- November 12th, 2011, 8:43 pm#360304
Comparatively, it adds a world of depth to the debate, a debate that without such contrast would be dearth of discussion--unless it goes unnoticed as it has. Why should we refuse to accept new terminology for one item, but embrace the next with open arms? Moreover, what are we to consider cannon? Do the words of the creator trump words in a book? Does commonly accepted fan-assigned names that have been adopted by third party manufacturers then trump the name of the prop the creators later divulge? It only adds nothing to the debate if you refuse to take it into consideration, and if one is to operate with such narrow-mindedness then there really is no need for a "debate."
Perhaps your third point is the most insulting. You presume my intentions. Do you know me? Do you know what I am thinking? Do you know my reasoning? The answer to all three is a resounding "No." If I sought to derail this thread, I'd post a picture of Boxxy standing atop a mountain of tripod traps. My troll-fu is quite strong. Or I would point out that someone has indicated his superior IQ prevents him from engaging in discourse with most people, yet he makes simple and careless spelling errors. Mind you, I did not do such. Because that would not only be a futile course of action, but it would also be of no significant value to any meaningful discussion.
Now you can either accept the fact that I advanced a valid point, or you can try another shot at firing a backhanded insult at me. I prefer them front handed, for what it is worth.
kevinj319 wrote:Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The question at hand, as you indicate, is to do with misnamed props and whether or not new names would be better. This is, in fact, what this thread is about. A misnamed prop. If we are, in fact, referring to a prop by a name that is different from the person who invented the item calls it, then the name we commonly accept may not be accurate. It's not precisely the same question, but largely requires the same analysis.
Because it is diverting away from the question at hand, it adds nothing to the debate, and it only seeks to derail.
Comparatively, it adds a world of depth to the debate, a debate that without such contrast would be dearth of discussion--unless it goes unnoticed as it has. Why should we refuse to accept new terminology for one item, but embrace the next with open arms? Moreover, what are we to consider cannon? Do the words of the creator trump words in a book? Does commonly accepted fan-assigned names that have been adopted by third party manufacturers then trump the name of the prop the creators later divulge? It only adds nothing to the debate if you refuse to take it into consideration, and if one is to operate with such narrow-mindedness then there really is no need for a "debate."
Perhaps your third point is the most insulting. You presume my intentions. Do you know me? Do you know what I am thinking? Do you know my reasoning? The answer to all three is a resounding "No." If I sought to derail this thread, I'd post a picture of Boxxy standing atop a mountain of tripod traps. My troll-fu is quite strong. Or I would point out that someone has indicated his superior IQ prevents him from engaging in discourse with most people, yet he makes simple and careless spelling errors. Mind you, I did not do such. Because that would not only be a futile course of action, but it would also be of no significant value to any meaningful discussion.
Now you can either accept the fact that I advanced a valid point, or you can try another shot at firing a backhanded insult at me. I prefer them front handed, for what it is worth.
The discussion at hand has to do with the misnamed "tripod traps" and whether or not a new name would be better, and that's all. But it seems to have devolved now anyway.And for good measure, if you are narrowing your view of this thread to what the original author intended then you have completely misstated the purpose of this thread. Discussions are, by nature, organic and can flow into a number of related subjects, topics, and theories. The original post, by contrast, reads like a demand.
Ernest Reid liked this