Pick-A-Dax

[Deckerd]

Doesn't excuse the unethical behaviour. Just because people are faced with realistic choices doesn't mean they chuck away the officer's manual. TNG was the only show where the captain behaved like an officer you would be proud to serve with. Janeway and Archer resorted to torture when they didn't get their way. Sisko stepped further over the line than either of those two. Also, as an aside, the whole story of how the Dominion became infected was so disgusting I'm amazed anyone had any time for the Federation after that.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Oh, I agree on that--Jad and K'Ehleyr are very much alike.

Nope. K'Eleyr and Jadzia are completely different characters. (...)

The fact that both had a "tension" just means that they were well written. All good characters have some kind of tension inside them, but not all tensions are a result of personal insecuries that leads to sarcasm as a defence mechanism.

If it's a central element of her personality--as it was with K'Ehleyr--then I stand by my point.

Then by the same token, the same could be said of every character portrayed with an unresolved tension (which is most of them): be it Kirk with his struggle between responsibility and adventure, Spock being torn between human emotion and Vulcan logic, Picard trying to find a balance between observation and intervention, Data bridging the gap between carbon and silicon, Sisko's separated loyalties between his roles as Emissary and Starfleet captain, etc. And if it applies to everyone, it makes no sense to cast it only on K'Ehleyr and Jadzia and hope it sticks.

As I have said--over and over and over--I could easily see Jadzia as a buddy. Just not as a close friend.

Uh, ok. But I find it vaguely creepy to invent your own personal term of affection for a fictional character and use it as if she was real.

iguana, I don't see you admitting when you're wrong.

Of course. I'm never wrong.

But in those rare instances when I was, I was ready and willing to admit it. But ego is huge, but as scientist, my commitment to a faithful assessment of reality is unyielding.

Once again, read my entire quote. "Weaseling", in its more "technical" sense, is using vague language for evil--evading responsibility for someting one does believe, or does say. But vague language can also be used for good--if you honestly don't know enough about the issue.

The latter can be used in the search for truth. The former cannot.

Weaselling about weaselling. Fascinating.

In any case,, after having witnessed your past performances of "weaseling", I think I know what form you use.

Hmm...you are lecturing Nerys on "putting words" in people's mouths?

Well, forum courtesy forbids me from talking about putting other things in people's mouth, so...

And--here, we see an example of...weaseling. Your side did not specifically say "inferior". Your side did say "old '50's-era", or "Victorian"--or "old-fashioned". The implication is that the mindsets you see us as expressing are out of touch with "modern" ways--that they are not "progressive".

Therefore...you think those ideas are "inferior".

Nope. Arguing something "old-fashioned", "out of touch", even "backwards" does not imply in any way that is "inferior". Just, well, "old-fashioned, out of touch, and backwards". Labelling something "superior" or "inferior" strikes as moral judgement which I eskew in most case. In fact, I find such labelling quite deplorable, not to mention unsettling. I mean, do you think that everything do you disagree with is "inferior"? Well, if you do, that's pretty telling of your mindset.

I criticized people for the reasons they listed for disliking Jadzia not for the reasons they listed for liking Ezri. It's not the same thing, even if you don't seem to understand the difference.

Again, it is by implication. You say we do not like Jadzia for those reasons.

You surely must be aware that the vast majority of expressions of contempt for Jadzia were included in comparisons to Ezri--we like Ezri better than Jadzia for these reasons.

Once clearly therefore infer that the characteristics the posters in question do not like in Jadzia are not present in Ezri. Therefore, like it or not, the two concepts--dislike for Jadzia, love for Ezri--are interconnected.

They are interconnected, sure. But not the same thing. When you say "I support this and that", do you necessarily imply that you despise everything else, and hold everybody who disagrees in utter contempt? Well, maybe you do, but I don't. I can like my things without showing contempt against people who like differently. Do not project your shortcomings to others.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Nope. K'Eleyr and Jadzia are completely different characters. (...)

The fact that both had a "tension" just means that they were well written. All good characters have some kind of tension inside them, but not all tensions are a result of personal insecuries that leads to sarcasm as a defence mechanism.

If it's a central element of her personality--as it was with K'Ehleyr--then I stand by my point.

Then by the same token, the same could be said of every character portrayed with an unresolved tension (which is most of them): be it Kirk with his struggle between responsibility and adventure, Spock being torn between human emotion and Vulcan logic, Picard trying to find a balance between observation and intervention, Data bridging the gap between carbon and silicon, Sisko's separated loyalties between his roles as Emissary and Starfleet captain, etc. And if it applies to everyone, it makes no sense to cast it only on K'Ehleyr and Jadzia and hope it sticks.

Oh, it does apply. However, never does that excuse putting others down, using snide remarks, gossiping about things clearly intended to be secret (recall the running "gag" of Jadzia being the cause of other characters' personal affairs being talked about around the station), etc.

Of course. I'm never wrong.

But in those rare instances when I was, I was ready and willing to admit it. But ego is huge, but as scientist, my commitment to a faithful assessment of reality is unyielding.

I think you just made my point for me....

Weaselling about weaselling. Fascinating.

In any case,, after having witnessed your past performances of "weaseling", I think I know what form you use.

Think what you like. I'm not really sure I care too much about it, anymore.

Nonetheless, it may interest you to know that I am a person more likely to admit being wrong in a debate with Kestrel, who has debated with me in a civil and dignified manner in this thread, than in a debate with someone who is more hostile and vitriolic in their language. Call it "stubborness", call it pride, I don't care--but I don't suffer the argumentative like that.

Nope. Arguing something "old-fashioned", "out of touch", even "backwards" does not imply in any way that is "inferior". Just, well, "old-fashioned, out of touch, and backwards". Labelling something "superior" or "inferior" strikes as moral judgement which I eskew in most case. In fact, I find such labelling quite deplorable, not to mention unsettling. I mean, do you think that everything do you disagree with is "inferior"? Well, if you do, that's pretty telling of your mindset.

I would say--and I'd think a great deal of people here would agree--"old-fasioned" and "backwards" are subcategories of the general concept "inferior".

Think about it: If you claim a mindset is "old-fasioned" and "backwards", you are claiming it is outdated, are you not?

If you claim it is outdated, you therefore say that it is useless.

"Useless" is inferior to "useful". "Backwards" is inferior to "forwards". Am I incorrect in this?

Frankly, iguana, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. If you say condemning something as "inferior" is a moral judgement, how can you say calling something "backwards" and "old-fashioned" is not?

I criticized people for the reasons they listed for disliking Jadzia not for the reasons they listed for liking Ezri. It's not the same thing, even if you don't seem to understand the difference.

Again, it is by implication. You say we do not like Jadzia for those reasons.

You surely must be aware that the vast majority of expressions of contempt for Jadzia were included in comparisons to Ezri--we like Ezri better than Jadzia for these reasons.

Once clearly therefore infer that the characteristics the posters in question do not like in Jadzia are not present in Ezri. Therefore, like it or not, the two concepts--dislike for Jadzia, love for Ezri--are interconnected.

They are interconnected, sure. But not the same thing. When you say "I support this and that", do you necessarily imply that you despise everything else, and hold everybody who disagrees in utter contempt? Well, maybe you do, but I don't. I can like my things without showing contempt against people who like differently. Do not project your shortcomings to others.

Sorry...but by calling critics of Jadzia's personality "backward" "old-fashoned", and "out of touch"--you have already crossed the line into contempt. Shran and Nerys and the rest have given their reasons for not liking Jadzia. Your responses have been, to be blunt, highly contemptuous.

I am not the one doing the "projecting" here.

 

[Distorted Humor]

And this is what was disturbing: in "Pale Moonlight", he is wracked with guilt for what he did...but finally resolves to learn to live with it. He knows it was morally wrong--but he knows it was necessary.

In "For The Uniform", he and Dax JOKE about it, in the end!

I just remember watching every dodgy decision he made and thinking "Picard would have found an honourable way".

People should have a braclet that say "What would Picard do"

Picard is not exactly ideal though, Up the long ladder is fraught with bad ethics, even if Riker is the worse case. (he murders two people in cold blood). And at least twice he transports arranged marriages. I do not blame sisko for carrying out misinformation in wartime, which is no more ethically wrong then picard sending the borg drone back to alter the borg. (The ethics issues of "In the Pale moonlight" fall on the Ds9's resident magnificent bastard Garak. However for the uniform Sisko did make a major ethical error. worst then anything that Kirk or Picard had done up to that point, perhaps worst then all of them COMBIND have done. (I have not watched enough Voyager to call out any bad ethics of Janeway.) I blame the writers for never calling him out on it. Not even framing it in Mutual assured distruction...

 

[Admiral Shran]

Haven't posted in this thread for a while (been lurking though). Just wanted to state something....

They are interconnected, sure. But not the same thing. When you say "I support this and that", do you necessarily imply that you despise everything else, and hold everybody who disagrees in utter contempt? Well, maybe you do, but I don't. I can like my things without showing contempt against people who like differently. Do not project your shortcomings to others.

For the record, I have never posted anything to the effect of "If you like Jadiza, you must hate men." Others, however, have expressly accused me, Rush, Nerys and others of only liking Ezri over Jadzia because we hate strong women, only like women who are submissive and think it's okay for men to be arrogant jerks but not women.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Then by the same token, the same could be said of every character portrayed with an unresolved tension (which is most of them): (...) And if it applies to everyone, it makes no sense to cast it only on K'Ehleyr and Jadzia and hope it sticks.

Oh, it does apply. However, never does that excuse putting others down, using snide remarks, gossiping about things clearly intended to be secret (recall the running "gag" of Jadzia being the cause of other characters' personal affairs being talked about around the station), etc.

Furiously grasping at straws here.

I think you just made my point for me....

I don't think I did. Care to elaborate?

Think what you like. I'm not really sure I care too much about it, anymore.

Nonetheless, it may interest you to know that I am a person more likely to admit being wrong in a debate with Kestrel, who has debated with me in a civil and dignified manner in this thread, than in a debate with someone who is more hostile and vitriolic in their language. Call it "stubborness", call it pride, I don't care--but I don't suffer the argumentative like that.

Again, . The attitude of the debaters have no bearing on the validity of the argument. What you are doing here is, gasp!, an ad hominem attack, something which you are very fond of accusing others of doing it, just to do it yourself in the next post.

I would say--and I'd think a great deal of people here would agree--"old-fasioned" and "backwards" are subcategories of the general concept "inferior".

And I great deal would disagree, me included.

"Useless" is inferior to "useful". "Backwards" is inferior to "forwards". Am I incorrect in this?

Yes, you are. Useful/useless is a judgement of practical usefulness. Forward/Backward, in this context, is a judgement of social advancement. Superior/inferior is a judgement of categorical hierarchy.

I completely disagree with the hierarchical framework. Even if I strongly disagree with some opinion, even if I think they are wrong, labelling them inferior would never cross my mind. Claims of superiority and inferiority are moral judgements, and very dangerous ones too.

If you say condemning something as "inferior" is a moral judgement, how can you say calling something "backwards" and "old-fashioned" is not?

Because, as I already explained, it is not.

I can like my things without showing contempt against people who like differently. Do not project your shortcomings to others.

Sorry...but by calling critics of Jadzia's personality "backward" "old-fashoned", and "out of touch"--you have already crossed the line into contempt. Shran and Nerys and the rest have given their reasons for not liking Jadzia. Your responses have been, to be blunt, highly contemptuous.

You are not reading what I am writing. (Or not understanding it. Both works.)

I never criticized anyone for liking anything. I criticized some people for some (not all) the reasons offered for disliking something. You like a character for whatever reason? More power to you. You dislike a character because you read it as an uppity bitch for traits I instead ascribe to women's emancipation, sexual liberation and self-confidence? That is what I have a problem with, and what I hold in contempt.

I don't know why it is so difficult.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Then by the same token, the same could be said of every character portrayed with an unresolved tension (which is most of them): (...) And if it applies to everyone, it makes no sense to cast it only on K'Ehleyr and Jadzia and hope it sticks.

Oh, it does apply. However, never does that excuse putting others down, using snide remarks, gossiping about things clearly intended to be secret (recall the running "gag" of Jadzia being the cause of other characters' personal affairs being talked about around the station), etc.

Furiously grasping at straws here.

Not at all. Internal conflicts do not justify putting others down--even (one might say especially) under the pretense of "It was just a joke!"

I don't think I did. Care to elaborate?

Claiming to never be wrong--well, it directly contradicts what you were saying about subjectivity, for one.

For another, I believe you were criticizing me for my allegedly having the exact same attitude.

Again, . The attitude of the debaters have no bearing on the validity of the argument.

No, it doesn't. However--it does have a bearing on behaviors. If someone has an obnoxious attitude in a debate--you don't want to reward him or her.

What you are doing here is, gasp!, an ad hominem attack, something which you are very fond of accusing others of doing it, just to do it yourself in the next post.

Read above.

And I great deal would disagree, me included.

...Useful/useless is a judgement of practical usefulness. Forward/Backward, in this context, is a judgement of social advancement. Superior/inferior is a judgement of categorical hierarchy.

And "advancement" is a hierarchy. If you consider something to be an example of "advancement" (and as we have seen, that is up for debate) then it is of a higher category than something not an example of "advancement"--something that is "backwards".

I completely disagree with the hierarchical framework. Even if I strongly disagree with some opinion, even if I think they are wrong, labelling them inferior would never cross my mind. Claims of superiority and inferiority are moral judgements, and very dangerous ones too.

Then don't refer to other ideas as "backwards" or "old-fashioned", either.

I can like my things without showing contempt against people who like differently. Do not project your shortcomings to others.

Sorry...but by calling critics of Jadzia's personality "backward" "old-fashoned", and "out of touch"--you have already crossed the line into contempt. Shran and Nerys and the rest have given their reasons for not liking Jadzia. Your responses have been, to be blunt, highly contemptuous.

You are not reading what I am writing. (Or not understanding it. Both works.)

I never criticized anyone for liking anything. I criticized some people for some (not all) the reasons offered for disliking something. You like a character for whatever reason? More power to you. You dislike a character because you read it as an uppity bitch for traits I instead ascribe to women's emancipation, sexual liberation and self-confidence? That is what I have a problem with, and what I hold in contempt.

I don't know why it is so difficult.

So...your standards for why a person likes something are different for why a person dislikes something?

Unfortunately, they are both on the same scale--the scale of preference. Shran and Nerys and I prefer Ezri to Jadzia.

Now--"self-confidence"? As I have said, snidely putting others down constantly is not a characteristic of self-confidence--in fact, just the opposite. It is a characteristic of arrogance--which is more often or not evidence of lack of internal self-confidence--which doesn't require putting others down to build oneself up.

And frankly, once again, there are a great deal of Trek women (Ezri included) who are self-confident, or who gain self-confidence--true self-confidence, which doesn't require constant wisecracks at others' expense--over the course of their appearance in the show.

"Sexual liberation"? As Nerys has said--over and over--that's not necessarily a good thing--male OR female, the standards should be the same.

Let me put it this way: "liberation" from what?

"Emancipation"? That's an odd thing to say. How is Jadzia "emancipated" while Ezri--or Kira--are not?

Why is it so difficult? Because it makes no sense.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Haven't posted in this thread for a while (been lurking though). Just wanted to state something....

They are interconnected, sure. But not the same thing. When you say "I support this and that", do you necessarily imply that you despise everything else, and hold everybody who disagrees in utter contempt? Well, maybe you do, but I don't. I can like my things without showing contempt against people who like differently. Do not project your shortcomings to others.

For the record, I have never posted anything to the effect of "If you like Jadiza, you must hate men." Others, however, have expressly accused me, Rush, Nerys and others of only liking Ezri over Jadzia because we hate strong women, only like women who are submissive and think it's okay for men to be arrogant jerks but not women.

Yep. Indeed, such non-sequiters are often sure signs of desperation.

 

[Thestral]

I made it very clear that Dukat went to a very, very sick extreme, but you decided to twist it to suggest that he was close to Jadzia in his behavior patterns, when I made it clear that he was out on a very long limb.

The fact that you're even putting them on the same continuum is the problem. Dukat wasn't going to a "sick extreme," he was doing something else entirely than Dax or Riker.

I really didn't like "In the pale moonlight"

I just remember watching every dodgy decision he made and thinking "Picard would have found an honourable way".

I think one of the main reasons Sisko's my favorite captain is because he's the most nuanced and interesting. Dedicated family man, but also flawed and imperfect. Picard may well have been better (if preachy), but when I'm reading/watching stories, it's fun to have imperfect characters that sometimes infuriate you.

If it's a central element of her personality--as it was with K'Ehleyr--then I stand by my point.

Riddikulus. Their internal tensions come from a completely different place, and your argument is dependent on them both coming from the same place. Stubbornly saying that because they manifest some similar outward behavior it must come from the same inward impetus doesn't make for a good argument, it makes you hardheaded.

Claiming to never be wrong--well, it directly contradicts what you were saying about subjectivity, for one.

Humor. It is a... difficult concept.

Read above.

There's not hostility and vitriol in this thread. If you want hostility and vitriol, well....

And "advancement" is a hierarchy. If you consider something to be an example of "advancement" (and as we have seen, that is up for debate) then it is of a higher category than something not an example of "advancement"--something that is "backwards".

You're speaking of things that are probably alien to your frame of reference. iguana's saying he entirely discounts the notion of hierarchy.

So...your standards for why a person likes something are different for why a person dislikes something?

Sure, why not?

Now--"self-confidence"? As I have said, snidely putting others down constantly is not a characteristic of self-confidence--in fact, just the opposite. It is a characteristic of arrogance--which is more often or not evidence of lack of internal self-confidence--which doesn't require putting others down to build oneself up.

You, of course, have yet to prove this.

Let me put it this way: "liberation" from what?

C'mon now.

"Emancipation"? That's an odd thing to say. How is Jadzia "emancipated" while Ezri--or Kira--are not?

Who said anything about Ezri or Kira not being? For all we know, Ezri was shtupping Morn on a regular basis, and there's just as much evidence for it as Jadzia having more relationships than Kira.

 

[Shatnertage]

For all we know, Ezri was shtupping Morn on a regular basis

Impossible. We all know he could never keep his mouth shut about it. It'd be all over the station as soon as it started.

I've got to ask, though I'm a little afraid of the answer--is Morn porn a big part of DS9 fan fic?

 

[Thestral]

Why do you think it took Bashir so long to make his move? It wasn't teenagery jitters, it was the knowledge that he'd never be able to satisfy her the way everybody's favorite barfly was. Everybody knew about it, just nobody talked about it much.

As to your second question, umm.... I have no idea, nor do I want to.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Riddikulus. Their internal tensions come from a completely different place, and your argument is dependent on them both coming from the same place. Stubbornly saying that because they manifest some similar outward behavior it must come from the same inward impetus doesn't make for a good argument, it makes you hardheaded.

...You, of course, have yet to prove this.

Both of them constantly tend to engage in humor which puts others down. The reason I attribute it to the same source is that it's the exact same manner of behavior.

It's the same reason bullying is attributed to a lack of self-confidence; it is putting others down to make one's self feel better.

Now--are they coming from different places? Remember, Jadzia possesed an immense lack of confidence which came out before and during her interation with Curzon in "Facets".

As for my having to "prove" my analysis--it is a theory which suits the facts I possess--and which I have given.

Humor. It is a... difficult concept.

Indeed it is....

There's not hostility and vitriol in this thread. If you want hostility and vitriol, well....

Oh, I would consider accusations of desires to prefer women to be "suppressed by Victorian-era standards" as hostile and vitriolic.

You're speaking of things that are probably alien to your frame of reference. iguana's saying he entirely discounts the notion of hierarchy.

And I am arguing that his use of "old-fashioned" and "backwards" completely contradict that assertion.

Sure, why not?

Because preference is preference--why someone would prefer A to B concerns both A and B.

Let me put it this way: "liberation" from what?

C'mon now.

Well...? I would hardly consider Ezri and Kira as not "liberated" from oppression--certainly not from male oppression.

"Emancipation"? That's an odd thing to say. How is Jadzia "emancipated" while Ezri--or Kira--are not?

Who said anything about Ezri or Kira not being? For all we know, Ezri was shtupping Morn on a regular basis, and there's just as much evidence for it as Jadzia having more relationships than Kira.

Amusing idea...but in all seriousness, I refer you to the fact that iguana did not seem willing to accept our liking of Ezri and Kira as an effective refutation of the claim that we don't care for the "emancipation" of woman--which, again, we haven't defined here, as of yet.

 

[Shatnertage]

As to your second question, umm.... I have no idea, nor do I want to.

In all honesty, neither do I, but I wasn't about to pass up a chance to use the phrase "Morn porn."

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

If a person is manipulating others in their relationships--power-tripping in what is supposed to be an equal relationship, then yes, it belongs on the same continuum, though again, Jadzia and Dukat would be very far from each other because obviously Dukat crossed a BIG line when he got violent physically and violent verbally (he didn't just toy with people...he destroyed them from the inside out). But it all arises from the same attitude (and I don't care whether it's a man or a woman holding that attitude, or who the victim is): seeing your romantic interests as things you can manipulate at your pleasure.

And before you try to say that I only apply that standard to people who have sex out of marriage, one can absolutely be married, have been totally exclusive to that person, and have the exact same attitude--power-tripping on one's spouse, in varying degrees. I think we can all think of (and perhaps even know in our personal lives) examples of such behavior.

 

[Deckerd]

I But it all arises from the same attitude (and I don't care whether it's a man or a woman holding that attitude, or who the victim is): seeing your romantic interests as things you can manipulate at your pleasure.

An interesting comparison. As far as I can remember Jadzia wasn't a mass murderer and didn't completely subjugate an entire planet and its people. I musta missed that episode.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Nerys has already answered that point....

If a person is manipulating others in their relationships--power-tripping in what is supposed to be an equal relationship, then yes, it belongs on the same continuum, though again, Jadzia and Dukat would be very far from each other because obviously Dukat crossed a BIG line when he got violent physically and violent verbally (he didn't just toy with people...he destroyed them from the inside out).

Saying that Jadiza and Dukat are similiar in one way doesn't mean they are similiar in all ways.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Not at all. Internal conflicts do not justify putting others down--even (one might say especially) under the pretense of "It was just a joke!"

I agree. Good things Jadzia never did that.

Claiming to never be wrong--well, it directly contradicts what you were saying about subjectivity, for one.

For another, I believe you were criticizing me for my allegedly having the exact same attitude.

Humour. It's a difficult concept, I know. Look it up in the dictionary some day, it may be of help.

The attitude of the debaters have no bearing on the validity of the argument.

No, it doesn't. However--it does have a bearing on behaviors. If someone has an obnoxious attitude in a debate--you don't want to reward him or her.

Ok. I never said otherwise. You are the one whining because people are mean to you.

And "advancement" is a hierarchy. If you consider something to be an example of "advancement" (and as we have seen, that is up for debate) then it is of a higher category than something not an example of "advancement"--something that is "backwards".

Incorrect. "Advancements" is a temporal assessments, not a hierarchical one. I am fully able to agree and support something without thinking everything else in "inferior".

So...your standards for why a person likes something are different for why a person dislikes something?

Yep. See? It was not so difficult to understand.

"I like vanilla ice cream because it's fluffy and sweet" is a perfectly acceptable comment. "I despise chocolate ice cream because it tastes like vomit and just seeing it makes me nauseous" raises a few more eyebrows, and begets the question of why such displease with a perfectly normal substance.

Shran and Nerys and I prefer Ezri to Jadzia.

Wonderful. As I said, more power to you.

Do you realize this debate has nothing (or indeed very little) to do with Ezri and everything with attitudes towards women, right?

Now--"self-confidence"? (...) "Sexual liberation"? (...) Let me put it this way: "liberation" from what? (...) "Emancipation"?

Let's just say I disagree with everything you wrote and avoid yet another repetition of the same exact argument we just had in the previous ten pages.

Yep. Indeed, such non-sequiters are often sure signs of desperation.

Lulz.

Edited to add: Basically, what Kestrel said.

Oh, I would consider accusations of desires to prefer women to be "suppressed by Victorian-era standards" as hostile and vitriolic.

Nope. Just factual.

but in all seriousness, I refer you to the fact that iguana did not seem willing to accept our liking of Ezri and Kira as an effective refutation of the claim that we don't care for the "emancipation" of woman

Well, because it isn't.

Nerys has already answered that point....

If a person is manipulating others in their relationships--power-tripping in what is supposed to be an equal relationship, then yes, it belongs on the same continuum, though again, Jadzia and Dukat would be very far from each other because obviously Dukat crossed a BIG line when he got violent physically and violent verbally (he didn't just toy with people...he destroyed them from the inside out).

Saying that Jadiza and Dukat are similiar in one way doesn't mean they are similiar in all ways.

Which is still mindbogglingly stupid. So now using humour is power-tripping? Teasing a boy who fancies himself a supreme seducer is the on the same continuum of mass murder and military occupation of a planet?

I understand some people here had a bad time in school because they were picked on, but we are getting ridiculous here. The depth on people's insecurities here is horrifying.

 

[TheLobes]

Jadzia, the lesser evil. I honestly feel sick whenever I see Ezri on screen, what a worthless runt of a character.

 

[iguana_tonante]

^ In the interest of fairness, I consider that kind of comment out of order, too. I can understand being annoyed at the substitution, but "feeling sick" for such an inoffensive character is kinda excessive from my perspective.

 

[Deckerd]

And lord knows there hasn't been anything excessive so far in this thread.