chyron8472

doubleofive said:

This week’s episode had a fancy new Klingon ship identified as a D7, which is the classic TOS model. This goes with my friend’s headcanon that Star Trek has been like a historical record for future people who live in the Trek universe, so the effects are limited by the budget in-universe. Each visual change in more recent series are more representative of how they actually looked, or the recreation of this particular series took an artistic choice.

Adding this layer of fiction within the fiction helps smooth over any changes for me.

I never thought of it that way. That’s a really cool concept.

Umm… wait. So Star Trek is basically a series of historical holonovels. So, there is apparently an historical holonovel of Riker visiting an historical holonovel to help him decide what to do about the events of The Pegasus?

I still refuse to believe Trip Tucker would have died how that episode said he did. As Connor Trinneer has said, Trip had been in far worse situations before and come out of them alive. That is one of the reasons I will never watch that episode, ever again.

Star Trek and Stargate both go by the premise that “anything that can happen does happen in alternate quantum realities.” It’s just that the characters from those realities assert that their version of reality is the only one that matters (which is an actual quote from Teal’c.)

The Prime Universe does still exist. As does the universe in Yesterday’s Enterprise and the Mirror Universe. To say that Prime does not exist is to say Mirror does not exist; and the Mirror Universe’s timeline, which is wholly separate from Prime, was accessed repeatedly by Prime characters (and vice versa) during the events of Deep Space Nine, not to mention TOS and Enterprise.

Warbler said:

but it is not.

It’s called “headcanon.”

As far as I’m concerned, Padme Amidala does not die during the events of Revenge of the Sith. And I have two different cuts of that film and a quote from Leia in ROTJ to back it up.

George’s “official” explanation can stick it.

moviefreakedmind said:

Right. “Babys first Zelda game” depends on the baby. My “babys first Zelda game” will be one that has yet to even come out. Or maybe it’ll even be the first one. Or Wind Waker. Or whatever one it happens to play first. Who knows?

Do Ittle Dew or Oceanhorn count?

Actually, I have a baby, and her first Zelda game was Breath of the Wild.

Well, I was 20 years old when Ocarina of Time was released. And my first Zelda game was The Legend of Zelda, which I played when I was 8 or 9 years old—being that it didn’t exist before then. However my parents also played it extensively into the wee hours of the morning back then. And I have played every release of every Zelda game for every set top console, with the exception of those on WiiU. This means that I own four legit copies of Ocarina of Time, not counting the 3D remake.

Why that matters, I don’t know.

RayRogers said:

Maybe I ought to play Ocarina of Time and Majora’s Mask […] must be babys first Zelda game.

I’m sorry, what?

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I did not. You’re saying that I’m not allowed to be uncomfortable in any circumstance for any legitimate reason, and that’s unfair.

I would not tell such people off. I would not shame them. I am just telling you guys here because I hang out here. It’s not like I harbor some resentment toward them or anything like that.

Ok fine, allow me to ask a question then, since I don’t understand how your reason is legitimate…why exactly does someone acting “effeminate” or “flamboyant” make you uncomfortable?

Because it’s awkward. I’ve never been much for the spotlight myself (see previous post about being nerdy), and I feel somehow myself embarrassed by proxy for people who draw attention to themselves when they do things that generate a certain level of public awkwardness.

Also, I myself try to blend in, due to drawing unwanted attention for my own unintentional behavior. If it appears that someone is flippantly, flamboyantly attempting to draw attention to themselves in a way that is so contrary to my own attempt at behavior, or in the way that I commonly try to identify with others, it throws me off because I don’t understand why they should be motivated to do so.

I don’t understand why someone else’s actions would make you embarrassed by proxy, but in the interest of allowing the thread to proceed on-topic I’ll drop it now.

I don’t understand it either, but it happens. It’s just a personality trait of mine, I guess.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I did not. You’re saying that I’m not allowed to be uncomfortable in any circumstance for any legitimate reason, and that’s unfair.

I would not tell such people off. I would not shame them. I am just telling you guys here because I hang out here. It’s not like I harbor some resentment toward them or anything like that.

Ok fine, allow me to ask a question then, since I don’t understand how your reason is legitimate…why exactly does someone acting “effeminate” or “flamboyant” make you uncomfortable?

Because it’s awkward. I’ve never been much for the spotlight myself (see previous post about being nerdy), and I feel somehow myself embarrassed by proxy for people who draw attention to themselves when they do things that generate a certain level of public awkwardness.

Also, I myself try to blend in, due to drawing unwanted attention for my own unintentional behavior. If it appears that someone is flippantly, flamboyantly attempting to draw attention to themselves in a way that is so contrary to my own attempt at behavior, or in the way that I commonly try to identify with others, it throws me off because I don’t understand why they should be motivated to do so.

moviefreakedmind said:

I think I get what you’re saying. Maybe I’m just bitter because I was cursed with an incredibly effeminate walk that I could never figure out how to get rid of.

Kids are cruel. I am not effeminate myself, but I am rather a nerd. And I got picked on quite a bit in school for it, so I feel you.

However, maybe bend more with the knees and sway less with the hips? I dunno, I don’t see why it matters. But again, kids can be horribly cruel.

I did not. You’re saying that I’m not allowed to be uncomfortable in any circumstance for any legitimate reason, and that’s unfair.

I would not tell such people off. I would not shame them. I am just telling you guys here because I hang out here. It’s not like I harbor some resentment toward them or anything like that.

TV’s Frink said:

You probably need to get over yourself then.

Or you need to get over yourself for judging me for being uncomfortable. This would fall under the argument that people on the left are only inclusive (and/or tolerant) to people who agree with them.

Again, I am NOT being judgmental toward people who are gay. I am simply uncomfortable around certain varieties of eccentricity. There is nothing wrong with that. I did not say they should jump in a lake. I did not proclaim that they obviously all need Jesus. I simply said it bothers me. Now would you please lay off.

Yes. To be clear, I would be similarly bothered by a flamoyantly effeminate heterosexual man, however more rare the case in which that probably occurs.

JayArgonaut said:

Whatever said:

Wow.
This is really the lowest shit there is.
Banned for defending myself agains some arrogant fuckups attacking me, because Im new and they disagree with logic, and facts.
And it does not matter that they can’t prove anything, and don’t even try, because they are here longer.

You say here Disney and you are banned.
You get attecked you are not allowed to defend yourself, but if you try you are banned.
But attacking people. No problem.
Lying. No problem.
Being an asshole. No problem.
Just suck up to the boss, and remove the new guy.
Briliant.

Oh and,
EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW THAT DISNEY ORDERED THE RESHOOT OF ROGUE ONE!

Teach that you retarded TV’s FUCK!
And when you finished your teaching moment you can spell check everything stupid grammar nazi.

BAN THIS USER TOO!
Not coming back anyway. No one can help idiots.

I would report myself, but there is no button to report myself.

So many happy people on the Internet.

Who the hell was that?

Like Bortus (and his mate), from The Orville, who is neither flamboyant nor sassy.

I’m not really bothered by men who are gay, per se, but I really am not fond of men in general who are effeminate, especially flamboyantly so. It weirds me out.

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah, I’m fine with changes I just don’t like the looks of these new Klingons. It’s the design, not the change itself.

Be honest. It’s the fact that the Klingon women don’t have boob windows in their uniforms anymore, right?

Also, the Cardassians’ looked changed from the episode they were introduced, as well as the Trill.

A joke…is… a story with a humorous climax.

It’s not just his hair. The grooves round the center ridges are much more pronounced later in the series, as well as being wider and slightly less elongated.

I’ve never really been into dark, moody themes. From my perspective, the reality of life is already dark, and I don’t really feel inclined to focus on it. I prefer fun escapist fiction over dark themes. I don’t hate dark, moody, gritty themes outright. I just don’t prefer them.

Also, from my point of view, death is not something to really worry about, given my faith. So I’m not really keen to brood on the topic (because why?, IMO). In my life, I have had despair, but such events are largely of my own making so despairing tones in media do not speak to me about it nor help me with it.

The Klingons look fine.

Besides, even Worf’s cranial ridges changed during TNG itself.

Speaking of which, I’ve been looking into audiobooks of classic novels on Audible since I now have a daughter. One of the books I came across is Peter Pan. First, it has a version read by Tim Curry; second, I remember Gertie and her mom reading Peter Pan aloud in the movie E.T. Well, it turns out the book Peter Pan (and the Disney film) is very much a product of its time. It is both very sexist and very racist by today’s standards. It’s not that I wouldn’t consider it a classic, but I would not read it to my child.

However off topic, I also didn’t like Frankenstein nor The Count of Monte Cristo. I loved Dracula, though.

But I thought he already was dead in Majora’s Mask.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S1SVkysIRw

I get that the PC version has mods. But as it stands, my Switch has not worn off the shine yet (so to speak). Plus it means I can, and do, take Stardew Valley on the go.

I don’t mean he is able to be certified as a moron. I mean he is both a moron and certifiable.