Apparently, you didn't read this conversation very thoroughly, CaseyF.

Thrawn
"I've demonstrated that you can be wrong about something just because you disagreed with a person's word choice, not because their point is actually invalid."
You were the one who started with obvious condescension and insults because of your own 'word choice' - without proving - then or now - that you are 'correct' and I, 'wrong'.

As for being open minded, you forget, I read this forum, too. In the future "you make more of an effort to understand the perspectives of people arguing against you", too.

 

[CaseyF]

CaseyF
Because I was well aware of his extremely laudatory attitude towards the trilogy from previous threads. And the fact that his previous posts were condescending/insulting didn't help.

Apparently, you didn't read this conversation very thoroughly, CaseyF.

I have read all your posts on this thread very thoroughly. I saw your reasoning for why you wanted to see a link, but no matter how you parse it, you were still insinuating he was lying. And once he showed you a link, you still argued over semantics that didn't even really have much bearing on the point he was making. He wasn't the one arguing about his example ad nauseam - you were.

But you're right, if I'd read your posts even more closely, I would have realized that there was no point saying anything to you. I'm very well aware of that now.

To post something on-topic, I only recently read The Buried Age, and I thought it was fantastic. I can't wait to see what Christopher's going to do with his DTI book.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

CaseyF
"But you're right, if I'd read your posts even more closely, I would have realized that there was no point saying anything to you. I'm very well aware of that now."

Yes, I can definitely see how civil and open-minded you are.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

ProtoAvatar, you also like to use "condescending" whenever someone gets into an argument with you. It's not the first time I've seen you use it against either Thrawn or Christopher.

And CaseyF, I'm also looking forward to the DTI books. I've always enjoyed Christopher's books, and they seem to be the ones that consistently challenge me to think more while reading them than any other.

 

[Thrawn]

You were the one who started with obvious condescension and insults because of your own 'word choice' - without proving - then or now - that you are 'correct' and I, 'wrong'.

As for being open minded, you forget, I read this forum, too. In the future "you make more of an effort to understand the perspectives of people arguing against you", too.

And just when I thought we were making progress.

You said: "The response you received to your questions regarding said objection was satisfactorily and you retreated it."

That sounds an awful lot like you agreeing that I had an objection, and then was convinced not to. Meaning I changed my mind. Which was my point. Making me correct.

Also, I've made EVERY effort to understand your perspective; you didn't make the slightest attempt to understand mine until I led you through it by the hand.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Thrawn
Yes, in that initial 'Destiny' thread, you had an objection and you retreated it. So yes, you DID change your mind there - as I already said.

"Also, I've made EVERY effort to understand your perspective; you didn't make the slightest attempt to understand mine until I led you through it by the hand"

I didn't make the "slightest attempt" to understand your perspective because, frankly, your posts, insulting at the time, irritated me. And, on an internet board, I place little value on what's written in such posts.

When you became civil, however, despite the fact that I had more than enough of this conversation, I indulged you and continued the conversation - with the rather anticlimactic conclusion that we understand 'really disappointed' differently.

 

[Thrawn]

And that's exactly my point. A lot of times, huge arguments with you seem to be the result of you refusing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt, and little "anticlimactic" things like word choice become giant, pages-long arguments that you never back down from.

Certainly, the entire argument in this thread seems to boil down to you and Christopher's respective definitions of "maturity".

 

[CaseyF]

And CaseyF, I'm also looking forward to the DTI books. I've always enjoyed Christopher's books, and they seem to be the ones that consistently challenge me to think more while reading them than any other.

The only books I've read by Christopher so far are Ex Machina, his Mere Anarchy novella and Buried Age - I'm still catching up on TrekLit. What I especially enjoy about them is how true to the Trekverse they are, yet presenting it from a unique perspective that I haven't seen in other novels. Also, I've never liked TMP before, but his exploration of that era in Ex Machina motivated me to reconsider my perspective of it and rewatch it recently. (Still not my fave, but I did enjoy it more than the last time I'd watched it.)

Also, I've made EVERY effort to understand your perspective; you didn't make the slightest attempt to understand mine until I led you through it by the hand.

Seriously, Thrawn, I really admired your patience in this thread. I know it didn't get anywhere, but it was a nice try. I feel bad now for interfering since you were handling it fine (or trying to), but I don't know that any approach would have made a difference in the end.

 

[Thrawn]

The only books I've read by Christopher so far are Ex Machina, his Mere Anarchy novella and Buried Age - I'm still catching up on TrekLit. What I especially enjoy about them is how true to the Trekverse they are, yet presenting it from a unique perspective that I haven't seen in other novels. Also, I've never liked TMP before, but his exploration of that era in Ex Machina motivated me to reconsider my perspective of it and rewatch it recently. (Still not my fave, but I did enjoy it more than the last time I'd watched it.)

Absolutely. I credit Ex Machina 100% for my enjoyment of TMP. I hated it before I read the book, but I recently rewatched it with Christopher's characterizations in mind (unconsciously, couldn't help it) and suddenly it was pretty powerful stuff. Still kind of awkward and boring, but I think I understood it in a way that I hadn't previously.

Seriously, Thrawn, I really admired your patience in this thread. I know it didn't get anywhere, but it was a nice try. I feel bad now for interfering since you were handling it fine (or trying to), but I don't know that any approach would have made a difference in the end.

Oh, there's nothing to feel bad for, and also nothing really to admire.

I'm a teacher for a living, and in order to do that, I have to take a certain amount of interest in figuring out the way other people think and how to relate to them.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

And CaseyF, I'm also looking forward to the DTI books. I've always enjoyed Christopher's books, and they seem to be the ones that consistently challenge me to think more while reading them than any other.

The only books I've read by Christopher so far are Ex Machina, his Mere Anarchy novella and Buried Age - I'm still catching up on TrekLit. What I especially enjoy about them is how true to the Trekverse they are, yet presenting it from a unique perspective that I haven't seen in other novels. Also, I've never liked TMP before, but his exploration of that era in Ex Machina motivated me to reconsider my perspective of it and rewatch it recently. (Still not my fave, but I did enjoy it more than the last time I'd watched it.)

The only Trek Lit works of Christopher's that I haven't read so far is Ex Machina. I hear laudatory comments, but I'm still wary due to my not having seen TMP all the way through, and my inclination towards later Trek.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

And that's exactly my point. A lot of times, huge arguments with you seem to be the result of you refusing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt, and little "anticlimactic" things like word choice become giant, pages-long arguments that you never back down from.

You never back down either, Thrawn. And are a lot quicker to resort to innsults.
As for me, I repeatedly proposed we end a fruitless conversation, but agreed to continue at your insistence. In other words, I changed my mind, in order to be civil - apropos that silly game.

Certainly, the entire argument in this thread seems to boil down to you and Christopher's respective definitions of "maturity".

My disagreement with Christopher is more fundamental than that.
I proposed a rather isolationist view that Christopher is violently opposed to.

 

[Thrawn]

I said I should have been more civil, I said I realized that from your perspective it could look like I was being dishonest, and I didn't press the argument over your evidence that you changed your mind. That's three things I've backed down on in this conversation alone.

But thank you for continuing the conversation; I think that you still don't like me very much, but at least you're no longer accusing me of lying. And I definitely understand your source of frustration with me a little more; my word choice was leading you to think I was BSing you and being arbitrary. So I can work on that. I think that's progress.

Back on topic: it seems to me like you're not proposing something isolationist; you think that we should be constantly seeking out help from higher powers. If we were isolationist, the Borg would've just fucked us all the way up, because we wouldn't have been exploring enough to find the Caeliar to ask them for help. Remember, Q sent us to the Borg in the first place, and Voyager being sent to the Delta Quadrant was an accident; if anything precipitated the Borg invasion, it was those two events, and neither of those was in the Federation's control.

 

[CaseyF]

The only Trek Lit works of Christopher's that I haven't read so far is Ex Machina. I hear laudatory comments, but I'm still wary due to my not having seen TMP all the way through, and my inclination towards later Trek.

As far as not having seen TMP, I don't think that would detract much from your enjoyment. I actually hadn't seen it in over 10 years when I read Ex Machina. While it's following on the heels of the movie and does a great job of conveying and expanding on the feel of the film, the actual storyline isn't tied all that closely to the events of the movie. If you have a general understanding of what happened in the film and the Trek era the book is set in, you should be fine. (Plus, Christopher's online annotations are so detailed that I didn't feel I was missing out on references to the film.)

By the way, Valeris, I love that picture of Hoshi.

 

[Thrawn]

I think you should be pretty familiar with the end of The Motion Picture; I'd recommend seeing it beforehand. And you should probably read the Memory Alpha summary of "For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky" too.

 

[Christopher]

The only books I've read by Christopher so far are Ex Machina, his Mere Anarchy novella and Buried Age - I'm still catching up on TrekLit. What I especially enjoy about them is how true to the Trekverse they are, yet presenting it from a unique perspective that I haven't seen in other novels. Also, I've never liked TMP before, but his exploration of that era in Ex Machina motivated me to reconsider my perspective of it and rewatch it recently. (Still not my fave, but I did enjoy it more than the last time I'd watched it.)

Absolutely. I credit Ex Machina 100% for my enjoyment of TMP. I hated it before I read the book, but I recently rewatched it with Christopher's characterizations in mind (unconsciously, couldn't help it) and suddenly it was pretty powerful stuff. Still kind of awkward and boring, but I think I understood it in a way that I hadn't previously.

I am very gratified to hear that from both of you. That's one of the things I was hoping to achieve with ExM -- to show other people the worthwhile things I see in TMP.

Back on topic: it seems to me like you're not proposing something isolationist; you think that we should be constantly seeking out help from higher powers. If we were isolationist, the Borg would've just fucked us all the way up, because we wouldn't have been exploring enough to find the Caeliar to ask them for help. Remember, Q sent us to the Borg in the first place, and Voyager being sent to the Delta Quadrant was an accident; if anything precipitated the Borg invasion, it was those two events, and neither of those was in the Federation's control.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with being receptive to help from those more powerful than you. I've conceded that all along. But the crucial distinction here is that being open to help from others is not the same as being a dependent child. One is occasional and subject to your own choice; the other is constant and depriving you of choice. They're very different things.

 

[CaseyF]

You should probably read the Memory Alpha summary of "For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky" though.

Ah, that's true, familiarity with "For the World is Hollow . . ." would help. I did things all kinds of backwards. I read Ex Machina, then re-watched TMP for the first time in years, then eventually got to "For the World is Hollow . . ." during my viewing of the entire original series (thank you, Netflix!). My Trek re-watch is happening in a linear fashion, but I've kind of been jumping all over while catching up on the books. But Memory Alpha helped me understand the Yonada aspects of it. (I remember being a little confused when I first read The Lost Years way back in the day, before I could do an Internet search to understand the Yonada/Natira references.)

 

[Dancing Doctor]

The only Trek Lit works of Christopher's that I haven't read so far is Ex Machina. I hear laudatory comments, but I'm still wary due to my not having seen TMP all the way through, and my inclination towards later Trek.

As far as not having seen TMP, I don't think that would detract much from your enjoyment. I actually hadn't seen it in over 10 years when I read Ex Machina. While it's following on the heels of the movie and does a great job of conveying and expanding on the feel of the film, the actual storyline isn't tied all that closely to the events of the movie. If you have a general understanding of what happened in the film and the Trek era the book is set in, you should be fine. (Plus, Christopher's online annotations are so detailed that I didn't feel I was missing out on references to the film.)

I sort of know what happens, roughly. Part of me was also concerned because I haven't seen For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky. Oh well.

I'll have to see if my local bookstore has a copy of Ex Machina. They tend to only have the newest Star Trek books, or the most popular.

By the way, Valeris, I love that picture of Hoshi.

I've always liked Hoshi Sato, and communications in general (During long car trips, I tend to get the job of communications offcer as well as navigator). And I liked In A Mirror, Darkly for many reasons, but mostly because of her hair.