Talk:2686: Space Adventure - Revision history

108.162.237.43 at 09:02, 18 September 2024

2024-09-18T09:02:18Z

108.162.237.45 at 09:01, 18 September 2024

2024-09-18T09:01:16Z

108.162.237.44 at 09:00, 18 September 2024

2024-09-18T09:00:44Z

172.71.151.26: Star trek picard season 2?

2022-10-23T18:48:44Z

Star trek picard season 2?

FrankHightower at 18:35, 20 October 2022

2022-10-20T18:35:22Z

172.70.91.54 at 08:23, 20 October 2022

2022-10-20T08:23:09Z

172.71.98.97 at 07:08, 20 October 2022

2022-10-20T07:08:41Z

162.158.163.212: thoughts about snw

2022-10-20T02:31:30Z

thoughts about snw

172.70.90.3: Stupid keyboard. And clarify.

2022-10-19T18:44:12Z

Stupid keyboard. And clarify.

172.70.85.157 at 18:42, 19 October 2022

2022-10-19T18:42:23Z

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 This is an example of a case where I oppose Randall's oft-used principles:
 * The use of the ", and" in "On my mark, fire torpedoes, phasers, and all our other weapons at different points around the event horizon." creates confusion (Oxford be damned). The commas are 'clausal, list, oxford', but can be read (to generate confusion) as 'clausal, list (conjunctionless), clausal'.
-* "On my mark, fire torpedoes, phasers and all our other weapons at different points around the event horizon." works sufficiently. That's 'clausal, list', with any list-comma being an conjunction replacer (but you don't have cause to replace or augment the last remaining conjunction).
+* "On my mark, fire torpedoes, phasers and all our other weapons at different points around the event horizon." works sufficiently. That's 'clausal, list', with any list-comma being a conjunction replacer (but you don't have cause to replace or augment the last remaining conjunction).
 * Alternatively, "On my mark, fire torpedoes, phasers, and all our other weapons, at different points around the event horizon." has some limited validity. It would be 'clausal, list (conjunctionless), clausal (start), clausal (end)'. Though with stilted grammar/implied conjunction.
 Obviously, it's reported speech, so intonation can only be implied. But the OC doesn't even do a good job in that respect. (The stenographer's art is better tuned to picking up verbal breath-takings, etc, than clumsy English punctuation and a malformed style-'rule'.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.44|108.162.237.44]] 09:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Anyone else see the mouse over text and immediately think of Star Trek Picard Season 2? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.26|172.71.151.26]] 18:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
-This is an example of a case where I oppose Randall's oft-usee principles:
+This is an example of a case where I oppose Randall's oft-used principles:
 * The use of the ", and" in "On my mark, fire torpedoes, phasers, and all our other weapons at different points around the event horizon." creates confusion (Oxford be damned). The commas are 'clausal, list, oxford', but can be read (to generate confusion) as 'clausal, list (conjunctionless), clausal'.
 * "On my mark, fire torpedoes, phasers and all our other weapons at different points around the event horizon." works sufficiently. That's 'clausal, list', with any list-comma being an conjunction replacer (but you don't have cause to replace or augment the last remaining conjunction).
 * Alternatively, "On my mark, fire torpedoes, phasers, and all our other weapons, at different points around the event horizon." has some limited validity. It would be 'clausal, list (conjunctionless), clausal (start), clausal (end)'. Though with stilted grammar/implied conjunction.
 Obviously, it's reported speech, so intonation can only be implied. But the OC doesn't even do a good job in that respect. (The stenographer's art is better tuned to picking up verbal breath-takings, etc, than clumsy English punctuation and a malformed style-'rule'.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.44|108.162.237.44]] 09:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 18 September 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Anyone else see the mouse over text and immediately think of Star Trek Picard Season 2? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.26\|172.71.151.26]] 18:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)		Anyone else see the mouse over text and immediately think of Star Trek Picard Season 2? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.26\|172.71.151.26]] 18:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	This is an example of a case where I oppose Randall's oft-usee principles:
		+	* The use of the ", and" in "On my mark, fire torpedoes, phasers, and all our other weapons at different points around the event horizon." creates confusion (Oxford be damned). The commas are 'clausal, list, oxford', but can be read (to generate confusion) as 'clausal, list (conjunctionless), clausal'.
		+	* "On my mark, fire torpedoes, phasers and all our other weapons at different points around the event horizon." works sufficiently. That's 'clausal, list', with any list-comma being an conjunction replacer (but you don't have cause to replace or augment the last remaining conjunction).
		+	* Alternatively, "On my mark, fire torpedoes, phasers, and all our other weapons, at different points around the event horizon." has some limited validity. It would be 'clausal, list (conjunctionless), clausal (start), clausal (end)'. Though with stilted grammar/implied conjunction.
		+	Obviously, it's reported speech, so intonation can only be implied. But the OC doesn't even do a good job in that respect. (The stenographer's art is better tuned to picking up verbal breath-takings, etc, than clumsy English punctuation and a malformed style-'rule'.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.44\|108.162.237.44]] 09:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 23 October 2022
Line 16:		Line 16:

	The "showrunners" could also refer to the "reality is a simulation" hypothesis (so basically, Randall may be attempting to crash the simulation to escape his captors). I have no idea where to put this in the explanation, though.--[[User:FrankHightower\|FrankHightower]] ([[User talk:FrankHightower\|talk]]) 18:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)		The "showrunners" could also refer to the "reality is a simulation" hypothesis (so basically, Randall may be attempting to crash the simulation to escape his captors). I have no idea where to put this in the explanation, though.--[[User:FrankHightower\|FrankHightower]] ([[User talk:FrankHightower\|talk]]) 18:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	Anyone else see the mouse over text and immediately think of Star Trek Picard Season 2? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.26\|172.71.151.26]] 18:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 20 October 2022
Line 14:		Line 14:

	There's a dangerous amount of tvtropes links here. Despite the warnings, I still got sucked in (pun intended) at work yesterday, and lost like an hour of productivity. Not saying we should remove them, just mentioning it as a warning for anyone who has already opened some tabs, and is reading these comments before """"quickly"""" checking those pages. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.97\|172.71.98.97]] 07:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)		There's a dangerous amount of tvtropes links here. Despite the warnings, I still got sucked in (pun intended) at work yesterday, and lost like an hour of productivity. Not saying we should remove them, just mentioning it as a warning for anyone who has already opened some tabs, and is reading these comments before """"quickly"""" checking those pages. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.97\|172.71.98.97]] 07:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	The "showrunners" could also refer to the "reality is a simulation" hypothesis (so basically, Randall may be attempting to crash the simulation to escape his captors). I have no idea where to put this in the explanation, though.--[[User:FrankHightower\|FrankHightower]] ([[User talk:FrankHightower\|talk]]) 18:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 Isn't this a reference to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds S1E4? In that episode there was a black hole that they went right next to and it also included the shuttle Galileo. However, the Galileo doesn't fire at the black hole so probably not. Just some thoughts. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.143.50|172.70.143.50]] 12:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 : It's a generic mashup. I'd add in the whole starting-premise/series-opener for Andromeda (also a Roddenbury thing), in terms of (pre-wallbreaking)nconcept, even if not visuals (TOS-style vessel, Interstellar-style swirly-sucky thing). I'm not sure there's likely any direct and deliberate reference to any particular episode of anything. BICBW. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.157|172.70.85.157]] 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 : Hm. Possible, but that episode had the exact same visualization of a black hole. It's probably just a small reference to that but not everything. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.163.212|162.158.163.212]] 02:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 There's a dangerous amount of tvtropes links here. Despite the warnings, I still got sucked in (pun intended) at work yesterday, and lost like an hour of productivity. Not saying we should remove them, just mentioning it as a warning for anyone who has already opened some tabs, and is reading these comments before """"quickly"""" checking those pages. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.97|172.71.98.97]] 07:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:08, 20 October 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	: It's a generic mashup. I'd add in the whole starting-premise/series-opener for Andromeda (also a Roddenbury thing), in terms of (pre-wallbreaking)nconcept, even if not visuals (TOS-style vessel, Interstellar-style swirly-sucky thing). I'm not sure there's likely any direct and deliberate reference to any particular episode of anything. BICBW. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.157\|172.70.85.157]] 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)		: It's a generic mashup. I'd add in the whole starting-premise/series-opener for Andromeda (also a Roddenbury thing), in terms of (pre-wallbreaking)nconcept, even if not visuals (TOS-style vessel, Interstellar-style swirly-sucky thing). I'm not sure there's likely any direct and deliberate reference to any particular episode of anything. BICBW. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.157\|172.70.85.157]] 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
	: Hm. Possible, but that episode had the exact same visualization of a black hole. It's probably just a small reference to that but not everything. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.163.212\|162.158.163.212]] 02:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)		: Hm. Possible, but that episode had the exact same visualization of a black hole. It's probably just a small reference to that but not everything. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.163.212\|162.158.163.212]] 02:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	There's a dangerous amount of tvtropes links here. Despite the warnings, I still got sucked in (pun intended) at work yesterday, and lost like an hour of productivity. Not saying we should remove them, just mentioning it as a warning for anyone who has already opened some tabs, and is reading these comments before """"quickly"""" checking those pages. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.97\|172.71.98.97]] 07:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:31, 20 October 2022
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Isn't this a reference to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds S1E4? In that episode there was a black hole that they went right next to and it also included the shuttle Galileo. However, the Galileo doesn't fire at the black hole so probably not. Just some thoughts. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.143.50\|172.70.143.50]] 12:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)		Isn't this a reference to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds S1E4? In that episode there was a black hole that they went right next to and it also included the shuttle Galileo. However, the Galileo doesn't fire at the black hole so probably not. Just some thoughts. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.143.50\|172.70.143.50]] 12:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
	: It's a generic mashup. I'd add in the whole starting-premise/series-opener for Andromeda (also a Roddenbury thing), in terms of (pre-wallbreaking)nconcept, even if not visuals (TOS-style vessel, Interstellar-style swirly-sucky thing). I'm not sure there's likely any direct and deliberate reference to any particular episode of anything. BICBW. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.157\|172.70.85.157]] 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)		: It's a generic mashup. I'd add in the whole starting-premise/series-opener for Andromeda (also a Roddenbury thing), in terms of (pre-wallbreaking)nconcept, even if not visuals (TOS-style vessel, Interstellar-style swirly-sucky thing). I'm not sure there's likely any direct and deliberate reference to any particular episode of anything. BICBW. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.157\|172.70.85.157]] 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
		+	: Hm. Possible, but that episode had the exact same visualization of a black hole. It's probably just a small reference to that but not everything. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.163.212\|162.158.163.212]] 02:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 19 October 2022
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Isn't this a reference to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds S1E4? In that episode there was a black hole that they went right next to and it also included the shuttle Galileo. However, the Galileo doesn't fire at the black hole so probably not. Just some thoughts. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.143.50\|172.70.143.50]] 12:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)		Isn't this a reference to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds S1E4? In that episode there was a black hole that they went right next to and it also included the shuttle Galileo. However, the Galileo doesn't fire at the black hole so probably not. Just some thoughts. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.143.50\|172.70.143.50]] 12:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
−	: It's a generic mashup. I's add 8n the whole starting-premise/series-opener for Andromeda (also a Roddenbury thing), in terms of ~~concept~~, even if not visuals (TOS-style vessel, Interstellar-style swirly-sucky thing). I'm not sure there's likely any direct and deliberate reference to any particular episode of anything. BICBW. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.157\|172.70.85.157]] 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)	+	: It's a generic mashup. I'd add in the whole starting-premise/series-opener for Andromeda (also a Roddenbury thing), in terms of (pre-wallbreaking)nconcept, even if not visuals (TOS-style vessel, Interstellar-style swirly-sucky thing). I'm not sure there's likely any direct and deliberate reference to any particular episode of anything. BICBW. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.157\|172.70.85.157]] 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:42, 19 October 2022
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Isn't this a reference to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds S1E4? In that episode there was a black hole that they went right next to and it also included the shuttle Galileo. However, the Galileo doesn't fire at the black hole so probably not. Just some thoughts. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.143.50\|172.70.143.50]] 12:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)		Isn't this a reference to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds S1E4? In that episode there was a black hole that they went right next to and it also included the shuttle Galileo. However, the Galileo doesn't fire at the black hole so probably not. Just some thoughts. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.143.50\|172.70.143.50]] 12:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
		+	: It's a generic mashup. I's add 8n the whole starting-premise/series-opener for Andromeda (also a Roddenbury thing), in terms of concept, even if not visuals (TOS-style vessel, Interstellar-style swirly-sucky thing). I'm not sure there's likely any direct and deliberate reference to any particular episode of anything. BICBW. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.157\|172.70.85.157]] 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)