The Buried Age

[ProtoAvatar]

"Yeah... but... why?"

Why what? I feel I made my ideas very clear. And you already agreed with them.

I should ask - Why do you wish to argue something you already agreed to?

 

[JarodRussell]

"Yeah... but... why?"

Why what? I feel I made my ideas very clear. And you already agreed with them.

I should ask - Why do you wish to argue something you already agreed to?

No no, it's all good. I was just kinda totally irritated by the entire discussion. I get your point.

 

[TerraUnam]

Caeliar saving a helpless Federation? The Caeliar gave up their ability to procreate tens of millennia ago when they went through The Change and became "synthetic". The Federation loses 60 Billion dead and scores of worlds reduced to ash, but can realistically look forward to reconstruction, regrowth and renewal. The Caeliar lost 98% of their population in "Gods of Night" and couldn't recover from that. Until Hernandez and the Federation give them a kick in the rear. The Caeliar's catom technology was really a Faustian bargain for them. Until "Lost Souls" they were almost the walking dead.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Thrawn - as I already admitted, you DID have a 'minor commplaint' about the trilogy.
That 'minior complaint' DOES NOT equate 'REALLY DISAPPOINTED' by any stretch of the imagination. It's like saying a scratch is a fatal wound.

And yet, you insisted you were 'really diappointed' again and again, blatantly contradicting your extremely laudatory posts.

Thrawn - I seriously doubt we'll reach an understanding. And I had my fill of arguing for the day. I propose we end this discussion here.

 

[JarodRussell]

What Christopher trying to say was (I guess) that Picard was not proven wrong. In a way, the Borg in Destiny were like a natural catastrophe, a force that nobody could do anything about it. Like the eruption of a volcano that wipes out an entire village. The people living and dying in this village still thought they could "handle everything". It's just that the volcano was way too powerful and all they can do is - nothing. But the ones surviving the catastrophe are indeed handling it - by learning to live with it. That's the thing. Destiny may have broken everyone's spirit, but eventually they will learn to live with it and get new hope. That is one sort of being "grown up" and "able to handle everything".

 

[ProtoAvatar]

"Yeah... but... why?"

Why what? I feel I made my ideas very clear. And you already agreed with them.

I should ask - Why do you wish to argue something you already agreed to?

No no, it's all good. I was just kinda totally irritated by the entire discussion. I get your point.

I must say - it was a failed discussion by my standards, too.
I kept hoping it would become constructive somewhere down the line.
But in the end, all the participants were too entrenched in their views; the discussion proved to be a waste of time.

 

[Thrawn]

Thrawn - as I already admitted, you DID have a 'minor commplaint' about the trilogy.
That 'minior complaint' DOES NOT equate 'REALLY DISAPPOINTED' by any stretch of the imagination. It's like saying a scratch is a fatal wound.

And yet, you insisted you were 'really diappointed' again and again, blatantly contradicting your extremely laudatory posts.

Thrawn - I seriously doubt we'll reach an understanding. And I had my fill of arguing for the day. I propose we end this discussion here.

Nah; just try to see where I'm coming from. I think we can work this out.

In general, my approach toward things is to try and understand them before I form my final opinion. Going back and reading the thread, I can see how you wouldn't find much evidence of my disappointment, but I think that's a result of the way I approach problems like this.

Before I started really digging in and expressing the problems I had, since David Mack was posting in the thread, I decided to ask what was going on there and see if anyone could explain it to me. Which is where this came from: "Did you see some significance to that - Destiny, it's out of our hands, something like that - that I missed, or did you just feel most of the arcs for the Titan crew that you were interested in happened in earlier books/with the Caeliar?"

And people did explain it, to my satisfaction, so I was convinced not to be so disappointed before I really posted much about it.

I think that's really different from the way you express or try to work through your opinions, so you're seeing something different from what I was actually thinking. Does that make any sense?

 

[Christopher]

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.

Gee, why does that feel so familiar to me...?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Thrawn - let's say starfleet's passivity in 'Destiny' disturbed you. And rather than expressing this, you asked for explanations. That's perfectly understandable.

But - the tone of your posts doesn't support your assertion of being 'really disappointed'. You're too congratulatory for that.

'Really disappointed' is a strong negative emotional state - and your posts indicated the 'Destiny' trilogy generated a strong positive emotional response in you. The two emotions cannot coexist - you can't be very content and very discontent about the same thing.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

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.

Gee, why does that feel so familiar to me...?

Temporal causality loop.

 

[Thrawn]

you can't be very content and very discontent about the same thing.

See, actually, I can. Maybe that's the other difference that we're having trouble overcoming here.

I have no problem being incredibly satisfied, even blown away, by some parts of a story but really disturbed by others. I have no desire to spoil the recent Lost finale, but I hated a major setup episode for the finale...then loved the finale it was based on. I still have huge fundamental problems with the foundation of the ending, but loved the ending anyway.

I don't think I'm the kind of person that needs every detail to be consistent in order to be happy; I think maybe you are.

Regardless, in my head at the time was "I love so many things about this trilogy and appreciate this author so much that maybe there's a reason he wrote the climax this way; my first instinct is to really be annoyed and disappointed at that part of the story, but let me see if there's something I'm missing". All my posts in here were an attempt to accurately reflect that emotional state, but I think I explained it badly and made you think there was a contradiction there.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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.

Gee, why does that feel so familiar to me...?

You know, I could respond properly to this.
The problem is, I know exactly how the ensuing discussion will end - after X pages of arguing. You too, Christopher.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Thrawn
"Regardless, in my head at the time was "I love so many things about this trilogy and appreciate this author so much that maybe there's a reason he wrote the climax this way; my first instinct is to really be annoyed and disappointed at that part of the story, but let me see if there's something I'm missing". All my posts in here were an attempt to accurately reflect that emotional state, but I think I explained it badly and made you think there was a contradiction there."

What you are saying is that you were SLIGHTLY DISAPPOINTED with the trilogy, Thrawn. That's a fringe emotional state; your main emotional state was that you loved the trilogy.

'REALLY DISAPPOINTED' denotes a main emotional state, a DOMINANT emotional state - and this was contradicted by your posts.

 

[Thrawn]

I'm trying not to go back to picayune arguing, but I actually didn't say "I was really disappointed in Destiny." Meaning, the work as a whole. I said "I was really disappointed by the lack of impact that the main characters had on the climax". Meaning, the one particular aspect.

And, as I was explaining, I have no trouble with "I loved Destiny and think it's an amazing achievement" and "I was really disappointed by the lack of impact that the main characters had on the climax" existing simultaneously in my head. Perhaps that seems contradictory to you, and you would not be able to love something that you had a major problem with, but that honestly is a genuine reflection of my thought process.

Like I said, I'm realizing our brains work pretty differently about things like this.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Thrawn

It's obvious we give different meanings to the words 'really disappointed' - and a few other words.

You vere very pleased with 'Destiny' and had that one objection - let's say, it 'annoyed' you. Your posts indicate your overall emotional state was pleasure, contentment.
The response you received to your questions regarding said objection was satisfactorily and you retreated it.
The end.

 

[Thrawn]

Ok. Now we've established that I changed my mind about something, and made an honest effort to explain that, but we got hung up on misunderstandings because we use certain words differently, and I could've done a better job of trying to approach it from your point of view instead of being insulting. Cool.

Just for balance's sake, can you point me to an instance where you changed your mind?

 

[CaseyF]

Thrawn

It's obvious we give different meanings to the words 'really disappointed' - and a few other words.

You vere very pleased with 'Destiny' and had that one objection - let' say, it 'annoyed' you. The response you received to your questions regarding said objection was satisfactorily and you retreated it.
The end.

Okay, and even that interpretation serves the original point Thrawn was trying to make, which is that he's not inflexible and is capable of changing his mind after hearing alternate viewpoints. So you've just argued and argued and argued with him over a minor semantic issue that doesn't even change the point of his original statement!

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Thrawn
"Just for balance's sake, can you point me to an instance where you changed your mind?"

Most recently, in the "Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?" thread. Initially, I supported that the trekverse has become battlestar galactiva verse. Then I admitted this strongly depends on subsequent events:
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=4123980&postcount=134

CaseyF
"So you've just argued and argued and argued with him over a minor semantic issue that doesn't even change the point of his original statement!"

Not quite - Thrawn argued with me over the issue ad nauseam - apparently in order to 'catch' me that I never changed my mind.
I was willing to end the discussion long ago - but Thrawn insisted we continue and I, being civil, obliged him.

 

[Thrawn]

Hm. From my perspective, that doesn't really count; unless I read it wrong, your underlying opinion of the work hasn't changed, just the analogy you were using to describe it.

Changing the way you talk about an opinion isn't the same as actually changing your opinion.

But since we seem to have a lot of misunderstandings going on here, I'll ask - am I wrong about that? Did that post actually change your opinion of Destiny at all?

 

[CaseyF]

Not quite - Thrawn argued with me over the issue ad nauseam - apparently in order to 'catch' me that I never changed my mind.
I was willing to end the discussion long ago - but Thrawn insisted we continue and I, being civil, obliged him.

Actually, there were multiple posts of you arguing with him over his Destiny example before you finally told him that conversation with him is a waste of time. (I guess you're only civil when the mood strikes you.) He provided an example and you were the one insinuating he was lying and arguing the point. And even when Thrawn continued the discussion with you, it was based on your huge objections to his Destiny example, even though the argument you were making doesn't even change the main point Thrawn was making. It was just silly on your part, is what I'm saying.

It's not even a conversation I've been a part of, I just had to chime in because your posts have grown more and more frustrating the longer this thread has gone on. It starts to seem like you're arguing just to argue at times, and while your arguments have passion, they lose coherency the longer they continue.