Now come on, that's completely disingenuous. Pike's "assigned" the USS Kelvin for his dissertation, but somehow, magically, because he's not assigned the lightning storm in space he has no knowledge of it even though THE SHIP THAT DESTROYED THE KEVLIN CAME OUT A THE FRAKKING LIGHTNING STORM IN SPACE.
That's intentionally bending over backwards, putting on blinders, and ignoring what's on the screen to avoid seeing what's right in front of you.
That's explaining what happened. "Disingenuous" is a word politicians and talk show hosts use to avoid calling their opponent an actual liar. Please stick to the topic.
Oh, now I get it. You answer off topic matters and
when called on the balled faced implausibility of your response, you ignore it and say to get back on topic. Good to know.
The topic at that particular moment had to do with Pike, his dissertation and the "lightning storm in space". The parts on which I've placed emphasis are you attacking the person and not the point made. I suspect
Jeri had it right concerning your use of the word "disingenuous" here; it's too often used as a weasel word in the manner she describes.
And it's "
bald-faced", by the way (see also:
"barefaced") -- you're attacking the character of the person again, and not the point.
Oh, now I get it. You answer off topic matters and when called on the balled faced implausibility of your response, you ignore it and say to get back on topic. Good to know.
I am on topic. However, your self-described devotion to logic clearly does not preclude your frequent indulgence in
ad hominem fallacies -- which are by definition off topic.
There was a question posed that was off topic. You chose to answer said question.
Your "explanation" has several holes in it. I brought these to your attention, then you chided me for being off topic.
And if you think me bringing this to your attention is an ad hominem,
you should take Logic 101 again.
The question was not off-topic. Your attacks were, and you're still attacking here (and doing a fair job of derailing the thread, by this point.)
Now, hows about you scroll back and try answering me. Or would continuing the original conversation instead of wandering off on this side tangent of logic somehow also be off topic?
Edit: But since I have a good notion that you're not going to bother, here goes.
Still attacking the person.
Cakes488, Pike was assigned the USS Kelvin as a dissertation topic, not a lightning storm in space as the topic.
Pike had already been told that Vulcan was having a natural catastrophe, and no one ever connected the lightning storm to a natural catastrophe.
In fact, the lightning storm may not have been firmly connected with the massive Romulan ship as a cause. No Romulan ship was included in the communique from Vulcan that Admiral Barnett read.
Now come on, that's completely disingenuous. Pike's "assigned" the USS Kelvin for his dissertation, but somehow, magically, because he's not assigned the lightning storm in space he has no knowledge of it even though THE SHIP THAT DESTROYED THE KEVLIN CAME OUT A THE FRAKKING LIGHTNING STORM IN SPACE.
To recap your explanation. He's assigned the Kelvin for his dissertation but doesn't remember anything about the lightning storm until Kirk mentions it to him.
That's utterly ridiculous.
Somewhat hostile, but at least back to the topic.
I am on topic -- and you have called me a liar, which is not.
No, I have not. Your use of the phrase ad hominem is incorrect.
You are mistaken, not a liar. To be a liar you would have to know the correct use and misrepresent it.
And you continue to avoid the question and stay off topic.
But oh, no - back to attacking the person again.
After having reviewed the thread, I haven't found anything which absolutely demands a warning, but
Overgeeked, you need to dial it way the heck back. Now.
Lose the angry. Stop disrupting the discussion with personal jabs and insinuations. If you disagree with a point, then go ahead and say so; offer a counter to it, if you like, but stick to the point without going after the person making it.
A simple rule: Post, not poster.
If you can remember that and stop posting from a position of anger, then you should do all right. If the angry and attacks continue, then that's a problem. I'd rather it didn't become one, but will act if needed to head that off.
Perhaps against my better judgement, I'm going to reopen the thread now. I hope that the intermission has given sufficient time for cooling down, and that discussion can resume at a somewhat less fevered pitch... and on-topic.
Play ball!
