Discuss the content of pages on the site, as well as figure out how to properly format pages you are editing.
#360304
kevinj319 wrote:
Because it is diverting away from the question at hand, it adds nothing to the debate, and it only seeks to derail.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The question at hand, as you indicate, is to do with misnamed props and whether or not new names would be better. This is, in fact, what this thread is about. A misnamed prop. If we are, in fact, referring to a prop by a name that is different from the person who invented the item calls it, then the name we commonly accept may not be accurate. It's not precisely the same question, but largely requires the same analysis.

Comparatively, it adds a world of depth to the debate, a debate that without such contrast would be dearth of discussion--unless it goes unnoticed as it has. Why should we refuse to accept new terminology for one item, but embrace the next with open arms? Moreover, what are we to consider cannon? Do the words of the creator trump words in a book? Does commonly accepted fan-assigned names that have been adopted by third party manufacturers then trump the name of the prop the creators later divulge? It only adds nothing to the debate if you refuse to take it into consideration, and if one is to operate with such narrow-mindedness then there really is no need for a "debate."

Perhaps your third point is the most insulting. You presume my intentions. Do you know me? Do you know what I am thinking? Do you know my reasoning? The answer to all three is a resounding "No." If I sought to derail this thread, I'd post a picture of Boxxy standing atop a mountain of tripod traps. My troll-fu is quite strong. Or I would point out that someone has indicated his superior IQ prevents him from engaging in discourse with most people, yet he makes simple and careless spelling errors. Mind you, I did not do such. Because that would not only be a futile course of action, but it would also be of no significant value to any meaningful discussion.

Now you can either accept the fact that I advanced a valid point, or you can try another shot at firing a backhanded insult at me. I prefer them front handed, for what it is worth.
The discussion at hand has to do with the misnamed "tripod traps" and whether or not a new name would be better, and that's all. But it seems to have devolved now anyway.
And for good measure, if you are narrowing your view of this thread to what the original author intended then you have completely misstated the purpose of this thread. Discussions are, by nature, organic and can flow into a number of related subjects, topics, and theories. The original post, by contrast, reads like a demand.
Ernest Reid liked this
#360307
No insult intended.

It diverts away from the question at hand because the prop that was being discussed was the tripod trap.

It adds nothing to the debate because it presents no facts about what the tripod traps should actually be called.

It derails, (whether this was your intention or not, I make no claim to know) because it distracts from discussing the pros and cons of renaming the prop at hand and instead focuses attention on a quote from Dan about a different prop.

What you presented is a red-herring. If you have a quote from Dan about what the tripod traps should be called, that would be relevant.
#360311
There's this concept called "compare and contrast." It's very useful in discourse.

It also makes my comment very relevant, whether you want it to be or not.

We are discussing the tripod trap and what name it should go by, I point out that another prop has a potentially canon name, but that we have no adopted said name. By comparison, the other prop and it's treatment is thus relevant.

That makes it illustrative of how we can treat this prop, which adds to the debate. And in the same manner, it's excellent evidence for pro v. con debate of renaming the tripod traps.

If you expect a discussion and debate to take place without the very useful tool of comparison, I suppose we should also kick logic and deductive reasoning to the curb as well.

Forgive me for trying to engage in useful discourse, I guess my IQ isn't sufficient and I'm not within the "elite" body that understands what I am talking about.
Ernest Reid liked this
#360314
On the contrary, it adds nothing to the pro vs con debate on the question at hand. Whether cyclotron is preferred to psychotron has no bearing on whether tripod trap is preferred to something else. This assumes a zero-sum game where either we rename everything or nothing at all.

If I said yes, we should rename it the psychotron, does that change the merits of the name "tripod trap"? If I say no? The answer has no bearing on whether tripod traps should be renamed. Comparing is fine, but the situations have to be analogous.

To your credit, I could see your argument if this were some kind of parliamentary hearing where we first had to establish precedent that we had legal standing to be able to change the name before we could change it. But that's not what this is.

Forgive me that when you say
Ron Daniels wrote: Checkmate.
I get the impression you believe you've made some kind of "nail in the coffin" statement, rather than trying to further any discourse.
#360336
You're quite correct in saying that the alternative name for the Proton Pack isn't completely analogous to the alternative name for the Tripod Trap. Mostly because somebody involved in the production actually said the alternate Proton Pack name, while nobody anywhere, at any time, ever said Psychic Disturbance Neutralizer except for Cyland.

Which is the point of this entire thread. PDN is no more valid a name than "Thing" or "Striped Box Device with Lasers."
#360352
RoboTrap wrote:You're quite correct in saying that the alternative name for the Proton Pack isn't completely analogous to the alternative name for the Tripod Trap. Mostly because somebody involved in the production actually said the alternate Proton Pack name, while nobody anywhere, at any time, ever said Psychic Disturbance Neutralizer except for Cyland.

Which is the point of this entire thread. PDN is no more valid a name than "Thing" or "Striped Box Device with Lasers."
Exactly.

This also brings us around to the first comment I made in this thread about the KUD meter. That name was created by the author of this thread. It had no canonical support for being called that, and I sincerely doubt that that is what the production team would have intended it to be called. Nor do I believe that one can assert that it is a professional name when the curtain is pulled back and it's explained what KUD stands for. Nevertheless, Mattel has labeled that device as a KUD Meter validating the fan name of the device. But what happens if Dan Aykroyd pops up and calls it a Physic Density Scanner?

Where do we draw the line for the validity of names? Do we include the movies solely or expand to the cartoons and movies? Should we also include books written by authors not connected with the production? What about magazine articles?

It's not an analogous situation. As you can read here the "tripod traps" are never called "Pyschic Disturbance Neutralizer" s. It's a fan fabricated name, and perhaps may be more descriptive than "tripod traps" is overly clunky.

There is more support to call the pack the pyschotron accelerator, but we don't do it. There is no canonical support to call the tripod traps PDNs. It's also not a very descriptive name, as pointed out previously, as an number of items could perform the same exact function.
#360479
Ron Daniels wrote:But what happens if Dan Aykroyd pops up and calls it a Physic Density Scanner?
I've always wondered what they actually called these rental pieces (such as the PKE Meter, Giga Meter, Tripod Traps, etc.) at Modern Props. It's possible that they called them something other than "fabricated scanning devices". Not that such names (if they exist) should be accepted as cannon, but it would be an interesting bit of trivia for the equipment pages.

I wonder what Dan Aykroyd would call the KUD Meter, Tripod Traps, or Belt Gizmo; I'm sure he would make up something amusing on the spot...

The yellow parts are raw 3D prints, unsanded and u[…]

Sorry, I hadn't seen any of these replies. Either […]

Uniform Tips

Sorry for the triple post (you guys have gotten […]

Proton Props???

Ugly Little Spud, Did you actually get the pack?[…]