Editing Talk:Flight of the Phoenix/Archive 1
Discussion page of Flight of the Phoenix/Archive 1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
We have to remember that the articles are designed to be encyclopedic; while you can express personal point-of-view in terms of analysis (provided you have have supporting points), you cannot WRITE as if you are speaking in an verbal argument to one person, as Ricimer and Sprocketeer appear to have done. This really makes the page unpleasant to read. See my interpretation on the article for my suggestion. I'm not really taking sides here in the debate beyond what was shown, but we have to keep the page from becoming a battlefield. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:02, 19 September 2005 (EDT) | We have to remember that the articles are designed to be encyclopedic; while you can express personal point-of-view in terms of analysis (provided you have have supporting points), you cannot WRITE as if you are speaking in an verbal argument to one person, as Ricimer and Sprocketeer appear to have done. This really makes the page unpleasant to read. See my interpretation on the article for my suggestion. I'm not really taking sides here in the debate beyond what was shown, but we have to keep the page from becoming a battlefield. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:02, 19 September 2005 (EDT) | ||
:I agree, and think you've handled this quite tactfully. --[[User: | :I agree, and think you've handled this quite tactfully. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:11, 19 September 2005 (EDT) | ||
:We are in agreement. I was responding in like kind to perceived threat. Nothing the God of Bio-Mechanics wouldn't let me into heaven for. [[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]], 19 Sept, 2005 | :We are in agreement. I was responding in like kind to perceived threat. Nothing the God of Bio-Mechanics wouldn't let me into heaven for. [[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]], 19 Sept, 2005 | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
:::That's OK. Call a spade a spade. If there is poor writing, do say so...I'm hoping [[TPTB]] read our comments or get word of them, and things can only change if feedback is given. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:00, 23 October 2005 (EDT) | :::That's OK. Call a spade a spade. If there is poor writing, do say so...I'm hoping [[TPTB]] read our comments or get word of them, and things can only change if feedback is given. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:00, 23 October 2005 (EDT) | ||
== Deus Ex Machina Dilemmas in this Episode == | == Deus Ex Machina Dilemmas in this Episode == | ||
Much like the Ephiphanies episode, I would to remove and trim this section into the analysis or notes section. However, unlike Epiphanies, there was analysis of the cancer cure in another article. So a similar edit is not possible. I would like to throw out a few thoughts. RDM has state that the construction time is intentionally vague to avoid having the construction last longet than one episode. Also, the construction of the Blackbird was about hope, not to acheive some great technical feat. With a heaping help of "suspend belief", and those 2 facts, the Blackbird dilemma becomes | Much like the Ephiphanies episode, I would to remove and trim this section into the analysis or notes section. However, unlike Epiphanies, there was analysis of the cancer cure in another article. So a similar edit is not possible. I would like to throw out a few thoughts. RDM has state that the construction time is intentionally vague to avoid having the construction last longet than one episode. Also, the construction of the Blackbird was about hope, not to acheive some great technical feat. With a heaping help of "suspend belief", and those 2 facts, the Blackbird dilemma becomes unimportant. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 22:53, 22 September 2006 (CDT) | ||