Sequel to Nemesis?

[Withers]

What a surprise... you're still just playing the same stupid game.

If by "playing a game" you mean asking you a yes or no question that is posed not only by the title of the thread but the content of the poll entailed within, then yes- that's what I'm doing.

My position is explained in my posts.

The only thing thing your posts explain is that you can't properly name logical fallacies. I've asked you repeatedly whether or not you think XI is the sequel to Nemesis and you've referred me to other posts, other people, and last but not least prior statements to find the answer. If you can't answer a yes or no question and you can't summerize whatever it is you're trying to say I'd posit that you never had anything much to say in the first place and dug yourself a hole the likes of which was impossible to escape.

Think about it.

The thread is 'yes or no.' The poll is 'yes or no.' The answer is a simple one. Watch, I'll show you.

"Withers, do you think XI is the sequel to Nemesis?"

"No.."

Think about it.

-Withers-​

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I've been considering things that begin with the letter "M"...moron

Don't be so hard on yourself. I mean, you did famously say the Mirror Universe was not canon, but that seems more like intellectual dishonesty than anything indicative of "moron" status.

Your sarcasm is duly noted. Not very appreciated, but noted nonetheless. I don't recall ever saying that the mirror universe wasn't canon. It certainly is. There's no reason to assume otherwise. It was seen in "Mirror, Mirror", various episodes of DS9 and "In A Mirror, Darkly" from ENT. Why would I say it wasn't canon? I'd like to see that "famous" quote of mine.

Disclaimer: That line was from the new "Alice In Wonderland" movie. I thought it would be random and funny. Something to break the monotony.

 

[BillJ]

Dumbest thread ever.

Does the answer (either yes or no) somehow contribute to your enjoyment of Star Trek 2009?

 

[RookieBatman]

Telling a story in the same universe as something else at a later point in the time line doesn't make that thing a sequel, it makes it a continuation. You can contort the meaning and say "continuation and sequel mean the same thing" but they don't. A sequel in any meaningful sense of that word is Back to the Future followed by Back to the Future II. They need to share more than the same universe and Nemesis and Star Trek share nothing but that.

QFT.

That's right... something's out of context when you say it is, not when it's actually out of context. You know what they say: when you're accused of doing something... do it again.

That'll show 'em!

You should know, you've been doing it this entire time. What's the name of the logical fallacy that involves you accusing your opponent of something you're actually doing?

I "can't answer" the plain and simple question posed by the thread title... the thread being based on a poll?

Wait, so now, because a thread has a poll in it, that means it's based on a poll? In what reality?

There is no more basis for excluding this film from the previous continuity than there would be for throwing out The Final Frontier or separating TNG from the TOS continuity.

I've already asked this before, and I'm quite confident you'll just ignore it again, but so what? If someone decided that in their personal conception of Star Trek, they were going to deliberately ignore the intent of the creators and think of it in their own way, who cares? Who would that harm? How would that damage the apparently fragile framework of reality?

When you eat an apple, does it taste like an orange? What happens if someone else thought it was funny? Who deified your opinion?

Why does anyone's opinion need to be deified for it to be valid? Why can't we each just have our own opinion?

Dumbest thread ever.

Does the answer (either yes or no) somehow contribute to your enjoyment of Star Trek 2009?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Nope. No. Uh-uh. Not at all, not even a little, not a bit, not even slightly. The topic of discussion here has nothing to do with a value judgment of the new movie, it should have no effect on an estimation of the movie's quality, and will in no way affect my (or hopefully anyone else's) enjoyment of it.

 

[JarodRussell]

Dumbest thread ever.

Does the answer (either yes or no) somehow contribute to your enjoyment of Star Trek 2009?

Why does every discussion have anything to add to or take away from the enjoyment of that movie? I find this thread interesting. Why is a sequel a sequel? If you study writing, you get lessons about theoretical stuff like that. So why would a thread about this be stupid? Same goes for threads where people discuss about character development, or art direction or whatever. Anyone who doesn't want to read these threads can easily go back to all the Worship Robau The Awesome threads.

 

[Withers]

Dumbest thread ever.

Does the answer (either yes or no) somehow contribute to your enjoyment of Star Trek 2009?

Why does every discussion have anything to add to or take away from the enjoyment of that movie? I find this thread interesting. Why is a sequel a sequel? If you study writing, you get lessons about theoretical stuff like that. So why would a thread about this be stupid? Same goes for threads where people discuss about character development, or art direction or whatever. Anyone who doesn't want to read these threads can easily go back to all the Worship Robau The Awesome threads.

I know, right? Whenever I read things like that I always say to myself "Well, pardon me. I didn't mean to maneuver attention away from all the super important XI threads." Far be it for any of these threads to have any discussion in them that couldn't just as easily be had with a Great Dane.

-Withers-​

 

[Set Harth]

If by "playing a game" you mean asking you a yes or no question that is posed not only by the title of the thread but the content of the poll entailed within, then yes- that's what I'm doing.

Clearly. It must be a really fun game. Notice the highlighted text above. In case that fails to get the point across, POLL.

If you can't answer a yes or no question and you can't summerize whatever it is you're trying to say I'd posit that you never had anything much to say in the first place and dug yourself a hole the likes of which was impossible to escape.

Your fantasy world seems quite amusing, but now back to reality: POLL POLL POLL POLL POLL.

The thread is 'yes or no.' The poll is 'yes or no.' The answer is a simple one.

POLL POLL POLL. What do people do in polls? POLL POLL POLL.

Wait, so now, because a thread has a poll in it, that means it's based on a poll? In what reality?

In the reality where a thread is entitled "Poll: Sequel to Nemesis?" and this is the first post:

Okay, so there's a discussion going on in another thread where one poster very vociferously insists that STXI should be considered a sequel to Nemesis (at this point, I don't even remember how we got on that line of discussion). I find the suggestion dubious at best, so I wanted to just take it straight to a poll to see if anyone else feels that way.

But by no means should you let that reality intrude on whatever one you're currently experiencing.

so what?

So this film is in the same continuity.

who cares?

Anyone who doesn't believe that reality is entirely dependent on your opinion.

I don't recall ever saying that the mirror universe wasn't canon. It certainly is. There's no reason to assume otherwise.

Of course not. Though you pose as a canonista, that would reveal you as a canon-refuser from day one.

 

[RookieBatman]

In the reality where this is the first post of the thread:

Okay, so there's a discussion going on in another thread where one poster very vociferously insists that STXI should be considered a sequel to Nemesis (at this point, I don't even remember how we got on that line of discussion). I find the suggestion dubious at best, so I wanted to just take it straight to a poll to see if anyone else feels that way.

But by no means should you let that reality intrude on whatever one you're currently experiencing.

The thread was based a question, which was quantified by the poll. The title of this thread isn't "Yes or no?" Just because I said I "wanted to just take it straight to a poll" doesn't mean I was opposed to actual textual discussion about it.

But feel free to go on insulting my conception of reality all you want. Eventually, I think somebody will key into the fact that you're really just trolling. So, knock yourself out.

so what?

So this film is in the same continuity.

Again, so what? If I want to decide that for my own viewing experience, it isn't, how is that going to affect anyone else in any way (other than someone being affected by this discussion, which is supposed to be only for intellectual stimulation)?

who cares?

Anyone who doesn't believe that reality is entirely dependent on your opinion.

So, you're the only one who doesn't believe that reality is entirely dependent on my opinion? Because you very much appear to be the only one who cares. If anyone wants to either confirm or deny that, feel free to speak up.

But I don't think too many people will, because I really don't think they care.

 

[Set Harth]

Again, so what?

Exactly.

how is that going to affect anyone else in any way (other than someone being affected by this discussion, which is supposed to be only for intellectual stimulation)?

How is "nothing is true unless I say it is" to be considered in any way intellectually stimulating?

Eventually, I think somebody will key into the fact that you're really just trolling.

You've made it sufficiently clear already that there is no objective reality in your world; that something is labeled "out of context" when it is actually in context but fails to please you. "Trolling" is just today's version of "out of context". Because of your concept that all reality is subject to your whim, anyone can be accused of anything, so it's all meaningless.

So, you're the only one who doesn't believe that reality is entirely dependent on my opinion?

I doubt it. But we'll never know... unless someone starts a poll!!! It's poll time!!!

But I don't think too many people will, because I really don't think they care.

Wow, I really hope enough people speak up - or else it is firmly established that reality is entirely dependent on your opinion. Right? Is that how this works? You have to tell me the rules of this scheme in which majorities and polls determine everything, because in my world it's called ad populum.

 

[RookieBatman]

Again, so what?

Exactly.

Uh no, that's not actually a response. Unless you're admitting you were wrong (which seems too much to hope for).

how is that going to affect anyone else in any way (other than someone being affected by this discussion, which is supposed to be only for intellectual stimulation)?

How is "nothing is true unless I say it is" to be considered in any way intellectually stimulating?

Uh... it's not, which is why I never said that nor anything like it. Since we're tracking logical fallacies, that's what's known as a "straw man."

So, you're the only one who doesn't believe that reality is entirely dependent on my opinion?

I doubt it.

Then why did you say that anyone who doesn't believe that reality is entirely dependent on my opinion would care? Because so far, they don't.

But I don't think too many people will, because I really don't think they care.

Wow, I really hope enough people speak up - or else it is firmly established that reality is entirely dependent on your opinion. Right? Is that how this works?

No, that's not how it works. If nobody speaks up, it's only firmly established that nobody cares. And that makes two straw men in one post.

 

[Set Harth]

Uh no, that's not actually a response.

Yes, it is.

Uh... it's not

Exactly.

Because so far, they don't.

Only according to your presumed omniscience and assumption that they must immediately prove their caring to the Arbiter of Reality.

 

[RookieBatman]

Uh no, that's not actually a response.

Yes, it is.

If you say so. But it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion, so...

Uh... it's not

Exactly.

And again with the out-of-context quoting. Did you miss the part where I mentioned that I had never said that nor anything like it, or did you willfully ignore it?

Because so far, they don't.

Only according to your presumed ominscience and assumption that they must immediately prove their caring to the Arbiter of Reality.

Um, no, according to the fact that nobody else is taking part in the discussion. Third straw man today.

 

[Set Harth]

Um, no, according to the fact that nobody else is taking part in the discussion.

Who cares? How does that make you omniscient?

The title of this thread isn't "Yes or no?"

And to think, I was actually arguing that it was. Silly me. I forgot the rule: a thread is only "based on a poll" if its title is "Yes or no?" Other thread titles, even ones in the form of a question, just don't count.

Just because I said I "wanted to just take it straight to a poll" doesn't mean I was opposed to actual textual discussion about it.

Foiled again, because of course my position was that someone started a thread but didn't want "textual discussion".

 

[RookieBatman]

Um, no, according to the fact that nobody else is taking part in the discussion.

Who cares?

It certanly seemed that you did.

How does that make you omniscient?

Well, since I still never said that or anything like it, the question is moot. I won't call that four, since it's just a restatement of a previous straw man.

Third straw man today.

I'm not counting, but here are some examples:

The title of this thread isn't "Yes or no?"

And to think, I was actually arguing that it was. Silly me.

Okay, now that's four. I didn't ever say you were arguing that it was, I was simply using that as a way to contrast what the thread was about with what might have been the natural outgrowth of what you were attributing to me. If it had been a straw man, it might've been something more like:

Since you seem to think the title of this thread is "Yes or no"...

 

[Set Harth]

It certanly seemed that you did.

Ah ha, this must be one of the perks of ownership of About(TM). I cared About(TM) your deification of opinion, or I cared About(TM) other people speaking up? Choose wisely.

Well, since I still never said that or anything like it, the question is moot.

No, you never said that a lack of instantaneous posting by others "firmly established" what other people cared about or thought. Never!!!

I didn't ever say you were arguing that it was, I was simply using that as a way to contrast what the thread was about with what might have been the natural outgrowth of what you were attributing to me.

You know what they say: an accusation neutralizes a confession. Wait, do they say that? Whatever. So, who are these invisible other people who needed to be informed of the thread title and of the complex truth that someone who starts a thread is not trying to prevent textual discussion? Do they care?

 

[RookieBatman]

It certanly seemed that you did.

Ah ha, this must be one of the perks of ownership of About(TM). I cared About(TM) your deification of opinion, or I cared About(TM) other people speaking up? Choose wisely.

You cared about other people speaking up enough to construct a straw man about my deification of opinion.

And when did "About" get trademarked?

Well, since I still never said that or anything like it, the question is moot.

No, you never said that a lack of instantaneous posting by others "firmly established" what other people cared about or thought. Never!!!

Sure, I might have said that. But when I wrote the quoted message, here, I wasn't denying any such thing. I was denying your accusation that I claimed omniscience. Which would be five straw men. Exactly when does this become trolling?

I didn't ever say you were arguing that it was, I was simply using that as a way to contrast what the thread was about with what might have been the natural outgrowth of what you were attributing to me.

You know what they say: an accusation neutralizes a confession. Wait, do they say that? Whatever. So, who are these invisible other people who needed to be informed of the thread title and of the complex truth that someone who starts a thread is not trying to prevent textual discussion? Do they care?

No, I was really just talking to you.

 

[M'Sharak]

Time out.