WC script...

Originally posted by Frosty
Originally posted by mpanty
Some people tend to assume their own opinions as general thruths, and what's more, force them into other people's minds... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Much as yourself, it seems.
Click to expand...
Wrong... I state my opinion and don't force into anyone...

Mekt is right, I don't want to impose my views on anyone, I just get revolted when others put theirs in front of my nose, and claim it as "canon"...
Originally posted by Frosty
(...) one's own views and preferences have no bearing on the truth, which exists despite what one would prefer.
Click to expand...
Wow Frosty, you seem to be very familiar with... "the truth"...

So tell me, if you read that John Doe saved a whole village from fire in 1956 in one book, and then that he saved an orphan in 1870 in another book, and the author, refusing to admit his mistake (that he simply wrote 1870 instead of 1970) in an outbreak of jerky attitude, tells you it's two different persons... you're going to believe him just because he said it's "canon"...

Whoa I'm sorry, but that's really allowing the fact that you like John Doe to cloud your mind...

Again, I'm taking the Concordia example...
The movie writer knew there was a Concordia in the games... why on Earth did he decide to use that name in the movie claiming it's a different ship? Does he want to confuse us on purpose?

Now here's my opinion: the guy wanted to use the Concordia name from WC2, having in mind it would be the same from WC2, but simply made a "mistake" in the timeline, because IMO, he wasn't at all concerned by it...

Now you come along and say it's two different ships and claim it as a "truth"...
Perhaps it's what is considered "canon" by now, because of the author refusing to admit his mistake, but I refuse to take it as "true"... I can't see any rational explanation to it, really...

[Edited by mpanty on 07-09-2001 at 17:31]
 
Originally posted by mpanty
Again, I'm taking the Concordia example...
The movie writer knew there was a Concordia in the games... why on Earth did he decide to use that name in the movie claiming it's a different ship? Does he want to confuse us on purpose?[Edited by mpanty on 07-09-2001 at 17:31]
Click to expand...
If you'd been paying attention, you would know I've already explained this. The Concordia in the move and the Concordia in WC2 are different ships. These aren't the only Concordias in the TC Navy either anyway, so I shouldn't even have to argue this with you.
 
Frosty's right, mpanty. The movie Concordia, as stated in the Confederation Handbook and Pilgrim Stars and me in another thread today (:)), is a Concordia-class supercruiser, while the Concordia from WC2 is a Confederation-class dreadnought. And, then again, there was the fleet carrier destroyed in '34 called Concordia.

[Edited by Dralthi5 on 07-09-2001 at 23:12]
 
Frosty might be right, but he still can't explain to me why they chose to use the same ship name for three different ships...

Considering that again, WC is a work of fiction, IMHO naming two ships the same give rise to nothing but confusion...
I'm glad this is not the case for you, Frosty...
 
What about Star Trek? Three out of the five shows have ships named Enterprise.

mpanty's inevitable response:
But those shows each take place about a hundred years apart.

Uh, yeah, well.... Uh, gotta go!
 
Well, as I said in a post in another thread, the British did do that in real life by naming three of their carriers the Ark Royal. There was only about 40 years between them, as one of the three fought in WW2 and one in the Falklands, with one in the middle. You could hardly say that caused confusion.

Best, Raptor

[Edited by Raptor on 07-11-2001 at 05:21]
 
Heck, the US Navy has ships of the same name -- the current USS Enterprise certainly isn't the first.

It's also quite possibly a naval tradition -- that there will *always* be a commisioned ship named Concordia.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Heck, the US Navy has ships of the same name -- the current USS Enterprise certainly isn't the first.

It's also quite possibly a naval tradition -- that there will *always* be a commisioned ship named Concordia.
Click to expand...
Fine then! I hereby accept the existence of the three Concordia's! :)
Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
Originally posted by mpanty
(...)Mekt is right,(...)
Click to expand...
Hehe, I just realized, I could use that in my sig and remind you, mpanty, of it for the rest of your life. :-)
Click to expand...
Please do! But don't forget the "(...)" or it would be misquoting out of context! ;)
 
BTW mpant, here's the truth as I understand it...LOAF? Can I get an aye or nay here?
Originally posted by Bob McDob

Simple. Concordia was retired befoire the war, thus clearing the name for Concordia. But when Concordia was destroyed at McAuliffe, Concordia was put back into service. Sometime mid-war, say 2661, Concordia went down, and the Confederation dreadnought was renamed Concordia, in honor of Concordia. Or something like that...
Click to expand...
 
The Truth

The truth is NEVER pure and RARELY simple.

Words to live by I believe. The truth in this case would be fairly ambiguous as there have been so many writers in WC, which includes games, movies, cartoons, books. Each would have their own views, much like anyone here at CZ.

The truth in the case of the WCU would be that there is NO absolute (pure) truth.
 
Originally posted by Raptor
Well, as I said in a post in another thread, the British did do that in real life by naming three of their carriers the Ark Royal. There was only about 40 years between them, as one of the three fought in WW2 and one in the Falklands, with one in the middle. You could hardly say that caused confusion.
Click to expand...

Slight mistake here. The middle HMS Ark Royal was decommissioned in 1978, 4 yrs before the war. The third Ark Royal was commissioned after the war.

mpanty: The Concordias are different ships and there is no confusion because the 3 ships probably did not bear the same name at the same time.
 
Simple. Concordia was retired befoire the war, thus clearing the name for Concordia. But when Concordia was destroyed at McAuliffe, Concordia was put back into service. Sometime mid-war, say 2661, Concordia went down, and the Confederation dreadnought was renamed Concordia, in honor of Concordia. Or something like that...
Click to expand...

Ehh... not sure what you're referring to with retiring and such.

The three Concordia's exist in a completely linear series... the first (the nameship for the Concordia class Carriers) entered service before the war and was destroyed at McAuliffe (in Action Stations). The second (the nameship for the Concordia class SuperCruisers) entered service several years later... and was destroyed or decomissioned at some point after 2656 and before 2661... the final Concordia, the one seen in WC3, entered service in the early 60s and was destroyed in '69 (WC3).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top