And yet, still no answer....
Gee, that was a glass of cold water to the face, I was under the misguided impression that I had answered your question about how how I got the text in my signature. No matter.
I think the confusion must have arisen from your use of terminology. "Signature" refers to the bit of text beaneath my post. I naturally assumed you were talking about my signature (from the use of the term "signature") and hence I spoke about my signature. Imagine that.
Could you be referring, perchance, to the section break character that plays the part of the "S" in my handle?
I can't tell whether that was a challenge
I can honestly say "No", you asked about "the funny text" in my signature and I, thinking that anyone who has obviously edited their own signature must know what it is (unless someone else clicked the link for you) answered you and detailed its source and the "compilation" reference.
Another glib nonanswer...
..to another ambiguous non-issue.
That would inform my decision whether to buy the book or not, and whether to bother reading it.
No, don't buy it, your friendly local library will stock a copy. Certainly read it, too, it's quite short and quick to get through.
So please, Lord Sokar, more content and less self stroking. It's unseemly.
Do forgive me for presuming that you know how to use forum terminology properly.
How good a show does with the science also makes the "suspension of disbelief" easier.
Which is why it's so damn difficult with stargate.
The book goes about explaining real world concepts relating to technologies in Trek, and that's the extent of it. It doesn't tell you, say, why there's a flash of light when a ship moves to warp. Sure, stargate has wormholes, too, but if you'll read the first post you'll notice it suggests that book info (ie real world things 'n stuff) can be applied to stargate. Given that stargate wormholes are completely removed from actual theory I don't feel that we can reasonably apply it.
EDIT: § = Alt+2+1
Gee, that was a glass of cold water to the face, I was under the misguided impression that I had answered your question about how how I got the text in my signature. No matter.
I think the confusion must have arisen from your use of terminology. "Signature" refers to the bit of text beaneath my post. I naturally assumed you were talking about my signature (from the use of the term "signature") and hence I spoke about my signature. Imagine that.
Could you be referring, perchance, to the section break character that plays the part of the "S" in my handle?
I can't tell whether that was a challenge
I can honestly say "No", you asked about "the funny text" in my signature and I, thinking that anyone who has obviously edited their own signature must know what it is (unless someone else clicked the link for you) answered you and detailed its source and the "compilation" reference.
Another glib nonanswer...
..to another ambiguous non-issue.
That would inform my decision whether to buy the book or not, and whether to bother reading it.
No, don't buy it, your friendly local library will stock a copy. Certainly read it, too, it's quite short and quick to get through.
So please, Lord Sokar, more content and less self stroking. It's unseemly.
Do forgive me for presuming that you know how to use forum terminology properly.
How good a show does with the science also makes the "suspension of disbelief" easier.
Which is why it's so damn difficult with stargate.
The book goes about explaining real world concepts relating to technologies in Trek, and that's the extent of it. It doesn't tell you, say, why there's a flash of light when a ship moves to warp. Sure, stargate has wormholes, too, but if you'll read the first post you'll notice it suggests that book info (ie real world things 'n stuff) can be applied to stargate. Given that stargate wormholes are completely removed from actual theory I don't feel that we can reasonably apply it.
EDIT: § = Alt+2+1
Comment