Discussion History Main / HeroicSacrifice

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy or [[WikiSchizophrenia talking against the additions and edits of others]]--you removed my last sentence on Atomic Rocket\\\'s example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter \\\'\\\'of your own\\\'\\\', not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison. (In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\') At that point, it\\\'d be rather trivial, more akin to asking \\\'\\\'who\\\'\\\' is piloting the fighter than \\\'\\\'what\\\'\\\' is.

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Then there\\\'s what you did with the paragraphs later on down. \\\"Actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" by hard sci-fi fans. In my reversion, I\\\'ve changed \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" to \\\"is vindicable by real physics,\\\" since vindicable means \\\"[[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vindicable capable of]] [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vindicate being justified]],\\\" and that flows directly into the example given by Star Destroyer and demonstrates the rationale hard sci-fi writers might use for including starfighters in their setting.

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, the usefulness of small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter--\\\'\\\'but that they aren\\\'t inherently BadWriting.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--your throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along,\\\" flying in the face of the provided link. It\\\'s obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

Given that, it looks like you\\\'re working from the assumption that [[TropesAreNotGood this trope is not good]], and that \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' statement taken to mean using starfighters is okay (not \\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\', just okay) \\\'\\\'must\\\'\\\' be met with a paragraph\\\'s worth of assertions that they are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'. \\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of (un){{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be.

On the other hand, \\\'\\\'I\\\'m\\\'\\\' working from the assumption that, like other conventions of science fiction, [[TropesAreTools this concept is a tool]] that authors may or may not use, and can be used well or used poorly.

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy or [[WikiSchizophrenia talking against the additions and edits of others]]--you removed my last sentence on Atomic Rocket\\\'s example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter \\\'\\\'of your own\\\'\\\', not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison. (In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\') At that point, it\\\'d be rather trivial, more akin to asking \\\'\\\'who\\\'\\\' is piloting the fighter than \\\'\\\'what\\\'\\\' is.

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Then there\\\'s what you did with the paragraphs later on down. \\\"Actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" by hard sci-fi fans. In my reversion, I\\\'ve changed \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" to \\\"is vindicable by real physics,\\\" since vindicable means \\\"[[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vindicable capable of]] [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vindicate being justified]],\\\" and that flows directly into the example given by Star Destroyer.

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, the usefulness of small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter--\\\'\\\'but that they aren\\\'t inherently BadWriting.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--your throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along,\\\" flying in the face of the provided link. It\\\'s obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

Given that, it looks like you\\\'re working from the assumption that [[TropesAreNotGood this trope is not good]], and that \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' statement taken to mean using starfighters is okay (not \\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\', just okay) \\\'\\\'must\\\'\\\' be met with a paragraph\\\'s worth of assertions that they are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'. \\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of (un){{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be.

On the other hand, \\\'\\\'I\\\'m\\\'\\\' working from the assumption that, like other conventions of science fiction, [[TropesAreTools this concept is a tool]] that authors may or may not use, and can be used well or used poorly.

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy or [[WikiSchizophrenia talking against the additions and edits of others]]--you removed my last sentence on Atomic Rocket\\\'s example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter \\\'\\\'of your own\\\'\\\', not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison. (In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\') At that point, it\\\'d be rather trivial, more akin to asking \\\'\\\'who\\\'\\\' is piloting the fighter than \\\'\\\'what\\\'\\\' is.

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Then there\\\'s what you did with the paragraphs later on down. \\\"Actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" by hard sci-fi fans.

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, the usefulness of small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter--\\\'\\\'but that they aren\\\'t inherently BadWriting.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--your throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along,\\\" flying in the face of the provided link. It\\\'s obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

Given that, it looks like you\\\'re working from the assumption that [[TropesAreNotGood this trope is not good]], and that \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' statement taken to mean using starfighters is okay (not \\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\', just okay) \\\'\\\'must\\\'\\\' be met with a paragraph\\\'s worth of assertions that they are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'. \\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of (un){{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be.

On the other hand, \\\'\\\'I\\\'m\\\'\\\' working from the assumption that, like other conventions of science fiction, [[TropesAreTools this concept is a tool]] that authors may or may not use, and can be used well or used poorly.

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy or [[WikiSchizophrenia talking against the additions and edits of others]]--you removed my last sentence on Atomic Rocket\\\'s example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter \\\'\\\'of your own\\\'\\\', not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison. (In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\') At that point, it\\\'d be rather trivial, more akin to asking \\\'\\\'who\\\'\\\' is piloting the fighter than \\\'\\\'what\\\'\\\' is.

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Then there\\\'s what you did with the paragraphs later on down. \\\"Actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" by hard sci-fi fans.

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter--\\\'\\\'but that they aren\\\'t inherently BadWriting.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--your throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along,\\\" flying in the face of the provided link. It\\\'s obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

Given that, it looks like you\\\'re working from the assumption that [[TropesAreNotGood this trope is not good]], and that \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' statement taken to mean using starfighters is okay (not \\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\', just okay) \\\'\\\'must\\\'\\\' be met with a paragraph\\\'s worth of assertions that they are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'. \\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of (un){{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be.

On the other hand, \\\'\\\'I\\\'m\\\'\\\' working from the assumption that, like other conventions of science fiction, [[TropesAreTools this concept is a tool]] that authors may or may not use, and can be used well or used poorly.

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy or [[WikiSchizophrenia talking against my additions and edits]]--you removed my last sentence on Atomic Rocket\\\'s example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter \\\'\\\'of your own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison. (In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\') At that point, it\\\'d be rather trivial, more akin to asking \\\'\\\'who\\\'\\\' is piloting the fighter than \\\'\\\'what\\\'\\\' is.

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Then there\\\'s what you did with the paragraphs later on down. \\\"Actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" by hard sci-fi fans.

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter--\\\'\\\'but that they aren\\\'t inherently BadWriting.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--your throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along,\\\" flying in the face of the provided link. It\\\'s obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

Given that, it looks like you\\\'re working from the assumption that [[TropesAreNotGood this trope is not good]], and that \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' statement taken to mean using starfighters is okay (not \\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\', just okay) \\\'\\\'must\\\'\\\' be met with a paragraph\\\'s worth of assertions that they are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'. \\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of (un){{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be.

On the other hand, \\\'\\\'I\\\'m\\\'\\\' working from the assumption that, like other conventions of science fiction, [[TropesAreTools this concept is a tool]] that authors may or may not use, and can be used well or used poorly.

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison. (In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\') At that point, it\\\'d be rather trivial, more akin to asking \\\'\\\'who\\\'\\\' is piloting the fighter than \\\'\\\'what\\\'\\\' is.

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Then there\\\'s what you did with the paragraphs later on down. \\\"Actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" by hard sci-fi fans.

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter--\\\'\\\'but that they aren\\\'t inherently BadWriting.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--your throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along,\\\" flying in the face of the provided link. It\\\'s obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

Given that, it looks like you\\\'re working from the assumption that [[TropesAreNotGood this trope is not good]], and that \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' statement taken to mean using starfighters is okay (not \\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\', just okay) \\\'\\\'must\\\'\\\' be met with a paragraph\\\'s worth of assertions that they are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'. \\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of (un){{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be.

On the other hand, \\\'\\\'I\\\'m\\\'\\\' working from the assumption that, like other conventions of science fiction, [[TropesAreTools this concept is a tool]] that authors may or may not use, and can be used well or used poorly.

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison. (In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\') At that point, it\\\'d be rather trivial, more akin to asking \\\'\\\'who\\\'\\\' is piloting the fighter than \\\'\\\'what\\\'\\\' is.

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Then there\\\'s what you did with the paragraphs later on down. \\\"Actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" by hard sci-fi fans.

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter--\\\'\\\'[[TropesAreTools but that they aren\\\'t inherently Bad Writing.]]\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along,\\\" flying in the face of the provided link. It\\\'s obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

Given that, it looks like you\\\'re working from the assumption that [[TropesAreNotGood this trope is not good]], and that \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' statement taken to mean using starfighters is okay (not \\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\', just okay) \\\'\\\'must\\\'\\\' be met with a paragraph\\\'s worth of assertions that they are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'. \\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of (un){{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be.

On the other hand, \\\'\\\'I\\\'m\\\'\\\' working from the assumption that, like other conventions of science fiction, [[TropesAreTools this concept is a tool]] that authors may or may not use, and can be used well or used poorly.

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison. (In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\') At that point, it\\\'d be rather trivial, more akin to asking \\\'\\\'who\\\'\\\' is piloting the fighter than \\\'\\\'what\\\'\\\' is.

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Then there\\\'s what you did with the paragraphs later on down. \\\"Actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" by hard sci-fi fans.

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter--\\\'\\\'[[TropesAreNotBad but that they aren\\\'t inherently Bad Writing.]]\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along,\\\" flying in the face of the provided link. It\\\'s obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of (un){{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be.

\\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison. (In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\') At that point, it\\\'d be rather trivial, more akin to asking \\\'\\\'who\\\'\\\' is piloting the fighter than \\\'\\\'what\\\'\\\' is.

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Then there\\\'s what you did with the paragraphs later on down. \\\"Actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" by hard sci-fi fans.

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter--\\\'\\\'[[TropesAreNotBad but that they aren\\\'t inherently Bad Writing.]]\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along\\\" (flying in the face of the provided link) is obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of (un){{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be.

\\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison. (In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\') At that point, it\\\'d be rather trivial, more akin to asking \\\'\\\'who\\\'\\\' is piloting the fighter than \\\'\\\'what\\\'\\\' is.

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter.

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along\\\" (flying in the face of the provided link), which is obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of {{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be. \\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter.

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along\\\" (flying in the face of the provided link), which is obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of {{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be. \\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter.

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along\\\" (flying in the face of the provided link), which is obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of {{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be. \\\'\\\'\\\'That does not make the article neutral.\\\'\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheWriter.

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along\\\" (flying in the face of the provided link), which is obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of {{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be. \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'That\\\'s not making the article neutral.\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t\\\'\\\' nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That signals well enough that whether or not starfighters are used, and the justifications for using them, will vary DependingOnTheAuthor.

That\\\'s \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' that\\\'s needed--throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that amounts to restating that starfighters are \\\"nonsensical all along\\\" (flying in the face of the provided link), which is obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of {{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be. \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'That\\\'s not making the article neutral.\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters aren\\\'t nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That\\\'s all that\\\'s needed--throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that while restating that starfighters are nonsensical (flying in the face of the provided link) amounts to obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of {{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might not be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be. \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'That\\\'s not making the article \\\"neutral.\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters aren\\\'t nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That\\\'s all that\\\'s needed--throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that while restating that starfighters are nonsensical (flying in the face of the provided link) amounts to obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the opinion of starfighters held by Atomic Rocket and its fellow sites, on top of making the article wordy with a series of {{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might not be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be. \\\'\\\'That\\\'s not making the article \\\"neutral.\\\"\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters aren\\\'t nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That\\\'s all that\\\'s needed--throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that while restating that starfighters are nonsensical (flying in the face of the provided link) amounts to obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the Atomic Rockets perception of starfighters, on top of making the article wordy with a series of {{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might not be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be. \\\'\\\'That\\\'s not making the article \\\"neutral.\\\"\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters aren\\\'t nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That\\\'s all that\\\'s needed--by throwing in a paragraph\\\'s worth of downplaying all that while restating that starfighters are nonsensical (flying in the face of the provided link) just amounts to obscene WikiSchizophrenia.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the Atomic Rockets perception of starfighters, on top of making the article wordy with a series of {{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might not be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be. \\\'\\\'That\\\'s not making the article \\\"neutral.\\\"\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters aren\\\'t nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\" It\\\'s followed by a short explanation that, yes, small manned military ships can be vindicated by physics and the state of warfare in a work. That\\\'s all that\\\'s needed.

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the Atomic Rockets perception of starfighters, on top of making the article wordy with a series of {{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might not be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be. \\\'\\\'That\\\'s not making the article \\\"neutral.\\\"\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters aren\\\'t nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\"

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the Atomic Rockets perception of starfighters, on top of making the article wordy with a series of {{Justifying Edit}}s trying to downplay the idea that starfighters might not be the [[YouFailLogicForever logic failure]] certain critics make them out to be. \\\'\\\'That\\\'s not making the article \\\"neutral.\\\"\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters aren\\\'t nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\"

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the Atomic Rockets perception of starfighters, on top of making the article wordy. \\\'\\\'That\\\'s not making the article \\\"neutral.\\\"\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"

Well, okay, if Atomic Rocket wasn\\\'t your inspiration for naming this trope, then I\\\'m sorry that I misjudged you--but, I\\\'ve reverted some of the changes you\\\'ve made, because in some cases you made things unnecessarily wordy. You removed my last sentence on the Atomic Rockets example, calling it \\\"natter,\\\" while adding \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' natter of your \\\'\\\'own\\\'\\\'.

Not to mention all the WikiSchizophrenia {{Natter}} you stuffed into the introduction.

Consider this: In a work set during TheSingularity where humans upload their consciousness uploaded to copmputer networks, just how different would a weapon system housing a soldier\\\'s digital brain differ from the same weapon system housing an AI? They\\\'re both controlled by digital (or future equivalent) pilot, not one of flesh and blood. The differences would be more nuanced, depending on the AI used in comparison.

In fact, there\\\'s a game whose backstory involves this: \\\'\\\'TotalAnnihilation.\\\'\\\'

In the introduction, \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" doesn\\\'t mean that they\\\'re \\\"a great idea.\\\" It means \\\'\\\'exact same thing as\\\'\\\' \\\"may be a JustifiedTrope even in works on the ...\\\" and does it with far less words, considering \\\"actually rather sensible\\\" comes \\\'\\\'right after\\\'\\\' the mention of soft science fiction, which is often derided for its \\\"nonsense\\\" (especially by Atomic Rocket).

That\\\'s far and away from saying starfighters are a \\\'\\\'\\\'great\\\'\\\'\\\' idea, because what it\\\'s \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' saying is \\\"starfighters aren\\\'t nonsensical, unlike what some hard sci-fi fans may claim.\\\"

All you really wound up doing was exaggerate the Atomic Rockets perception of starfighters, on top of making the article wordy. \\\'\\\'That\\\'s not making the article \\\"neutral.\\\"\\\'\\\'

In the case of your use of \\\"disproportionate,\\\" the word has a negative definition which implies here that it\\\'s a Bad Thing, so I\\\'ve been replacing it with a more neutral equivalent. This time I\\\'m trying \\\"massive amount.\\\"