Why? Other than Liet, we've mourned the man and discussed the complicated legacy of his WF persona. I know it wasn't the "only say nice things" thread Tamar requested, but Sokar himself would have been the first to resist any such restriction in any Red Room thread.
This is a very interesting comment, coming from someone who always uses the most vile insults he can imagine to belittle others merely for the "crime" of having different opinions from you. It would thus seem to be a summary of your own values as well. Is this your way of saying you don't like the way you are, and wish you were different?
Meh, not anybody I had any respect for anyway. As for 'Sokar', didn't care for his 'persona'. Usually put him on ignore. Anything else I'll take to the roast thread. As for Courtney, cancer is tough, pancreatic cancer is tougher. Rest in peace, man. You've earned it. I'll be thinking of you when I BT the new Hendrix album today.
Still dead. I guess at the end of the day I don't subscribe to the 'persona' - especially any that have gone on for years. In those cases, its almost always a real facet of that individual. I understand we don't always show all of who we are online, but its almost impossible to keep up a persona for an extended period of time that isn't a part of you - indeed, the longer it goes on, the more a part of you it is. As T'bonz pointed out, why do people act so shitty on the internet and do things that they wouldn't do in real life? Almost always its simply because they WANT to, and they've found a place they can. OK, fair enough. The tolerances here are fairly high, and there's lot's of posters I've known say outrageous shit that they would be more circumspect elsewhere. That's why anonymity is our most, and really only, valued commodity here, right? But if you choose to be offensive as much as possible as part of your 'persona' (ie the side of you you can't let out to play or you'd get fired or ostracized) ultimately you are going to leave a legacy of people who don't like you - even to the point of ignoring social convention (which again, is part of what this place is for) and not bothering to lie for you when you die. I guess the kids here still think of that as 'winning.'
STIII, eh? My favorite part was when the Grissom blew up. I keep falling asleep after that part. Additionally, what was with Christopher Lloyd's Klingon character in that movie? No "honor" whatsoever. Hostages? Attacking the weak? Engaging ships with practically no weaponry? He was even more wannabe Romulan than the Duras Sisters. I'm not really worried about spoilers for this one. If you haven't seen it yet, you probably never will.
I've read that the Klingons were originally Romulans in the script, but it was changed later. That's why their ship was a "Bird of Prey" equiped with a cloaking device, which until then only the Romulans used.
That's the way Klingons were supposed to be. TOS Klingons didn't concern themselves with honor. It was TNG that ruined Klingons and put the whole honor thing on a pedestal.
^^^ Star Trek tends to do that a lot to alien races. For the Kingons, it was honor. For the Ferengi, wealth. For the Vulcans, logic. And innumerable others.
Agreed. Klingons were originally merely stand-ins for the USSR, the Romulans were the PRC. It was TNG (and DS9) that changed the Klinks into some weird hybrid of the Spartans and Samurai.
The TOS Klingons were only marginally more civilized than Atilla. I doubt very much that the word honor had a place in their vocabulary.
and likewise, there's a good case to be made that in TOS it was the Romulans who were, in fact, honor-bound in their behavior. Part of the reason that the Commander felt so betrayed by Spock.
I agree. He has no moral high ground to stand on here. Attacking a poster who is dead just makes him even more of a scumbag than I already thought he was.