I Throw Up My Hands in Defeat: The Triangle IS Poorly Written

[Repli!kat]

I'm pretty sure 40 doesn't qualify as your mid-forties.

No it doesn't. But (to me) Rodney comes across as a much older character than Keller. And that bothers me.
Look at this clip that Prion found from an old show with DH as a doctor:

http://wraithfodder.livejournal.com/247337.html

Now this is the time of his life when they could have realistically and cutely (if that is a word) paired the two of them.

The writers of SGA don't seem to have an age-filter in their brains, thus the casting of a 25 year old to play CMO. So, I guess, good for them, they hold no prejudices when it comes to age. But it bothers me at a gut level.

The triangle aspect is just another problem I have, it makes Rodney look pathetic, and he should not be presented in this way, I love his character too much to see him demeaned. And it does Keller and Ronon no favors either.

[FallenAngelII]

Not only that, but you've got Keller, established as a brain, a genius, with Ronon, the male bimbo of SGA, Mr "If I grunt five words in a row, that's an exploit".

Technically, Ronon is a macho posturing caveman, not a male bimbo.

At least, MacKay and Keller would have things in common and could have interesting discussions (note that I'm not a Keller/Mackay shipper, I'm a "Todd should eat Keller" fan).

As long as it gets rid of the love triangle.

[Ncc-72452]

I'm pretty sure 40 doesn't qualify as your mid-forties.

Yes, you are correct. He is 40, but she is in her mid-twenties. In fact, he is exactly 14 years, 1 month, and 15 days older than her. So, I think that my original point of a rather large age gap still stands.

[KindlyKeller]

Yes, you are correct. He is 40, but she is in her mid-twenties. In fact, he is exactly 14 years, 1 month, and 15 days older than her. So, I think that my original point of a rather large age gap still stands.

Fair enough. Though there's a big difference between 14 and 20, which is what you said it was originally.

For me personally, an age gap never even occurred to me until I saw it being talked about at length on GW.

[Pandora's_Box]

Fair enough. Though there's a big difference between 14 and 20, which is what you said it was originally.

For me personally, an age gap never even occurred to me until I saw it being talked about at length on GW.

Same goes.

I always figured they were similar enough with their positions in life that the age thing wasn't a big deal.

If she were 16 and he 30, then I'd have a problem. But we're talking here about two people who have completed their educations, maintain steady jobs and have fulfilling careers, and are very similar in levels of intellect and certain interests. I honestly don't see the problem.

[FallenAngelII]

Why did the thread title change? It's a no-brainer than a thread in the FC-section would have spoilers up to FC. It's in the rules that no spoilers warnings are needed for episode specific sections as long as you're only talking about things in the episodes up to that episode.

[Orion Antreas]

...I have to ask...whats it matter? So what if theres a love triangle? seriously...do people not realize that moaning about it is way more "High School Drama" than the triangle itself?

I couldn't have said it any better.

[FallenAngelII]

I couldn't have said it any better.

So if we're not allowed to discuss matters that pertain to the episode in ways other than "I loved everything about the episode, everything is splendid! There is nothing wrong with anything!", why even have a forum?

Why not just have polls every week where you can only choose between different ways of praising the episodes?

We dislike certain things about the show. Deal with it.

[Pandora's_Box]

Why did the thread title change? It's a no-brainer than a thread in the FC-section would have spoilers up to FC. It's in the rules that no spoilers warnings are needed for episode specific sections as long as you're only talking about things in the episodes up to that episode.

Don't look at me. I did nothing and thought the exact same thing.

[CazzBlade]

Don't look at me. I did nothing and thought the exact same thing.

I think it might be because people were mentioning things that could happen in eps that haven't aired yet, so maybe the mods were just reminding people that in this thread we can only discuss what has aired not what we've heard is going to happen in future eps. Maybe...

[Lahela]

I think it might be because people were mentioning things that could happen in eps that haven't aired yet, so maybe the mods were just reminding people that in this thread we can only discuss what has aired not what we've heard is going to happen in future eps. Maybe...

I took the "up to FC" to mean that we are discussing things that happened in past eps as well as FC... while they are relevant to the conversation, they did occur outside this ep so they probably fall under the general spoiler rules.

[Pegasus_SGA]

Why did the thread title change? It's a no-brainer than a thread in the FC-section would have spoilers up to FC. It's in the rules that no spoilers warnings are needed for episode specific sections as long as you're only talking about things in the episodes up to that episode.

Um nope. The rule for spoilers is;

The rule of thumb is this: If your post has spoilers it must include a spoiler warning, unless the thread (and thread title) already started with a warning for that episode.

Pandora added the spoiler to the post title, but has added a caveat of only up to First contact. So by that measure, anything after that episode should be in spoilers, because this relates to a specific episode. But if you're desperate you could always ask the mods.

However...

Starting with Stargate Atlantis Season Four, each episode has its own dedicated folder. Spoilers abound in these folders for that specific episode, and do not require spoiler warnings. Thread titles, however, must be kept relatively spoiler-free, since they appear in New Posts and search results for all members. When posting in an episode-specific folder, you must still include spoiler warnings for any episode that aired (or will air) later than that episode.

[FallenAngelII]

However...

Exactly. Threads in the episode specific folders do not require spoiler-tags (but thread titles need to be spoiler-free) for up to that episode. Which is why it's weird that the thread title would state that since it's already in the rules.

[Pegasus_SGA]

Exactly. Threads in the episode specific folders do not require spoiler-tags (but thread titles need to be spoiler-free) for up to that episode. Which is why it's weird that the thread title would state that since it's already in the rules.

if you're just talking about the ep, but eps after or before? In a specific ep thread? If you're talking about that ep alone, it should be fine, but other eps that have aired and future eps, should be spoiler tagged. That's how I read it. Why not ask the mods. Either way does it make much difference? If the title has changed or not?

[FallenAngelII]

if you're just talking about the ep, but eps after or before? In a specific ep thread? If you're talking about that ep alone, it should be fine, but other eps that have aired and future eps, should be spoiler tagged. That's how I read it. Why not ask the mods. Either way does it make much difference? If the title has changed or not?

OK, let me repeat:
In a sub-forum for specific episodes, you can write spoilers for episodes up until + that certain episode without spoiler tags.

All spoilers for future episodes, be they unaired or already aired, must be spoiler-tagged. This is all in the rules already.

Thus, it's illogical to tag one single thread "Spoilers up 'til" since it's in the rules and no-brainers. If needed, issue a mass warning to all who break it or step in as a mod and remind people of the rules.

I even made a separate thread on spoilers. Also, this thread wasn't breaking the spoiler-rule on such a wide scale it needed to be renamed. I can count the times it's happened in here without spoiler-tags on a single hand.