Discussion in 'Literature' started by AdmiralZaarin, Oct 3, 2001.
I Like Mittens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Val is hardly one to criticize anyone's use of language, what with his his endless supply of run-on sentences and comma splices. I hate stooping to the level of attacking someone's grammar, but when he or she is so liberal with calling others "ignorant," it's time for a reality check. For example, "Star Wars tech people could mistake for Star Trek Tech, but are standard scifi, and/or real science," is not the most well put together sentence ever written.
Also, if "near-Human" were a slang term in the GFFA, it would not appear in "scientific" articles such as that on theChiss in Gamer #5, or in game data for that matter.
Ooh, stooping low to attack my typing skills. You know my my mind tends to lose something around 12 at night. Especially when I'm not very well.(Besides, I won't even point out the run-ons of your own.)
"Also, if "near-Human" were a slang term in the GFFA, it would not appear in "scientific" articles such as that on theChiss in Gamer #5, or in game data for that matter."
They are hardly scientific.... If it was, they would have reaserched the correct terminology and used it instead. But they resorted to flawed use of a real scientific term. Much like people using the term theory, when they should have used hypothesis. also, much like people that use velocity instead of speed(or the other way around.) Because it may be done, doesn't mean that it was correct to do so.
Edit: Added in more information.
That is low Cat.Give him a break.The dude stays up all night listening to me ramling on about my paranoid fears, and studying.Plus he's sick.
How should I know this, Matt? Hope you're feeling better,Val.
I checked out the EG to Species today. The term "near Human" is everywhere, describing Zeltrons, Master Arca's species, and more. The book is written from an in-universe scientific perspective (by Hoole, is it?), with the personal accounts of characters thrown in. While the personal accounts are clearly biased, the entries themselves are what one would expect from a valid, scientific discussion. It's not slang, and it's not racist.
So, like it or not (and we all know where everyone stands on the matter), the term "near-Human" is the offial label given to these species, both in-universe and out.
"Beware and avoid pseudoscience. People need to expand there "science literacy" to using terms accurately, avoiding frauds and urban legends of pseudoscience."
-Advocates for Science Literacy(Read it on a poster on the wall at my college. It was Advertising a Anthropology seminer coming up.)
Any one who still chooses to use the terms innacurately, or treat it like it's right are following after pseudoscience. no matter what they say, they will have bad science literacy, if they continue to follow the pseudoscience that the authors flubbed up on. If you still listen to the author's pseudoscience, you would still be incorrect. There is nothing that makes you right, or the authors who relied on misinterprations of Science terminology correct in any sense of the word. It's pointless for you to argue that fact.
Hoole's mistake makes him no better than von danniken.
Thanks for caring, and no, I'm not better yet, . Stupid Flu.
So you say. Many, many aspects of the Star wars universe, or any science fiction universe for that matter, are based on pseudoscience.
Hoole's mistake still makes him no better than von danniken.
>yes, it's still imprecise, when someone lies, and imprecisely uses a real word in fiction, it's still a lie >and imprecise use of the word by the authors. It's bad research skills, and incorrect use of english>(scientific or otherwise).
It was imprecise on the part of the authors. It is not imprecise to use the term on these boards. Take, for example, the word "alien." It is used to describe something foreign. The term has been extended by science fiction to describe beings from a planet other then earth. In Star Wars, the word is used to describe non-humans, even on one of the "alien's" planet. There is no earth in Star Wars. Uh oh! The word is incorrectly used for both definitions! Imprecise? You bet. And yet the word is used all over the EU, and these boards. As it's the word given for us to use for the non-human species, we use it. It is correct when we are referring to SW, so therefore we are not being imprecise.
>Any one who still chooses to use the terms innacurately, or treat it like it's right are following after >pseudoscience. no matter what they say, they will have bad science literacy, if they continue to >follow the pseudoscience that the authors flubbed up on.
ARRGG!!! Star Wars IS pseudoscience!