Talk:Donald Perry/Archive 1

What's a "Boonie Jumper"

A google search reveals only links to here and a couple of other places, none of which explain the term. Should we keep the "Edit" link live on the term (hoping that it will be explained at a later time), and add a live link on Kat's page, or kill the link and just assume it is some sort of derrogatory term used by Viper pilots (along with "shuttle jockeys"). --Steelviper 16:25, 1 December 2005 (EST)

My theory: "Boonie Jumper" = "One who only does smalltime FTL Jump missions of a pedestrian nature done by simple civilian ships, operating in the "Boondocks" of space". "The Boonies" of course means "The Boondocks", a.k.a. the periphery, a.k.a. middle-of-nowhere, a.k.a. town with one dog perpetually lying in the middle of the only road. I think the term just is a clipped way of saying "someone who performs Jumps that are of a milk-run status, out in the boonies". --Ricimer 18:23, 2 December 2005 (EST)

It's definitely a contracted form of "boondock puddle jumper." "Boondock" is defined as mentioned previously. "Puddle jumper" is a somewhat derogatory term for charter pilots of small (Cesna-like) craft and such craft in the real world. The idea is that they fly small trips, puddles not being very large. It also sort of evokes the idea of a bush pilot flying over lakes in Alaska or the like. If you're a fan of Stargate Atlantis as well, you might recall the spacecraft class named Puddle jumper for the same reasons. I'm about the remove the linked-ness of the term, as it's clear enough and unambiguous, purely real-world, and a random phrase, not a term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddle_jumper should make this yet more clear if you don't believe me. --CalculatinAvatar 02:04, 28 December 2005 (EST)

No, it is definately not. "Jumper" probably just refers to their Jump engines. It was a leap of faith to assume that this is a reference to "Puddle Jumpers". Further, the "gateships" on Stargate Atlantis are referred to as "Puddle Jumpers" as well, and this link only created confusion. I am removing it. My explanation on 2 December sums up my thoughts on ths subject. --The Merovingian 15:20, 9 February 2006 (EST)

Merv, I am getting really sick of the way you jump down someone's throat without doing even the most minimal research. Puddle jumper is a real word, as you would have figured out almost instantly by just running a google search. Here's the first match. --Peter Farago 21:39, 9 February 2006 (EST)

I know full well that it is a real word. On Stargate: Atlantis, in the first episode they find a new type of ship that can fit through a Stargate; they get into a humorous arguement where McKay wants to call it a "Gateship", while Shepherd says "What, this little Puddle Jumper?". I have already demonstrated that it was a leap of reason to assume that "Jumper" refers to "Puddle Jumper", but on top of this, the most frequent place BSG viewrs might here this is in context of "Stargate Atlantis"...The show that comes on immediately before Battlestar Galactica. Linking this was A) unfounded speculation B) addeed confusion.

And I'm "getting really sick", as it were, of the way you pounce on me when in fact I have already A) done quite a bit of research and B) *STATED* this research. I mean look; at the edit I made on 15:20 February 9: I *stated* this "research" you claim that I did not. I listed all of my reasons. In fact, they're the same research I already posted up on December 2. Enough of this. The link is now gone. Someone please arbitrate if they must. --The Merovingian 23:07, 9 February 2006 (EST)

Also, when you do a google search as you linked above, the *second* match that you find is for the Stargate Atlantis "Puddle Jumper". And the first page of the Images search, there are images of the Stargate Atlantis Puddle-Jumper. --The Merovingian 23:11, 9 February 2006 (EST)

I have absolutely no quarrel with the substance of your edit. My sole issue is with the tone you took in your reply to CalculatinAvatar, which implied you were disagreeing with his point. This has happened before, such as on Talk:Narcho where you attacked me for defending your own point. --Peter Farago 23:36, 9 February 2006 (EST)

You are being incredibly confusing here; you just said "I have no quarrel with the substance of your edit", yet you complained that I had not "researched" the point. Also, please actually read through my postings: because I already stated that it was from Stargate Atlantis in the edit I made in December; I knew it was a real word and I stated as much already. **As for my "tone implying that I was disagreeing with him".....er, yes. Yes I was disagreeing with him. I thought that was clear. Nextly, your edits on "Narcho" were also equally confusing at the time, and you should strive to be more clear in the future, by bluntly stating as many factual points as possible in rapid succession. --The Merovingian 23:48, 9 February 2006 (EST)

On what basis are you disagreeing with CalculatinAvatar? He seems to be making exactly the same point as you. This is why I was confused by your reply to him, since I agreed with his interpretation and you seemed to take issue with it, although in fact, you appear to be in agreement. --Peter Farago 23:53, 9 February 2006 (EST)

I disagree with him, because paradoxically, if you check the article history page for February 8, he restored the link when I removed it. This does, I admit, seem incongruous with his previous Talk statements above, but it was the action he took. --The Merovingian 00:31, 10 February 2006 (EST)

Puddle Jumper now leads to a disambig page which mentions the real world light aircraft classification. In your opinion, is the external link still inappropriate? --Peter Farago 01:00, 10 February 2006 (EST)

Hmmm...Well, I put my "thinkin' hat" on for a while, and I really think we should get rid of this superfluous (and possibly confusion-provoking) link. That's what I'd do, anyway. --The Merovingian 03:17, 10 February 2006 (EST)

I don't see how Peter was being confusing. As far as I can tell, he was saying that he agreed that the link was unneeded, but was protesting the fact that you came, pretty much outta no where, more or less yelling at CalculatinAvatar. This is becoming a distressing pattern, Merv (before, I was just less distressed by it, I think), your jumping off the cuff with aggressive language at people who simply disagree with you. It may be a matter that would be handled by inflection, were you interacting in real life, but you should realize that when you're dealing with text only, you have only very gross control over inflection: normal, bold and italics. And they can be construed as meaning many things. As a side note, I've noticed you like to use bold and such a lot and so, sometimes, you do combinations or all-caps or asterisks for further emphasis. I mean this in only an entirely constructive way, but... I have no idea how to interpret those passages except as very loud, so they're more confuysing to me, personally, than helpful. Anyway... end tangent. End post. --Day 02:57, 10 February 2006 (EST)

On the contrary, this is in no way "a distressing pattern"; for my concernes with CalcAvatar were entirely justified; he edited this page on Feburary 8th, and his logline for the edit was "The link does not refer to Stargate Atlantis; the meaning of the term is debatable and has been discussed on the talk page"; your guess is as good as mine why last month he made a post (seen above) in favor of removing this link, and now has come on and restored it. So this was not "pretty much outta no where", wouldn't you agree? --The Merovingian 03:16, 10 February 2006 (EST)

Are you intentionally misunderstanding me, or am I being unclear? Let me try to rephrase this. You opinion was not "outta no where". Your position on the edit was not "outta no where". The apparent rage you harbored on the topic of this is what strikes me as careening rather quickly from the blue yonder. Your concerns are justified. The manner in which you expressed them is not. --Day 16:13, 10 February 2006 (EST)

In light of your post to your user page, Merv, my reading of "apparent rage" may be erroneous, so... Well, I don't want to duplicate my post there. Just thought I'd note it here, too. Hopefully this is sorted now. --Day 16:34, 10 February 2006 (EST)

Two Perrys?

In regards to Perry possibly being selected as CAG, you need to remember that Chuckles was one of the first nuggets qualified for Galactica's Viper Squadron. It's possible that this seniority and good flying skills (unseen on the series) might have led to his consideration as new CAG. You have to remember that Apollo and Starbuck were gone, so seniority didn't necessarily lead to CAG selection. Tigh didn't exactly agree with Birch being chosen.

The Gideon incident with "Hammerhead" might have cut him out of the running for CAG, despite him being a senior officer (he was in the senior officer quarters in Final Cut). Other such incidents or silent protest due to Apollo joining Roslin could have led to other senior pilots not being considered.

Then again, maybe Mueller and Perry were two of the last names on the list by the time the scene from Home (1) was shown which is why a nugget was suggested to be CAG. Ltcrashdown December 23, 2005

The most damning thing with regard to nugget Perry and potential-CAG Perry being the same person is that of all the pilots seen injured in Hand of God, Perry's death is most clearly depicted. His cockpit, pressure suit and body are all punctured by the same bullet or piece of shrapnel, he is shown on-screen succumbing to asphyxiation, and Stepchild immediately announces that he has "bought it". In order to survive, he would need to 1.) resume consciousness, 2.) recover control of his Viper, 3.) escape the battle, and 4.) survive his chest wound. I find this grossly implausible. --Peter Farago 20:52, 23 December 2005 (EST)

I also agree that this is ridiculous. Maybe the writer for Home (1) messed up when he referred to Perry. The only reason I am sticking to this is because Chuckles is never referred to as 'Perry' except in the closing credits, and it's unlikely that Galactica would have two pilots with the last name Perry. I'll agree to let this go until we have more information. Ltcrashdown December 23, 2005