Comments on: Retro Review: Improbable Cause/The Die Is Cast

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 08:00:00 +0000

Well, that was as clear as mud. Disqus added it. Not likely. Disqus isn’t in the habit of making random people mods at various boards. Someone made you a mod and thus someone gave you that icon… and if you’re a moderator here then you should treat the public with a degree of professionalism and respect… But it’s a simple question: Are you a moderator here or not?
If you are, you should be more respectful and encourage discussion, not discourage it, and if you are not, then the icon needs removed.
And as far as your apology goes, let’s be clear: You apologized for confusing us (which you didn’t really do), but you did not apologize for being a jerk that was trying to shut down discussion. So, I’m sorry if you’re incapable of basic polite human interaction…. see… I apologized, too.

By: hostile_17

hostile_17 — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 21:48:00 +0000

Disqus added it, it wasn’t my choice.

Look I apologised… but if you want to carry bickering on be my guest. Quash discussion. If you can be QUASHED from a few words, get a bloody spine.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 17:24:00 +0000

So, are you the moderator of this discussion board or not? If you aren’t, then they should consider removing that label. If you are they should reconsider that position, as, whether in an official capacity or not, trying to quash discussion at a board isn’t the role of anyone, let alone the moderator… unless said discussion is out of line… and the only one out of line here, as far as I can tell, has been you… Oh, and it was 12 words and it wasn’t my review. So……..

By: hostile_17

hostile_17 — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 11:50:00 +0000

But as an addition, I am sorry for the confusion… it’s a pain that Diqus put mod there. My quick five word replied has balooned out of all proportion as you’ve taken it as some offiical position when it’s not. It was a throwaway comment to one part of your lengthy review.

By: hostile_17

hostile_17 — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 11:43:00 +0000

I’m not bulying anyone deary. If you think that’s bullying… please.

Just because Disqus puts ‘mod’ next my name just means every thing I say is moderating, no more than my comments about this episode weren’t moderating. I’d delete your comment if I was moderation.

It was my opinion, I expressed it.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:23:00 +0000

One could say the same of the reviews themselves. They’re clearly detached… a ton of people have said as much, and yet, they’re still detached. That people want to express their own opinions in a comments section, which is inherently an opinions section, isn’t really surprising, is it? And that the commenters are almost universally disgusted by Michelle’s continued slash-fic take on Trek, her opinion is no more valid than any of ours. If you don’t want our opinions shared, I suggest you speak to your administrator about going back to the system TrekToday used for YEARS which did not allow for replies. They do allow replies now, and I don’t recall seeing it posted anywhere that this is a fascist regime and only the opinions agreed to by the administration are allowed… in fact, the very existence of a comments section implies otherwise. So, you’ll have to excuse us for using a comments section as something other than a way to pat you all on the backs… which, I guess, was the intent of the comments section… except it wasn’t…

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:17:00 +0000

What a jerk. Something tells me you weren’t asked to be a moderator of this place to be a jackass and discourage discussion. How long are the people that actually run this site going to let responses like these go on from your representatives? Whether you like the comments or not, the response has been extremely unprofessional and undeserved. A-hole.

By: hostile_17

hostile_17 — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:35:00 +0000

It’s just one can only read the same thing said over and over again. And this poster by his/her own admission knew the deal with these reviews.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

By: hostile_17

hostile_17 — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:32:00 +0000

You’re clearly too fragile, first of all to cope with the review then to cope with my tiny comment.

Cya! Enjoy StarTrek.com.

By: SJStar

SJStar — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:13:00 +0000

IMO, Michelle interprets “The Spy Who Loved Me” differently than most. Garak is as complex and intriguing as Ian Fleming’s book version of James Bond. Bashir is just caught in the romance of this intrigue, and just explores Garak’s complexity is his vain attempt to understand his psychology. (It explains his curiosity too with Section 31 and his fantasy spy dramas.) Torture is also one of the perverse parts of this story – either extracting information or finding secrets – and it is what spies do. There are aspects, too of sadomasochism – and an insight of Garak’s many perversions. (It is not necessarily sexual though.)

Interesting too is that sex between individuals is normally characterised via not the physical act per se, but is really a complex process occurring in the brain. There is no overt sexual overtones here other than exploring and grasping someone else’s complex mind. The only romance in this DS9 story here is the deep complexity of spies and spying – a common exploration in television by the way. I.e. Nikita (both the old and new series.)